4 ms·
Sure. They could, and that would be totally reasonable. That said, I personally don't think that they actually need as much "security" as they have or claim to
by csa 10y ago
Sure. They could, and that would be totally reasonable.
That said, I personally don't think that they actually need as much "security" as they have or claim to want/need.
The reason this is an issue is not so much that they are seeking more security as much as they are trying to start the process (potentially a slippery slope) of blurring the distinction between church and state.
- humanrebar 10y ago> ...they are trying to start the process (potentially a slippery slope) of blurring the distinction between church and state. That's news to me. Citation please.
- csa 10y agoRemove the "try to" from what I said. Whether they are intending to or not, they will be if this is allowed. I'm banging these out over lunch, so some reading comprehension empathy would be appreciated.
- true_religion 10y agoWell, rather than calling it a separation of church and state, I think US laws are more intended to enact a protection of church from state. Historically the church informed everyday practices and morals and was the basis of many laws. The worry was that a singular church would rise up in a region, and aim to use governmental power to put down its rivals. The idea of a total atheistic separation where no one talks about morals and laws in a religious context was truly alien.