the reading comprehension of christians must be statistically low in some parts.
what is the principle of separation of church and state as stated in the constitution (as derived from it by scotus and an inherent understanding of it by congress & the presidency)? wellllll i'm glad you're all wondering.
first, the definition of blasphemy:
Main Entry: blas·phe·my
Pronunciation: 'blas-f&-mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -mies
1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity
2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable
glad we got that out of the way.
to claim god as being your own and having exclusive domain over his principles is inherently wrong by default of the people proclaiming such an atrocity. his will is no more the property of christians than it is to muslims and jews (after all, we all share the same god and many of the same angels).
the government works like this: power is derived from the people. law is derived from the people. the people as a collective are equal because of the mutal understanding that no one has any more rights than the guy next to them. our government is of the people for the people. now, when a religion is allowed to be endorsed and is endorsed by public figures while carrying out political duties, that deprives the citizenery of the collective voice. it unhinges the balance of mutual respect for one another.
religion, when injected into the public arena makes the playing field of political discourse uneven, when that religion is supported by the government -- not just as in the right to be practiced, but also by actively supporting its beliefs. it's saying "this religions is better than that one" and in this republic, that is repugnant. no religion is better than the other on the equal playing field.
the body politic is not meant to be a place where religions is endorsed. it is a place where the people discuss politics on equal footing. equality is ensured when the other guy doesn't hold a trump card over the other -- when that trump card comes from uncle sam.
why should the alcu want to interject itself in a case where someone places a hideous cross on a plot in a cemetery? because that cemetery is city owned. the individual plots are individually owned, but the grounds as a whole is city run and regulated. the community might bury christians in there and the occasional muslim and jew, but it's probably prodominantly christian. big whoop. the issue is that the size of it is hideous to the pubic and its perception of it. its size dominates. it's unfair to the other people who visit and are buried. it's a sign that screams, "here lies a christian (sometime in the future)" and "this cemetery is for christians. it goes to the issue of freedom of speech and free expression. yes, he can say that's he's christian and good for him that he is -- he can have a cross on his tombstone, but there's a line that's been crossed somewhere. on a government owned property, he's no longer acknowleding that he's a christian. he's show-boating, even boasting of the fact. a large cross evokes certain emotions in certain people. it's purpose is to get attention for itself and is no longer just an inscription to show his religious affiliation.
