Keith Devens .com

The government is a representation of the people, which usually (though not always) bases its laws on what the majority of citizens find acceptable. Guess what, most of us don't care what you do in your bedrooms. Church doesn't equal "Moral" in the same way separation of church and state doesn't represent "lack of any morals". It just means our morals tend to be broader and more flexible and are defined by the attitudes of the common man while yours come from a really old book which you can't change.

Your making conclusions based on a limited viewpoint. It never said "separations of Morals from state", your predisposition towards a particular religion just interpret it that way because you associate the two so closely.

Man if I could fire people just because I don't agree with how they live their life outside of work, I would have employed only athiests and agnostics

Church doesn't equal "Moral" in the same way separation of church and state doesn't represent "lack of any morals"

A clearer wording might have been separation of religion from state. My main point is that it is impossible for the state to be morally neutral. It has to pick sides, rejecting one view and supporting another while discriminating against people who think differently. A much better subject to have as a starting point for this is gay marriage (which I think NY has also made decisions on recently).

It just means our morals tend to be broader and more flexible and are defined by the attitudes of the common man...

Who was it who said you shouldn't be so open minded that your brain falls out? I wish I could remember. Anyway, without having an authoritative, objective system of ethics (like the one given to us in the Bible), there is no basis for ethics. In the entire history of philosophy no one has been able to provide an objective basis for morality. Which means that while your rules can be "broader and more flexible", there's nothing you can reasonably exclude and give an objective reason for.

What you wind up with is simply "might makes right". In other words, the reason for a person not to murder someone if he wants to is not because it's wrong, but because he may get punished (arbitrarily I might add) if he's caught. Furthermore, "right" and "wrong" changes with the whim of the people. To me it's not a system of ethics at all for something that's right one day to be wrong the next and vice versa.

Anyway, my main point still stands: That it's impossible for the state to be morally neutral. It's not about separating "morals" from the state, it's about whose "morals" the state chooses to support.

You don't seem to get that I'm not arguing that its impossible for a state to be morally neutral, we both agree that this country has to make some moral calls otherwise anarchy would rule. No one I know believes otherwise, so that statement "taken to mean that the state is to be morally neutral," isn't even worth chatting about.

"nothing you can reasonably exclude and give an objective reason for."

False assumption, it just makes it harder, which goes back to my "book thinking for you" argument. It isn't easy being an atheist nation, the same way it isn't being an atheist.

"What you wind up with is simply "might makes right"."
No, it simply allows people to not have a state religion and instead use whatever system of ethics they choose adopt with a few base rules that MUST be followed. This system allows you to do what you want to do (MOSTLY), you have to compromise to live here and get along with all the other religions and belief systems. That's reality intruding again. Laws give us the framework, which should be as open as feasible, faith or personal philosophy should fill out the rest. Otherwise you get nutjobs in white sheets or bombs strapped to their bodies.

Basically it comes down to me agreeing with your initial statement, then disagreeing with your choice of the bible as a moral yardstick.

:: wonders how long till I get banned from commenting ::

Other then the bible being interpreted as against homosexuals, what exactly do you find wrong with it. Ignoring the reasoning "cuz a really old books says so", what have you got for me.

I guess why I'm annoyed with this whole argument is because I have gay friends who I consider some of the finest people I know, and for a person to have never met them yet consider them immoral for their bedroom habits. I find it just monstrously stupid. It's as bad as hating someone for their color. It just doesn't matter in the great scheme of things.

"authoritative, objective system of ethics (like the one given to us in the Bible"

I actually laughed out loud when I read "objective".