What is Seperation of Church and State ?

[Ferguson97]

The government can't tell religious orgs what to do (within reason). Religious doctrine cannot be used to craft government policy.

[Ferguson97]

The government can't tell religious orgs what to do (within reason). Religious doctrine cannot be used to craft government policy.

So you're saying that public policy that stems from the religious motivations of individual legislators can never be, but if it's from the religious motivations of athiests, it's OK?

No. That's not what I said, and this doesn't even make any sense. Atheists have no religious motivations because they do not believe in a higher power.

Religious beliefs motivate all sort of legislation and public policy.  There is a difference between codifying Religious Doctrine into law and crafting secular public policy based on the motives of the religiously minded.

Explain to me the difference between, for example, explicitly banning gay marriage because of the Bible's stance on homosexuality, and banning gay marriage because the personal moral convictions of the legislators are rooted in those biblical teachings.

If the end result is the same (a ban on gay marriage due to the teachings of one religion), then there is no real difference.

[Ferguson97]

The government can't tell religious orgs what to do (within reason). Religious doctrine cannot be used to craft government policy.

This is an absurd standard and it's horrifying that liberals seem to have internalized it.

What specifically do you object to? Why should others be able to force their religious beliefs down our throat by legislating it?

[Ferguson97]

The government can't tell religious orgs what to do (within reason). Religious doctrine cannot be used to craft government policy.

This is an absurd standard and it's horrifying that liberals seem to have internalized it.

What specifically do you object to? Why should others be able to force their religious beliefs down our throat by legislating it?

For the standard to be juridically enforceable there would need to be an objective yardstick for when a policy position is inherently religious versus when it simply happens to correlate strongly with certain religious commitments (as opposition to abortion does with Catholicism, or GMO skepticism does with various "granola" New Age and pagan currents). I don't think developing that yardstick and giving it the force of constitutional law is either possible or desirable, and I assume Xahar doesn't either.

If religious doctrine inspires lawmakers to enshrine those values into law, it is by definition, forcing their religious beliefs on everyone else. That should not be acceptable in a liberal democracy.