Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

What secular reason? If Kali inspires a DMV worker to do a better job, is that a secular reason?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.

I’ve been following the thread. To say that ‘spiritual comfort’ is a ‘secular’ reason simply boggles the mind. What you seem to suggest is that if there is any benefit which can be generally pointed to which is not exclusively ‘spiritual’ then it doesn’t violate Church and State.By your reasoning, what could possibly be excluded? If all it takes is some believers saying, I got something out of it.

Perhaps this is why people think you’re being dense on the subject. Your definition seems closer to non-denominational, no? I’ve never seen secular defined as ‘well we don’t say which Christian belief’ we support.

quote:

---

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular
secular

​

adjective
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows ( opposed to regular).
5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.
6. going on from age to age; continuing through long ages.

​

noun
7. a layperson.
8. one of the secular clergy.

---

I’m familiar enough with the lemon test to know that schools which were educating students (which I assume you’d say was primarily a secular good) still lost the case. As in Lemon V Kurzman, clearly the church ‘saved’ the monument to further its religious mission. Can you point to any secular monuments the church also saved? If not, doesn’t that raise the question of the monument being religious in nature? Which arguably this monument does. God was with us this day., My faith inspired me. would not be secular statements.

That may seem reasonable at a glance. Would you say that St. Peter’s in New York has historical significance? If so, then would it be allowable for the government to take over the care and operation of the Church as a historical landmark? What about just paying for building upkeep and letting the church continue to run? How can a line be drawn with historical significance, if the line is not historical significance apart from the religious?

Secular purpose seems like the ultimate weasel phrase, I suppose the government should pay for churches that build bomb shelters in their basement, after all they too would have a ‘secular purpose’. Or perhaps the guy at the DMV could have a ‘Fuck Jesus in the Ass’ coffee cup, since it would hold secular coffee.