Get Rid Of The Christians....

[Raphael]

Did you have a choice in the matter?

No, because I was a kid. My parents, like all good parents, were the ones who made those choices for me.


ETA:
although when I started primary school there was no choice as South African schools were still segregated, and none of the white government schools were Muslim or Hindu (you had to be Indian to go to those ones), by High School that had all changed and if my parents had wanted to they could have sent me to one.
That being said, in Primary school we had people who weren't necessarily Christian, and they would just sit down we were doing the Lord's prayer, and in the case of a JW friend of mine would wait outside during that part of assembly, and no-one ostracised him for it or made him feel ill treated.

I repeat, I have no problem with a government school being biased to one or other religion

[Paprika]

Wait, so how many people in this topic think preaching to a captive audience when you're on the clock for the government is okay?

All those not mindless drones who drone 'separation of church and state, separation of church and state!'

[seer]

It was completely optional in my Air Force boot camp. Quite a few people stayed behind to clean the barracks.

Well that is why the Air Force are a bunch of wussies...

[Zymologist]

What??? Aww man. I guess I should cancel my order of powdered wigs.

[Mountain Man]

We do need to maintain a separation of church and state.

Do you feel the same about the separation of secularism and state? The problem is that when you take religion out of the equation, it's going to be replaced by something, and that "something" is rarely good.

[Mountain Man]

Makes sense and seems self-evident.

Does not make sense. You're not even at the event, but you're participating in it somehow? And cake and pizzas aren't even essential to a wedding; they're just snacks that other people are consuming while engaging in an event.

The business' name is still associated with those goods which implies approval of the event.

Otherwise, try and figure out how this conversation would play out:

"Did you really bake cupcakes for that local clan rally where they 'lynched' a black mannequin?"
"Well, yes."
"So you approve of that sort of thing?"
"Oh, no no no. You see, I merely provided snacks that other people consumed while engaging in an event."
"..."

[Yttrium]

Do you feel the same about the separation of secularism and state?

Secularism is the separation of church and state, so no. If you meant secular humanism, then sure.

[Mountain Man]

Secularism is the separation of church and state, so no. If you meant secular humanism, then sure.

Secularism is a philosophy that actively reject religious considerations. Why is that preferable?

[Paprika]

Secularism is the separation of church and state, so no.

Right, so you're imposing secularism - one class of ideology - to exclude other ideologies.

[Yttrium]

Secularism is a philosophy that actively reject religious considerations. Why is that preferable?

Right, so you're imposing secularism - one class of ideology - to exclude other ideologies.

Maybe we have a problem with semantics. You're referring to secularism as a philosophy. I'm referring to it as a policy. I'm not sure what you think a philosophy of secularism entails.

[RumTumTugger]

Wait, so how many people in this topic think preaching to a captive audience when you're on the clock for the government is okay?

captive audience? you dont know very much do you Idiot. going to services or to the chaplain is voluntary not required. try again.

[Paprika]

I'm referring to it as a policy.

What underlies the policy? The ideology that religions and state should be separate. And what does it do? It places limits on the main competing ideologies.

[Yttrium]

What underlies the policy? The ideology that religions and state should be separate. And what does it do? It places limits on the main competing ideologies.

[Paprika]

The advocates of secularism claim that religions would impose if left unchecked but secularism itself imposes on the religious. So there is no neutral ground; secularism merely pretends to its own advantage.

[Yttrium]

The advocates of secularism claim that religions would impose if left unchecked but secularism itself imposes on the religious.

It imposes an inability for religions to impose? Sorry, I'm not seeing the ideology here. As a philosophy, it's rubbish. I think it makes a pretty good policy, though.