Separation of Science and State

[The Grand Nudger]

Unification over normative content relative to the sacred.

"Sacred" is a likewise problematic and ambiguous term. Everything and anything can be considered sacred, with or without religious underpinnings. Yet given that you're using the term to define religion, you've committed yourself to a non-religious definition of sacred. So what is your secular definition of sacred?

Which is why the definition I used leaves it specifically ambiguous.  The sacred can be credibly and accurately defined in any way, but a religion is defined by unification over normative content relative to the sacred no matter how sacred is conceived of by that religion.

In a religion of nature, nature is likely sacred.  Could be a left handed widget, tho.  It really doesn't matter.  Separation of church and state isn't on account of whether anyone gets the right set of sacred articles..but if you really must - whatever those proper sacred articles are, our Church of The Secular Sacred has them right.

I doesn't go,"no law.....except in the case of a true and proven religion, except in the case of a religion with the proper sacred articles, except in the case of a religion informed by scientific experimentation".

What do you think about separation in their case? If you spent less time fielding doomed objections to uncontroversial and demonstrable aspects of religion you might realize that this is the dream setup for you. I fixed your infantile bullshit about a separation of science and state by positing a religion that you were simply incapable of conceiving. You might actually get a decent answer to the items in your op q, assuming that answers about any of this shit was ever the point of making the thread to begin with. If you're wondering about science, and religion, and separation, and specifically how they might all relate and in what circumstances something thoroughly scientific might still be subject to the maxim - here it is.