[quote=mdk]
sorry. Just my way of saying this isn't really a controversial topic anymore, and hasn't been for 250 years or more; everybody agrees, and setting it up as an argumentative topic is a fallacious premise. Nobody wants a conjunction of church and state. I'd wager that anybody still wanting to talk about it has an axe to grind.Closing a post with awkward-silence ellipses is my way of denoting sarcasm, for future reference. Forced grammatical errors too.
[/quote]

Oh, well then, my bad on missing the sarcasm. That's a very odd use of ellipses, as it typically means just a trailing off, but whatever works I guess. We really need some kind of punctuation that officially denotes sarcasm in text to avoid these kinds of silly misunderstandings.

[quote=mdk]
Maybe if we count atheism, but who does? I think this is a flawed perception. You see, say, a cross on a hill in a national park, and you want to take it down because separation of church and state, but people disagree with you and don't want to take it down. Your first reaction is to say, 'well they must NOT want a separation of church and state,' because that's how you're interpreting the situation and your perspective alters your perception. Maybe people just want to say 'merry christmas' and not get sued.
[/quote]

I wouldn't count that sort of thing as people trying to force a union between church and state, but that's not at all the upper limit of what some fringe nutters try to push. They're a tiny minority so far as I can tell, but there are indeed people out there who want their country to quite literally adopt the laws of the Bible as the laws of the country, basically as a Christian version of Sharia law. Oh, and there's also the hardcore Muslim folks who try to advocate for real Sharia law being implemented in placed like England and such. It's really a non-issue in most countries, but these people do indeed exist, which is what I think Nevis was trying to say in the thing you quoted.