Whereas Westerners have done so in a context in which philosophy and religion are considered quite distinct, Buddhists have lived with them in a context where
no such walls of separation existed.
Not exact matches
The
wall of separation actually exists to PROTECT religious freedom by keeping politics and political influences OUT
of religion and religious expressions, but the caveat is that religion has to then stay out
of politics as well and not ask for political influence (
such as public funds).
Ancient cities, Weber notes, were socially structured by a
separation between those who made a claim
of descent from the founding clans (patricians) and those who could make no
such claim (plebeians), a
separation often spatially represented by the isolation
of plebeians either at the foot
of the sacred hill
of the polis or in ghettos clustered at the
walls.
For
such a scientist, faith acts at best as a «moral compass,» but the direction it provides does not breach the
wall of separation, and is neither aided by nor aids reason.
That clause has a long history
of interpretation that I shall not review here, but it certainly does not mean and has never meant the American state has no interest in or concern for religion, or churches either, for that matter, and it certainly does not me and politics have nothing to do with each other.8 To the extent the «
wall of separation» image leads to those conclusions it distorts the entire history
of the American understanding
of religion and leads to
such absurd conclusions as that religious congregations should have no tax exemption and legislative bodies should not be opened with prayer.
But the source
of such confusion can be understood at least in part by examining the historical context
of anti-Catholicism and «
Wall of Separation» rhetoric.