A question regarding the non-feasibility of political separation of church and State:
Remarkably often, philosophers, politicians, and amateur debaters make the statement that a group "must not be permitted to force its religious beliefs upon others" in a nation with separation of church and state. However, for instance, in the United States of America, wouldn't this stance be in direct violation to the concept of majority-rule politics?
E.G., In "Democratic government X with church-state seperation":
1.) 51% of voting citizens are "Religion Y"
2.) This group is spiritually opposed to "Concept Z"
3.) The no-or-other-spirituality community is pro-"Concept Z"
Doesn't this violate support of separation of church and state? Through majority rule, the agreed system of government, laws would most certainly pass forbidding excercise of Concept Z. However, this clearly violates the legal/spiritual disparity implied in Church/State arguments.
How can the ideal of separate church and state be balanced against the implications for splinter or fringe belief groups, in the cases of, for instance, theft, murder, sexual errancy, or any other religiously proscribed behaviours? If a religious group supports wanton anarchy, what right would a truly Church/State separate government have to control such behavior - as an absolute concept, this seems to fail, it would seem to me that a system of proscription that fails in absolutes should not be executed even on a limited basis. What do you think?