Should we have stronger separation of church and state?

[ColdHardTruth]

Citing the establishment clause of the 1st amendment while ignoring the guarantees of free exercise and free speech isn't accurate. It leads to false claims of Christianity being a de facto state religion. The insistence on purging Christianity from government not only establishes atheism as the State religion it directly violates the Article 6 prohibition of a religious test for office.

Nope.

This country was meant to be secular. It was not meant to be a theocracy. The way red states govern is based on their religion. They force their beliefs on others by doing so in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

Government and politics have no business mixing. The right hates this because they know their brainwashed minions (talibangelicals, Catholics, etc...) will not as susceptible to their attempts at control.

 

[AZRWinger]

Removing or restricting religion from the government, as it should be, is not establishing atheism. It's maintaining a secular government. As it should be.

The foundational tennant of atheism is denial of God. A secular government promotes atheism as the state religion. That's the polar opposite of First Amendment guarantees and violates the Article 6 prohibition against a religious test for office.

 

[BabaVoss]

The insistence on purging Christianity from government not only establishes atheism as the State religion it directly violates the Article 6 prohibition of a religious test for office.

Relgion has no place in our government. If you adhere to any religion, it belongs at home and in your place of worship, period.

 

[Gordy327]

The foundational tennant of atheism is denial of God. A secular government promotes atheism as the state religion. That's the polar opposite of First Amendment guarantees and violates the Article 6 prohibition against a religious test for office.

Wrong. Atheism is simply being unconvinced there is a God. The government is not and cannot promote, endorse, or validate one religion over another or over non-religious, and vice verse. It must be religiously neutral, which the separation of church and state establishes. That is how the government is secular. No one is required to disclose their religious affiliation or lack thereof. Neither is that legal cause for qualification for running and holding public office.

 

[AZRWinger]

Nope.

This country was meant to be secular. It was not meant to be a theocracy. The way red states govern is based on their religion. They force their beliefs on others by doing so in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

Government and politics have no business mixing. The right hates this because they know their brainwashed minions (talibangelicals, Catholics, etc...) will not as susceptible to their attempts at control.

Kindly cite the Constitutional specification for a secular government. It's not in the First Amendment. A religious test for office is prohibited by Article 6. Where is the requirement for a secular government written.

 

[AZRWinger]

Relgion has no place in our government. If you adhere to any religion, it belongs at home and in your place of worship, period.

My goodness, another anti Constitutional rant.

 

[Gordy327]

Kindly cite the Constitutional specification for a secular government. It's not in the First Amendment. A religious test for office is prohibited by Article 6. Where is the requirement for a secular government written.

Secular is default via separation. Secular is being religiously neutral. It has nothing to do with individual religious beliefs or lack thereof.

 

[rahl]

The foundational tennant of atheism is denial of God. A secular government promotes atheism as the state religion. That's the polar opposite of First Amendment guarantees and violates the Article 6 prohibition against a religious test for office.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It is by definition, not a religion. The same way not playing baseball isn’t a sport.

 

[AZRWinger]

Wrong. Atheism is simply being unconvinced there is a God. The government is not and cannot promote, endorse, or validate one religion over another or over non-religious, and vice verse. It must be religiously neutral, which the separation of church and state establishes. That is how the government is secular. No one is required to disclose their religious affiliation or lack thereof. Neither is that legal cause for qualification for running and holding public office.

Religious neutrality is established by the prohibition of a state religion not by the so-called separation of church and state which promotes atheism as the state religion.

Democrat Senator Feinstein demonstrated the Left's contempt for the prohibition against a religious test for office when she said "the dogma lives loudly in this one" describing a SCOTUS nominees Christian faith. There is no evidence of the same criticism being leveled against atheist nominees.

 

[AZRWinger]

Secular is default via separation. Secular is being religiously neutral. It has nothing to do with individual religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Secular atheism is promoted over other religious beliefs. That's not neutrality.

 

[AZRWinger]

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It is by definition, not a religion. The same way not playing baseball isn’t a sport.

Kindly point out where someone is advocating a ban on baseball in public as a government obligation.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Kindly cite the Constitutional specification for a secular government. It's not in the First Amendment. A religious test for office is prohibited by Article 6. Where is the requirement for a secular government written.

I have already cited this.

The founding fathers commented on this fact. The constitution is a secular document. There are posts in this thread where this is covered. Go back and read them.

The US government is not, in any sense, based on the Christian religion. This is a true fact that the right has a very hard time with, but it is the truth.

 

[rahl]

Kindly point out where someone is advocating a ban on baseball in public as a government obligation.

Strawman

 

[Glitch]

That is incorrect. Separation works both ways. Otherwise, there is no Separation between governments and religion.

No, it doesn't. Read the First Amendment. It restricts the government, not individuals. The Bill of Rights exist to protect the rights of the people by limiting the government's authority.

 

[Gordy327]

No, it doesn't. Read the First Amendment. It restricts the government, not individuals. The Bill of Rights exist to protect the rights of the people by limiting the government's authority.

It also restricts individuals from pushing their religion into government or law. It doesn't mean an individual cannot have or be religious. Only that their religion cannot be made into policy or law.

 

[Gordy327]

Secular atheism is promoted over other religious beliefs. That's not neutrality.

No, it's not. Secular does not equal atheism.

 

[Gordy327]

Religious neutrality is established by the prohibition of a state religion not by the so-called separation of church and state which promotes atheism as the state religion.

That is false. Separation establishes nothing except actual Separation.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

No, it doesn't. Read the First Amendment. It restricts the government, not individuals. The Bill of Rights exist to protect the rights of the people by limiting the government's authority.

Yes, it does. There can be no state religion. That means neither the government nor those working for them, have the right to create a state religion. This includes the de facto state religion created in red states that make laws based on their personal religious beliefs.

 

[Glitch]

Yes, it does. There can be no state religion. That means neither the government nor those working for them, have the right to create a state religion. This includes the de facto state religion created in red states that make laws based on their personal religious beliefs.

I've already proven you are wrong. There have been numerous clergy serving in Congress, including many of the Founding Fathers. The last two Catholic Priests to serve in Congress were US Representatives Robert Drinan and Robert Cornell. Both were members of the Democratic Party and both served in Congress until 1979. In 1980 Pope John Paul II prohibited priests from holding an elected office, but that does not stop protestant clergy from being elected to Congress.

People, including elected politicians, can hold any religious belief they desire. The First Amendment only prohibits Congress from establishing a religion, it does not prohibit individuals from holding any religious position they desire. Learn some reading comprehension and get a clue.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

I've already proven you are wrong. There have been numerous clergy serving in Congress, including many of the Founding Fathers. The last two Catholic Priests to serve in Congress were US Representatives Robert Drinan and Robert Cornell. Both were members of the Democratic Party and both served in Congress until 1979. In 1980 Pope John Paul II prohibited priests from holding an elected office, but that does not stop protestant clergy from being elected to Congress.

No, you haven't. I did not say religious people could not serve in the government. The 1st Amendment says there can be no state religion. That includes the de facto state religions created by red states and the zealots who govern them. They cannot make laws based on their religion. It's a first amendment violation.

People, including elected politicians, can hold any religious belief they desire. The First Amendment only prohibits Congress from establishing a religion, it does not prohibit individuals from holding any religious position they desire. Learn some reading comprehension and get a clue.

See above.

Stop ducking.

Your religion is not the law.

 

[Gordy327]

I've already proven you are wrong. There have been numerous clergy serving in Congress, including many of the Founding Fathers. The last two Catholic Priests to serve in Congress were US Representatives Robert Drinan and Robert Cornell. Both were members of the Democratic Party and both served in Congress until 1979. In 1980 Pope John Paul II prohibited priests from holding an elected office, but that does not stop protestant clergy from being elected to Congress.

People, including elected politicians, can hold any religious belief they desire. The First Amendment only prohibits Congress from establishing a religion, it does not prohibit individuals from holding any religious position they desire. Learn some reading comprehension and get a clue.

Some of the Founding Fathers took issue with clergy in Congress, particularly Madison. Regardless, no one ever said a politician or other public office holder could not have a religion or religious belief. Only that said religion or belief could not be made into public policy or law. Your understanding of separation seems rather tenuous at best.

 

[Glitch]

Some of the Founding Fathers took issue with clergy in Congress, particularly Madison. Regardless, no one ever said a politician or other public office holder could not have a religion or religious belief. Only that said religion or belief could not be made into public policy or law. Your understanding of separation seems rather tenuous at best.

They took issue with government imposing a religion, like the Church of England. They had absolutely no issue with the clergy serving in Congress. The very first Congress (1789-1791) included six ordained ministers, and there were only 91 members in Congress then (including Madison). Today there are seven ordained ministers serving in Congress, although there are 535 members today, so the percentage is actually smaller.

 

[Gordy327]

They took issue with government imposing a religion, like the Church of England. They had absolutely no issue with the clergy serving in Congress. The very first Congress (1789-1791) included six ordained ministers, and there were only 91 members in Congress then (including Madison). Today there are seven ordained ministers serving in Congress, although there are 535 members today, so the percentage is actually smaller.

What's your point? The church of England is why the FF established separation.

 

[Glitch]

What's your point? The church of England is why the FF established separation.

The point being that the separation only applies to government, not individuals. The First Amendment prohibits government specifically, not individuals. If a Muslim Imam, a Jewish Rabbi, or a Lutheran Pastor wanted to run for Congress, they can.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

The point being that the separation only applies to government, not individuals. The First Amendment prohibits government specifically, not individuals.

Incorrect.

It prevents government officials from creating a state religion. Religion was never meant to be part of the US government. The constitution is a secular document and the founders have stated at length that the US government is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

The whole point of this was to keep zealots and charlatans from interfering in governmental affairs.