(1)Then your affirm that the separation of church and state interpretation of the religion part of the first amendment means: No religion in gov't? Previously, you disagreed with that analysis.
“
The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'
EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP.(1947) 330 US 1
This does not forbid personal expressions of religion, or the “ceremonial deism” of congressional chaplains. Nor does it forbid acknowledgement of religion or displays or teaching in a secular context.
Well, my state of Virginia is a big pig farming state, so Jewish or Islamic Law or any of the religions that practice vegetarianism would be detrimental to the state.
But why would you want to be required to obey the religious laws of a religion not your own?
Illegal presence is not a crime and so cannot be prosecuted. Illegal entry is a misdemeanor offense, and most caught entering illegally are just sent back...why clog up the courts?
And it is not my understanding that illegal entry or Visa overstays are so much worse than previously so as to now constitute a crisis.
And no, I’ve never heard of any religious reasons affecting US immigration policy in any way (in recent years...religious bigotry was no doubt part of the reason for the Chinese Exclusion Acts)
Why would I want to allow religious practices in the law that I disagree with?? If that were true, why would I allow political practices in the law that I disagree with, then??? You realize that ideology and religion are directly related? Religion is a subset of ideology and the only subset of ideology that can't be in gov't is religion. What did religion do that any other subset of ideology hasn't done and, therefore, can't be in gov't?
Yes. According to the religion part of the first, the gov't couldn't set up, for example, the Episcopalian religion as the state religion but, until the separation of church and state interpretation by Jefferson's SCOTUS, possibly, religion was allowed in gov't. Even though Jefferson wasn't accused of being an atheist, he was not a deist, either.
Now, religion isn't represented at all in gov't. Yet, all other ideologies 'cept religion are represented by gov't.
You noted there is no religious bigotry to prevent immigration laws but I know of religious bigoty that prevents immigration laws from being implemented (there are actual cases of churches housing illegals who cherry-pick a few words and deeds of Christ for justification) and, of course, political bigotry prevents immigration laws from being implemented. Let me refresh your memory about California who won't assist ICE in detaining illegals....You don't think that's immigration law that's being disregarded?
Who gets bigoted against in both scenarios? American citizens, for example. The immigration system is bigoted against.
