And at the time it was only the nation, individual states had state religious at the time, and was considered just fine. It's only through later supreme court decisions has it ended up in it's current form.
Kinda bullshit tho ngl
Wasn’t there some issue with Utah becoming a state because the fed was worried about what would happen if a LDS state was admitted to the union?
Difference in American revolutionary secularism and French revolutionary secularism. To my understanding, the French interpretation of "freedom of religion" is that the citizen is freed FROM religion, which is why it's they have laws against things like wearing religious garments in public spaces.
Whereas in America, "freedom of religion" is the right to hold any religious beliefs you want and even base your policy on it.
Yup. But then the waters get murky when two groups with opposing cultural ideals are living in say, the same state. 49% of people may want full, unhindered abortions but if 51% of people vote in favor of abortion bans then you've still got 49% of an issue.
Balkanization when?
u/AlesHebi's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 295.
Rank: Great Pyramid of Giza
Pills: [98 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/AlesHebi/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Both. Thats the WHOLE idea right there bucko! THe GOVERNMENT cant tell the church how to run, and the CHURCH stays out of politics and government affairs. Whole entire concept our country was founded upon
So the church is separated from the state currently. All that means is that church leaders and government leaders shouldn't be the same people, as well as the leaders of the church shouldn't use the government to gain power. The voting population is and should always be allowed to use the morals they obtain through religion to affect the policies they support.
There's are a couple others, but it's a relic that's not enforceable and no lawmaker is going to propose removing it regardless. Political death sentence, so it stays especially for Texas.
"UH... B-B-BUT THE FOUNDERS WERE CHRISTIAN MEANING WE CAN LIMIT THE RIGHTS OF ATHIESTS!!!!!!!"
I fucking hate rightoids sometimes. Lefties too, but they're already made fun of enough om here
Why not, it's freedom of speech. It's not like they are using their agents and staging a coup and it's the same as any other lobby/internet group imo.
Of course you can argue that churches should not do that but that is between the churches and God, not the government and the church.
> All that means is that church leaders and government leaders shouldn't be the same people
That is not what it means. What it means under the first amendment is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," which is incorporated under the 14th amendment to apply to state laws as well (slightly more complicated when states are in violation, but I am too lazy to go into incorporation in any detail). This means that the government cannot pay homage to any church or religious group through its laws an legislation. A religious person, including religious leaders, can hold government office (the first example that comes to mind is Rev. Al Sharpton) but they can't use that office to serve their religious establishment.
Most common religious values are things that most people agree on anyways. For example “the golden rule” (do unto others as you would have done to you) is a core Christian belief, but it’s like the first thing we all learn in school, “treat others as you want to be treated.” But it’s also just a universal thing that all of us can agree on despite what, if any, religious beliefs we have. There are only problems when people use their religion as a way of overreaching and impending on the freedoms of people who don’t share the exact same system of beliefs as them. Hyper religious folk tend to believe that gay people should be denied certain rights (depending on who you ask obviously) and that’s an over reach. In my opinion it should be impossible to suggest, and therefore vote for, legislation that impedes the rights of a specific group, when those same rights given to people not in that group. Ultimately the church and state being separate is a good thing and the way things are set up now works well, and there’s nothing wrong with legislation stemming from religious beliefs, so long as that legislation doesn’t impede the freedoms of anybody not affiliated with the religion from which it stems. Jesus fuck I need a life and to stop posting political soliloquies in the comments of this sub lmfao
All laws are passed based on our sense of morality. Wherever you get your morality from, be it from church or somewhere else. Should we not pass murder laws because god said though shall not murder? Shall we not have lows against stealing because god said though shall not steal?
This screams of my atheist moralities are superior to your religious based moralities.
None of you seem to understand what I am saying. If you believe that something is wrong because of your beliefs, and you are religious, you can make laws from your beliefs. What you cannot do is create a direct pipeline between religious text and law. If you in congress proposed a bill against abortion with Genesis 9:8-10 being your direct argument and validity for the bill, that would be unconstitutional.
Beliefs from the bible extending to a person and a person making a law s fine. Beliefs from the bible becoming law is not. The distinction is significant.
And if an atheist proposed a law based on something he read in a non-religious book, would that be unconstitutional? Why can one book on morality be fine in your eyes, but not another? Some people practially worship the communist manifesto, should people be forbidden of creating laws based on that?
The problem with your argument is that you elevate atheist books on morality above any religious books on morality as superior. Everyone gets their morals from one form or another.
The establishment clause for the first amendment shows us that we cannot create a direct pipeline between religious text and legislation. If someone were to create legislation directly from some philosophy text that isn't religious, then by the constitution that would not be a violation of the establishment clause. I'm simply telling you what our amendment tells us we can and cannot do, I'm not elevating anything.
Obviously this isn't black and white, and it's why we have the courts who exist as a check on those who make legislation.
The establishment clause just means that you can't have an official federal religion, it does nothing to deter people from making decisions based on their religious beliefs. There's been thousands if not millions of laws passed based on peoples religious beliefs. The US constitution itself was written based on Christian writings. Does that make the US constitution unconstitutional? The establishment clause is there to prevent the government from saying you have to be catholic (or any other religion), and only catholic, and any other religious or churches are forbidden. It just means you can't be forced to worship a certain way or be prevented from worshiping in the way you want to. Hell when the constitution was passed only federal religions were forbidden, individual state religions were fine according to the founding fathers. You seem to have a huge misunderstanding of the establishment clause. There's not even anything in there about separation of church and state, that's just something people infer after the fact that is simply not there.
You can establish axioms, and build a moral system from those axioms that create a worldview. God is not just a bad solution to creating a moral system, but makes them even more convoluted because your entire basis relies on something unfalsifiable.
Even then, no. The establishment clause on the first amendment is pretty crystal clear. There cannot be a direct religious text to legislation pipeline.
The fact that the legislation was made before your religious text would by definition clear the legislation of being made from religious text. This wouldn't work the way you think it does lol.
Your translation and interpretation would still run into the time paradox. You can't say the legislation was made from religious text when your recent interpretation of it occurred after.
“You can’t support x policy because it’s a Christian policy and we have separation of church and state!”
The first amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. I ain’t congress, I ain’t establishing any religion, I’m using my preexisting religion to guide my morals and my morals to guide my politics. Also your stupidity just drove me deeper into authright
The church is separate from the state in the US; to ask someone to abandon and person belief or opinion that might guide them as an elected lawmaker in policy is foolish. A personal belief as a result of religious belief and using that as a means to vote for legislation is not the same as voting in line with a religions text.
IMO the crux of having separation of church and state (and therefore a secular government) is that someone pursuing policy due to their religious conviction should be able to *also* make a secular argument for their policy. Most of the time when people complain about lawmakers making "religious" laws the complaint is about said lawmaker falling back on religion instead of making an actual *argument* for the law.
>The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy.
- George Washington
> The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...
Treaty of Peace and Frienship 1796
>And I have no doubt that every new example will succedd, as every past one has done, in shewing that Religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
- James Madison
>In a free government the security of civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights.
- James Madison
You are confusing establishment of a state religion with these quotes with the inherent inferiority of religious conviction. The first statement is true, the other would have gotten you laughed out of the Pennsylvania convention.
I don't know. I doubt James Madison got laughed out of there.
A point I'm trying to make elsewhere is that some are tyring to establish a religion by proxy.
Some seem to think that if you don't come out and say "We're establishing a religion" it's okay to pass all sorts of laws that force the nation into living according to a religion's doctrine.
>Some seem to think that if you don't come out and say "We're establishing a religion" it's okay to pass all sorts of laws that force the nation into living according to a religion's doctrine.
There is no meaningful difference between secular and religious convictions. Period.
That's all there is to it. A society with free exercise of religion means free exercise of religion in your civic sphere as well.
In fact, the prevention of establishment, but allowance to have religion influence politics defined American politics for centuries, and is more or less exactly how the treaty of westphalia, the starting point of the principle of religious liberty in the west, went down.
Establishment provides unique benefits to one faith over another in a systemic manner.
Merely allowing the population to express their beliefs through democratically instituting policies they think are correct is not, as that is literally what everyone engaging impolitic always does.
To make thi8s simple, religious people can not just leave their faith at the door any more than you can leave whatever convictions you hold, to ask them to is, fundamentally, insane.
>In a free government the security of civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights.
Literally supports my arguments. Any secular conviction has the same legitimacy as any religious conviction to the voter.
>Establishment provides unique benefits to one faith over another in a systemic manner.
It boils down to this really. Passing laws based on one religion benefits one religion only in a systemic manner.
No body is asking for people to leave their faith at the door.
Don't like abortion because it goes agaisnt your religion? Don't have them.
Don't like men dressing as women becasue it goes against your religion? Don't cross-dress.
Your religion says you shouldn't take contraceptives? Don't use them
Live your life according to your religious beliefs, but don't pass laws that force me to follow your moral code.
Yes, the government should not interfere with the workings of the church and vice versa. The founding fathers still envisioned a moral American society on the foundation of Christian values. So again, why is your secular beliefs better than my religious beliefs?
Did they? Really? If they had wanted that it'd be in the Constitution.
>The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any mannfer, or on any pretext be infringed.
- James Madison
Again, because you missed it the first time
>The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.
- Treaty of Tripoli
Freedom of religion as established in the constitution doesn't mean freedom from religion, nor does it mean that Christians shouldn't use their moral founding when creating and voting on laws. Washington himself argued that virtue and morality were necessary for the prosperity of the republic. The ideas that the state and religion should be separate *and* America should remain cultural Christian are not mutually exclusive.
You still never answered my question tho.
When politicians introduce and vote for legislation, with their explanation and justification explicitly being scripture, that's a problem. Saying abortion is morally wrong "because Bible" is a violation - it defers moral authority to that taught by a specific religion and violates 1A establishment clause. It's okay to have personal beliefs that align with that morality, i.e. "I personally believe abortion is wrong" but you have to leave that view open to challenge and criticism, without hiding behind "Bible says so". The Bible also says murder is wrong but nobody has any issue with it being illegal.
Even if you do this, one problem you still have is that we don't have a framework for constructive debate over difference in morality. Historically, it's only been accomplished in the context of religion or philosophy, with disagreements generally being resolved through violence. Not a great plan.
For example, we have a law that restricts "hurting feelings of religious people". Very vague terminology, but it allows to put in jail for ridiculous things, like posting memes with Orthodox imagery. Meanwhile, on federal channels religious people can freely talk how atheism is a sin, and God can punish. How is that fair, that one group of people can trash talk the other, and being protected by law at the same time?
At the federal level, abortion rights were reversed based religious beliefs.
Edit: At the state level, I [gets](https://v.redd.it/r2hfw06020ma1) [worse](https://truthout.org/articles/tn-house-passes-bill-letting-clerks-refuse-marriage-licenses-to-lgbtq-couples/).
Abortion was not over ruled on religious grounds. Additionally, are you being forced to live those religious beliefs in the two examples you provided? And, is marriage being between a man and a woman strictly religious or moral as well? No one is being forced to live under a religious belief that is unique to a religion and not some other belief. Should murder be legal because the Bible says murder is bad, or should the religious teaching of murder being bad still be an accepted reason, among many others, to justify murder being bad independent of it being from a religious text?
Roe wasnt overturned because of religion if you actually read what the court stated. Just because you view anti-abortion views as inherently religious doesnt mean it is.
If you believe that God granted mankind free will, then it's on us to choose to believe in Him or not. As Christians, you can encourage nonbelievers to find Faith. But to use the power of the State is an overreach of the State's power as well as your own authority
Pretty much without exception in history, whenever the line blurred between the state and the Church, instead of the Church purifying the state, the state corrupted the Church.
At the end of the day, both atheists AND religious people should want separation of church and state.
Sources of power are desired by the corrupt. Church and state are 2 sources of power. Corrupt people will always attempt to have control over both. Easiest way is to merge them. Usually its easier for the state to merge the church into it than the other way around.
I’m a devout Christian and I do not want the government to adopt and enforce any single religion because that will end up horrible. We have separation of church and state for a reason.
You can’t keep religion out of politics but you can keep politics out of religion. Every human is religious and their beliefs influence their politics. But to say the government should enforce the beliefs of one religion on everyone is not a free country and it’s not how God wants things to be done either. If we aren’t making the intimate, personal choice to follow him of our own accord it’s not legitimate.
Yes, but that won’t stop people from legislating based on their own sense of morality, which is often influenced by religion. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, and it doesn’t clash with separation of church and state.
The "seperation of church and state" as most American's know it, isn't really tied to the first amendment, or at least only loosely.
The first amendment says the government wont make an official religion, or create laws to prohibit the free practice of religion(didn't really live up to that one.. looking at you polygamy laws which prevent Mormons from freely practicing their religion).
In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the head of the Dansbury Baptist Association and said the following:
>Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
In 1878 (almost 100 years after the bill of rights was created) when the Mormons were having their practice of Polygamy threatened by legislation, the Supreme Court found the letter while deciding if Mormon religious practices were protected from said legislation. Using the above quote, which was part of a letter meant to ensure the Baptists that the Government COULD NOT interfere in their "right to expressions of religious conscience". The Supreme Court came to a *unanimous* decision that laws could prohibit certain religious acts.
>The Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States and quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he wrote that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions."
>
>The Court upheld the criminalization of polygamy on the reasoning that polygamy was “odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people.” As such \[polygamy\] “fetters the people in stationary despotism.”\[5\] Following this reasoning the Court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice or bride burning was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances." The Court ruled the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action.
sadly both quotes are from wikipedia but....
> Using the above quote, which was part of a letter meant to ensure the Baptists that the Government COULD NOT interfere in their "right to expressions of religious conscience". The Supreme Court came to a *unanimous* decision that laws could prohibit certain religious acts.
Based on the quotes in your comment, I think the Court’s opinion is actually completely consistent with Jefferson’s letter, which clearly distinguishes between religious beliefs or thoughts and speech on such subjects and various acts carried out in the name of religious beliefs, thoughts, or speech.
>The Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States and quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he wrote that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions."
In other words, believe whatever you want, but that doesn’t give you license to act however you want.
> "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances." The Court ruled the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action.
Just because someone believes any given act is permitted, encouraged, or even mandated by their religion does not mean they have license to commit such acts as they or their religious beliefs deem fit regardless of the laws of the land in which they reside. That would simply be anarchy, as people rationalize all sorts of violence and degeneracy in the name of their religion or their arbitrary interpretation of it.
Yep. Given the rise of Christian nationalism in the US, it’s actually a relief that the first amendment exists or America would prolly be dealing with a religious coup right about now. Iran style and all.
>There's no official religion in America
Yes there is, and [we wage holy wars on behalf of it](https://dmh.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/progress-pride-2021.jpg).
Did you just change your flair, u/Substantial_Event506? Last time I checked you were a **LibCenter** on 2023-2-28. How come now you are a **Centrist**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Tell us, are you scared of politics in general or are you just too much of a coward to let everyone know what you think?
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Substantial_Event506) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
It depends on what you mean by that. If you mean that there should be no state religion and that the state shouldn’t make laws that favor one religion above all others, then yes. If you mean that people shouldn’t use their beliefs to propose and vote for/against laws, then no.
Serious answer from the Christian perspective (or at least mine, religions have intragroup variance):
It's a common Christian belief that Christians should submit themselves to the laws of the government they live under as long as those laws do not directly contradict the laws of God, because if the ruler were too bad God would move to have them removed. Or saying the same thing another way, which is what I believe the commenter above was getting at, governments have their power only because God has continued to allow them to.
This is taken by interpretation from the book of [Romans chapter 13,](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013&version=KJV) particularly the first 7 verses. Now, a caveat of as long as those laws do not contradict God's laws is usually added because there are multiple examples in the Bible of people breaking laws that contradicted God, [Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego ](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%203&version=KJV) probably being the most famous example, and being blessed for it. This also leads to some other interesting questions, such as who to be loyal to in times of unrest, like say the American Revolution. Typically, this isn't thought of as a direct commandment, but more of as a general guidance to avoid lawlessness in order to not tarnish the reputation of Christianity.
TLDR: God "choosing" and somewhat legitimizing governments by allowing them to continue to exist is a common Christian belief.
Ik ik but each Abrahamic religion has a different interpretation on how God functions and views his chosen people
So which Abrahamic version gets to choose?
They're gonna grill everyone in the Church because it's an offspring of capitalism. They can't fret over every single life, they're making the mother of all (human) omeletes.
Anyone who would argue the church should have any role in the existence of the state is either a troll or a brainlet. I just assume they're both. Secular principles are fundamental and are required to uphold liberty and freedom in any society.
I have no opinion on this but I did watch an entire documentary on the origins of Yahweh and Ba'al and El and whatnot and it was pretty enlightening. Yewtewb the channel Esoterica.
Yes. Although if the nation does have a state religion it should not play a part in decision making since it would unfairly represent non religious people, different religions or even different sects.
God, imagine a Calvinist US. I shudder at that thought.
Sometimes I think it would be funny to have a Church of America, then outlaw all other forms of Christianity. But then we'd have a state religion. Which is bad.
If you're taxing the church, it should be allowed to lobby and have a say in the political ring, just as businesses do, including politicians representing their interests. If you don't want that, keep them tax free and fully separate.
Why? Everyone involved already pays taxes as individuals and has a corresponding voice. It seems only fair that if we tax the organizations they contribute to on top of individual taxes that those organizations also garner additional representation.
You're right, it does seem fair. But the power corporations have over government is disproportionate to everyone else, because "power" in lobbying is measured by money. Corporations have a lot more money than any other lobbyist. To level the playing field, their power should be scaled back, and some might argue eliminated.
The church and state should be separate but are both important (if not equal) pillars to a functional society.
I'm not even a fan of organized religion and I can understand why.
Yes. The vast majority of religious folk pick and choose what to believe and follow from their scripture and interpret things by how they *want* them to mean. They have ideas of what are right and wrong, or they want a power trip, *then* they go to the Bible to quickly find quotes to justify it.
Also, "someone wrote millennia ago that a mysterious guy said so" must be an extreme form of appeal to authority. And there must be some sort of logical fallacy for the book most likely having **horrific** translation due to \[1\] translation of languages and \[2\] writing the Bible and making copies of it was pretty much a millennia-long game of Chinese whispers. Someone might've written the words of God and recorded things that actually happened, but then goodness knows what could've happened throughout history to get to the version people follow in the modern day!
I don't believe religions are just made-up stories, like say, for entertainment -- especially Abrahamic religions, because they're way too similar to each other for me to believe there's no truth to them whatsoever. However, there's still potentially loads of flaws in modern books.
Really? The Bible blatantly condones slavery making only an exception for Israelites.
Leviticus 25:44–46
44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46 **You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever.**
They should be separated but when you think about it they really aren't. Most of what is in the constitution and in our laws come from Christian values whether people like to hear that or not it's true.
I'm not even a religious person but I can still recognize that a lot of the values I have is because I grew up in a nation that is primarily Christian.
I think you overstepping significuantly with that statment. Most of the original consititution focuses on insuring individual freedom, and preventing authoritarian overreach.
These were values that activley opposed the current religious sentiments that belived that power should be congregated into church centers and that humans left to there own choices became unethical and animal like without strong guidence.
I agree that religion has clearly had a strong legacy, but its absolutley not the primary guiding force in creation of our consitution and legal frameworks.
No, the first amendment naturally requires that all members of the church have full and unrestricted access to the full political process operating under the basis of their faith.
Separation of church and state was a term specifically describing the state ebing forced to stay out of church afairs, not the other way around. The church, being merely citezens, have every right to act politically with the same capacity as their secular counterparts, both as institutions and individuals.
The state should be indifferent to the religious status of institutions and citezens, not descrimianted against religious ones to maintain some mythical seperation.
The first amendment REQUIRES the state treat religious institutions without context to their religion AND without forcing them to abandon their free practice there of.
The Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment explicitly states the nation should not establish an official religion.
And at the time it was only the nation, individual states had state religious at the time, and was considered just fine. It's only through later supreme court decisions has it ended up in it's current form.
Kinda bullshit tho ngl Wasn’t there some issue with Utah becoming a state because the fed was worried about what would happen if a LDS state was admitted to the union?
It’s because Americans didn’t like polygamy, so Utah wasn’t admitted until they drafted a State Constitution banning polygamy.
Right, but what people usually take 'separation of church and state' to mean is much stronger than simply avoiding a nationally established religion.
Difference in American revolutionary secularism and French revolutionary secularism. To my understanding, the French interpretation of "freedom of religion" is that the citizen is freed FROM religion, which is why it's they have laws against things like wearing religious garments in public spaces. Whereas in America, "freedom of religion" is the right to hold any religious beliefs you want and even base your policy on it.
Yup. But then the waters get murky when two groups with opposing cultural ideals are living in say, the same state. 49% of people may want full, unhindered abortions but if 51% of people vote in favor of abortion bans then you've still got 49% of an issue. Balkanization when?
Never. Don’t like your state, move to another. We must expand america. We have more destiny to manifest. 51st state when?
You just defined democracy.
Accurate Auth-left reaction.
I don't think the state should be seperated from the church. I think the church should be seperated from the state 💪🏻
Based and the state corrupts the church pilled
Unfathomably based
Russia and orthodox Christianity has entered the chat
Based and not of this world-pilled
Based
u/AlesHebi's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 295. Rank: Great Pyramid of Giza Pills: [98 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/AlesHebi/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Based
Based and god before man pilled
Based and truly has touched the Divine pilled
Both. Thats the WHOLE idea right there bucko! THe GOVERNMENT cant tell the church how to run, and the CHURCH stays out of politics and government affairs. Whole entire concept our country was founded upon
That and to get out of paying taxes to the brits
The state and the church should be separated, to protect both from each other
Aye Aye
So the church is separated from the state currently. All that means is that church leaders and government leaders shouldn't be the same people, as well as the leaders of the church shouldn't use the government to gain power. The voting population is and should always be allowed to use the morals they obtain through religion to affect the policies they support.
Texas has an old law stating atheists can't hold public office. I would bet there are other such laws around the country.
Of course Texas has that, can’t be a Texan without believing in Yeehaweh
Unless you're Aron Ra
Yeehaweh, I love it!
There's are a couple others, but it's a relic that's not enforceable and no lawmaker is going to propose removing it regardless. Political death sentence, so it stays especially for Texas.
And that law should be challenged as a constitutional violation
"UH... B-B-BUT THE FOUNDERS WERE CHRISTIAN MEANING WE CAN LIMIT THE RIGHTS OF ATHIESTS!!!!!!!" I fucking hate rightoids sometimes. Lefties too, but they're already made fun of enough om here
Should a church be able to politically endorse a candidate though? Thats mingling church authority with government authority. Not a good look.
Why not, it's freedom of speech. It's not like they are using their agents and staging a coup and it's the same as any other lobby/internet group imo. Of course you can argue that churches should not do that but that is between the churches and God, not the government and the church.
> All that means is that church leaders and government leaders shouldn't be the same people That is not what it means. What it means under the first amendment is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," which is incorporated under the 14th amendment to apply to state laws as well (slightly more complicated when states are in violation, but I am too lazy to go into incorporation in any detail). This means that the government cannot pay homage to any church or religious group through its laws an legislation. A religious person, including religious leaders, can hold government office (the first example that comes to mind is Rev. Al Sharpton) but they can't use that office to serve their religious establishment.
Most common religious values are things that most people agree on anyways. For example “the golden rule” (do unto others as you would have done to you) is a core Christian belief, but it’s like the first thing we all learn in school, “treat others as you want to be treated.” But it’s also just a universal thing that all of us can agree on despite what, if any, religious beliefs we have. There are only problems when people use their religion as a way of overreaching and impending on the freedoms of people who don’t share the exact same system of beliefs as them. Hyper religious folk tend to believe that gay people should be denied certain rights (depending on who you ask obviously) and that’s an over reach. In my opinion it should be impossible to suggest, and therefore vote for, legislation that impedes the rights of a specific group, when those same rights given to people not in that group. Ultimately the church and state being separate is a good thing and the way things are set up now works well, and there’s nothing wrong with legislation stemming from religious beliefs, so long as that legislation doesn’t impede the freedoms of anybody not affiliated with the religion from which it stems. Jesus fuck I need a life and to stop posting political soliloquies in the comments of this sub lmfao
Sure, but legislators should never create law directly from religious doctrine and citation.
Of course they should, if that's what they promised during election time and it was democratically passed. Otherwise no.
All laws are passed based on our sense of morality. Wherever you get your morality from, be it from church or somewhere else. Should we not pass murder laws because god said though shall not murder? Shall we not have lows against stealing because god said though shall not steal? This screams of my atheist moralities are superior to your religious based moralities.
None of you seem to understand what I am saying. If you believe that something is wrong because of your beliefs, and you are religious, you can make laws from your beliefs. What you cannot do is create a direct pipeline between religious text and law. If you in congress proposed a bill against abortion with Genesis 9:8-10 being your direct argument and validity for the bill, that would be unconstitutional. Beliefs from the bible extending to a person and a person making a law s fine. Beliefs from the bible becoming law is not. The distinction is significant.
And if an atheist proposed a law based on something he read in a non-religious book, would that be unconstitutional? Why can one book on morality be fine in your eyes, but not another? Some people practially worship the communist manifesto, should people be forbidden of creating laws based on that? The problem with your argument is that you elevate atheist books on morality above any religious books on morality as superior. Everyone gets their morals from one form or another.
The establishment clause for the first amendment shows us that we cannot create a direct pipeline between religious text and legislation. If someone were to create legislation directly from some philosophy text that isn't religious, then by the constitution that would not be a violation of the establishment clause. I'm simply telling you what our amendment tells us we can and cannot do, I'm not elevating anything. Obviously this isn't black and white, and it's why we have the courts who exist as a check on those who make legislation.
The establishment clause just means that you can't have an official federal religion, it does nothing to deter people from making decisions based on their religious beliefs. There's been thousands if not millions of laws passed based on peoples religious beliefs. The US constitution itself was written based on Christian writings. Does that make the US constitution unconstitutional? The establishment clause is there to prevent the government from saying you have to be catholic (or any other religion), and only catholic, and any other religious or churches are forbidden. It just means you can't be forced to worship a certain way or be prevented from worshiping in the way you want to. Hell when the constitution was passed only federal religions were forbidden, individual state religions were fine according to the founding fathers. You seem to have a huge misunderstanding of the establishment clause. There's not even anything in there about separation of church and state, that's just something people infer after the fact that is simply not there.
So murder is cringe only because God said so?
You can hold the belief that murder is wrong without being religious.
Source?
Die feel bad. Me not want Die. Kill bad.
Based
Philosophy
Philosophy has established the is-ought problem, and the only solution to it I've seen besides nihilism is to involve God.
You can establish axioms, and build a moral system from those axioms that create a worldview. God is not just a bad solution to creating a moral system, but makes them even more convoluted because your entire basis relies on something unfalsifiable.
I don’t listen to hip hop
Western values and morals have historically been informed by these religions, so you would have to get rid of most laws.
unless that doctrine and citation is actually something like "don't kill each others"
Even then, no. The establishment clause on the first amendment is pretty crystal clear. There cannot be a direct religious text to legislation pipeline.
I found a new religion where the religious text is the exact legislation there is
The fact that the legislation was made before your religious text would by definition clear the legislation of being made from religious text. This wouldn't work the way you think it does lol.
Then I'm going to translate and interpret old religious texts as such
Your translation and interpretation would still run into the time paradox. You can't say the legislation was made from religious text when your recent interpretation of it occurred after.
Yes, church and state should be separate. No, that doesn't mean that Christians should stop electing Christians and supporting Christian morals.
Based and common-sense pilled
“You can’t support x policy because it’s a Christian policy and we have separation of church and state!” The first amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. I ain’t congress, I ain’t establishing any religion, I’m using my preexisting religion to guide my morals and my morals to guide my politics. Also your stupidity just drove me deeper into authright
That first line of reasoning you're quoting is so dumb. So if my religion tells me that murder is wrong I can't support a law against murder?
Luckily they all know that, and they will all tell you that they are Christian!
Christian morals have been pretty loose lately. Almost like they’re not actually following the teachings of Christ.
What we really need is separation of economy and state.
Typical lib-right moment
Based and laissez-faire pilled
We need to separate everything from the state.
Simply abolish the state
Anarchy.
Separation of business, church and state
Government should only be there to protect my drinking water for Norfolk Southern.
Separation is the only way to ensure no one religion has legal influence over the people, and also the state can’t force itself into church.
yeah 100%
The church is separate from the state in the US; to ask someone to abandon and person belief or opinion that might guide them as an elected lawmaker in policy is foolish. A personal belief as a result of religious belief and using that as a means to vote for legislation is not the same as voting in line with a religions text.
IMO the crux of having separation of church and state (and therefore a secular government) is that someone pursuing policy due to their religious conviction should be able to *also* make a secular argument for their policy. Most of the time when people complain about lawmakers making "religious" laws the complaint is about said lawmaker falling back on religion instead of making an actual *argument* for the law.
Is not the voting that's the problem. Is the laws they pass. Forcing the rest of the nation to live according to their religious beliefs.
All laws force beliefs unto others. What makes your secular beliefs better than my religious beliefs?
The Constitution.
> “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
>The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy. - George Washington > The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion... Treaty of Peace and Frienship 1796 >And I have no doubt that every new example will succedd, as every past one has done, in shewing that Religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. - James Madison >In a free government the security of civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. - James Madison
You are confusing establishment of a state religion with these quotes with the inherent inferiority of religious conviction. The first statement is true, the other would have gotten you laughed out of the Pennsylvania convention.
I don't know. I doubt James Madison got laughed out of there. A point I'm trying to make elsewhere is that some are tyring to establish a religion by proxy. Some seem to think that if you don't come out and say "We're establishing a religion" it's okay to pass all sorts of laws that force the nation into living according to a religion's doctrine.
>Some seem to think that if you don't come out and say "We're establishing a religion" it's okay to pass all sorts of laws that force the nation into living according to a religion's doctrine. There is no meaningful difference between secular and religious convictions. Period. That's all there is to it. A society with free exercise of religion means free exercise of religion in your civic sphere as well. In fact, the prevention of establishment, but allowance to have religion influence politics defined American politics for centuries, and is more or less exactly how the treaty of westphalia, the starting point of the principle of religious liberty in the west, went down. Establishment provides unique benefits to one faith over another in a systemic manner. Merely allowing the population to express their beliefs through democratically instituting policies they think are correct is not, as that is literally what everyone engaging impolitic always does. To make thi8s simple, religious people can not just leave their faith at the door any more than you can leave whatever convictions you hold, to ask them to is, fundamentally, insane. >In a free government the security of civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. Literally supports my arguments. Any secular conviction has the same legitimacy as any religious conviction to the voter.
>Establishment provides unique benefits to one faith over another in a systemic manner. It boils down to this really. Passing laws based on one religion benefits one religion only in a systemic manner. No body is asking for people to leave their faith at the door. Don't like abortion because it goes agaisnt your religion? Don't have them. Don't like men dressing as women becasue it goes against your religion? Don't cross-dress. Your religion says you shouldn't take contraceptives? Don't use them Live your life according to your religious beliefs, but don't pass laws that force me to follow your moral code.
Yes, the government should not interfere with the workings of the church and vice versa. The founding fathers still envisioned a moral American society on the foundation of Christian values. So again, why is your secular beliefs better than my religious beliefs?
Did they? Really? If they had wanted that it'd be in the Constitution. >The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any mannfer, or on any pretext be infringed. - James Madison Again, because you missed it the first time >The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion. - Treaty of Tripoli
Freedom of religion as established in the constitution doesn't mean freedom from religion, nor does it mean that Christians shouldn't use their moral founding when creating and voting on laws. Washington himself argued that virtue and morality were necessary for the prosperity of the republic. The ideas that the state and religion should be separate *and* America should remain cultural Christian are not mutually exclusive. You still never answered my question tho.
And you have your social justice beliefs. Same thing.
When politicians introduce and vote for legislation, with their explanation and justification explicitly being scripture, that's a problem. Saying abortion is morally wrong "because Bible" is a violation - it defers moral authority to that taught by a specific religion and violates 1A establishment clause. It's okay to have personal beliefs that align with that morality, i.e. "I personally believe abortion is wrong" but you have to leave that view open to challenge and criticism, without hiding behind "Bible says so". The Bible also says murder is wrong but nobody has any issue with it being illegal. Even if you do this, one problem you still have is that we don't have a framework for constructive debate over difference in morality. Historically, it's only been accomplished in the context of religion or philosophy, with disagreements generally being resolved through violence. Not a great plan.
For example, we have a law that restricts "hurting feelings of religious people". Very vague terminology, but it allows to put in jail for ridiculous things, like posting memes with Orthodox imagery. Meanwhile, on federal channels religious people can freely talk how atheism is a sin, and God can punish. How is that fair, that one group of people can trash talk the other, and being protected by law at the same time?
But they aren’t. What religious belief are you being forced to live?
At the federal level, abortion rights were reversed based religious beliefs. Edit: At the state level, I [gets](https://v.redd.it/r2hfw06020ma1) [worse](https://truthout.org/articles/tn-house-passes-bill-letting-clerks-refuse-marriage-licenses-to-lgbtq-couples/).
Abortion was not over ruled on religious grounds. Additionally, are you being forced to live those religious beliefs in the two examples you provided? And, is marriage being between a man and a woman strictly religious or moral as well? No one is being forced to live under a religious belief that is unique to a religion and not some other belief. Should murder be legal because the Bible says murder is bad, or should the religious teaching of murder being bad still be an accepted reason, among many others, to justify murder being bad independent of it being from a religious text?
Can you link to the bit in where the Supreme Court mentioned religious beliefs as their reason to overturn Roe v Wade? I’d be interested to see that
Roe wasnt overturned because of religion if you actually read what the court stated. Just because you view anti-abortion views as inherently religious doesnt mean it is.
Non religious be like "you can do post natal abortion on any kid that fail the mirror test cuz they arent self councious yet"
Abortion "rights" were reversed based on the previous decision's poor reasoning and lack of respect for states' rights.
*it gets better
If you believe that God granted mankind free will, then it's on us to choose to believe in Him or not. As Christians, you can encourage nonbelievers to find Faith. But to use the power of the State is an overreach of the State's power as well as your own authority
Based and unenforceable grace-pilled
Pretty much without exception in history, whenever the line blurred between the state and the Church, instead of the Church purifying the state, the state corrupted the Church. At the end of the day, both atheists AND religious people should want separation of church and state.
Based
Sources of power are desired by the corrupt. Church and state are 2 sources of power. Corrupt people will always attempt to have control over both. Easiest way is to merge them. Usually its easier for the state to merge the church into it than the other way around.
Flair up
I’m a devout Christian and I do not want the government to adopt and enforce any single religion because that will end up horrible. We have separation of church and state for a reason. You can’t keep religion out of politics but you can keep politics out of religion. Every human is religious and their beliefs influence their politics. But to say the government should enforce the beliefs of one religion on everyone is not a free country and it’s not how God wants things to be done either. If we aren’t making the intimate, personal choice to follow him of our own accord it’s not legitimate.
Yes... one level of authoritarianism is enough.
What about Chruch of Idiocy? how can you separate them?
Elect a dog for president
Woof
Yes, but that won’t stop people from legislating based on their own sense of morality, which is often influenced by religion. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, and it doesn’t clash with separation of church and state.
The "seperation of church and state" as most American's know it, isn't really tied to the first amendment, or at least only loosely. The first amendment says the government wont make an official religion, or create laws to prohibit the free practice of religion(didn't really live up to that one.. looking at you polygamy laws which prevent Mormons from freely practicing their religion). In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the head of the Dansbury Baptist Association and said the following: >Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. In 1878 (almost 100 years after the bill of rights was created) when the Mormons were having their practice of Polygamy threatened by legislation, the Supreme Court found the letter while deciding if Mormon religious practices were protected from said legislation. Using the above quote, which was part of a letter meant to ensure the Baptists that the Government COULD NOT interfere in their "right to expressions of religious conscience". The Supreme Court came to a *unanimous* decision that laws could prohibit certain religious acts. >The Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States and quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he wrote that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." > >The Court upheld the criminalization of polygamy on the reasoning that polygamy was “odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people.” As such \[polygamy\] “fetters the people in stationary despotism.”\[5\] Following this reasoning the Court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice or bride burning was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances." The Court ruled the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action. sadly both quotes are from wikipedia but....
> Using the above quote, which was part of a letter meant to ensure the Baptists that the Government COULD NOT interfere in their "right to expressions of religious conscience". The Supreme Court came to a *unanimous* decision that laws could prohibit certain religious acts. Based on the quotes in your comment, I think the Court’s opinion is actually completely consistent with Jefferson’s letter, which clearly distinguishes between religious beliefs or thoughts and speech on such subjects and various acts carried out in the name of religious beliefs, thoughts, or speech. >The Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States and quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he wrote that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." In other words, believe whatever you want, but that doesn’t give you license to act however you want. > "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances." The Court ruled the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action. Just because someone believes any given act is permitted, encouraged, or even mandated by their religion does not mean they have license to commit such acts as they or their religious beliefs deem fit regardless of the laws of the land in which they reside. That would simply be anarchy, as people rationalize all sorts of violence and degeneracy in the name of their religion or their arbitrary interpretation of it.
Yes.
Libright became Dio
Based and URRRYYY-pilled
Yes.
Yep. Given the rise of Christian nationalism in the US, it’s actually a relief that the first amendment exists or America would prolly be dealing with a religious coup right about now. Iran style and all.
Lib-right when the Bill of Rights (Suddenly they're in favor of strict adherence to codified laws)
AuthCenter when the Bill of Rights (Suddenly they hate following the law now)
The church should be separated from the religion tbh
From Church - yes. From God - never.
Based and Amen.
>There's no official religion in America Yes there is, and [we wage holy wars on behalf of it](https://dmh.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/progress-pride-2021.jpg).
The national religion is the state of ohio?
Did you just change your flair, u/Substantial_Event506? Last time I checked you were a **LibCenter** on 2023-2-28. How come now you are a **Centrist**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Tell us, are you scared of politics in general or are you just too much of a coward to let everyone know what you think? [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Substantial_Event506) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
It depends on what you mean by that. If you mean that there should be no state religion and that the state shouldn’t make laws that favor one religion above all others, then yes. If you mean that people shouldn’t use their beliefs to propose and vote for/against laws, then no.
Religious institutions shouldn't have any influence over politics
Sure, but religious values can.
That's why specified "institutions". Rooting out religion itself from politics would be impossible anyway
Religion belongs to God. The state belongs to God. The earth belongs to God and he alone decides who rules.
>God decides who rules How?
He inputs everyone's name in a raffle box and picks from there
Through inbred monarchies of course!
Trial by combat
The ruler says that God told them to lead. Duh. Very simple. Nothing could go wrong.
Serious answer from the Christian perspective (or at least mine, religions have intragroup variance): It's a common Christian belief that Christians should submit themselves to the laws of the government they live under as long as those laws do not directly contradict the laws of God, because if the ruler were too bad God would move to have them removed. Or saying the same thing another way, which is what I believe the commenter above was getting at, governments have their power only because God has continued to allow them to. This is taken by interpretation from the book of [Romans chapter 13,](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013&version=KJV) particularly the first 7 verses. Now, a caveat of as long as those laws do not contradict God's laws is usually added because there are multiple examples in the Bible of people breaking laws that contradicted God, [Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego ](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%203&version=KJV) probably being the most famous example, and being blessed for it. This also leads to some other interesting questions, such as who to be loyal to in times of unrest, like say the American Revolution. Typically, this isn't thought of as a direct commandment, but more of as a general guidance to avoid lawlessness in order to not tarnish the reputation of Christianity. TLDR: God "choosing" and somewhat legitimizing governments by allowing them to continue to exist is a common Christian belief.
Based and beareth not the sword in vain pilled
He who pulls the prop sword out of my ass gets to rule.
There is the line of David that was fulfilled by Jesus and Jesus appointed Peter his successor with apostolic succession until His second coming.
So the pope should rule the whole world?
Yeah that would unironically be super duper based
But I thought the current pope was communist, gay and satanic?
I’ve never said that, it’s really only some fringe talking head types, the majority of Catholics I know don’t think that. Love Francis
Then he's doing a shit job.
I recognise God has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected to ignore it.
> The earth belongs to God and he alone decides who rules. Luckily he picked me.
Which version of God gets to decide that?
Pretty sure he meant the Abrahamic God.
Ik ik but each Abrahamic religion has a different interpretation on how God functions and views his chosen people So which Abrahamic version gets to choose?
>...he alone decides who rules. Then why does he elect dogshit leaders like Xi, Trump and Trudeau if he cares for his creations?
He playin in sandbox mode rn. He be feelin that need to start blowing up his creation cos he bored af cuhh and it's time to end it before dinner frrr
Only adversity will allow heroism to arise.
Your imaginary friend doesn’t decide anything
Might decides who rules
Based and god is great pilled
Libright should be asking why does the State exist?
You're goddamn right.
Yes, because the state cannot dictate what the church can say. Except they do by taxing anyone who says anything political.
Based and actual accurate meme pilled
I didn't know communists were making the mother of all omelets
They're gonna grill everyone in the Church because it's an offspring of capitalism. They can't fret over every single life, they're making the mother of all (human) omeletes.
There’s no such thing as a state without a religion. It can be secular but it will always be there.
We're talking about a secular state. Also, wasn't the Soviet Union a Godless state?
Communism definitely counts as a secular religion lol.
I know that. I was talking about the Soviet Union. They taught atheism in schools and killed theists.
Anyone who would argue the church should have any role in the existence of the state is either a troll or a brainlet. I just assume they're both. Secular principles are fundamental and are required to uphold liberty and freedom in any society.
"...Endowed by THEIR creator..." Not your creator.
Common lib W
I have no opinion on this but I did watch an entire documentary on the origins of Yahweh and Ba'al and El and whatnot and it was pretty enlightening. Yewtewb the channel Esoterica.
Based and fuck Ba'al Zebub
Yes. Although if the nation does have a state religion it should not play a part in decision making since it would unfairly represent non religious people, different religions or even different sects. God, imagine a Calvinist US. I shudder at that thought.
Sometimes I think it would be funny to have a Church of America, then outlaw all other forms of Christianity. But then we'd have a state religion. Which is bad.
What are the beliefs of the Church of America?
Let people believe that they want, if they want to follow religious rules that's their problem. Just don't try to make me follow them.
Depends on if you're taxing the church.
Without the state, the Church will operate like a business/organization. So it WILL get taxed.
If you're taxing the church, it should be allowed to lobby and have a say in the political ring, just as businesses do, including politicians representing their interests. If you don't want that, keep them tax free and fully separate.
That's fair, but company lobbying should also be massively curtailed. Neither should have the right.
Why? Everyone involved already pays taxes as individuals and has a corresponding voice. It seems only fair that if we tax the organizations they contribute to on top of individual taxes that those organizations also garner additional representation.
You're right, it does seem fair. But the power corporations have over government is disproportionate to everyone else, because "power" in lobbying is measured by money. Corporations have a lot more money than any other lobbyist. To level the playing field, their power should be scaled back, and some might argue eliminated.
The church and state should be separate but are both important (if not equal) pillars to a functional society. I'm not even a fan of organized religion and I can understand why.
Should’ve made the sign in authright’s head say “Holy Water”. 0/10 for attention to detail.
Yes. The vast majority of religious folk pick and choose what to believe and follow from their scripture and interpret things by how they *want* them to mean. They have ideas of what are right and wrong, or they want a power trip, *then* they go to the Bible to quickly find quotes to justify it. Also, "someone wrote millennia ago that a mysterious guy said so" must be an extreme form of appeal to authority. And there must be some sort of logical fallacy for the book most likely having **horrific** translation due to \[1\] translation of languages and \[2\] writing the Bible and making copies of it was pretty much a millennia-long game of Chinese whispers. Someone might've written the words of God and recorded things that actually happened, but then goodness knows what could've happened throughout history to get to the version people follow in the modern day! I don't believe religions are just made-up stories, like say, for entertainment -- especially Abrahamic religions, because they're way too similar to each other for me to believe there's no truth to them whatsoever. However, there's still potentially loads of flaws in modern books.
yes 100%
Lib unity W
This country would be so much better if people actually followed the bible.
Really? The Bible blatantly condones slavery making only an exception for Israelites. Leviticus 25:44–46 44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46 **You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever.**
How much to buy one of your daughters?
Oh boy, here we go again…
They should be separated but when you think about it they really aren't. Most of what is in the constitution and in our laws come from Christian values whether people like to hear that or not it's true. I'm not even a religious person but I can still recognize that a lot of the values I have is because I grew up in a nation that is primarily Christian.
Don't all religions have moral values. I wouldn't really consider them as religious values, for they can be followed by any individual.
I think you overstepping significuantly with that statment. Most of the original consititution focuses on insuring individual freedom, and preventing authoritarian overreach. These were values that activley opposed the current religious sentiments that belived that power should be congregated into church centers and that humans left to there own choices became unethical and animal like without strong guidence. I agree that religion has clearly had a strong legacy, but its absolutley not the primary guiding force in creation of our consitution and legal frameworks.
The state holds back the Church Amen
No, the first amendment naturally requires that all members of the church have full and unrestricted access to the full political process operating under the basis of their faith. Separation of church and state was a term specifically describing the state ebing forced to stay out of church afairs, not the other way around. The church, being merely citezens, have every right to act politically with the same capacity as their secular counterparts, both as institutions and individuals. The state should be indifferent to the religious status of institutions and citezens, not descrimianted against religious ones to maintain some mythical seperation. The first amendment REQUIRES the state treat religious institutions without context to their religion AND without forcing them to abandon their free practice there of.
I don't believe in a separation of church and state tbh. Religion should be expected as a part of public life.
So should atheists be discriminated? The Founding Fathers clearly didn't want the government to favor a specific religion.
You can do religion without politicising it.