Mittens say separation of church and state goes too far

Democrats would dearly like religion to be a litmus test for political office. No one could serve in office unless they first renounced their religion and took an oath that there is no God.
 
The Supreme Court and US tradition have long upheld so-called "Ceremonial Deism," and the First Ammendment protects the rights even of government officials in religious statements as long as they do not reach the level of support for any particular religious doctrine.

Separation of Church and State does not mean the President can't say "God Bless America," though there is a small minority who would want that prohibited.

Most of us who support separation also recognize that not all references to religion or religious belief are harmful.
 
Romney is starting to show his religious roots. Scary shit...

Yes I know he wants to force you to worship GOD. Next he will force you to prey. He just needs first to build a big government that has to power to force. Kind of hard since it contradicts his parties views of small government.
 
The 1st amendment does apply to all religions, as no specific one is mentioned....

But, as stated, there is no 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution

I know it is funny how “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” became a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
 
The 1st amendment does apply to all religions, as no specific one is mentioned....

But, as stated, there is no 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution

I know it is funny how “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” became a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Examples of this? Free Exercise does not mean "right to captive audience" nor does it mean the right to use the government to support your free exercise. And Free Exercise is an individual right, not a right of the government or its employees acting under color of office.
 
Actually free exercise DOES mean that elected officials are not required to check their religion at the office door.

If you don't like politicians having a religion, you are free to vote against them.
 
Actually free exercise DOES mean that elected officials are not required to check their religion at the office door.

If you don't like politicians having a religion, you are free to vote against them.

Exactly, it just means they cannot pass laws that require others to follow a certain religon, favors a specifc religon, or makes you pay money to a specifc or any religon.
 
The 1st amendment does apply to all religions, as no specific one is mentioned....

But, as stated, there is no 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution

I know it is funny how “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” became a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Examples of this? Free Exercise does not mean "right to captive audience" nor does it mean the right to use the government to support your free exercise. And Free Exercise is an individual right, not a right of the government or its employees acting under color of office.

The cross in San Diego comes to mind. They have even tried to sell the land ( just under the statue) to a private group and let them maintain it, but the asshole running the lawsuit will not be happy until it is torn down.
 
Too far? There is no such thing as "too far" when the key word in the phrase "Separation of the church and state" is "Separation". To separate is to take apart, no compromises, no church and stare every here and there, no exceptions.

Mitt is crying like a little bitch because of the separation of the church and state exists in some places. There is no such thing as moderation for something so simple.

Actually, the separation of church and state meant something entirely different than it does today.
true story
 

Forum List

Back
Top