'No Separation Of Church And State': Trump's Religious Liberty Commission Reveals Its Priorities

[sparky]

The Framers understood the dangers of conjoining church and state and wisely amended the Constitution to prevent it.

.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Unfortunately the end result is freedom OF religion does not equate to freedom FROM it.....


AI Overview



This text constitutes the opening clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1791. It establishes two core principles: the Establishment Clause forbids the government from creating an official state religion or favoring one religion over another, while the Free Exercise Clause guarantees individuals the right to practice their faith without government interference. [1, 2, 3]
Key aspects of this constitutional provision include:

• Separation of Church and State: Often referred to by this phrase, it prevents the government from endorsing, funding, or favoring religious institutions.
• Protection of Belief and Practice: While religious beliefs are absolute, the freedom to act on them can be regulated in limited circumstances, such as when practices threaten public safety or violate criminal laws.
• Scope: It applies to all religions and protects non-believers, ensuring the government does not favor religion over non-religion, or vice versa.
• Application: Adopted as part of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, it officially prevents Congress from infringing upon these religious liberties. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

 

[Superbadbrutha]

I've answered, repeatedly.....and shown, every time it's your projecting

Why do you want a old rich white guy in office over a strong black woman? Nevermind we know the answer.

Uh no you haven't, you have ran repeatedly. I'll ask for the last time.

If Republicans had not racially gerrymandered that majority black district would a black Republican be elected to that district? Simple question.

Why is there only ONE black Republican senator?

Why is there only 3 black Republican Congressmen?

Let's see if your coward ass is woman enough to answer. I know you won't, because it will expose this racist Republican party for what it is

 

[braalian]

There never was a separation of church and state.

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

 

[markef]

Uh no you haven't, you have ran repeatedly. I'll ask for the last time.

If Republicans had not racially gerrymandered that majority black district would a black Republican be elected to that district? Simple question.

Why is there only ONE black Republican senator?

Why is there only 3 black Republican Congressmen?

Let's see if your coward ass is woman enough to answer. I know you won't, because it will expose this racist Republican party for what it is

Republicans have elected many blacks from Republican districts.

 

[Moonglow]

There never was a separation of church and state.

Then where is our national church?

 

[struth]

Uh no you haven't, you have ran repeatedly. I'll ask for the last time.

If Republicans had not racially gerrymandered that majority black district would a black Republican be elected to that district? Simple question.

Why is there only ONE black Republican senator?

Why is there only 3 black Republican Congressmen?

Let's see if your coward ass is woman enough to answer. I know you won't, because it will expose this racist Republican party for what it is

Yes daily now we have gone through this

Because only one was elected

Because only three have been elected…more are expected now that your racial gerrymandering has ended

 

[80zephyr]

Sure has been. The Constitution does not establish a church, and it prevents religious oaths.

Tax money to organized religion disenfranchises non-believers, thus validating no taxation without representation.

That does not imply separation like the left believes it to be.

 

[markef]

Then where is our national church?

The absence of a state church proves Congress has never enacted rules restricting the free exercise of religion in public places, or established a state religion like Secular Humanism which does believe in restricting the free exercise of the Christian religion in public.

 

[Moonglow]

Republicans have elected many blacks from Republican districts.

As of May 2026, the Republican Party is experiencing a decline in Black congressional representation following a record high, with the number of Black Republicans in Congress expected to drop to one from a high of five after the 2022 midterms. While recent electoral cycles featured a growing number of Black U.S. Representatives in both parties, the current landscape is marked by significant Republican efforts to redraw district maps, which may eliminate several majority-Black districts, particularly in the South. [1, 2, 3]

 

[Moonglow]

The absence of a state church proves Congress has never enacted rules restricting the free exercise of religion in public places, or established a state religion like Secular Humanism which does believe in restricting the free exercise of the Christian religion in public.

If you include one religion, you must include all religions.
In case you missed it, this is a nation of equals.

 

[80zephyr]

Then where is our national church?

It appears you have no idea what a church/state separation is.

 

[DGS49]

The more interesting point of note in this discussion is the evolution of what is "OK" in public life. The Founders started each session with a prayer, usually led by someone who was a minister of one religion or another. None of them considered that prayer to contradict the First Amendment. Now prayer in public places is considered verboten (except in Congress, which is ironic in the extreme). The First Amendment says nothing about separation of Church and State. It merely says that the U.S, unlike most European countries of the time, would not have a state-sanctioned religion (e..g.,Church of England, Lutheranism, Catholicism).

We had anti-pornography laws for 200 years in this country before the ACLU figured out that pornography was protected by the First Amendment. Now it is an accepted fact that censorship violates the First Amendment. But it doesn't.

For at least the first 150 years under our Constitution, it was understood that Congress lacked the Constitutional "power" to spend taxpayer money to benefit any individual person. Indeed, President Cleveland vetoed a bill that would have given money for drought relief to Midwest farmers, because Congress lacked the power to do it. Congress didn't even try to override the veto because he was right. The Constitution has not changed, and yet most "discretionary" spending now goes directly to benefit individual citizens. Which is unconstitutional.

I understand that the Left wants to change America. That's fine. But there is an inherent obligation to make those changes in a Constitutional manner, by passing new laws and in fact a Constitutional Amendment giving Congress more and different powers than they have under the current Constitution. But the Left doesn't want to go through that bother, and the Media lets them get away with it. The reason why they don't want to bother with doing it Constitutionally is because their initiatives lack the level of popular support to get those initiatives done in the Constitutional way.

The Left is, therefore, evil.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Republicans have elected many blacks from Republican districts.

ONE black senator and 3 black Congressmen. That's what you call many.

 

[80zephyr]

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Absolutely correct. That does not mean that religion cannot be practiced. Should Catholics be allowed to pray in a public school?

 

[pknopp]

The more interesting point of note in this discussion is the evolution of what is "OK" in public life. The Founders started each session with a prayer, usually led by someone who was a minister of one religion or another. None of them considered that prayer to contradict the First Amendment. Now prayer in public places is considered verboten (except in Congress, which is ironic in the extreme). The First Amendment says nothing about separation of Church and State. It merely says that the U.S, unlike most European countries of the time, would not have a state-sanctioned religion (e..g.,Church of England, Lutheranism, Catholicism).

We had anti-pornography laws for 200 years in this country before the ACLU figured out that pornography was protected by the First Amendment. Now it is an accepted fact that censorship violates the First Amendment. But it doesn't.

For at least the first 150 years under our Constitution, it was understood that Congress lacked the Constitutional "power" to spend taxpayer money to benefit any individual person. Indeed, President Cleveland vetoed a bill that would have given money for drought relief to Midwest farmers, because Congress lacked the power to do it. Congress didn't even try to override the veto because he was right. The Constitution has not changed, and yet most "discretionary" spending now goes directly to benefit individual citizens. Which is unconstitutional.

I understand that the Left wants to change America. That's fine. But there is an inherent obligation to make those changes in a Constitutional manner, by passing new laws and in fact a Constitutional Amendment giving Congress more and different powers than they have under the current Constitution. But the Left doesn't want to go through that bother, and the Media lets them get away with it. The reason why they don't want to bother with doing it Constitutionally is because their initiatives lack the level of popular support to get those initiatives done in the Constitutional way.

The Left is, therefore, evil.

Wisconsin farmers who backed Trump stand to gain welfare-style handouts thanks to his failed tariff war | Milwaukee Independent

 

[rightwinger]

They oppose a separation of church and state until someone forces another religion on their children

 

[jacksonlamb]

That does not imply separation like the left believes it to be.

Sure it does.

But let's tax religious organizations and put them on a footing with all other businesses trying to get government services and assistance.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Pro-life folks are often pro-gun. How that works is indeed a mystery.

only for the socially educated

 

[Moonglow]

It appears you have no idea what a church/state separation is.

The Founders did not want a national church and the president as its head. That is what they left behind in England.

The more interesting point of note in this discussion is the evolution of what is "OK" in public life. The Founders started each session with a prayer, usually led by someone who was a minister of one religion or another. None of them considered that prayer to contradict the First Amendment. Now prayer in public places is considered verboten (except in Congress, which is ironic in the extreme). The First Amendment says nothing about separation of Church and State. It merely says that the U.S, unlike most European countries of the time, would not have a state-sanctioned religion (e..g.,Church of England, Lutheranism, Catholicism).

We had anti-pornography laws for 200 years in this country before the ACLU figured out that pornography was protected by the First Amendment. Now it is an accepted fact that censorship violates the First Amendment. But it doesn't.

For at least the first 150 years under our Constitution, it was understood that Congress lacked the Constitutional "power" to spend taxpayer money to benefit any individual person. Indeed, President Cleveland vetoed a bill that would have given money for drought relief to Midwest farmers, because Congress lacked the power to do it. Congress didn't even try to override the veto because he was right. The Constitution has not changed, and yet most "discretionary" spending now goes directly to benefit individual citizens. Which is unconstitutional.

I understand that the Left wants to change America. That's fine. But there is an inherent obligation to make those changes in a Constitutional manner, by passing new laws and in fact a Constitutional Amendment giving Congress more and different powers than they have under the current Constitution. But the Left doesn't want to go through that bother, and the Media lets them get away with it. The reason why they don't want to bother with doing it Constitutionally is because their initiatives lack the level of popular support to get those initiatives done in the Constitutional way.

The Left is, therefore, evil.

The Left is not in power; this OP and thread are about Trump wanting no separation of church and state. Yer eschewed view is confused since it is the right that wants to change without the proper resolution or Constitutional authority, which is why Trump loses so many cases.

 

[pknopp]

Sure it does.

But let's tax religious organizations and put them on a footing with all other businesses trying to get government services and assistance.

There is nothing to tax. Any other business making no profit aren't taxed either.