Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Am I the only one who's guilty of feeling strongly about a clear separation of church and state, while supporting church initiatives to influence the political process?
Are religions thugs?
The establishment clause and the free exercise clause were written to keep the government from meddling in religion. The Founders wanted men and women to worship God according to the dictates of their heart without any government being able to restrict them.
They expected that religious people would be involved in politics. and that religion would be involved as well. But they rightly deduced that since there countless churches, the Churches would act as special interests, and like all special interests compete in the market place of ideas. That no one church or religion would gain dominance because the other Churches had an interest in preventing that. And those of no church would likewise have an interest in preventing it.
Men should be free to exercise their religious beliefs in public. And if that involves public policy, so be it. If you disagree with his public policy, then oppose it and gather together likeminded people to oppose it.
That is the whole point of the Republic.
The gov't cannot make a religion and force you to worship it as they did in ancient Rome, that is all.
We have freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
The gov't cannot make a religion and force you to worship it as they did in ancient Rome, that is all.
We have freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
Am I the only one who's guilty of feeling strongly about a clear separation of church and state, while supporting church initiatives to influence the political process?
Are religions thugs?
The gov't cannot make a religion and force you to worship it as they did in ancient Rome, that is all.
We have freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
You need to read the First Amendment again:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Nowhere does it say anything about the government creating a religion. It was about preventing the United States from becoming a theocracy, like Merry Ole England once was. You can practice your beliefs, you cannot force them on others through legislation.
Complete separation of church and state. I'm not a religious kind of guy, so I don't want to include anything about "God" in the pledge or national anthem. I don't think it equally represents our entire country. Not saying that religions should be banned or anything like that. We've all seen the First Ammendment (I hope) I just don't want it involved in government.
The gov't cannot make a religion and force you to worship it as they did in ancient Rome, that is all.
The gov't cannot make a religion and force you to worship it as they did in ancient Rome, that is all.
We have freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
You need to read the First Amendment again:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Nowhere does it say anything about the government creating a religion. It was about preventing the United States from becoming a theocracy, like Merry Ole England once was. You can practice your beliefs, you cannot force them on others through legislation.
You need to keep reading instead of stopping at the point you that justifies your bigotry.
And to keep religion out of government so that the people of a free country could worship according to the dictates of their conscience.The establishment clause and the free exercise clause were written to keep the government from meddling in religion.
And they insisted that the only way this could be accomplished was to specifically keep religion and the coercive power of government separate.The Founders wanted men and women to worship God according to the dictates of their heart without any government being able to restrict them.
Of course.They expected that religious people would be involved in politics ...
Obviously false. A deliberate falsehood. A patent lie.... and that religion would be involved as well.
I've read that Federalist Paper too, but no. You're putting the cart before the horse. Specifically separating religion from government is what allows the existence of the many churches that would serve as many special interests.But they rightly deduced that since there countless churches, the Churches would act as special interests, and like all special interests compete in the market place of ideas. That no one church or religion would gain dominance because the other Churches had an interest in preventing that. And those of no church would likewise have an interest in preventing it.
But not as government--not as an appurtenance of government.Men should be free to exercise their religious beliefs in public.
Obviously false. A deliberate falsehood. A patent lie.And if that involves public policy, so be it.
A complete and utter misrepresentation of the function of a republic ... which is to protect the rights of the minority from the (religiously inspired) abusive exercise of nationally organized government power by the (religious) majority.If you disagree with his public policy, then oppose it and gather together likeminded people to oppose it.
That is the whole point of the Republic.
You need to read the First Amendment again:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Nowhere does it say anything about the government creating a religion. It was about preventing the United States from becoming a theocracy, like Merry Ole England once was. You can practice your beliefs, you cannot force them on others through legislation.
You need to keep reading instead of stopping at the point you that justifies your bigotry.
What if the government favored Judaism, Buddhism, Hindu, or *gasp* Islam? You wouldn't be so quick to defend your retarded misinterpretation of the First Amendment then, would you? That's the entire point of it you stupid ****, to make sure NO religion is in the government, so all people can be represented equally.
Government certainly can do this ... ancient Rome is one example that this is possible. It's just unconstitutional for it to happen in this country--thanks to the provisions in the 1st Amendment that prohibit the government from making law respecting the establishment of religion.The gov't cannot make a religion and force you to worship it as they did in ancient Rome, that is all.
My freedom of religion means freedom from your religion.We have freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
Government certainly can do this ... ancient Rome is one example that this is possible. It's just unconstitutional for it to happen in this country--thanks to the provisions in the 1st Amendment that prohibit the government from making law respecting the establishment of religion.The gov't cannot make a religion and force you to worship it as they did in ancient Rome, that is all.
My freedom of religion means freedom from your religion.We have freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
There is literally NO SUCH THING as freedom of religion that doesn't include freedom from religion.
I consider the whole "under God" and "In God We Trust" business to be the intellectual and moral equivalent to "We Throw Salt Over Our Shoulders For Good Luck" and "Step On A Crack, You'll Break Your Momma's Back."The original Pledge of Allegiance did not contain the phrase "under god" until 1954. It was pushed by zealots from various religious organizations since 1948.
Only the first verse of the National Anthem is sung, traditionally. The phrase "And this be our motto: "In God is our trust; is in the final verse, which is rarely, if ever sung. I really have no problem with it.
No. Only a bigot--most particularly bigots cut from Abrahamic rock chucking cloth--would insist that it is otherwise.Government certainly can do this ... ancient Rome is one example that this is possible. It's just unconstitutional for it to happen in this country--thanks to the provisions in the 1st Amendment that prohibit the government from making law respecting the establishment of religion.The gov't cannot make a religion and force you to worship it as they did in ancient Rome, that is all.
My freedom of religion means freedom from your religion.We have freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
There is literally NO SUCH THING as freedom of religion that doesn't include freedom from religion.
No it does not, and only a bigot would try to argue it does.