He Should Be In Politics Again.

Yes, it acknowledges that religion needs to keep it's grimy, controlling, war mongering hands OFF of and OUT of OUR government.

 

Nope.

 

No, it doesn't. All that the Constitution does is prevent the government from favoring a religion or making laws against religion.

 

Actually, the government can and has made laws against religions.

 

In other words, no matter "what religion" it cannot be "favored", which is the same as "cannot have influence". And the same goes for OUR government with regard to religion. Each has to keep their nose out of the others business.
That doesn't mean that an elected reprsentiive has to leave his faith at home, but he can't let his religion, not his religious beliefs, influence our laws in any substantive way. Our laws must be agnostic, not favoring any religion.

 

there's a damned good reason to keep these two things separate. there are thousands of gods out there and if you let one in you have to let them all in, and now you have loads of people fighting over which one said the right thing (that they agree with) and who said the evil thing. now you've just managed to divide people even further for no reason.

religion is like fapping; have fun with it, dress up for it if you like, make a special day or meal or whatever makes you happy just don't try and put anyone else in the mix.

 

if Government adopts religion, the government controls religion, is that really what some want?

 

~ This is in reference to religion in society — not government.

~ Yes — things of this nature need to be handled with diplomacy .

 

In what specific way has god been “taken out of the equation”?

 

Who is it that courts the Christian coalition, depending on its votes to support the Republlican Party? In truth, the only credible claim Republicans have that they endorse the Christian religion is that they are anti-abortion.

In all other ways, Trump embodies all the principles Jesus preaches against. To say otherwise is a corruption of Christianity, and apparently we are due for another Reformation. It has already begun in the January 6 investigations.

Trump's own egocentrism finally proved to be his undoing. Consider God's warning in the second quote to those who embrace and promulgate mendacity.

Daniel 8:25

By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind he shall become great. Without warning he shall destroy many. And he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand.


. . . . The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thes. 2:3-11).

 

But they can make laws that have a basis in their religious beliefs. I've already given examples. Banning abortion, banning cow eating, banning pig eating etc etc. You can question whether or not they should, or not, but that is a different topic to the one we're having at the moment. If you believe that there is systemic racism built into our laws, then understanding what I am saying should be rather simple. Almost ANY topic can be considered political by itself. That doesn't mean that it cannot ALSO be based in something else, such as religion.

 

I believe that was when "cults" were still not considered "religions". IIRC it took a SCOTUS ruling to put "cults" on the same level as "religion".

 

Well, yeah. I think the voters have to realize that's understood. You can't ask a Christian to stop being Christian anymore than you an ask an atheist to get religion, just because they've been elected to represent us. Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but I tried to say that. Of course individual Representatives and Senators are going to bring their baggage with them, but in the end the laws created have to be agnostic and not punitive to any particular religion or religion in general.

 

In the past people openly admitted when their religious beliefs influenced their decision making on laws. Or at the very least would not deny such. Indeed at times it was used as a basis for why a law was/wasn't moral and as such should/shouldn't be voted for/against. That is what the OP is talking about, at least from my perspective. Now a days if a politician dares use it as a basis they are often ridiculed. I've even seen them ridiculed for simply believing in religion. Mike Pence for example was often ridiculed for it.

 

Well... when in doubt about what the Constitution actually says, read the Constitution itself!

First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States - verbatim:

"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."

After reading this, it is clear that there is nothing in the First Amendment about "favoring", or "cannot have influence". And, like I've been telling Liberals all my life, "If you don't like the way the Constitution is written, then CHANGE IT! It's already been amended TWENTY-SEVEN TIMES -- so, 'take your best shot'...."

 

Someone missed that whole "render unto Caesar" lesson from Sunday school. Jesus wanted no role in politics.

 

the Peyote religions is restricted

 

favoring would be respecting, such as making a law to favor God religions over non-God religions, the pledge, our money... unconstitutional

 

Jefferson wanted religion in gov't just not one overbearing state religion.

 

His direct quotes show otherwise but your are entitled to your own opinion based on nothing.

He openly stated he supported “building a wall of separation between church and State.”

 

Yeah, so? Religion was mentioned in The Constitution nonetheless.

 

That wall was a prevention of a state religion.

 

Yes. First amendment. There shall be no establishment of a national religion.

You're placing an overbearing overseeing nature of the federal gov't on religion that wasn't intended by the founders. Founders didn't want to abolish religion in gov't. Founders wanted to prevent a state religion in gov't.

 

Atheist misinformation.

 

OK atheist.