“Speaker Johnson: Separation of Church and State is a misnomer”

“Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) pushed back Tuesday on the belief that there should be separation between church and state on the U.S., arguing that the founding fathers wanted faith to be a “big part” of government. Separation of church and state … is a misnomer. People misunderstand it,” Johnson said”

“Johnson argued that “faith, our deep religious heritage and tradition is a big part of what it means to be an American” in his comments Tuesday. He further argued that “morality” must be kept among Americans “so that we have accountability.”

“He is not the only member of Congress who has who has suggested that faith should influence the government. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) faced backlash last year after she said she believes “the church is supposed to direct the government.”

“I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk — that’s not in the Constitution,” Boebert said at the Cornerstone Christian Center in Basalt, Colo. “It was in a stinking letter and it means nothing like they say it does.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...te-a-misnomer/

Interesting since the Founders were largely Deists, were aware of how religious conflicts burdened Europe for centuries, and seemingly the last thing they would have wanted was planting the seeds of a potential theocracy

So with Johnson’s thought in mind, what happens if Christianity isn’t the dominate religion in the country? Can the Government be used to enforce one religions moral values? Does this mean the Establishment Clause is antiquated?

 

He's right. There's nothing in the Constitution that's says anything about "separation of church and state".

Is racism immoral?

 

Nothing in the Constitution that says Air Force, Executive Orders, Selective Service, Child Labor, Women Suffrage, etc, but they all are part of the country/government today.

Interpreting the Constitution literally, strict constructionist, was antiquated even before the ink was dry, Jefferson himself admitted it wasn’t intended as such

And you didn’t address the questions, what happens if Christianity isn’t the dominate religion in the country? Can the Government be used to enforce one religions moral values? Does this mean the Establishment Clause is antiquated?

 

You cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion

And he is absolutely incorrect just like all the evangelical fascists, the founders vocalized this:

This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.
John Adams

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
Thomas Jefferson

The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason.
Benjamin Franklin

The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.
Abraham Lincoln

 

Those were all created via legislation. That's why the Founders created the Legislative Branch, to pass those types of legislation.

What the Constitution doesn't say, is that there is a "separation of church and state".

Is racism immoral?

Could a majority Muslim Congress pas a law legalizing honor killings? Or, killing infidels?

If enough Congress critters voted to make human sacrifices legal, could that be done?

 

Is murder immoral?
Is rape immoral?
Is theft immoral?

Are you sure you want all this "freedom from religion"?

 

He's a religious zealot. That level of zealotry/"righteousness" is directly connected to radicalization and can be dangerous to very freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.

 

Murder infringes on the rights of another
Rape infringes on the rights of another
Theft infringes on the rights of another

Just like flying planes into buildings because of a sky friend infringes on the rights of another. Or saying people cannot sign a civil agreement or trying to say small children must have their rapists baby due to your sky friend infringes on the rights of another

Is the only thing keeping you from going around and killing or raping others is because of your fairytale book?

That’s terrifying

 

Morals are taught. They aren't innate.

Someone taught you morals at some point in your life. How else would you stop yourself from going around killing and raping?

 

Johnson calls for help of the civil power to promote his religion....

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/history_of_the_separation_of_chu.htm

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
- Benjamin Franklin: in letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780"

 

Y'all really hate our freedom of religion. Don't you?...lol

 

is this immoral?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Chronicles+15:13&version=KJV
"
2 Chronicles 15:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.
"

 

sounds like you all do

 

I noticed you didn’t answer the question. Seems to be your mo.

Morals are subjective and when religion interprets what morals are we get people flying into buildings and gassing entire populations.

What does any of this have to do with America not being founded with religious beliefs or the idea that there should be no freedom from the religion of congress critters?

Look, more questions for you to be unable to answer

 

Speaker Johnson got the two clauses wrong, aka freedom of religion. There are two parts, the freedom of exercise, which he professes, and the no establishment clause, which he ignores completely. The letter by the Danbury Anabaptist Church, if you read it entirely, was the fear by the Anabaptists, now Baptists, that government would decide their religion, and in particular, Thomas Jefferson, by denying their way of worship with government interference or that government wiould decide on an "official religion." In those days, it was not "Christianity" but the specific denomination as was the case in Europe. Thus, the two clauses, the right to worship and the no establishment, is the "separation of Church and State" that Thomas Jefferson wrote about and how the court has interpreted such issues on public or government grounds.

Public squares can put Hannakah, the Nativity Scene, or any other religious scene on their grounds with no preferential treatment. That is the whole point of the two clauses. One cannot exist without the other. The moment the government decides to use preferemtial treatment on one religion, it violates the No Establishment Clause, the separation of church and state.

 

No one hates freedom of religion, everyone hates when a religion they don’t believe in is forced on them.

 

The morality party gonna nominate a guy with 3 baby mommas who cheated on every one of them.

 

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a person of faith from advocating for/against things that is a part of or goes against their religion. What the separation of church and state is about is not allowing the government to advocate for/against any one religion.

In other words as a Christian you can advocate against abortion as a member of Congress and even pass laws based on your religious belief. Or if you wish to use another religion as a Muslim you could push for a law that required women to always be accompanied by a male family member. Whether or not either of those gets passed through our legislation is up to Congress and the President (veto power). What they cannot do however is try and pass a law that favors one religion over another. Ex: A Christian cannot get a law passed that would ban Islam or visa versa. An example of that would be lets say a City Hall in some podunk town only handing out license plates with Christian symbolism on it while not allowing symbolism for Islam on it.

 

Not going to get into it, off topic, but if you say they were all legislated so was separation of church and State

Under your understanding, sure, if religion and government aren’t separated, who ever, whatever religion, controls the government calls the shots

 

So atheists, or any non Christians, lack mortality?

 

He explicitly stated that the government should not choose a religion to support.

Everything he said includes religious plurality throughout the USA.

He likes his particular version of Christianity, which is not the majority, and I'm fine with that as long as our government is not being used to promote the beliefs of one particular religion and doesn't accept the beliefs of one religion as the dominant guide of our government.

For example, federal funds must not be used to teach the value of one religion. The majority in America believes abortion should be available, which can not be overturned by using the Bible, Qur'an or other work as evidence. And, the same goes for the sexuality of individuals who don't match the mandates of various religious denominations.

 

Well all the separation of church and state means is that the church isn't the state. There can be no official religion of the country. That being said if the majority of people are Christian it's a nation of Christians. And they're going to vote to an act of laws from a Christian perspective. That's Western society as a whole.

 

religious law - stone people for picking up sticks on the weekend


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+15:32-36&version=KJV
"
Numbers 15:32-36 King James Version (KJV)
32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.
"

 

religious Judges

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
-Judge Leon M. Bazile (January 6, 1959)

 

Do you believe that elected representatives are capable of abandoning their person beliefs, which may include beliefs derived from religion, in execution of their duties?