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

Are you saying that some are unable to put themselves in another's shoes, so to speak??? Because I agree.

 

The only way government is capable of giving preferential treatment would be through legislation. That is, by passing a law.

Agreed.

It also doesn't mean that government having a nativity scene on public land is a violation.

I agree in the separation of church and state. The freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM it.

I can find many many articles about Christians being denied or complaints from people expecting freedom FROM religion, but I am hard pressed to find examples of Christians being given permission while denying other religions or people.

Are you able to source examples of this?

 

No. I am saying even if they do put themselves in someone elses shoes, that does not erase everything that has thus far contributed to their perspectives and beliefs.

 

Yes, you're right Wild Bill!
In fact, you're always right!
It's what keeps me coming back to this board, I learn so much from a sage such as yourself!


LOL!
You are so wrong you don't even know when you're wrong!
Or maybe you do and part of your shtick is to act ignorant, but I have a feeling you're not as dense as your posts would indicate.
See if you can figure it out, not just make an argument, unless that's all you want to do is argue. If it is the latter, you are a raging success!

 

There certainly needs to be a separation between the 1John 2:6 Christians, and the ANTI-1John 2:6 Christians, such as Donald Trump, and here’s why;

“Whoever claims to abide in him ought to live just like he lived, ought to walk just like he walked, ought to talk just like he talked.”

 

So Jesus cheated at golf too?




Sorry, had to poke a little fun at the situation!

 

Possibly but to see life and life's choice, etc. Through someone else's eyes is critical to any one wanting to or aspiring to serve/ represent others.

 

The first amendment bans the establishment of a national religion and provides for freedom of religion. It does not separate church and state. Mr Johnson is correct.

 

He had to. He had a 22 handicap.

 

Hey! What's wrong with a 22 handicap? I'm offended.................

 

Because they don't care Republicans Democrats are a uniparty

 

OR

There's nothing to find.

Care to tell me what inside information that you are privy to that a Congressional investigation has been unable to unearth?

 

So what does a "non separated church and state" look like?

 

We already found stuff. The media doesn't tell you it's important so therefore you don't think it is.

 

Well it does separate them because the church can't be the state and vice versa.

The first amendment says also that there can be no established religion so that further separates them

 

Johnson's statements ARE ones of the government selecting his own religion as being the only real solution to what he perceives as serious problems with our culture - such as the very existence of people who are LGBTQ, enter into sex marriages, who want personal bodily autonomy for women, etc.

So, he proclaims that "Separation of church and state … is a misnomer."

But, it is NOT a "misnomer" and these elements of our society are supported by a majority of Christians.

People get elected for a number of reasons. Suggesting that Johnson or Boebert!!! are representative of the majority of American on these issues. In fact, today we see the US House Republican majority in a horrible state of inability to come together as a body to address the serous needs of America.

 

It was the PEOPLE who voted for bodily autonomy for women in Ohio - abortion rights.

You can't suggest THAT wasn't a poll.

The point was that NOW we have Republican "representatives" who openly dedicate themselves to OPPOSING the people they "represent".

Representative democracy works when wins and losses at the polls are accepted.

 

AFTER the vote, Republican congressmen in Ohio signed a statement that they would ignore the vote, because no vote by the people or change to their constitution can override the Bible.

That IS an establishment of religion, obviously. In fact, it is a statement that they are ruled by the Bible, NOT THE PEOPLE, or the constitution.

That is a revolutionary statement - a direct assault on our form of government.

 

It is not a misconception at all. We cannot be like Iran should we? Social issues should be solved rationally without the laws influenced by religious dogma. Not every religion believes human child life begins at conception. Jews don't. Muslim don't, some Christians don't, and we should not use Apologetics for that explanation because the Bible says absolutely nothing about abortion.

 

There are other ways than legislation. But legislation is only as good as the court says it can. Another way is through the courts in which the courts can limit domain laws to allow their form of Freedom of Religion. Supreme Court has done this twice, or maybe three times so far.

I am not arguing for Freedom from religion. That is, in and of itself, completely impractical, to say the least. People are not devoid of religion. We use religion to guide us internally. Some places use religion to exert influence. And there are exceptions such as 501c3 religious organizations are exempt from most laws. There was a case in Florida where the religion in question sacrificed animals. Florida, like all states, has aminal cruelty laws, but religious organizations are exempt from this law if that religion, as part of its religious dogma, sacrifices animals. Same can be said with hiring. I never expect any religious organization to be forced to hire somone who does not profess their faith. Education is more complicated, but it can happen where catholic schools, of them, will only accept other Catholics.

My experience, too many people, including Christians, complain a lot when they don't get their way. However, with certain laws, like the one in Indiana, for instance, and the Supreme Court cases on certain businesses, Christians have refused, based on their beliefs, the right to serve gay people because "it is against the Bible." Public Domain laws in which the Christians exercise their beliefs onto others. Of course, you can have a Kim and Kelly wedding with four couples and one couple will be same sex and the others are not. You might want to think about that one. In my view, it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it is showing preferential treatment of Christians of others based on their profession of faith. My religious view is that it is not what God intended, but I won't deny my professional services simply because I am helping a gay couple file their tax return.

 

It is safest to assume they mean what they say and it reflects who they are.

 

Ok. Then vote those reps out.

That's the recourse.

That's how representative government works.

It's really not complicated.

 

Who taught ANIMALS about MORALITY?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6404642/

Morality has been OBSERVED in ALL of those species above thereby DEBUNKING your BOGUS allegation that "morality is innate".

NO religion has a MANDATE on MORALITY!

Morality IS INNATE because the EVIDENCE shows it EXISTS across many DIFFERENT species.

Morality is about EMPATHY and COMPASSION and does NOT need to be LEARNED because for MOST of us it just comes NATURALLY which is the same as saying that morality is INNATE.

 

The Xtofascist controlled GOP is IMPOSING their religious "morality" on WOMEN and the LBGTQ community.

 

what exactly is being imposed on the alphabet community other than saying dudes cannot swim in women's events or run track against ladies?