Right Wing Watch, a bunch of discount Media Matters wannabes, thinks that a Christian talking to other Christians in Biblical terms which everyone in the room understands is a tremendous threat to the country.
Naturally, the entire article relies on a strawman argument.
“He’s just using metaphors his in-group understands! What’s the big deal?!”
It’s the fact this his in-group has historically gone out of its way to quite literally demonize the out-groups. A Christian nation, America is not. And while I don’t object to a Christian holding any public office, I object to the religious right’s modern rejection of the Enlightenment principles on which America was actually founded. Being moved by the spirit of god has its place, and that place is not in the halls of Congress.
I’m always concerned when people say god talks to them. Hearing voices is concerning. Now I understand religion will mix with government and I have no issue with that. I do not like when laws are religious in nature such as abortion and I’ll fight those.
Soooo…. We just going to pretend that separation of church and state is still a thing right? Because if we dismiss that, than the 2ndA is fair game.
You do realize that’s a court ruling from much later? The founding fathers never intended a complete separation. Several of the states had state religions until well after the nation was formed. The ruling about the three prongs well over 100 years later.
The founding fathers never intended a complete separation.
Are you stupid?
Rule 3 Violation.
Do yourself a favor and make an argument…as tedious as it may be.
Make an argument with a person that more than likely thinks that the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause are Santa’s origin story and a non-profit cardio fitness program he created to stay fit during the slow months?
Impossible!
I am an atheist, but at least I know the history of our country. Obviously, you didn’t know several states had state religions until the 1800s. Nobody thought it was a conflict.
Your position seems to be you don’t know the history of the country or case law.
You probably didn’t realize the lemon law wasn’t until the 1970’s. Until then it wasn’t even thought of odd that the two mingled. Nor did you realize that in 2022, Kennedy vs Bremeton, Lemon was abandoned.
You just look silly not know the history or caselaw.
Separation of church and state was part of the origin story of America, that states were violating it since- doesn’t unwrite the constitution.
This isn’t about how much you can say to sound like you know what you’re talking about- it’s about the simple fact that separation of church and state was there from the beginning.
No, it really wasn’t. That is a basic history lesson you must have missed. Religion has always been tied heavily to our government.
If it was unconstitutional, as you claim, then you think the founding fathers would have stopped it right away. They didn’t.
The founding fathers were deeply religious men and knew the two would mingle, but they didn’t want a government church like the Episcopalians in England or the Lutherans in Sweden.
Many were only nominally Christian, as Diest was the day’s rage. The phrase separation of church and state is not in the Constitution.
Here is a nice breakdown of the pro/cons of the arguments. It sounds like you have never read the Constitution since you think the phrase is in there.
deleted by creator
The establishment clause does not call for a separation of church and state
Takes less than 10 seconds of googling to find out this is false:
By it, the federal government of the United States and, by later extension, the governments of all U.S. states and U.S. territories, are prohibited from establishing or sponsoring religion
The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation establishing an official religion, and by interpretation making it illegal for the government to promote theocracy or promote a specific religion with taxes. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from preventing the free exercise of religion. While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring one religion over another, it does not prohibit the government’s involvement with religion to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
At least do a basic search on a topic before you misinform others.
deleted by creator
I am not sure why liberals get so confused on this topic. They seem to be wrong about it all the time. They seem to think it’s against the rules if someone mentions religion. Many old rules were overturned recently, which luckily cleared some things up.
Here’s some more language that the Christians in the room should understand: wolf in sheep’s clothing.