Opinion of the term "Seperation of church and state"

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Great in the context that Jefferson used it, but it's been overextended, with people assuming it means that a person shouldn't be taken seriously if they have a political view informed by their faith.

Having policies or political views that were inspired by one's faith isn't really the problem; the problem is those who wish to impose certain mores on individuals who do not adhere to the beliefs of the religion that form the sole basis for a law.  This becomes especially problematic when one religious group wants to base laws on something that other religious groups do not agree with.  Gay marriage is perhaps the best example of this - i.e. churches that condemn homosexuality and don't recognize gay relationships versus the growing number of churches that affirm, ordain, and marry homosexuals.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Great in the context that Jefferson used it, but it's been overextended, with people assuming it means that a person shouldn't be taken seriously if they have a political view informed by their faith.

Having policies or political views that were inspired by one's faith isn't really the problem; the problem is those who wish to impose certain mores on individuals who do not adhere to the beliefs of the religion that form the sole basis for a law.  This becomes especially problematic when one religious group wants to base laws on something that other religious groups do not agree with.  Gay marriage is perhaps the best example of this - i.e. churches that condemn homosexuality and don't recognize gay relationships versus the growing number of churches that affirm, ordain, and marry homosexuals.

That problem is not unique to religious views. It is true of ideology in general that some people want to prohibit or command certain things on the basis of their ideology.  Why should religious ideologies be treated differently in this regard?

I have never been of the belief that policy should run solely on ideological lines.  But even if it were, the proponents of any policy have the burden of justifying why their approach is preferable to another approach.  "The government should do this because my religion/ideology says x" says nothing about the inherent value of the idea.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Great in the context that Jefferson used it, but it's been overextended, with people assuming it means that a person shouldn't be taken seriously if they have a political view informed by their faith.

Having policies or political views that were inspired by one's faith isn't really the problem; the problem is those who wish to impose certain mores on individuals who do not adhere to the beliefs of the religion that form the sole basis for a law.  This becomes especially problematic when one religious group wants to base laws on something that other religious groups do not agree with.  Gay marriage is perhaps the best example of this - i.e. churches that condemn homosexuality and don't recognize gay relationships versus the growing number of churches that affirm, ordain, and marry homosexuals.

That problem is not unique to religious views. It is true of ideology in general that some people want to prohibit or command certain things on the basis of their ideology.  Why should religious ideologies be treated differently in this regard?

I have never been of the belief that policy should run solely on ideological lines.  But even if it were, the proponents of any policy have the burden of justifying why their approach is preferable to another approach.  "The government should do this because my religion/ideology says x" says nothing about the inherent value of the idea.

This is an ideological statement in and of itself.

No, it isn't.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Of course it is. The idea that "ideology" should not guide decisionmaking is dripping with ideology. It assumes that non-ideological solutions are preferable to "ideological" ones, and of course, we all know what non-ideological solutions are: largely centrist, liberal (in the correct sense of the term), and status quo. Anyone claiming to be non-ideological or proposing non-ideological solutions is not being honest because it's impossible to not be ideological. It only seems non-ideological because that ideology (liberalism) is the dominant one in every single area of our society.

Clearly, you missed my point... entirely.  What I said had nothing to do with centrism or liberalism, only that every policy needs to have some backing in facts.  You can't rationally justify something on the basis of it being "liberal" or "conservative" or "moderate."

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Of course it is. The idea that "ideology" should not guide decisionmaking is dripping with ideology. It assumes that non-ideological solutions are preferable to "ideological" ones, and of course, we all know what non-ideological solutions are: largely centrist, liberal (in the correct sense of the term), and status quo. Anyone claiming to be non-ideological or proposing non-ideological solutions is not being honest because it's impossible to not be ideological. It only seems non-ideological because that ideology (liberalism) is the dominant one in every single area of our society.

Clearly, you missed my point... entirely.  What I said had nothing to do with centrism or liberalism, only that every policy needs to have some backing in facts.  You can't rationally justify something on the basis of it being "liberal" or "conservative" or "moderate."

No, the point you're missing here is that ideology is not something that can be turned off. Every proposed policy solution is ideological because with that solution comes the intent of the person proposing it to shape society in a way that they find intrinsically appealing. By default, "non-ideological solutions" in the United States (and really, everywhere at this point, given the penetration of liberal capitalist society into almost every corner of the globe) are solutions which are liberal in nature, i.e. solutions which reinforce the dominant societal narrative/overarching structure of society, which is rooted in liberalism.

Ideology serves as the means of justification for any proposed policy, because ideologies seek to promote certain values in society. You don't say you're going to enact x because it will reinforce the dominant liberal ideology and promote liberalism, but if that's what x does, it doesn't matter if you say it out loud or not, or whether you're actually conscious of the fact.

If you propose something that's meant to do x, but in reality accomplishes nothing at best or creates the exact opposite of the desired effect at worst, you can't fall back on ideology to continue justifying it.  Similarly, you cannot insist on something that is factually inaccurate (i.e. creationism) and ignore all evidence contrary to your position because it doesn't sit well with your beliefs.  Having an ideology isn't what I object to, it's putting that ideology above all other considerations in trying to craft a certain policy or reach a certain goal.