What is Seperation of Church and State ?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:54:22 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  What is Seperation of Church and State ?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: What is Seperation of Church and State ?  (Read 1344 times)
jojoju1998
1970vu
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 01, 2022, 12:54:58 PM »

How should it be applied to American Politics ?
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2022, 01:00:30 PM »

That the government does not establish a state church nor does it excessively entangle itself in the affairs of any particular church or sect
Logged
rwoy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 250
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2022, 02:02:03 PM »

Nor does it allow any individuals in positions of authority to push their religious views on others.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2022, 02:11:32 PM »

Nor does it allow any individuals in positions of authority to push their religious views on others.

     The concept of pushing religious views on others is used broadly enough that it could be the subject of a similar topic.
Logged
rwoy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 250
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2022, 02:19:40 PM »

Nor does it allow any individuals in positions of authority to push their religious views on others.

     The concept of pushing religious views on others is used broadly enough that it could be the subject of a similar topic.

It happens a lot.  Every state government building that insists on putting the 10 Commandments but not the Aesirian Code of Nine in front of it is promoting 1 religion over another.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2022, 02:29:13 PM »

Nor does it allow any individuals in positions of authority to push their religious views on others.

     The concept of pushing religious views on others is used broadly enough that it could be the subject of a similar topic.

It happens a lot.  Every state government building that insists on putting the 10 Commandments but not the Aesirian Code of Nine in front of it is promoting 1 religion over another.

     I think that is a fine example I would agree to, since the government there is explicitly promoting one religion over another. I will however see people say that advocating for policy views that one personally grounds in a Christian framework is a violation of separation of Church and State, which strikes me as being much too broad an application that ignores what it means to philosophically ground an idea.
Logged
MiddleRoad
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 911
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2022, 05:18:23 PM »

This country was founded by Puritan fanatics escaping the godless Anglicans. No wonder we still deal with the heavy hand of “The Godly” today.

I am an agnostic theist, I am pro Western, but I wish Western society had not been so conflated with Puritanical Christendom 
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,805
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2022, 05:23:55 PM »

Dixiecrats believe it's secularism until Bryan Jennings tax the rich and give to the poor but they believed in INFERIOR of the Blk race it applies now that secularism is socialism but everyone is equal under the law.
Logged
Progressive Pessimist
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,562
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -7.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2022, 05:30:59 PM »

Something that should be a feature in any normal, sane, functional republic. In our case, we only really have it mentioned in the First Amendment and qualifications for office. It's otherwise fairly vague and easy to ignore when you get a Supreme Court like the one we have.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,095
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2022, 05:46:14 PM »

Nor does it allow any individuals in positions of authority to push their religious views on others.

     The concept of pushing religious views on others is used broadly enough that it could be the subject of a similar topic.

It happens a lot.  Every state government building that insists on putting the 10 Commandments but not the Aesirian Code of Nine in front of it is promoting 1 religion over another.
It's always been a little weird to me how big of a deal some Christians make with the 10 Commandments.  Jesus pretty explicitly replaced them with 2, far simpler commandments (honor me above all else, be nice to each other).  I would think it would be far easier for most Christians to ignore 2 rules instead of 10.  (though it is pretty easy to ignore some of the ten)
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2022, 05:56:17 PM »

That the government and the religious sects do not collude. That the government doesn’t promote certain a theology, or irreligion,  over other theologies. There can be no law mandating religious practices unless it also meets a secular end.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2022, 08:35:38 PM »

That the government does not establish a state church nor does it excessively entangle itself in the affairs of any particular church or sect
I'd also add that government and government policy is never based on one religion/sect/denomination (ex: no citing  the Bible or Catholic tradition or Mormon practices etc.) as legal authorities, nor government or government policy ever being biased for or against particular religions/sects/denominations even if it's short of establishing a state church.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 02, 2022, 09:19:07 AM »

That the government does not establish a state church nor does it excessively entangle itself in the affairs of any particular church or sect
I'd also add that government and government policy is never based on one religion/sect/denomination (ex: no citing  the Bible or Catholic tradition or Mormon practices etc.) as legal authorities, nor government or government policy ever being biased for or against particular religions/sects/denominations even if it's short of establishing a state church.
Does this include promoting theological doctrines that are shared amongst some sects?
Logged
Shaula🏳️‍⚧️
The Pieman
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,292
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 02, 2022, 09:25:47 AM »

The government should be completely secular, similar to how they are in France.
This means both that the government shouldn't promote any majority religion stuff, but also shouldn't have anything "protecting" minority religions either.
Logged
jojoju1998
1970vu
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 02, 2022, 09:28:27 AM »

That the government does not establish a state church nor does it excessively entangle itself in the affairs of any particular church or sect
I'd also add that government and government policy is never based on one religion/sect/denomination (ex: no citing  the Bible or Catholic tradition or Mormon practices etc.) as legal authorities, nor government or government policy ever being biased for or against particular religions/sects/denominations even if it's short of establishing a state church.

It didn’t stop some states from having their own state churches up until I think the Mid 1860s.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2022, 10:14:34 AM »

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674013742#:~:text=In%20a%20powerful%20challenge%20to,almost%20never%20invoked%20this%20principle.

Quote
In a powerful challenge to conventional wisdom, Philip Hamburger argues that the separation of church and state has no historical foundation in the First Amendment. The detailed evidence assembled here shows that eighteenth-century Americans almost never invoked this principle. Although Thomas Jefferson and others retrospectively claimed that the First Amendment separated church and state, separation became part of American constitutional law only much later.

Hamburger shows that separation became a constitutional freedom largely through fear and prejudice. Jefferson supported separation out of hostility to the Federalist clergy of New England. Nativist Protestants (ranging from nineteenth-century Know Nothings to twentieth-century members of the K.K.K.) adopted the principle of separation to restrict the role of Catholics in public life. Gradually, these Protestants were joined by theologically liberal, anti-Christian secularists, who hoped that separation would limit Christianity and all other distinct religions. Eventually, a wide range of men and women called for separation. Almost all of these Americans feared ecclesiastical authority, particularly that of the Catholic Church, and, in response to their fears, they increasingly perceived religious liberty to require a separation of church from state. American religious liberty was thus redefined and even transformed. In the process, the First Amendment was often used as an instrument of intolerance and discrimination.

Hamburger's book is pretty long and heavy; it isn't an easy read.  The phrase comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association:

https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Quote
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

The Federalists were the "Congregationalist" party.  There were many Federalists that would have wished the Congregationalists to have become somewhere between "The Official Church of the USA" (sort of like Wheaties is the Official Breakfast of the Olympic Training Table) and a Church of America not unlike the Church of England.  It was never intended to purge religious discussion from the public square.  That's not where we're at today, of course, but what would ACTUAL "Separation of Church and State" look like?

Would it look like the UK, where Muslims are able to decide matters of family law in Sharia Courts, separate and apart from the British Courts?  Would it mean that the government would not have the power to enforce COVID-19 vaccine mandates on those asserting documentable religious exemptions?  (After all, we are talking about the state interfering with the religous doctrines and practices of certain denominations.)  Would Religious Communes become enclaves where civil laws do not apply, because, after all, there is Separation of Church and State?  Would churches and religious facilities not be able to receive police protection or police enforcement of laws to protect against wrongdoings on school grounds?  Would Churches not be able to hook up to Public Utilities, but be free to provide light and heat as they chose?  

These are all extreme examples, some of which are purely hypothetical, but they are not unreasonable  if one considers the literal meaning of "Separation of Church and State".  "Separation" means that one is apart from the other, and does not interfere in the workings of the other.  Now I don't think our Constitutional system justifies any of the above-referenced examples (even the COVID-19 vaccine mandates, which I wholeheartedly oppose).  The phrase is misleading; the laws of the state are not suspended inside the confines of any Church and they are binding on Believers and Non-Believers alike.

What we have is a Secular system of Government that is able to be influenced by people of all schools of thought, with the ideas hashed out in the political process, with public policy enacted within Constitutional Limits.  This does not mean that a public policy "favors one religion over another" just because one religious group favors that policy and favors it because that policy because it more closely aligns with their worldview.  By that logic, only policy initiatives that were driven by the non-religious could be made law.  That's the goal of the Secular Left today, but it's not Constitutionally valid.  The Government cannot compel citizens to support Religious institutions, but the idea that religious ideas cannot be freely expressed, or that secular public policy cannot be motivated by religious principle is utter nonsense.  
I would, therefore, assert that "Separation of Church and State" involves the extreme examples I suggested, but it is not what we have in America, nor it is not what we should have.
Logged
progressive85
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,312
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2022, 11:00:07 AM »

It means that there is a clear line between holding faith-based views and serving in office and getting into office to put into place a calculated, deliberate effort to revolve the nation's laws around your own particular religious ideology.

The idea that anyone would run for office and proclaim that they are a "Christian", or a "Jew", or a "Muslim", or a "Buddhist", etc. is to me violating that line.  Republicans want to be a religious fundamentalist party - they want to broadcast their religion so that everyone knows that they're going to enact laws that are based on their interpretation of the Bible.  What about the Christians that they represent that don't believe in those ideas, or the religious minorities, or the nones that do not have any religion at all?

I think it's so strange that we don't have the same tolerance for candidates that would go out there and put on their campaign websites: "Pro-life.  Pro-family.  Pro-Allah."  or "Buddha and Country"... I don't believe conservative Christianity should have any kind of right to claim dominance to this nation anymore than any other religion should.

We've all been conditioned to accept that much of the country's politics revolve around fundamentalist ideas - but it's not acceptable and in my opinion it's very far from what this country is about.  This is not only a Christian country or a conservative Christian country and that's the message that the Republican Party wants to constantly push.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2022, 02:21:46 PM »

It means that there is a clear line between holding faith-based views and serving in office and getting into office to put into place a calculated, deliberate effort to revolve the nation's laws around your own particular religious ideology.

The idea that anyone would run for office and proclaim that they are a "Christian", or a "Jew", or a "Muslim", or a "Buddhist", etc. is to me violating that line.  Republicans want to be a religious fundamentalist party - they want to broadcast their religion so that everyone knows that they're going to enact laws that are based on their interpretation of the Bible.  What about the Christians that they represent that don't believe in those ideas, or the religious minorities, or the nones that do not have any religion at all?

I think it's so strange that we don't have the same tolerance for candidates that would go out there and put on their campaign websites: "Pro-life.  Pro-family.  Pro-Allah."  or "Buddha and Country"... I don't believe conservative Christianity should have any kind of right to claim dominance to this nation anymore than any other religion should.

We've all been conditioned to accept that much of the country's politics revolve around fundamentalist ideas - but it's not acceptable and in my opinion it's very far from what this country is about.  This is not only a Christian country or a conservative Christian country and that's the message that the Republican Party wants to constantly push.

If you don't want to see overtly Religous people in office, don't vote for them.  What you're saying, however, is that overtly religious people should not be able to run for office.  That is neither morally right, nor majoritarian.

What you are saying is that people who hold deeply religious views and a Biblical Worldview have no right to hold public office because of their viewpoints.  That's simply ridiculous.  The First Amendment prohibits any religious test for holding public office, yet your post implies you would impose one.  Whether one is "religious" or not is a Religious Test in itself. 

Our nation is what it is.  It is likely more conservative than you believe it to be, and if that's where people are at, then that's what should be reflected in a "democracy".  You have the right to hold and express whatever views you have.  You have the right to not be discriminated against in things like housing and employment for your political views.  But you don't have the right to be in the majority; that has to be earned by persuading people to vote for candidates you believe in.  And you don't have the right to never hear a religious sentiment in public discourse; people get to choose their source of motivation. 

I don't demand that Leftists hide under a rock here.  They have every right to post here, and they have every right to demonstrate peaceably in my hometown, or wherever they can lawfully and peaceably assemble.  That goes for groups I consider reprehensible (BLM, Antifa).  Who people want to vote for is their business.  But the same principle should apply to religious people.  I have trouble asserting the idea that it's somewhat not OK to advance a political candidate who proclaims "Jesus is Lord" but fine and dandy to advance a candidate who proclaims "ACAB".
Logged
jojoju1998
1970vu
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2022, 02:29:31 PM »

It means that there is a clear line between holding faith-based views and serving in office and getting into office to put into place a calculated, deliberate effort to revolve the nation's laws around your own particular religious ideology.

The idea that anyone would run for office and proclaim that they are a "Christian", or a "Jew", or a "Muslim", or a "Buddhist", etc. is to me violating that line.  Republicans want to be a religious fundamentalist party - they want to broadcast their religion so that everyone knows that they're going to enact laws that are based on their interpretation of the Bible.  What about the Christians that they represent that don't believe in those ideas, or the religious minorities, or the nones that do not have any religion at all?

I think it's so strange that we don't have the same tolerance for candidates that would go out there and put on their campaign websites: "Pro-life.  Pro-family.  Pro-Allah."  or "Buddha and Country"... I don't believe conservative Christianity should have any kind of right to claim dominance to this nation anymore than any other religion should.

We've all been conditioned to accept that much of the country's politics revolve around fundamentalist ideas - but it's not acceptable and in my opinion it's very far from what this country is about.  This is not only a Christian country or a conservative Christian country and that's the message that the Republican Party wants to constantly push.

If someone wants to say that they are a Proud Bhuddist Democrat and their values come from Bhuddism, would you allow them to speak ?
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2022, 02:43:55 PM »

It means that there is a clear line between holding faith-based views and serving in office and getting into office to put into place a calculated, deliberate effort to revolve the nation's laws around your own particular religious ideology.

The idea that anyone would run for office and proclaim that they are a "Christian", or a "Jew", or a "Muslim", or a "Buddhist", etc. is to me violating that line.  Republicans want to be a religious fundamentalist party - they want to broadcast their religion so that everyone knows that they're going to enact laws that are based on their interpretation of the Bible.  What about the Christians that they represent that don't believe in those ideas, or the religious minorities, or the nones that do not have any religion at all?

I think it's so strange that we don't have the same tolerance for candidates that would go out there and put on their campaign websites: "Pro-life.  Pro-family.  Pro-Allah."  or "Buddha and Country"... I don't believe conservative Christianity should have any kind of right to claim dominance to this nation anymore than any other religion should.

We've all been conditioned to accept that much of the country's politics revolve around fundamentalist ideas - but it's not acceptable and in my opinion it's very far from what this country is about.  This is not only a Christian country or a conservative Christian country and that's the message that the Republican Party wants to constantly push.

If someone wants to say that they are a Proud Bhuddist Democrat and their values come from Bhuddism, would you allow them to speak ?

Yes.  I might even vote for them, depending on what their "values" were, as well as specific issue positions.

Buddhism isn't a religion, actually; it's a philosophy.  While I wouldn't encourage someone to try this, one can be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time.
Logged
Big Abraham
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,023
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2022, 04:42:54 PM »

Buddhism isn't a religion, actually; it's a philosophy.  While I wouldn't encourage someone to try this, one can be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time.

Uh...
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2022, 08:11:44 PM »

Some versions of Buddhism. Not all.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 02, 2022, 09:10:32 PM »
« Edited: July 02, 2022, 09:23:34 PM by MarkD »

Here, IMO, is what the Separation of Church and State does mean.
It means there shall be no official religion adopted by any level of government.
It means there shall be official separation of the institutions of government from religious institutions. That is, the two kinds of institutions are not allowed to take complete control over each another. No branches of government, at any level of government, are allowed to hand over their governmental powers to religious organizations. The laws of the state of Utah must be adopted by the state legislature of Utah - which is open, in an egalitarian fashion, to people of all religions - not made by the Mormon Church. The law enforcement powers of the state of Mississippi must be exercised by the elected executives of the state, not by the Southern Baptist Church. The official settling of legal disputes must be performed by the judicial branch of the state of Minnesota, not by the Lutheran Church. Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc. is one of the rare examples in which I think the Supreme Court applied the Establishment Clause correctly.

OTOH, here are arguments which, IMO, the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state do NOT mean.
The separation of church and state does not mean a separation of law from morality. Although many people do learn most of their moral beliefs from their religion, that does not mean that religious beliefs and moral beliefs are the same, and it doesn't mean that they must be treated, constitutionally, as the same. The Mann Act is legislated morality. The Endangered Species Act is legislated morality. Hate Crime laws are legislated morality. Most laws are legislated morality. That doesn't mean that all laws are moral. We all know that some laws are not truly moral. But it means that any legislature and/or set of voters are allowed to try to legislate their moral beliefs. And when a law is made that does reflect the moral beliefs of a majority of the people - when a government has imposed a moral code on everyone - that does not mean that they have imposed their RELIGION on anyone. Religion and morality are not the same thing. Plenty of immoral things have been done in the name of religion, and certainly religious people do not always behave morally.
The following three statements in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), are, IMO, mistakes.
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government ... can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. ... No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa." All three of those statements are overimaginative, dubious, unnecessary, and inappropriate assertions of what the Establishment of Religion Clause means. They do not mesh with good legal reasoning, which should include contemplating hypothetical analogies in order to test the logic of the major premises that judges and lawyers work with. (The fact that these statements were put into constitutional law - a SCOTUS majority opinion - by my favorite Supreme Court Justice - Hugo Black - is, for me, rather embarrassing.)

If anyone has any questions about the above post, I will answer you via PM, not by posting in this thread again.
Logged
progressive85
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,312
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 02, 2022, 09:28:59 PM »

It means that there is a clear line between holding faith-based views and serving in office and getting into office to put into place a calculated, deliberate effort to revolve the nation's laws around your own particular religious ideology.

The idea that anyone would run for office and proclaim that they are a "Christian", or a "Jew", or a "Muslim", or a "Buddhist", etc. is to me violating that line.  Republicans want to be a religious fundamentalist party - they want to broadcast their religion so that everyone knows that they're going to enact laws that are based on their interpretation of the Bible.  What about the Christians that they represent that don't believe in those ideas, or the religious minorities, or the nones that do not have any religion at all?

I think it's so strange that we don't have the same tolerance for candidates that would go out there and put on their campaign websites: "Pro-life.  Pro-family.  Pro-Allah."  or "Buddha and Country"... I don't believe conservative Christianity should have any kind of right to claim dominance to this nation anymore than any other religion should.

We've all been conditioned to accept that much of the country's politics revolve around fundamentalist ideas - but it's not acceptable and in my opinion it's very far from what this country is about.  This is not only a Christian country or a conservative Christian country and that's the message that the Republican Party wants to constantly push.

If someone wants to say that they are a Proud Bhuddist Democrat and their values come from Bhuddism, would you allow them to speak ?

Yes.  I might even vote for them, depending on what their "values" were, as well as specific issue positions.

Buddhism isn't a religion, actually; it's a philosophy.  While I wouldn't encourage someone to try this, one can be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time.

I have a couple of questions based on what you have posted here, to the whole group:

(a) Wouldn't someone that strongly believes in their religion sometimes tend to believe that their religion is the only right one?  

(b) How is religion different than philosophy and ideology?  What makes one religion truer than another?

(c) What if there was another religion in the United States with as much power as Christianity?  Up until now, the history of the United States has had a Christian majority - what happens when that changes, and another group threatens the dominance that Christianity has had?
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,812
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 03, 2022, 12:47:10 AM »

The government can't tell religious orgs what to do (within reason). Religious doctrine cannot be used to craft government policy.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.07 seconds with 11 queries.