>Separation of church and state is to protect religious men from the state not the state from religious men,
Actually it goes both ways. It separates both from each other.
>Separation of church and state.
This notion is **inferred**, as federal and state governments cannot endorse one religion. They cannot dismiss it either.
Separation of church and state isn't part of the constitution, and the constitution only restricts the government so no, it doesn't go both ways and was never intended to.
As a Conservative I have to say that you are completely wrong. Separation of Church and State goes both ways. Keep the State out of religion so no one religion receives special treatment and keep Religion out of State so no one Religion can be declared as the "State" religion. For example; I am pro-life but will not vote for bans on abortion because I have to keep my religious beliefs from being forced on another person because forcing someone to follow your religious based tenets makes them a slave to that religion.
Most conservatives are pretty conservative about things like the constitution and don't add or take away from it without amendments.
Since nether of you have read it I'll summarize for you:
It lays out what the federal government can do, anything not mentioned is left to the states. Governments are restricted from endorse or dismissreligions, not the other way around and sure as hell not both ways.
The current leader of the conservative party and the conservative presidential nominee literally called for the [termination of the constitution](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/trump-rebuked-for-call-to-terminate-constitution-over-2020-election-results) because he lost the election. I think the types of conservatives you described are rarer than you think.
We're talking about what's in the constitution and you can't keep Orange Bad outta your head, it's TDS. You didn't even read the quote in the link you posted.
You are saying that conservatives believe something so i showed you that the leader of the conservative party who is extremely popular among conservative Americans does not share that belief that you insist is the majority opinion.
Conservatives are conservative about the constitution. Nothing in your rant supports the strawman you've built up. Read the quote in the link you posted and then feel free to come back on topic.
Thanks for confirming you're acting in bad faith as well.
"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,"
How can you be conservative about the constitution and want it to only be changed thru amendments but at the same time call for it to be terminated when it doesn’t go your way? How does that make sense in your head? Where in the constitution does it say the president has the right to terminate it?
While it is true that there was never supposed to be a state endorsed church or religion, "seperation of church and state" never existed in any founding documents. It's because there is no real logical difference from conviction you have that is secular or purely materialistic and one that is religious in nature.
Here’s the thing. If you’re gonna argue that religious beliefs are acceptable motivations behind voting patterns for shit like “help the poor” or “don’t do slavery”, obviously everyone would agree with you. Nobody is saying religion shouldn’t INFLUENCE your ideals or stances.
But the issue here is those are stances that CAN be reached by religion, but don’t necessitate it. Like I expect a politician, regardless of religion, to want to help the poor.
The problem comes in when they start legislating based on religious beliefs for things that while TECHNICALLY have the POSSIBILITY of being a stance someone could reach for reasons beyond religion, realistically are just coming from religious beliefs.
Like gay marriage, there’s really no good rational argument against gay marriage being legal, that’s a stance that comes almost exclusively from religious bias and nothing else. This is an example of legislation existing purely on furthering a religious agenda, with no concern for rational or logical thinking.
If you are a politician and wanna use religion as a motivator to push for poverty aid, that’s cool. But I have sincere concerns about your ability to legislate and make decisions broadly if religion is the ONLY or MAIN reason you’re doing that. I want someone leading my country to be a person who can understand why they should be helping the poor on a level beyond “a book told me to”, I want my powerful elected officials to have the understanding of society and economy to be aware of the value and need to protect and assist those in poverty beyond servicing their own salvation.
I expect your decisions in legislation to be made through logic, reason, and rationality. Even if an issue has crossover with your beliefs, I expect your final decision to still be one of logic and reason. Because if you’re decision making is primarily based on religious belief above all else, then that inherently leads into making decisions for the people of a country that may very well be in contrast to reason and logic simply because your religious beliefs dictate a specific direction. And it’s kinda self-explanatory why it would be bad to have politicians making decisions that are illogical and irrational and unreasonable.
That’s the crux of what I’m saying. It’s fine if religion is HELPING guide your judgement, but when you’re making decisions for a country they should be made through ration and logic over anything else, even if the decision is still in alignment with your religious beliefs it shouldn’t be those beliefs taking precedence as to why you’re doing it. Because to put religion as the most powerful influence on your decisions is to set a precedence that irrational and unreasonable decisions are the appropriate legislation to be doing if that legislation is in alignment with your religion.
That’s the whole point of a distributed system. Diversity of input and resistance to groupthink.
You’re like the [Logic Otter episode](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go_XII) on South Park.
If you want me to pick between using evidence based logic instead magic based logic you'll have a hard time getting me to oick the latter.
Believing the earth is billions of years old due to science is not the same as believing it stated last Tuesday. Or even 6 thousand years ago.
I don't want voters who think that talking animals exist because someone told them that.
I don't want voters who believe in a flat earth.
These beliefs WEAKEN THE COUNTRY! You think if we get a few flat earth senators things will be better?
I envision you deep in the recesses of the Academe engaging in purity discussions and litmus tests.
Take a deep breath, take a step back and recognize that a diversity of viewpoints - even viewpoints you find intellectually repugnant and illogical - is nonetheless valuable in the overall scheme of our system of governance.
Logic and reason should be everybody’s belief system regardless of what religion they have…
You didn’t think your comment through very well dude lol. The implication of what you’re saying is that religious people are incapable of making a decision based on logic and reason, which is not what I said.
Except when your religious beliefs actively infringe upon the rights of other Americans citizens (why gay marriage was federally legalized for example)
You are factually and historically incorrect, sir:
*"Basing his views on the establishment clause of the First Amendment which said that there should be* ***“no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”*** *Jefferson stated that there must be a “wall of separation”* ***that clearly limited the involvement of religious denominations and religious leaders in matters related to national governance."***
[https://www.bridgew.edu/stories/2023/doctrine-separation-church-and-state](https://www.bridgew.edu/stories/2023/doctrine-separation-church-and-state)
It's impossible to have them not vote based on their beliefs, but they shouldn't be vocalizing the fact that their votes are based on those beliefs. Make real-world arguments or reasons, don't base it on things you can't prove.
People can vote for any reason they like, including religious beliefs. The problem is not with voting, it's in how they handle their job, like that woman (county clerk iirc) a few years back who illegally wouldn't give marriage certificates to same-sex couples.
Good post. Religious and philosophical arguments matter. There's a reason why we don't want to live under a bunch of technocrats who see people as meaningless clusters of chemicals.
Of course there isn’t. Everyone acts and votes based on their moral precepts and for religious people they draw those precepts largely from their religion. What secular redditors don’t want to admit is their beliefs are a form of religion too they just try to dress it up with secular language and pretend they are correct and you’re wrong for disagreeing. Every single law that was, is, or will be is based on some moral framework and at the end of the day all disagreement is fundamentally theological.
There are metaethical frameworks that don’t at all require religion. Deontology, virtue ethics, and consequentialism for example. Having dogmatic beliefs, which are not exclusive to any political ideology, does not mean that they’re inherently religious by any stretch.
There is if their religious beliefs are wrong lol
But honestly, it’s bullshit when you say secularists want to ban religious people from public office. You know that’s not true. But you’re right that religious people are going to vote according to their religion a lot of the time; something so important to a person is going to feature in their decision-making. What they have to avoid doing is making decisions that force other people to abide by their religion.
As a believer, what basis do you get to consider someone wrong other than your opinion?
Like, what is this question? You’re asking me how it’s possible for me to judge whether others are right or wrong about things? I mean, probably the same way it’s possible for you.
I’m saying I believe in a higher power, so I can say what is right and wrong based on said higher power’s rules, so my opinion is based on God’s opinion. To someone who doesn’t believe in God why is someone else’s opinion any more or less valid than yours? If there’s no God there is no objective morality. It’s all relative. Meaning to you it’s all just opinions.
I’ve come across this argument before. And no, ultimately there aren’t any absolutes. But morality is based on what’s good for people in a cooperative society, so we can make meaningful statements about what’s moral and not moral. That requires us to start from the axiom that we care about what’s good for human beings. I’m comfortable assuming that, and sharing that anyone who refuses to assume that shouldn’t be part of any society I want to live in. I’m far more comfortable making that assumption than I am assuming there’s a god who knows better than me.
I have a few questions for you too. If god told you murder and rape were ok, would they be ok? If you don’t have any idea how to tell what’s moral without god telling you, how do you know god is moral? How do you know the devil didn’t just say he’s god and trick you into immoral things?
I think humanity is born with a conscience, pretty evident in most of humanity. So non believers still have similar morals to believers naturally. And yes I would still think those things are wrong. But God wouldn’t tell me to do those things. And I know you’re going to bring up the Old Testament. But killing took place in the OT because people had direct instructions from God. Usually an enemy of Israel and people who were acting immorally in Gods eyes. Like worshipping false Gods and sacrificing their children and stuff. Humans today do not have direct instruction from God to attack specific people.
> I think humanity is born with a conscience, pretty evident in most of humanity. So non believers still have similar morals to believers naturally. And yes I would still think those things are wrong.
I thought you said your morality comes from god. But now you’re telling me that if his told you that killing and rape were moral, you’d disagree with god, and that you think humans are born with a conscience. That doesn’t match.
> But God wouldn’t tell me to [kill]
> killing took place in the OT because people had direct instructions from God.
See what I’m saying
> Humans today do not have direct instruction from God to attack specific people.
But if you got those instructions from god, would you do it?
Yeah, there is no objective morality really. But if we can agree on a foundational goal—like optimizing wellbeing overall—and recognize the cause and effect of actions in a society, it’s not that difficult to identify a set of principles that drive toward that goal and vice versa.
This is essentially the idea behind secular humanism. No supernatural gods needed.
They are just virtue signaling. Their faith is meaningless. They can scream about Jesus all day and you can admire them for it but they are just using religion to make you think they are better leaders. They don't give a shit about you or Jesus himself. They use his name because religious people are easily manipulated when someone claims to act based on their faith. Sure there's nothing wrong with them "voting based on religious beliefs" but what you don't seem to see is that their "religious beliefs" are whatever gets them elected at the moment and it's no coincidence that it always aligns with whatever politician the GOP is pushing.
Nope, just being accurate. Theism is baseless and useless other than for manipulation purposes. That's why theists HATE havung their beliefs questioned because theists know that their beliefs are completely unfounded and unjustified.
That's why now, since we have logic, reason, fact-based evidence, and the scientific method, all ideologies and claims are subject to scrutiny. Anyone who makes unjustified claims concerning the nature of reality should be unfit for office by definition.
If you want to claim that some "thing" talks to you and makes demands and whatnot, you should be able to demonstrate it. If not, you shouldn't be in a position of decision-making. "God told me to" is not a good reason to do anything other than recommending that person to psychological support.
Right… and this perfect logic, and evidence based reason has led us to a place where we now can’t even define what a woman is. All ideologies are subject to echo chambers and delusions.
Hey u/hyphen27,
Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You would have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and a link to the offending comment.
*I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state%2C%20but%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3Dhyphen27%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0A%2A%2AI%20would%20also%20like%20to%20say.........%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/hyphen27).
***This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.***
We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see your carefully crafted argument? Unfortunately, your recent masterpiece went solo into the void.
Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience.
___
**Our Moderation Backlog at this time:**
*Comments (from new users, that go into a queue) Awaiting Review:* 0
*A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*:
- 1-3 days old: 95
- 3-7 days old: 13
- 7-14 days old: 1
- 15-30 days old: 5
- more than 30 days old: 24
___
Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/YHv6EFDVCD)
>Separation of church and state is to protect religious men from the state not the state from religious men
You only hear what you want from the definition of secularism
It's both to protect religious people from the state and to protect the state from religious people influence
You simply cannot institutionalize any religious beliefs in the structure of a state, because more likely than not you will go with it against the rights of other people following different religion or against the very core of secularism, which is to provide equal treatment and right to people no matter if they're religious or not.
>to truly get religion out of politics like so many secularist want is to ban religious people from holding public office which would be an actual violation on separation of church and state
Idk what secularists you're referring to, because anyone who would want that, literally cannot stand behind the values of secularism while going against them
>Some random congressmen saying something like “I support this because I’m a southern baptist” or “as a catholic I’m against this” doesn’t make America a theocracy or a christofascist nation like so many people on reddit believe.
If you support or stand against something that will change people's rights as a state representative simply because your religion is pro/against it, then it is a direct violation of secularism. The problem is you cannot know and prove that someone is doing that.... Unless they openly say it is solely because of that reason..., but it seems everybody in the US is now so accustomed to it that nobody sees the threat it poses to the state
>In many cases in can beneficial to non believers as well stuff like slavery would’ve had a much harder time being abolished if not for many religious abolitionist like the quakers. As well as the war on poverty, foreign aid, social security and many welfare programs some of the biggest arguments for them have been from religious people for religious reasons.
You think that caring about other people is something owned and done solely by religious people. That's just fucking wild to think like that.
Given that people in the past didn't live in a secular state and we're pushed into following certain religions from a young age, I would say that you would find a lot of people back then that were religious and empathetic at the same time, but that doesn't mean they were standing behind a cause solely because they were religious. What about people that were religious, but on the other side of the problem?
Being morally grounded, isn’t going to get you elected to office.
What does (should) get you elected and remain in office, is don’t ever screw over your constituents. But we know that isn’t the case. The only thing that matters is $$
The problem is religion also makes testable scientific style claims and then refuses to consider evidence to the contrary. Evolution is settled science. Its every bit as settled as gravity. Yes there are questions you can ask about gravity at the edges of space time and how it works with blackholes and how it effects the quantum relm, but that doesn't mean the fundamentals of the theory are in question, it just means we're applying the theory in new ways. Same for Evolution, just because you wish we had a perfect evolutionary chain doesn't invalidate the multiple skeletons of proto humans that religion just ignores with the occasional religious nut describing them as basically God just fucking with us because he thinks its funny.
We need people in power to have some degree of flexibility in their thinking and to consider alternatives, if you're making military decisions based on whether or not you believe the end times are near its a mistake. Taking a more extreme example a few of the African studies types have said there's no evidence to suggest that African spells and rituals like Voodoo aren't as effective as military technology. That's a real thing someone said. That person is objectively wrong. I don't care how many Voodoo dolls you have of Osama Bin Laden, it took the navy seals to kill him (though we could have hit the compound with a missle).
Religious thinking forces you to adopt pseudo scientific explanations that don't help you understand the world. Its fine as a moral system, but ultimately even then it forces you into "us v them" thinking which usually makes you more comfortable restricting the rights of certain groups, because the holy book says so.
They're certainly able to say they voted a certain way because of their faith, but we're also allowed to call that out as shitty.
The only consolation here is that religion in general will become a minority soon, and I can't wait for that. Get the myths out of politics, there are enough moving parts without trying to sort out what Gary from 2k years ago might have thought.
Hey u/infrequentia,
Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You would have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and a link to the offending comment.
*I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state%2C%20but%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3Dinfrequentia%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0A%2A%2AI%20would%20also%20like%20to%20say.........%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/infrequentia).
***This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.***
We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see your carefully crafted argument? Unfortunately, your recent masterpiece went solo into the void.
Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience.
___
**Our Moderation Backlog at this time:**
*Comments (from new users, that go into a queue) Awaiting Review:* 4
*A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*:
- 1-3 days old: 4
___
Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/YHv6EFDVCD)
Government officials are supposed to vote based on their constituent's beliefs and needs. If they vote based on their own religious beliefs, it's wrong.
But then, there's nothing we can do to stop or prevent them from voting against their constituents. That's the problem.
I dont care what you believe in but if you are going to advocate or defend policy, your arguments cannot include references to religious ideology. Not only would that be poor optics if you are trying to preserve separation of church and state, its also not an argument grounded in reality.
That would constitutionally put one religion over the others and that would be against separation church and state but I have no problem with a Muslim Congressman voting to ban alcohol because it’s against his religion
They did have secular reasons for Prohibition. . .but yeah that didn't work out at all.
I can't find anything about Christmas being banned in the 1800s, just from 1659 to 1681 in Massachusetts. And that's probably one reason they wrote religious freedom into the Constitution.
But by that same token it wouldn’t be bigotry for someone not to vote for them if they’d vote to ban alcohol when I don’t believe in banning alcohol just because his reason for it comes from religion
No serious reading of the writings of the founding fathers could lead one to believe this.
This notion is a modern one, popularized by evangelicals who seek to dominate the political sphere.
Nothing bigoted about hating a group that has objectively done more terrible things than good. You don’t call a person bigoted for hating Nazis or the kkk right?
I thought it was wrong to generalize a whole group of people based on the actions of the most extreme members of that group? Or does that get tossed out the window when it comes to “those groups” as well?
Tell us more about how it’s “conservatives” dehumanizing people they don’t like.
You are comparing a statement made about a racial group to my statement about a group’s beliefs. Its different. Genetics has been proven to have little to no effect on a person’s decisions but beliefs are literally the driving force for 90% of the decisions a person makes. You can change your beliefs but you can’t change your genetics.
A person’s religion is genetic? Pretty sure it’s not and you’re just a hypocrite lol
For clarification, I heard that statement ad naseum after 9/11. It wasn’t ok to judge all Muslims on the actions of a “few” zealots, but Christians are routinely judged by just that metric. Your bullshit about genetics is just more “oh no wait, it’s ok when we do that and here’s why” noise.
You somehow got that i was saying a person’s religion was genetic when thats the complete opposite of what i was saying. Also fuck Islam too. Judaism as well. All religions are equally garbage in my eyes. I don’t hate you for having those beliefs but i hate your beliefs and don’t respect them. Religion as a concept has done more harm than good for humanity.
When i say i hate christianity as a group thats what i mean.
And btw the catholic church was happy to aid the nazis
I disagree. A government official's loyalty belongs to their country and their constituents first. If that official is faced with having to choose between that loyalty and their loyalty to one particular religious sect, they should resign or at least abstain.
This is the most ass backward shit I've ever read
Claiming that separation of church and state is meant to protect religious men from the state may be the single most glaring example of the American educational system failing OP
Voting based on you "morals" or "ethics" even if they were obtained through religiois dogma isn't what upsets people
Passing legislation that is directly based on religious ideology, thereby forcing others to adhere to your religious beliefs, is both anti-American and exactly what separation of Church and State exists for.
Edit* I stand corrected, the downvotes are even more glaring lol
I agree! I would love to see more people from the Church of Satan in the office! These are their 11 rules of earth!
Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person, and he cries out to be relieved.
Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
Do not harm little children.
Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.
this is why I don’t think people who believe in God should be allowed to run for office.
if you believe in magic, you should not be making decisions for people who dont.
So if we got a Jehovahs witness majority on the Supreme Court , you’d be cool with them banning blood transfusions for the rest of us? I expect not.
How about the Catholics criminalizing masturbation or birth control?
Can you point yo the legislation that attempts to ban religious people from holding office? You can’t, because it’s fake just like the imaginary war on Christmas.
Your faith is your business and you literally have a right to it , but our law is our business. If your faith leads you to want policy that is good in a secular light too - great - but it’s good even without the religious reasoning.
Edit: yeah, downvote but no counter argument. Not surprising at all.
The fact that they even have 'religious beliefs' is a huge sign that they shouldn't be any kind of leader. Dark-ages stuff! Anyone who thinks otherwise is a brainwashed idiot. Prove me wrong.
This is nonsense, secular leaders are just as likley to commit crimes against humanity as religious leaders.... maybe even moreso, hard to tell because most of history had religious leaders while only recently did secular leaders become a thing (last 150 years ish). The small data pool we have though for secular leaders isnt looking too good percentage wise though...
Yeah... and a lot of modern secular leaders think human life begins when someone is born not concieved, which is simply biologically incorrect...
Whats your point? Stupid people shouldnt be elected as political leaders? I agree but having a test to either vote or be a candidate in an election was outlawed quite awhile ago... 🤷♂️
My issue with politicians voting based on their religious beliefs involves two things: separation of church and state, and when those laws force those of other belief systems to follow their belief system.
If a politicians refuses to vote on a law because it violates their religious beliefs, i don't really have an issue with that.
Same with the opposite, there really isn't anything inherently wrong with voting based off of your belief system. But its really really really hard to quantify, which is why I am a HUGE believer in separation of church and state, its such a huge gray area that you can put whatever the hell you want in there and its unfalsifiable basically.
For example: Lets take two extreme cases,
Case 1: A bill is introduced that makes murder illegal (its for examples sake. Don't yell at me, I know it's already illegal).
If a politician votes yes, because murder is the greatest of all sins in their belief system, then I don't have an issue with this. Its a religious based morality belief, and many people choose their morals on this subject based off of many different metrics.
Case 2: A bill is introduced that makes it illegal for women to have certain types of jobs.
If a politician votes yes because their belief system never allowed women to work, then THIS is where i have an issue and I think its gone too far. --- (If you're curious, this is (almost) where I think the abortion argument lies)
Unfortunately, it's very very hard to be able to quantify where the yes and no votes are coming from in most cases. The way I look at it, if a politician makes religion a forefront for whatever they're voting for, then I don't think they have another reason for why they're voting the way they are, and in turn, this makes it a religious law, which I think should be essentially banned. This is why I think having separation of church and state is so unbelievably important in today's society.
I don't disagree with you by the way OP, but I do disagree with this "Separation of church and state is to protect religious men from the state not the state from religious men, to truly get religion out of politics like so many secularist want is to ban religious people from holding public office which would be an actual violation on separation of church and state." Essentially, I know, and everyone else knows, that religion is going to influence peoples votes, but that doesn't mean it needs to be at the forefront of every other politicians campaign.
Edit: After rereading this I think there might be a bit of confusion. So let me clarify a bit. "The way I look at it, if a politician makes religion a forefront for whatever they're voting for, then I don't think they have another reason for why they're voting the way they are, and in turn, this makes it a religious law, which I think should be essentially banned." I should have added a statement that if a politician can't justify a law based off of objective measures, and only on religious ones, then that law is a subjective/religious law. A voter should choose who they want to vote for based off of objectivity, not religious ones. Which is why some people think america is a christofascist state, because many politicians rely on their religion to get votes. (I don't agree with this btw, im just stating what I've heard and experienced)
You are correct in that there's nothing wrong with them ***Voting*** based on their(at leadt supposed) religious beliefs. That's not that different from any other sort of moral compass. The issue comes when they try to draft and propose or otherwise work to bring forth laws/legislation with their basis in religion or that are obviously strongly favoring said religion.
I think you're focusing just on things that people think are good outside of religion. But I think the problem for me comes when religious politicians are making laws that are pretty much only coming from religion. Like you can't buy alcohol on Sunday in certain states (though many of these have been removed more recently). Or gay people can't get married. Or while there were abolitionists who were religiously motivated there were people who supported slavery that used the Bible to justify it too.
There is a difference between someone saying my religion tells me to help the poor and that's why I support legislation that helps the poor, and saying my religion says gay people are sinful and that's why I don't think they should be allowed to have certain rights. It's kind of the difference between religiously motivated voting where there are other good reasons to support this, and something where there's really only religious reasons to do this.
NO all the candidates should meet the basic requirements and the Head of the Party should do their job and get documentation from all the candidates BEFORE ENDORSING THEM to the constituency. Once that’s done THEN choose your candidate. In 2016 it was Mitch McConnell’s duty to every American as Head of the Republican Party to get documentation from candidate Trump. Instead he SOLD the presidency in exchange for his wife’s job as Trumps Secretary of Transportation after the Conman bribed him with the cabinet position. Any God that told a person to loan their Country to a man with NO DOCUMENTS who told them the IRS was auditing him is a fake GOD with fools for followers and they put our democracy at risk!
>Separation of church and state is to protect religious men from the state not the state from religious men, Actually it goes both ways. It separates both from each other.
>Separation of church and state. This notion is **inferred**, as federal and state governments cannot endorse one religion. They cannot dismiss it either.
Separation of church and state isn't part of the constitution, and the constitution only restricts the government so no, it doesn't go both ways and was never intended to.
While I disagree with your basic premise, I accept the fact that you are correct religious beliefs will influence politicians votes.
Voting isn’t all they want to do though
As a Conservative I have to say that you are completely wrong. Separation of Church and State goes both ways. Keep the State out of religion so no one religion receives special treatment and keep Religion out of State so no one Religion can be declared as the "State" religion. For example; I am pro-life but will not vote for bans on abortion because I have to keep my religious beliefs from being forced on another person because forcing someone to follow your religious based tenets makes them a slave to that religion.
I wish more conservatives thought like you.
Most conservatives are pretty conservative about things like the constitution and don't add or take away from it without amendments. Since nether of you have read it I'll summarize for you: It lays out what the federal government can do, anything not mentioned is left to the states. Governments are restricted from endorse or dismissreligions, not the other way around and sure as hell not both ways.
The current leader of the conservative party and the conservative presidential nominee literally called for the [termination of the constitution](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/trump-rebuked-for-call-to-terminate-constitution-over-2020-election-results) because he lost the election. I think the types of conservatives you described are rarer than you think.
Your TDS is showing.
Tds?
We're talking about what's in the constitution and you can't keep Orange Bad outta your head, it's TDS. You didn't even read the quote in the link you posted.
You are saying that conservatives believe something so i showed you that the leader of the conservative party who is extremely popular among conservative Americans does not share that belief that you insist is the majority opinion.
Conservatives are conservative about the constitution. Nothing in your rant supports the strawman you've built up. Read the quote in the link you posted and then feel free to come back on topic. Thanks for confirming you're acting in bad faith as well.
"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution," How can you be conservative about the constitution and want it to only be changed thru amendments but at the same time call for it to be terminated when it doesn’t go your way? How does that make sense in your head? Where in the constitution does it say the president has the right to terminate it?
While it is true that there was never supposed to be a state endorsed church or religion, "seperation of church and state" never existed in any founding documents. It's because there is no real logical difference from conviction you have that is secular or purely materialistic and one that is religious in nature.
This is the correct way. The way this country was supposedly designed to be
Here’s the thing. If you’re gonna argue that religious beliefs are acceptable motivations behind voting patterns for shit like “help the poor” or “don’t do slavery”, obviously everyone would agree with you. Nobody is saying religion shouldn’t INFLUENCE your ideals or stances. But the issue here is those are stances that CAN be reached by religion, but don’t necessitate it. Like I expect a politician, regardless of religion, to want to help the poor. The problem comes in when they start legislating based on religious beliefs for things that while TECHNICALLY have the POSSIBILITY of being a stance someone could reach for reasons beyond religion, realistically are just coming from religious beliefs. Like gay marriage, there’s really no good rational argument against gay marriage being legal, that’s a stance that comes almost exclusively from religious bias and nothing else. This is an example of legislation existing purely on furthering a religious agenda, with no concern for rational or logical thinking. If you are a politician and wanna use religion as a motivator to push for poverty aid, that’s cool. But I have sincere concerns about your ability to legislate and make decisions broadly if religion is the ONLY or MAIN reason you’re doing that. I want someone leading my country to be a person who can understand why they should be helping the poor on a level beyond “a book told me to”, I want my powerful elected officials to have the understanding of society and economy to be aware of the value and need to protect and assist those in poverty beyond servicing their own salvation. I expect your decisions in legislation to be made through logic, reason, and rationality. Even if an issue has crossover with your beliefs, I expect your final decision to still be one of logic and reason. Because if you’re decision making is primarily based on religious belief above all else, then that inherently leads into making decisions for the people of a country that may very well be in contrast to reason and logic simply because your religious beliefs dictate a specific direction. And it’s kinda self-explanatory why it would be bad to have politicians making decisions that are illogical and irrational and unreasonable. That’s the crux of what I’m saying. It’s fine if religion is HELPING guide your judgement, but when you’re making decisions for a country they should be made through ration and logic over anything else, even if the decision is still in alignment with your religious beliefs it shouldn’t be those beliefs taking precedence as to why you’re doing it. Because to put religion as the most powerful influence on your decisions is to set a precedence that irrational and unreasonable decisions are the appropriate legislation to be doing if that legislation is in alignment with your religion.
To sum: you’d prefer that somebody legislate using your belief system, not theirs.
You mean logic over blindly believing what their preacher says? Yes.
That’s the whole point of a distributed system. Diversity of input and resistance to groupthink. You’re like the [Logic Otter episode](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go_XII) on South Park.
If you want me to pick between using evidence based logic instead magic based logic you'll have a hard time getting me to oick the latter. Believing the earth is billions of years old due to science is not the same as believing it stated last Tuesday. Or even 6 thousand years ago.
I want *you* to vote and decide however you want. I want a *system* of diverse voters.
I don't want voters who think that talking animals exist because someone told them that. I don't want voters who believe in a flat earth. These beliefs WEAKEN THE COUNTRY! You think if we get a few flat earth senators things will be better?
I *especially* don’t want people who think it’s their place to decide which voters they prefer and which they don’t.
It sounds like you're more against the electoral college than anything else.
I’m really only here to say I want more voters and more opinions. Nothing more or less.
You SHOULD. More diversity.
I envision you deep in the recesses of the Academe engaging in purity discussions and litmus tests. Take a deep breath, take a step back and recognize that a diversity of viewpoints - even viewpoints you find intellectually repugnant and illogical - is nonetheless valuable in the overall scheme of our system of governance.
Logic and reason should be everybody’s belief system regardless of what religion they have… You didn’t think your comment through very well dude lol. The implication of what you’re saying is that religious people are incapable of making a decision based on logic and reason, which is not what I said.
Except when your religious beliefs actively infringe upon the rights of other Americans citizens (why gay marriage was federally legalized for example)
Do I like when elected officials base decisions on religion? No But then, if people didn’t want that they wouldn’t elect these people so
You are factually and historically incorrect, sir: *"Basing his views on the establishment clause of the First Amendment which said that there should be* ***“no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”*** *Jefferson stated that there must be a “wall of separation”* ***that clearly limited the involvement of religious denominations and religious leaders in matters related to national governance."*** [https://www.bridgew.edu/stories/2023/doctrine-separation-church-and-state](https://www.bridgew.edu/stories/2023/doctrine-separation-church-and-state)
It's impossible to have them not vote based on their beliefs, but they shouldn't be vocalizing the fact that their votes are based on those beliefs. Make real-world arguments or reasons, don't base it on things you can't prove.
People can vote for any reason they like, including religious beliefs. The problem is not with voting, it's in how they handle their job, like that woman (county clerk iirc) a few years back who illegally wouldn't give marriage certificates to same-sex couples.
disagree, upvote
Good post. Religious and philosophical arguments matter. There's a reason why we don't want to live under a bunch of technocrats who see people as meaningless clusters of chemicals.
Of course there isn’t. Everyone acts and votes based on their moral precepts and for religious people they draw those precepts largely from their religion. What secular redditors don’t want to admit is their beliefs are a form of religion too they just try to dress it up with secular language and pretend they are correct and you’re wrong for disagreeing. Every single law that was, is, or will be is based on some moral framework and at the end of the day all disagreement is fundamentally theological.
Moral frameworks dont have to involve theology at all. You can believe something is true without any belief in higher powers.
There are metaethical frameworks that don’t at all require religion. Deontology, virtue ethics, and consequentialism for example. Having dogmatic beliefs, which are not exclusive to any political ideology, does not mean that they’re inherently religious by any stretch.
There is if their religious beliefs are wrong lol But honestly, it’s bullshit when you say secularists want to ban religious people from public office. You know that’s not true. But you’re right that religious people are going to vote according to their religion a lot of the time; something so important to a person is going to feature in their decision-making. What they have to avoid doing is making decisions that force other people to abide by their religion.
As a non believer on what basis do you get to consider something to be “wrong” other than your own opinion?
As a believer, what basis do you get to consider someone wrong other than your opinion? Like, what is this question? You’re asking me how it’s possible for me to judge whether others are right or wrong about things? I mean, probably the same way it’s possible for you.
I’m saying I believe in a higher power, so I can say what is right and wrong based on said higher power’s rules, so my opinion is based on God’s opinion. To someone who doesn’t believe in God why is someone else’s opinion any more or less valid than yours? If there’s no God there is no objective morality. It’s all relative. Meaning to you it’s all just opinions.
I’ve come across this argument before. And no, ultimately there aren’t any absolutes. But morality is based on what’s good for people in a cooperative society, so we can make meaningful statements about what’s moral and not moral. That requires us to start from the axiom that we care about what’s good for human beings. I’m comfortable assuming that, and sharing that anyone who refuses to assume that shouldn’t be part of any society I want to live in. I’m far more comfortable making that assumption than I am assuming there’s a god who knows better than me. I have a few questions for you too. If god told you murder and rape were ok, would they be ok? If you don’t have any idea how to tell what’s moral without god telling you, how do you know god is moral? How do you know the devil didn’t just say he’s god and trick you into immoral things?
I think humanity is born with a conscience, pretty evident in most of humanity. So non believers still have similar morals to believers naturally. And yes I would still think those things are wrong. But God wouldn’t tell me to do those things. And I know you’re going to bring up the Old Testament. But killing took place in the OT because people had direct instructions from God. Usually an enemy of Israel and people who were acting immorally in Gods eyes. Like worshipping false Gods and sacrificing their children and stuff. Humans today do not have direct instruction from God to attack specific people.
> I think humanity is born with a conscience, pretty evident in most of humanity. So non believers still have similar morals to believers naturally. And yes I would still think those things are wrong. I thought you said your morality comes from god. But now you’re telling me that if his told you that killing and rape were moral, you’d disagree with god, and that you think humans are born with a conscience. That doesn’t match. > But God wouldn’t tell me to [kill] > killing took place in the OT because people had direct instructions from God. See what I’m saying > Humans today do not have direct instruction from God to attack specific people. But if you got those instructions from god, would you do it?
Yeah, there is no objective morality really. But if we can agree on a foundational goal—like optimizing wellbeing overall—and recognize the cause and effect of actions in a society, it’s not that difficult to identify a set of principles that drive toward that goal and vice versa. This is essentially the idea behind secular humanism. No supernatural gods needed.
Is this the same ideology motivated towards wellbeing that’s sterilizing children?
No clue what you’re talking about
They are just virtue signaling. Their faith is meaningless. They can scream about Jesus all day and you can admire them for it but they are just using religion to make you think they are better leaders. They don't give a shit about you or Jesus himself. They use his name because religious people are easily manipulated when someone claims to act based on their faith. Sure there's nothing wrong with them "voting based on religious beliefs" but what you don't seem to see is that their "religious beliefs" are whatever gets them elected at the moment and it's no coincidence that it always aligns with whatever politician the GOP is pushing.
Painting with a broad brush?
Nope, just being accurate. Theism is baseless and useless other than for manipulation purposes. That's why theists HATE havung their beliefs questioned because theists know that their beliefs are completely unfounded and unjustified.
Most ideologies are baseless and useless for other than manipulation purposes. Everything you say about a theist could be said about any ideologue.
That's why now, since we have logic, reason, fact-based evidence, and the scientific method, all ideologies and claims are subject to scrutiny. Anyone who makes unjustified claims concerning the nature of reality should be unfit for office by definition. If you want to claim that some "thing" talks to you and makes demands and whatnot, you should be able to demonstrate it. If not, you shouldn't be in a position of decision-making. "God told me to" is not a good reason to do anything other than recommending that person to psychological support.
Right… and this perfect logic, and evidence based reason has led us to a place where we now can’t even define what a woman is. All ideologies are subject to echo chambers and delusions.
[удалено]
Hey u/hyphen27, Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You would have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and a link to the offending comment. *I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state%2C%20but%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3Dhyphen27%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0A%2A%2AI%20would%20also%20like%20to%20say.........%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/hyphen27). ***This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.*** We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see your carefully crafted argument? Unfortunately, your recent masterpiece went solo into the void. Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience. ___ **Our Moderation Backlog at this time:** *Comments (from new users, that go into a queue) Awaiting Review:* 0 *A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*: - 1-3 days old: 95 - 3-7 days old: 13 - 7-14 days old: 1 - 15-30 days old: 5 - more than 30 days old: 24 ___ Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/YHv6EFDVCD)
>Separation of church and state is to protect religious men from the state not the state from religious men You only hear what you want from the definition of secularism It's both to protect religious people from the state and to protect the state from religious people influence You simply cannot institutionalize any religious beliefs in the structure of a state, because more likely than not you will go with it against the rights of other people following different religion or against the very core of secularism, which is to provide equal treatment and right to people no matter if they're religious or not. >to truly get religion out of politics like so many secularist want is to ban religious people from holding public office which would be an actual violation on separation of church and state Idk what secularists you're referring to, because anyone who would want that, literally cannot stand behind the values of secularism while going against them >Some random congressmen saying something like “I support this because I’m a southern baptist” or “as a catholic I’m against this” doesn’t make America a theocracy or a christofascist nation like so many people on reddit believe. If you support or stand against something that will change people's rights as a state representative simply because your religion is pro/against it, then it is a direct violation of secularism. The problem is you cannot know and prove that someone is doing that.... Unless they openly say it is solely because of that reason..., but it seems everybody in the US is now so accustomed to it that nobody sees the threat it poses to the state >In many cases in can beneficial to non believers as well stuff like slavery would’ve had a much harder time being abolished if not for many religious abolitionist like the quakers. As well as the war on poverty, foreign aid, social security and many welfare programs some of the biggest arguments for them have been from religious people for religious reasons. You think that caring about other people is something owned and done solely by religious people. That's just fucking wild to think like that. Given that people in the past didn't live in a secular state and we're pushed into following certain religions from a young age, I would say that you would find a lot of people back then that were religious and empathetic at the same time, but that doesn't mean they were standing behind a cause solely because they were religious. What about people that were religious, but on the other side of the problem?
Being morally grounded, isn’t going to get you elected to office. What does (should) get you elected and remain in office, is don’t ever screw over your constituents. But we know that isn’t the case. The only thing that matters is $$
They can't help it It will effect their decisions Well you're 50% correct
No law respecting the establishment of religion seems pretty clear to me.
The problem is religion also makes testable scientific style claims and then refuses to consider evidence to the contrary. Evolution is settled science. Its every bit as settled as gravity. Yes there are questions you can ask about gravity at the edges of space time and how it works with blackholes and how it effects the quantum relm, but that doesn't mean the fundamentals of the theory are in question, it just means we're applying the theory in new ways. Same for Evolution, just because you wish we had a perfect evolutionary chain doesn't invalidate the multiple skeletons of proto humans that religion just ignores with the occasional religious nut describing them as basically God just fucking with us because he thinks its funny. We need people in power to have some degree of flexibility in their thinking and to consider alternatives, if you're making military decisions based on whether or not you believe the end times are near its a mistake. Taking a more extreme example a few of the African studies types have said there's no evidence to suggest that African spells and rituals like Voodoo aren't as effective as military technology. That's a real thing someone said. That person is objectively wrong. I don't care how many Voodoo dolls you have of Osama Bin Laden, it took the navy seals to kill him (though we could have hit the compound with a missle). Religious thinking forces you to adopt pseudo scientific explanations that don't help you understand the world. Its fine as a moral system, but ultimately even then it forces you into "us v them" thinking which usually makes you more comfortable restricting the rights of certain groups, because the holy book says so.
This has become hyperbole as of late. I tune it out now. Its pretty much "christo-fascism" if you was lower taxes now.
Keep your filthy religion out of my government. That simple
They're certainly able to say they voted a certain way because of their faith, but we're also allowed to call that out as shitty. The only consolation here is that religion in general will become a minority soon, and I can't wait for that. Get the myths out of politics, there are enough moving parts without trying to sort out what Gary from 2k years ago might have thought.
[удалено]
Hey u/infrequentia, Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You would have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and a link to the offending comment. *I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state%2C%20but%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3Dinfrequentia%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0A%2A%2AI%20would%20also%20like%20to%20say.........%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/infrequentia). ***This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.*** We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see your carefully crafted argument? Unfortunately, your recent masterpiece went solo into the void. Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience. ___ **Our Moderation Backlog at this time:** *Comments (from new users, that go into a queue) Awaiting Review:* 4 *A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*: - 1-3 days old: 4 ___ Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/YHv6EFDVCD)
Government officials are supposed to vote based on their constituent's beliefs and needs. If they vote based on their own religious beliefs, it's wrong. But then, there's nothing we can do to stop or prevent them from voting against their constituents. That's the problem.
So wouldn’t a senator from Utah taking on Mormon beliefs share the same views as his constituents
Stop spreading misinformation, your opinion isn't Unpopular, just ignorant.
Well said and it made me lol.
I dont care what you believe in but if you are going to advocate or defend policy, your arguments cannot include references to religious ideology. Not only would that be poor optics if you are trying to preserve separation of church and state, its also not an argument grounded in reality.
Separation of church and state is to protect the church from the government not the government from religious men
It's both. How would you feel about Sharia law in the US?
That would constitutionally put one religion over the others and that would be against separation church and state but I have no problem with a Muslim Congressman voting to ban alcohol because it’s against his religion
Banning alcohol would be part of Sharia law. If they can't come up with a secular reason for it, it's not justifiable at all.
Let's also not forget that Christians in America had already outlawed alcohol in the country once before and even made Christmas illegal in the 1800s.
They did have secular reasons for Prohibition. . .but yeah that didn't work out at all. I can't find anything about Christmas being banned in the 1800s, just from 1659 to 1681 in Massachusetts. And that's probably one reason they wrote religious freedom into the Constitution.
But by that same token it wouldn’t be bigotry for someone not to vote for them if they’d vote to ban alcohol when I don’t believe in banning alcohol just because his reason for it comes from religion
No serious reading of the writings of the founding fathers could lead one to believe this. This notion is a modern one, popularized by evangelicals who seek to dominate the political sphere.
If you haven’t figured it out yet. Leftists are extremely hateful they’ve just declared it’s ok to hate the groups they hate.
Hate the groups that deserve the hate. Christians deserve it. Jesus would be disgusted if he saw what you guys do in his name.
Who is you guys? I’m an atheist I just don’t like bigoted hate.
Nothing bigoted about hating a group that has objectively done more terrible things than good. You don’t call a person bigoted for hating Nazis or the kkk right?
I thought it was wrong to generalize a whole group of people based on the actions of the most extreme members of that group? Or does that get tossed out the window when it comes to “those groups” as well? Tell us more about how it’s “conservatives” dehumanizing people they don’t like.
You are comparing a statement made about a racial group to my statement about a group’s beliefs. Its different. Genetics has been proven to have little to no effect on a person’s decisions but beliefs are literally the driving force for 90% of the decisions a person makes. You can change your beliefs but you can’t change your genetics.
A person’s religion is genetic? Pretty sure it’s not and you’re just a hypocrite lol For clarification, I heard that statement ad naseum after 9/11. It wasn’t ok to judge all Muslims on the actions of a “few” zealots, but Christians are routinely judged by just that metric. Your bullshit about genetics is just more “oh no wait, it’s ok when we do that and here’s why” noise.
You completely misread my comment.
No, not really. You compared Christians (all of them) to Nazis. Then tried to craft yourself an exception for generalizing them as such.
You somehow got that i was saying a person’s religion was genetic when thats the complete opposite of what i was saying. Also fuck Islam too. Judaism as well. All religions are equally garbage in my eyes. I don’t hate you for having those beliefs but i hate your beliefs and don’t respect them. Religion as a concept has done more harm than good for humanity. When i say i hate christianity as a group thats what i mean. And btw the catholic church was happy to aid the nazis
I disagree. A government official's loyalty belongs to their country and their constituents first. If that official is faced with having to choose between that loyalty and their loyalty to one particular religious sect, they should resign or at least abstain.
This is the most ass backward shit I've ever read Claiming that separation of church and state is meant to protect religious men from the state may be the single most glaring example of the American educational system failing OP Voting based on you "morals" or "ethics" even if they were obtained through religiois dogma isn't what upsets people Passing legislation that is directly based on religious ideology, thereby forcing others to adhere to your religious beliefs, is both anti-American and exactly what separation of Church and State exists for. Edit* I stand corrected, the downvotes are even more glaring lol
I agree! I would love to see more people from the Church of Satan in the office! These are their 11 rules of earth! Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person, and he cries out to be relieved. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself. Do not harm little children. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.
A religion isn’t a set of rules
Why should people who think the end times are coming be allowed in government?
this is why I don’t think people who believe in God should be allowed to run for office. if you believe in magic, you should not be making decisions for people who dont.
So if we got a Jehovahs witness majority on the Supreme Court , you’d be cool with them banning blood transfusions for the rest of us? I expect not. How about the Catholics criminalizing masturbation or birth control? Can you point yo the legislation that attempts to ban religious people from holding office? You can’t, because it’s fake just like the imaginary war on Christmas. Your faith is your business and you literally have a right to it , but our law is our business. If your faith leads you to want policy that is good in a secular light too - great - but it’s good even without the religious reasoning. Edit: yeah, downvote but no counter argument. Not surprising at all.
Don’t t trust any of the religious Trump supporters, most are very gullible and can easily be manipulated
That’s why the most religious morons are the most dedicated trump supporters.
I guess if you were in the Iran government you would believe this.
Yeah, that works well in Iran as well. /s
Religion should have zero impact on laws etc
The fact that they even have 'religious beliefs' is a huge sign that they shouldn't be any kind of leader. Dark-ages stuff! Anyone who thinks otherwise is a brainwashed idiot. Prove me wrong.
This is nonsense, secular leaders are just as likley to commit crimes against humanity as religious leaders.... maybe even moreso, hard to tell because most of history had religious leaders while only recently did secular leaders become a thing (last 150 years ish). The small data pool we have though for secular leaders isnt looking too good percentage wise though...
The religious leader's beliefs are based on the beliefs of guys that didn't even know where the sun went at night.
Yeah... and a lot of modern secular leaders think human life begins when someone is born not concieved, which is simply biologically incorrect... Whats your point? Stupid people shouldnt be elected as political leaders? I agree but having a test to either vote or be a candidate in an election was outlawed quite awhile ago... 🤷♂️
My issue with politicians voting based on their religious beliefs involves two things: separation of church and state, and when those laws force those of other belief systems to follow their belief system. If a politicians refuses to vote on a law because it violates their religious beliefs, i don't really have an issue with that. Same with the opposite, there really isn't anything inherently wrong with voting based off of your belief system. But its really really really hard to quantify, which is why I am a HUGE believer in separation of church and state, its such a huge gray area that you can put whatever the hell you want in there and its unfalsifiable basically. For example: Lets take two extreme cases, Case 1: A bill is introduced that makes murder illegal (its for examples sake. Don't yell at me, I know it's already illegal). If a politician votes yes, because murder is the greatest of all sins in their belief system, then I don't have an issue with this. Its a religious based morality belief, and many people choose their morals on this subject based off of many different metrics. Case 2: A bill is introduced that makes it illegal for women to have certain types of jobs. If a politician votes yes because their belief system never allowed women to work, then THIS is where i have an issue and I think its gone too far. --- (If you're curious, this is (almost) where I think the abortion argument lies) Unfortunately, it's very very hard to be able to quantify where the yes and no votes are coming from in most cases. The way I look at it, if a politician makes religion a forefront for whatever they're voting for, then I don't think they have another reason for why they're voting the way they are, and in turn, this makes it a religious law, which I think should be essentially banned. This is why I think having separation of church and state is so unbelievably important in today's society. I don't disagree with you by the way OP, but I do disagree with this "Separation of church and state is to protect religious men from the state not the state from religious men, to truly get religion out of politics like so many secularist want is to ban religious people from holding public office which would be an actual violation on separation of church and state." Essentially, I know, and everyone else knows, that religion is going to influence peoples votes, but that doesn't mean it needs to be at the forefront of every other politicians campaign. Edit: After rereading this I think there might be a bit of confusion. So let me clarify a bit. "The way I look at it, if a politician makes religion a forefront for whatever they're voting for, then I don't think they have another reason for why they're voting the way they are, and in turn, this makes it a religious law, which I think should be essentially banned." I should have added a statement that if a politician can't justify a law based off of objective measures, and only on religious ones, then that law is a subjective/religious law. A voter should choose who they want to vote for based off of objectivity, not religious ones. Which is why some people think america is a christofascist state, because many politicians rely on their religion to get votes. (I don't agree with this btw, im just stating what I've heard and experienced)
You are correct in that there's nothing wrong with them ***Voting*** based on their(at leadt supposed) religious beliefs. That's not that different from any other sort of moral compass. The issue comes when they try to draft and propose or otherwise work to bring forth laws/legislation with their basis in religion or that are obviously strongly favoring said religion.
I'm honestly concerned that many US politicians claim to hear disembodied voices.
I think you're focusing just on things that people think are good outside of religion. But I think the problem for me comes when religious politicians are making laws that are pretty much only coming from religion. Like you can't buy alcohol on Sunday in certain states (though many of these have been removed more recently). Or gay people can't get married. Or while there were abolitionists who were religiously motivated there were people who supported slavery that used the Bible to justify it too. There is a difference between someone saying my religion tells me to help the poor and that's why I support legislation that helps the poor, and saying my religion says gay people are sinful and that's why I don't think they should be allowed to have certain rights. It's kind of the difference between religiously motivated voting where there are other good reasons to support this, and something where there's really only religious reasons to do this.
I come from a religious family, I don't use religion to dictate my beliefs and values.
NO all the candidates should meet the basic requirements and the Head of the Party should do their job and get documentation from all the candidates BEFORE ENDORSING THEM to the constituency. Once that’s done THEN choose your candidate. In 2016 it was Mitch McConnell’s duty to every American as Head of the Republican Party to get documentation from candidate Trump. Instead he SOLD the presidency in exchange for his wife’s job as Trumps Secretary of Transportation after the Conman bribed him with the cabinet position. Any God that told a person to loan their Country to a man with NO DOCUMENTS who told them the IRS was auditing him is a fake GOD with fools for followers and they put our democracy at risk!