Do You Understand Separation of Church & State?

[@allieversaid]

The fact we have to argue the reason we separate religion and state functions in 2018 is a travesty.

[@CC-dc6hv]

The constitution never said “separation from church and state” it was in a Jefferson’s letter that he wrote to the church

[@manbearpig710]

@@CC-dc6hv it was implied you dunce. Thomas Jefferson was from the age of science and proof of facts. Religion has none of that

[@capame3737]

2023... It's getting worse. Some of them went rogue. They claim Jesus Quotes are now liberal and weak.

[@Sparklespepper]

I'm a Christian and I hate the idea of putting religion and politics together. Both are difficult on their own; mixing them together makes it more difficult than it already is. Also hate the fact that politicians use religion as an excuse to pass their own motives; for example, the separation of children at the borders.

[@bofbob1]

Amen brother. Signed, an atheist who has no beef with believers of any kind as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on others by force or state power. (but I still think y'all are nuts ^^).

[@paulryan5984]

Sparklespepper; State and church have been one entity since 1956. The facts list about what a 501c3 church corporation is by lawful state definition: The creator of a corporation is the State. The State is the sole authority and sovereign head over the corporation. The corporation is subject to the laws of the State which limits its powers. The corporation has no constitutionally protected rights. The corporation is an artificial person. The corporation submits to a State Charter declaring it is a creature of the State. The corporation is created for the benefit of the public. The corporation is a State franchise. The corporation is a privilege granted by the State.

[@benspruce8930]

How can separation of children from their parents be justified in the minds of the religious? Jesus preached nothing but love for fellow man (especially the downtrodden) and forgiveness of human transgressions. We have Christianity across the rest of the world... not so much in the US (bare in mind that Plymouth Brethren were expelled from Europe BECAUSE they had these weird and dangerous ideas, unfortunately now you guys have to deal with that mess).

[@michaelmarini94]

Umm, what does separating children have to do with religion?

[@benspruce8930]

greg garner That came later... under Paul (Paulianity, as mentioned by somebody above) and the establishment of the Church, which Jesus himself was never interested in doing, FYI: it was never mentioned in the Gospels. FYI, part 2... I have degrees in many subjects, one of which being Religious Studies. All of this shite from you that you're being victimised by 'godless liberals' is simply not true. I suggest that if you are truly a Christian, as you claim to be... that you learn your Bible (not even your Bible history), you'll realise what you said was largely nonsensical.

[@MaskOfCinder]

In God We Trust is a ridiculous motto that should not be endorsed by our government.

[@benmangrum8626]

Will J Shut up

[@hutchtv7640]

Damn right, that's the problem

[@ununseptium7961]

It's on special license plates in Indiana.

[@elisekrentzelauthor]

Will J it’s actually taken from the British whose Anglican Church are part of the state as in Islamic countries. The evangelicals are insanely fanatical who are racist bigots with tiny pea brains

[@jufulu7066]

Let's go back to e pluribus unum the original (un-official) motto. In God We Trust was adopted in 1956.

[@ComradeCrab93]

If the church or any religious organization wants to weigh in on anything to do with the government, they need to be taxed. Otherwise, keep them separate.

[@pitpride1220]

I agree. They should consider it tithing.

[@IronMan-wz8dx]

I wouldn't want it in government. Keep it out forever.

[@maryannlammersen6536]

Yes, and amen, Chancellor! Maybe there are solid social programs for the poor and disadvantaged that tax money could go toward?? Christians- put your money where your mouth is...I think Jesus would give up his second coat....just sayin'...

[@jeffc5974]

They should be taxed anyway. Exempting them from taxation puts the government in the position of deciding what counts as a religion. Exactly what the founders thought was a bad idea.

[@GreenDragon11]

Chancellor Paulpatine Regardless of whether they are taxed or not (I do agree that they loose that benefit) they need to stay out of our secular government! I’m so sick of this pathetic people!

[@hikikomicklori9290]

You can boil all this down to once sentence: Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.

[@robotech6424]

Hikikomicklori of course it does. I have the freedom to be an atheist, my neighbor has the freedom to be a catholic or Muslim, or Buddhist, or another atheist, or whatever they want.

[@hikikomicklori9290]

@Konrad Dawid Wojsław if they want to pray before every meal, if the want to not use birth control, if the want to not abort a child they can choose to do so in their own lives. What they shouldn't be able to do is deny others what they want to do because it conflicts with scripture.

[@jonjonboi3701]

Robo Tech But atheism isn’t a religion...

[@sabin97]

he brings forth a very important point that should persuade even the religious: you cant have freedom OF religion if you dont have freedom FROM religion.

[@DManCAWMaster]

sabin97 That really isn't what the Constitution ensured. It just ensured government wouldn't establish a national church

[@jeffc5974]

Actually it is. When you have the government making any law with respect to religion, you no longer have freedom of religion.

[@sabin97]

"It just ensured government wouldn't establish a national church" that's exactly what freedom FROM religion means. you dont have to follow any religion you dont want to follow. and you cannot be penalized for that.

[@DManCAWMaster]

sabin97 No all that means is the federal government won't just make one official national church whom they favor. They thought states could decide for themselves

[@sabin97]

+dman the moment a government(be it regional or national, makes zero difference) can impose a religion on you, you have no freedom of religion.

[@citrinedragon1466]

Considering that many of the settlements in the first colonies were minority religions (and mostly strict Christians), the need to separate church and state was not about whether people believe, but rather about removing the fighting BETWEEN them by removing the pressure for politicians to demand preference for their own beliefs over that of their neighbours. There is increasingly an upswing of religious fervour and prejudices against people based on different beliefs... and it is hugely affecting politics

[@z.s.7992]

We can't get voting day as a national holiday but good Friday has a holiday?

[@shannalee2520]

both.

[@elchapojunior3091]

We need a secular inquisition

[@MaskOfCinder]

Nobody expects the secular inquisition.

[@killerfunghoul3948]

Will J 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@DManCAWMaster]

ElChapo Junior Let's see Atheists are outnumbered, outgunned and outfianced. How would you expect a war like that to go

[@killerfunghoul3948]

DManCAWMaster never seen monty python i take it?

[@carollandon3083]

Religion and state... It's separated. In the constitution.

[@Michael-mh2tw]

Abortion can be a secular issue. It is for me. Atheist and pro-life.

[@justing1810]

Im a conservative Christian and I support separation of church and state. Separation of church and state maintains religious freedom.

[@Vandalia_Steelers]

David!Please do a story about Logan, West Virginia.Prayer is being banned over the loudspeaker at football games and the public high school practically endorses Christianity!I go there now and it’s a mess!

[@bobh5087]

There's a *glaringly obvious solution* to this church-state muddle: all religionists *must strictly and scrupulously keep their beliefs restricted to their homes and places of worship, period.* Religionists must leave the government, schools, and the public sphere alone to do their *wholly secular work,* without the inevitable *chaos, rancor and confusion* that dogma invariably engenders. Simple, right? Our Founding Fathers, who were all steeped in Secular Enlightenment-inspired *Rationalism and Reason,* were well-aware (from their first-hand European experiences) of the *catastrophic dangers* inherent in mixing religion with the operation of governance -- and vice versa. If they had *intended* for America to be a theocracy, they would have *plainly said so.* And, thankfully, they did not. Quite to the contrary, the *completely godless* Constitution they wisely left us is America's last and greatest Hope for today and the future. And it must be *vigilantly safeguarded* from all who would pervert and corrupt it for their own sinister and deluded purposes. This is why *rational, secular-minded judges* must be appointed at every level -- *particularly SCOTUS.*

[@kayzeaza]

I hate that people put religion in front of country

[@bolshevikY2K]

Ah yes, the part of the first amendment so many people forget -- freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion.

[@Chilltownify]

Great interview!!!! Great guest! Thanks David!!!

[@JaBarge303]

People don’t remember that in god we trust was not always on the money....

[@shannalee2520]

Money is not God...leave it there...do not trust in money...or those that do.

[@-Takoyaki-]

So....Jeff Session's "Religious Liberty Task Force" implemented on 7/31/2018 ?

[@robotech6424]

Takoyaki unconstitutional.

[@DevilTravels]

To keep church and government separate, it is up to the people to hold their religious and political leaders fully accountable for their words and actions. Giving them a pass only enables bad behavior. Making excuses for them only emboldens their corruption.

[@benspruce8930]

I do understand it... My degree was in Religious Studies :) FYI, I love the Founding Fathers version of the Bible: literally just the 4 Gospels, and that's it... the rest is awful, strangely non-Christian nonsense.

[@TorianTammas]

Ben Spruce - Interesting as you say said as Paul's (the guy who never meet Jesus) letters are assumed to be the oldest writings. They do not include all the walking over water, turning water into wine and all the heathen gods elements. Fascinating isn't it?

[@benspruce8930]

TorianTammas I think maybe you are mis-remembering your Bible history. Paul was a heathen, he was not Jewish. Much of his schtick is therefore heathen and not Jewish. Plus the guy met Jesus AFTER he died... that's a supernatural element. I don't want to get into the dates of which parts of the Bible were written first: that's an argument being carried out by thousands of academics over a course of many lifetimes, and to make any kind of point based on whether a piece of writing is more or less genuine depending on its age is disingenuous... on a YT comment at least.

[@benspruce8930]

Frederick Delius Legacy - And Far Beyond That's pretty interesting. I was really just expressing how the Founding Fathers felt about it all, not how I feel (although, coincidentally, I do find the 'Paulianity' aspect of orthodox Christianity to be very problematic (as is the continued use of Old Testament teachings of a religion which predates Christianity by hundreds or thousands of years, and seems to be concerned with a totally different deity)).

[@TorianTammas]

Ben Spruce - The usual agreement of the experts is that Paul was the first who ever wrote about Jesus with the claim of some way of knowing while he never meet him. Paul is claimed to have been Jewish, even as we have no evidence for it. The 12 apostles did not write anything and just died. So we have the 4 gospels which were written at unknown places by unknown people and according to. These gospels get the more fantastic the further they are from the possible event. Mark's Jesus is a rather decent guy which tells the others not to talk about his miracles, while John's Jesus the kick ass god is.

[@combatchaos]

Really looking forward to Andrew's book!

[@steik6414]

Seperation of church and state is all well and good, but what the U.S. really needs is a seperation of powers. When the primary motivation for someone voting for a certain president is the ability of that president to fill the judiciary (with life-time appointments no less) then something has clearly gone drastically wrong.

[@dawnevans6002]

That was very informative! Thanks for sharing!

[@patricSculley]

it was wrong. let’s consider an argument that focuses on the precise wording of the First Amendment and the intentions of the Founding Fathers: Textual Interpretation: The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"1. This text can be read as a straightforward restriction on the powers of Congress, without any broader implications about a national religion or the separation of church and state. In this interpretation, the First Amendment simply prevents Congress from making laws that interfere with the establishment of any religion or the free exercise thereof by individuals. Absence in the Federalist Papers: The Federalist Papers, a series of essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, were instrumental in shaping the Constitution23. However, they do not explicitly discuss the concept of a national religion or the separation of church and state in relation to the First Amendment. This absence could suggest that these concepts were not primary concerns of the Founding Fathers when drafting the First Amendment. Founding Fathers’ Intent: The Founding Fathers were meticulous in their wording of the Constitution4. If they had intended to establish a strict separation of church and state or to prohibit a national religion, they could have explicitly stated so in the Constitution. The fact that they did not could be seen as evidence that these were not their intended interpretations of the First Amendment. Historical Context: At the time the Constitution was written, several states had established religions5. The First Amendment was initially binding only on the federal government, not the states, suggesting that its primary aim was to prevent the federal government from interfering with state religions and individual religious practices, rather than to establish a separation of church and state or prohibit a national religion. In this view, the First Amendment is about protecting individual religious freedom and preventing congressional interference with religious organizations, rather than establishing a separation of church and state or prohibiting a national religion. As always, interpretations can vary, and the meaning of the Constitution continues to be a topic of ongoing legal debate

[@iriniskevofilax2846]

Such a useful and informational video! Thank you for making this!

[@vernichtungssoldat6110]

great interview and guest Dave!

[@MaccDaKnife]

Good stuff 👍

[@maryannlammersen6536]

Can't wait for his book to come out. This is super important stuff to have public education and debate about! Thanx David....I like reading about history and just thinking about this country being really the first to separate church and state is so phenomenal. Sad that we are in this fight to maintain these original democratic principles. The religious right has been sneaking in this theocratic argument for a long time....fight on...and thanks to Freedom from Religion!

[@cameroncourtney9083]

my father had a story about Christmas trees not being sprayed by firemen to be fire retardant since they claimed separation of church and state. some stuff is valid and others are not.

[@muzzmilk2606]

I clicked because I thought the title was church and skate, spoiler alert, it wasn’t.

[@0110-d6s]

This is a good interview dave. We should platform more atheists activists anytime we get a chance.

[@rayseckler2595]

Yes ,No separation !

[@johntrevy1]

Why? What are you afraid of?

[@therecanonlybeone7131]

Not Dump supporters, just read the comments. Come on Dump supporters, due me proud.

[@ekojar3047]

The definition of Separate or Separation is easy to understand. When parents separate, that means they are not together right? It doesn't mean mom can't go see Dad, but Dad can do whatever he wants to mom. No it does not. Church is forcing its way into policy and its unconstitutional. We have the freedom of religion, but this should just be common sense that your own personal religion should not be the driving force of your policies in the state. For example the Texas Abortion law. That should be unconstitutional because that is religion being forced into the state. Be we have too many Christians in government.

[@daveb5041]

*WHEN DID GAY MARRIAGE BECOME ILLEGAL? I don't think there should be a law making it legal since it was never prohibited in the first place, If we make a law making it legal you are setting an option to make it illegal at some point* .Make law defining marriage as two humans.

[@live2groove]

My issue is; What would keep me from making up my own religion an claiming that I should be exempt from certain laws ? I'd image that my religion and religious practices would have to be some how established and excepted my a significant amount of other followers, correct..?? In that line of thought, why is homesuality okay with some Christians and not others.? Why should certain Christians be allowed to discriminate against a certain group when it's not fully accepted by all Christians.. In other words, how autonomous are Christians allowed to be?

[@jamesbuchanan3888]

What is necessary for checks and balances??? The separation of Church and state is a separation of powers. ... The civil authority wielding "the sword" against those who do evil is separate from the ecclesiastic authority whose doctrines determine which acts are evil. Powers are separated in order to have chacks and balances. If state law determines which acts are legal and moral, there is no appeal to the intrinsically innocent nature of the act as a legitimate defense. Theocracy has the same structural problem. This separation of powers permits a specialization of labor. The state can police evil acts without a need to force people to be virtuous, and religion is free to extol the highest virtues because they do not bear "the sword" to force virtuous behavior. This structure permits a large middle ground of discretionary actions. In common law court structure... If an act is guilty but not illegal, the defendant can choose a bench trial in which the laws of the state will be applied as the standard of moral conduct. If an act is illegal but intrinsically innocent, a defendant can choose a trial by jury in which the jury is sworn to give a true verdict. Can a state law transform an intrinsically innocent act into a guilty act? This is mutual nullification based on a separation of powers.

[@NeoRipshaft]

Also David - Andrew Seidel and P. Andrew Torrez are both nonstop wellsprings of awesomeness - have them on regularly... or have them both on, they're great together =p They've had a few episodes together on the Opening Arguments podcast

[@josephgrant1151]

The separation of church and state was to protect the government!

[@randomeshelter]

And now we have Bladensburg.

[@paulryan5984]

The American churches are not churches at all. They are government entities created by teh government for use by the government. The facts list about what a 501c3 church corporation is by lawful state definition: The creator of a corporation is the State. The State is the sole authority and sovereign head over the corporation. The corporation is subject to the laws of the State which limits its powers. The corporation has no constitutionally protected rights. The corporation is an artificial person. The corporation submits to a State Charter declaring it is a creature of the State. The corporation is created for the benefit of the public. The corporation is a State franchise. The corporation is a privilege granted by the State.

[@MaxRamos8]

You don't need a secular government. That means you are excluding people of any religion. There should be no BASIS of religion, but Every person in Government is free to worship what they have faith in

[@johntrevy1]

Free to worship yes, but not free to make laws based around what they worship.

[@chokinonashes61]

Watch Chris Hedges on the rise of the Christian right wing, and more recently, the rise of Trump.

[@hemidas]

"America is a Christian Nation!" Me: "Uhm, which one?"

[@lisaskaggs3457]

Your right because a Nation that was built on the blood of the true Americans that were already here and no way shape or form could be blessed or Godly

[@geezzerboy]

The use of the word Creator, in the constitution, for many people, can only mean Jehovah. The God of Gensis. Bad choice of word.

[@Dreamzs1]

I know a person who will break that rule really well. :) Jesus when he comes back will surprise us all!

[@manbearpig710]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 show me proof troll

[@patricSculley]

your guest along with yourself are clueless. let’s consider an argument that focuses on the precise wording of the First Amendment and the intentions of the Founding Fathers: Textual Interpretation: The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…". This text can be read as a straightforward restriction on the powers of Congress, without any broader implications about a national religion or the separation of church and state. In this interpretation, the First Amendment simply prevents Congress from making laws that interfere with the establishment of any religion or the free exercise thereof by individuals. Absence in the Federalist Papers: The Federalist Papers, a series of essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, were instrumental in shaping the Constitution. However, they do not explicitly discuss the concept of a national religion or the separation of church and state in relation to the First Amendment. This absence could suggest that these concepts were not primary concerns of the Founding Fathers when drafting the First Amendment. Founding Fathers’ Intent: The Founding Fathers were meticulous in their wording of the Constitution4. If they had intended to establish a strict separation of church and state or to prohibit a national religion, they could have explicitly stated so in the Constitution. The fact that they did not could be seen as evidence that these were not their intended interpretations of the First Amendment. Historical Context: At the time the Constitution was written, several states had established religions. The First Amendment was initially binding only on the federal government, not the states, suggesting that its primary aim was to prevent the federal government from interfering with state religions and individual religious practices, rather than to establish a separation of church and state or prohibit a national religion. In this view, the First Amendment is about protecting individual religious freedom and preventing congressional interference with religious organizations, rather than establishing a separation of church and state or prohibiting a national religion. As always, interpretations can vary, and the meaning of the Constitution continues to be a topic of ongoing legal debate

[@pranays]

good interview; but workers need more holidays not less.

[@jonahkunzler7519]

Isn’t in god we trust on every piece of currency in America? I’m confused as to how that’s separation

[@rayseckler2595]

People such as you !! Nutty !!

[@sandrahunter5904]

True.

[@iloveryangreasley6172]

But come on, Christmas transcends Christianity, I’m not religious but I LOVE the Christmas season. It’s about brotherhood and love not the birth of Christ.

[@CLewey44]

I will probably read this book as long as he doesn't talk about Christianity as if it's as bad as Islam.

[@joedanero5360]

Wait until they're discriminated against by a Muslim or an Atheist by their own laws.

[@johnsweda2999]

that's right the four founders of the constitution because they were persecuted in England for their religious beliefs mainly the Jacobites and had to flee the country otherwise they would have been put to death. so they did deliberately wrote in the constitution for religion to not play a part in politics and for anybody to have free religious belief without persecution. Christians used to celebrate the birth of Christ in January in the Middle Ages. Christmas came about because it was a Pagan holiday of the winter solstice and they adopted this date for Christmas.

[@obliviousmaximus24]

So the gvt shouldn't recognize marriage?

[@jasoningram4042]

😇 *Separation of Church an State* 😇 Find this video it's only a minute or so long. They're playing AC/DC thunderstruck and he falls from heaven for the fireball hits the ground and he electrifies the Arizona grid. If that isn't absolute proof enough for you and nothing ever will be. "Arizona's Hell" *Luke 10:18* “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” *Revelation 16:8-9* The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and it was allowed to scorch people with fire. They were scorched by the fierce heat, and they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give him glory. The table below notes what share of Arizona's general revenues came from the federal government in 2014. That year, Arizona received approximately $10.5 billion in federal aid, 35.5 percent of the state's general revenues.

[@gabrielhyer9733]

Dude I agree with all of this but why does every goddamn question have to be a loaded one, like this isn't going to inform anyone who doesn't already agree. Information is power but if you're trying to turn people off on purpose what's the point?

[@Overton_Windows]

Like when the crown brought in the high sparrow on game of thrones to enforce “gods laws” along with man’s?

[@JemDreamz]

Soaping front herbalist back

[@letsbeboldaboutjesus1647]

This is horrible,, I think there’s a lot missing from his understanding.

[@nikolademitri731]

Handsome af, articulate, lawyer for the FFRF... anyone know if this guy is single, and at least bi, bc this is husband material! Look forward to your book, sir! (Now, please call me boi, and tell me I’m naughty..) 😂🙏🏼✌🏼

[@Chilltownify]

Settle down lol

[@nikolademitri731]

Chilltownify lol

[@rayseckler2595]

Sorry U been.Brainwashed but hope all will Pray for your Recovery !

[@TheMaryam1891]

Isn't it the standing of the state of Colorado bringing the case for for the gay couple? That turned the cake decorator into some kind of religious hero?

[@Joeybz1]

I disagree with his understanding..

[@joshua10jko3]

where is the capital? what two states was the district of Columbia born? Virginia and Maryland- virgin Mary

[@AmbivalentPit]

hmm well then

[@CLewey44]

Haha between Studios?

[@arlarl5122]

Parkman show from couch. Down hill.

[@johntrevy1]

They are in the process of moving.

[@cowtoyscbc]

This man is completely ignorant of History or Documents that supports it. The Wall of Separation was not found in the The Declaration of Independence or The Constitution or the Federalist Papers. It was only spoken in the Danbury Letter which if you read it says the opposite of what is being presented.

[@janetlynch5804]

Of course you won't find it in The Declaration of Independance, because it was a document that declared that the American Colonies were free of British Rule, in which the Colonists considered a tyrannical government to the Colonists, when America was now free from English rule to establish our own government. Thomas Jefferson wrote "the Wall of Separtion" of Church and State. and in the Constitution which originally had been written in old legal jargon that m.any today are unfamiliar with. The 1st Amendment which included the Establishment Clause. ALSO In the state of Connecticut there were Churches called the Anabaptist where some still practiced Church rule over state governance. So when the Constitution was officially established the leaders of the Anabaptist Church wrote to Thomas Jefferson asking him what does this mean? Can we still practice Church rule? Jefferson wrote back to the Anabaptists and answered their question and Thomas Jefferson told them basically No, you can not practice Church rule anymore, then Jefferson went on to describle the meaning of Separation of Church and State, as a needed "Wall of Separation" of Church and State:. The most famous use of the metaphor was by Thomas Jefferson in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. In it, Jefferson declared that when the American people adopted the establishment clause they built a “wall of separation between the church and state.” Jefferson had earlier witnessed the turmoil of the American colonists as they struggled to combine governance with religious expression. Some colonies experimented with religious freedom while others strongly supported an established church. firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state/#:~:text=In%20it%2C%20Jefferson%20declared%20that,combine%20governance%20with%20religious%20expression.

[@janetlynch5804]

Scroll down to a Letter Thomas Jefferson also wrote to Benjamin Rush in 1800.. Above

[@hypatiastanhope4716]

🤔

[@benmangrum8626]

America is religious

[@Chilltownify]

Sadly...

[@TorianTammas]

Ben Mangrum - Humans can have a religion or not, but countries can't.

[@alanking6240]

This guy has know idea of what he is talking about. There is no reference to the separation of church and state in the constitution. The idea of the separation of church and state come from Jefferson's letter to the Baptists in Boston and what is believed today is taken out of context from Jefferson's letter. The constitution itself is based on religion, John Locke, and Montesquieu. You can find verses in the Bible that relate heavily to text in the constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[@robotech6424]

By the standards of “religious freedom” terrorism based on religion would be legal.

[@ingibingi2000]

Christmas is secular now

[@okaro6595]

The idea that December 25th as federal holiday somehow establishes religion is insane. Soon you claim that one has to move the weekend to the middle of the week as Sunday is the Christian holy day. Also Christmas is mostly a secular holiday anyway. Christmas trees, presents, the extreme commercial nature of Christmas has nothing to do with religion. Bake the cake, slave. Freedom is more important than some lesbian couple's feelings. In these cases it was not that the bakers refused the customers because they were gay. They just did not want to take part in a ceremony that was against their religion. Should Jews be forced to make swastika cakes? As long as it is a standard product or service sell it to anyone, but if someone asks a personalized service the provider should have a freedom. Government is too blunt instrument to micromanage when he has a choice and when not, just as it is to decide when a pregnant woman has a choice and when not.

[@ComradeCrab93]

It's illegal to discriminate against people for sexual orientation reasons. You and the baker are factually wrong. Learn something before making an argument.

[@carsonbotelho3776]

@@ComradeCrab93 obviously he's not wrong, because he Baker didn't lose the supreme court case. Yes, it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation, but it is also illegal to force someone to use their freedom of expression to support something they don't personally agree with. There are more factors at play in this argument, so don't be naive.

[@ComradeCrab93]

@@carsonbotelho3776 Oh, you mean the sham that was completely biased because the ruling was decided by religious people? The court was wrong and anyone who knows what the law actually is knows that. You need some education as well.

[@okaro6595]

Yes, and 70 years ago it was illegal for blacks to sit in the front of the bus. The fact that something is a law does not make it right. There are unjust laws. Laws should limit to preventing people from hurting each other and not to force people to do things. The bakers dd not discriminate on basis of sexual orientation. They were willing to serve the people. They just did not want to take part in the wedding they did not approve. When the gay marriage was argued a favorite argument from the left was that it would not force anything on straight people. That was a lie. What if I sell Christmas decorations? Should I be forced to sell also decorations for Muslim holidays?

[@waleuska]

If you only sell Christmas decorations no. But they ask to but two figures on a cake. Figures that they sold already.

[@chadjohnson3737]

First

[@DManCAWMaster]

Lol the Constitution is "Godless" because the Founding Fathers believed in small government and matters of religion should be decided on a state level. Also separation of church and state has been around in some form or another for thousands of ideas. Hell even Jesus talks about a certain form when he says Render onto Cazaer what is his. Thomas Jefferson was talking to Baptists and quoted a noted member of them for the separation of church and state who exclusively meant government shouldn't interfere with religion. Really the whole notion of separation of church and state to mean to keep religion out of the government didn't come about till 1930s

[@TorianTammas]

The idea of separation of state and religion comes from Christians discriminating Christians. Religious groups where infighting and in one part of the country one was denied public office if one had the false Christian denomination while in another only people with the denominated where eligible to vote for. They tried to keep this Christian war out of the government.

[@DManCAWMaster]

TorianTammas They just didn't want to establish a national church like the church of England did

[@DManCAWMaster]

jfsfrnd Look you can show all the documents you want but the fact remains that they operated like that. While tests for office were banned they were not really enforced and states only recently had to give up praying in public schools. That's because the Founding Fathers believed in a small government. Jefferson was a firm supporter of laizze faire and got heat whenever he did anything resembling big government. They had religious speeches all the time in government buildings then. They just believed the government couldn't be like the Church of England which was an established national church that got favored over other denominations. So what they meant is no national church would be made that would favor one over the other

[@DManCAWMaster]

jfsfrnd I've done better. I've read works by a more than 1 scholar on the work

[@cowtoyscbc]

This is MIS INFORMATION plain and simple.

[@alottocash6875]

“America if you’re listening“The separation of church and state is not a declaration of separation but it is a declaration of inclusion. We are basically a Christian nation formed under God. Remember the Pilgrims? All of our democratic operations were create for them the bible. It makes no sense that we would preach separation. The separation of church and state was adopted so that persons of different religious backgrounds in the United States, Jewish persons for example, could participate in the democratic process of this country. The word Separation in the title has misled persons to believe that the two are different. There is no separation of church and state, they are both the same. The state was form out of the church, by the church. Study our history and you will understand. This error has been taught to long in our country, and come to be to be thought of as true. Don’t take my word for it, For those who can understand start reading the Book of Numbers in the bible where our democracy was drafted from.

[@janetlynch5804]

You're suggesting that the intertwining of Church and State, as being the same? BS. Our Constitution was copied from and created on the basis of Magna Carta of England in 1215. Anytime, there is an intertwining of religion and governmental politics (it has always been proven many times historically) to be a calamity upon that society. Holy Wars, bloodshed, and often dictatoral over man's law of the land as Government, and the Church is God's Spiritual law and should always be separate and free of man's law, as both have their important purposes. When all the way back to the ancient Sumerians, Egypt, and ancient Israel, and the holy wars fought after the Protestant Reformation in Europe, which began in 1517, the wars disrupted the religious and political order. At that time the Church ruled over the Government If the Church said it, then off with your head, burnings at the stake, hangings, guillotines, imprisoned indefinitely, and other tortures, which were determined to be unfair by Catholics and Protestants creating a 100 year war. Then, onto America as Colonies and the horrors of the Salem Witch Trials. This history and its injustices and in the Old World Europe where religion dictated a society were still fresh on the Founders of America's minds, when writing the new and later Constitution thus "a Wall of" Separation of Church and State" as written by Thomas Jefferson and declared in the basics of the Constitution in the 1st Amendment " The Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution establishes the concept of separation of church and state in the 1st Amendment with the "Establishment Clause" : States that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This means that the government can not create an official religion, or favor one religion over another, or unduly influence Americans' religious lives.. Just look at some the Countries today ruled by a religious Theocracy type of Government. Iran, Saudia Arabia, and many others. I don't think I'd like to be ruled by any religion...i.e. made to pray at certain times 5 times a day and all the injustices that occur there regularly. No, not for me. The U.S. is not a Christian Nation nor established as one. The word God does not appear once in the Constitution. We are a Republic under a democracy, Of and for the people, and is made up of many types of diverse peoples. Admittingly, a sovereign Nation State, that just so happens to be by a majority of believers in some form of Christianity. But that doesn't not mean we are solely a Christian Nation, nor Founded as one. Keep Government and the Church always free. One is for the earthly governed, while still on earth, and one for the Spiritality of mankind with God's Law and his devine comfort and guidance.

[@janetlynch5804]

No. Please learn some real history, and read the Estabishment Clause in the 1st Amendment of the United States of America in the Constitution. Also the word "God" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

[@DManCAWMaster]

Also the gay people in the Masterpiece bakeshop were against freedom of association. A private business has the right to refuse service to anyone and the person who is refused service has every right to peacefully protest the business that does so and give them bad publicity. The owner Jack Philips wasn't descriminating against the gay couple as he said he would sell them anything else but a cake. He wasn't descriminating against them as persons but their position on gay marriage. If a straight couple wanted a cake that endorsed gay marriage he'd refuse it just the same. The Hobby lobby case wasn't forcing their religious beliefs on their employees they were defending their property rights and they didn't say their employers couldn't do the contraception they just said they wouldn't pay for it. Many companies don't cover condoms for men and you know what I do? I take the money that I've earned from working at the company and buy them myself. Women can be expected to do the same thing. Under free market capitalism being a bigot would be the stupidest thing you could be if you were running a business because when you refuse service to one customer another business owner who isn't a bigot will do demonstrably better.

[@janetlynch5804]

This is a condemnation of differing people you feel you have nothing in common.. We are not talking about the culture of differing people. We were talking about the Separation of Church and State politically.