It’s not a lie. That’s how the very inventor of the term “separation of church and state” defined it and how it has been used for hundreds of years after. Roger Williams, who first used the term, was a puritan, later baptist, pastor. What you’re describing would be an innovation and expansion of what separation of church and state means. It seems what you really want is a separation between religion and state. That is a totally different issue. In the future it would be advantageous for you to be clear on that and explicitly say that it’s religion, not just church, that you want to exclude from the state.
I’m curious though. Which people would you want to exclude from the government. Church goers are obvious. But what about the “spiritual but not religious” people? Or people who believe in ghosts but not god? What about natives who believe their native religions? The non god believing buddhist? Who would define if someone is religious enough to be disallowed from running for office? Whoever that person was, that person would get immense power.
I’m fine with you insulting me. However I’m still interested to learn where you would draw the line between the non religious and the religious in your proposed ban of religious people in political office.
If I’m fine with having religious laymen in government and you’re also fine with having religious laymen in government then I’m not sure on what we disagree.
Just stop, no one is interested in your garbage laymen bullshit.
NO RELIGIOUS LAWS OR TEXTS IN THE LAWS, THEY NEED TO STAY SECULAR BECAUSE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE RELIGION AND WE WANT TO RESPECT THEM ALL.
If we start using christian laymen religious texts in laws then we will need all other religions texts right next to the christian ones so that it is fair to the other beliefs.
Is that what you want?
Is that how laws should be made?
How about just cutting religion out of the equation all together and making the text of law about the law and not about you?
It’s not a lie. That’s how the very inventor of the term “separation of church and state” defined it and how it has been used for hundreds of years after. Roger Williams, who first used the term, was a puritan, later baptist, pastor. What you’re describing would be an innovation and expansion of what separation of church and state means. It seems what you really want is a separation between religion and state. That is a totally different issue. In the future it would be advantageous for you to be clear on that and explicitly say that it’s religion, not just church, that you want to exclude from the state.
I’m curious though. Which people would you want to exclude from the government. Church goers are obvious. But what about the “spiritual but not religious” people? Or people who believe in ghosts but not god? What about natives who believe their native religions? The non god believing buddhist? Who would define if someone is religious enough to be disallowed from running for office? Whoever that person was, that person would get immense power.
lol, nice try, fuck bag. That bullshit doesn’t work here anymore.
I’m fine with you insulting me. However I’m still interested to learn where you would draw the line between the non religious and the religious in your proposed ban of religious people in political office.
Noone advocated for banning religious people. We want to prevent religious policy
If I’m fine with having religious laymen in government and you’re also fine with having religious laymen in government then I’m not sure on what we disagree.
Just stop, no one is interested in your garbage laymen bullshit.
NO RELIGIOUS LAWS OR TEXTS IN THE LAWS, THEY NEED TO STAY SECULAR BECAUSE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE RELIGION AND WE WANT TO RESPECT THEM ALL.
If we start using christian laymen religious texts in laws then we will need all other religions texts right next to the christian ones so that it is fair to the other beliefs.
Is that what you want?
Is that how laws should be made?
How about just cutting religion out of the equation all together and making the text of law about the law and not about you?