LogFAQs > #878148258

PSDragonRngr01 posted...

Zeus posted...

PSDragonRngr01 posted...

AverageBoss posted...

As long as the law applies to all religions equally, it is not a state endorsement of religion, and therefore not a violation of separation of church and state.

Now if they were to say only lift restrictions on Christian churches, or only Buddhist monasteries, then you could make a case.

Its not like out politicians are going to get any more corrupt, and I seriously doubt church money is going to compete with the mega corp money they already get. Honestly, that's probably the only reason they would list these restrictions, just a little more money in their pockets, from stupid people thinking they are making a difference.

You are ridiculously naive if you think that lifting "restrictions" for Christians will be applied equally to other religions. It doesn't even work that way now. As it stands right now the separation of Church and State barely works. Churches already endorse politicians all the time. Trump's VP comes from a red state where one of the most popular ways Republicans stay in power is to whine that "Christianity is under attack" and pass Christian favored laws. "War on Christmas" usually gets trotted out every few years.

That's not an actual endorsement from the church itself, just an endorsement from Fox News.

You can pretend that all you want. It's not true. Pence's little "right to refuse service to homosexuals" law was all about pandering to "Christians." Indiana passed a law a few years ago "protecting" teachers in case they got in "trouble" for saying Christmas. And this is with the current barriers in place. You take those away it will really go nuts.

Except that forcing somebody to act against their religion is something very explicitly prohibited in the First Amendment (which is the real separation of Church and state, and one impetus for America's earliest settlers to come here). Those laws very literally go against the original document and, more importantly, most religions have a similar view against acknowledging gay weddings. And the fact that somebody could get in trouble for saying Christmas in the first place is a very specific First Amendment violation since it was government blocking their speech in that instance (whereas a private employer would be fine). And the fact that you think these are egregious "going nuts" examples just underscores the hilarious stupidity of your claims. Getting rid of the Johnston Bill would literally do nothing. You think that it would create some caliphate for some bizarre reason, but there's zero grounds to the belief first in terms of the scope (since it's just an ENDORSEMENT) and secondly because back before Johnson's speech suppression bill was a thing those issues never existed anyway. It was always nothing less than a cheap political tactic, a leftist jellybean test designed to block free speech ONLY from religious groups -- very specifically targeting Christians -- while still giving it to other non-profits who, in many cases, had ACTUAL benefit from their access to speech because they got government funding.

@PSDragonRngr01
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash