The taliban comes to mind ..

Every law they pass that imposes the beliefs of one religion on those who do not share the beliefs is a violation of the first amendment.

And that includes laws banning abortion.

Unfortunately, the Six Black-Robed traitors increasingly corrupt "interpretations" of our constitution have enabled the theocrats to enact laws that are intolerable violations of the most fundamental rights of the people.

because what the current government is doing is none of the church's business.

Soooooooooo..........................

separation of church and state only applied to the critics against RWers.

Last edited Tue Apr 14, 2026, 10:53 AM - Edit history (1)

On abortion, contraception, and gay rights.

One push back by the Pope on the RW agenda, and the chief executive behaves like an ass.

"Democrat" is a Repuke SLUR.

Thanks.

The USA was founded on the separation of church and state, that's one of the founding philosophies behind the Declaration of Independence. I really wish the MAGA-cult would explain why they have a problem with this.

In its more authoritarian forms, religion punishes questioning and rewards gullibility. Faith is not a function of stupidity, but a frequent cause of it! Mark Twain: “Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool!”

...in the church of their choice. I bend my knee to no one, god or mortal.

Oh?

I thought everyone here was adamant that we not 'go that route'.

Just what kind of 'trouble' will there be, when the group that needs to make said trouble refuses to do so?

This stuff goes ALL the way back. Biden managed to be the first Catholic President to SURVIVE office. That was a deep concern when he ran and won.

It goes back to the 1840s with a large immigrant wave of Irish Catholics here -

The Philadelphia Bible Riots




Mobs don’t think, as the adage goes, but they have often substituted for thinking by playing a leading role in fomenting political disagreements and deciding political questions.

Mobs fill vacuums. They arise and pose a threat in multiple circumstances: when government is weak or ineffective; where government actively participates in actions that a large proportion of the population perceives to be unjust; and when mobs and governments join forces to assault an out-of-favor group. American history is replete with examples of each.

In May and July 1844, the streets of Philadelphia were witness to combinations of these circumstances to deadly effect. In The Fires of Philadelphia: Citizen-Soldiers, Nativists, and the 1844 Riots Over the Soul of a Nation, George Mason University history professor Zachary M. Schrag offers a meticulously detailed blow-by-blow account of how a dispute ostensibly over Bibles in public schools inspired deadly rage.

Although the tinder that sparked the so-called Bible Riots was—as is so often the case—alleged concern about “the children,” the debate regarding which Bible kids should read in school was actually a proxy for a more insidious divide in which “nativists” strove to deprive new Catholic immigrants of the full rights of citizenship.

(snip)

public school teachers to read a full chapter from the King James Bible at the start of every school day. Catholic kids in school did not like it, but I did not know that until 6th grade graduation, when the teacher picked me to read a Psalm for the opening of graduation ceremonies.

I practiced reading aloud for several days before graduation day because I knew I'd feel nervous in front of the two graduating classes and all the parents. I practiced in our back yard, away from my siblings.

My best friend dropped by and I asked her to listen and tell me if I was doing OK. She refused because it was a Protestant Bible. Until then, I did not know that Catholics and Protestants had different Bibles. I had a lot of Catholic neighbors and classmates, but it had not come up before then, at least not in front of me.

About 2 years later the SC ruled against the practice. The pastor of our Lutheran church gave a sermon in support of the ruling, explaining that the only way to ensure freedom of religion is to maintain the separation of church and state.

The first case was -

Engel v. Vitale forbidding requiring prayer in school

And the second originated in a school system a few miles from where I live and put an exclamation point on the first case -

School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp

And yup, the Catholic Bible has a bunch of extra chapters not in the Protestant ones (and there are many Protestant versions)

IOW, there would be a "battle over Bibles", something that was a trigger for riots here in Philly as noted here - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3650011

And then there is the Torah and the Koran - both as bookends to the Christian Bible.

there are also differences in some of the verse translations between the Douay Bible and King James. When I was in 6th grade, there were not nearly as many Bible versions as there are today. King James was still considered by a lot of Protestants as the standard version.

The Bible that Martin Luther translated into German had the Apochrypha in it. I found my great-grandmother's German Bible in my parents' attic.

There were no Jewish or Muslim students at my grade school, but, of course, their rights were being trampled by that PA law, too, where they attended public schools. .

I think it was the "Lost Books of the Bible".

I'm sure few would want to get into the story of Jesus as a child and later being married, etc., or the "real" story of Mary Magdalene. A lot of picking and choosing over the centuries.

I am Episcopal and it's like how they changed the "Book of Common Prayer" in the '70s from the original Anglican version.

Here in Philly, we definitely had a number of Jews (including many of the teachers) and some Muslims. But since those 3 religions are a progression of each other, if anything was cited from the "Old Testament" (Torah), it pretty much covered Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Last edited Tue Apr 14, 2026, 05:12 PM - Edit history (2)

dated a Jewish woman for several years. A Jewish friend of mine was my witness in my civil ceremony wedding.

But most Jews in Erie did not live within my grade school district. The majority live in a south central part of the city. We were in the western section of town.

I don't recall Muslims at junior or senior high but there was (is) a small number, mostly doctors. In my early 20s, I worked part time for a Muslim couple from India who had started a business at home, besides their regular day jobs as a pathologist (husband) and as a comparative religions professor (wife). I used to get the wife chatting about India and Islam when I wanted to take a break. Learned a lot from her.

He also explored the connections between the religious right and the oil industry.

some really good books. Penance for helping execute the Southern Strategy, I guess. My favorite was 1990's "The Politics of Rich and Poor: Wealth and Electorate in the Reagan Aftermath." I watched my family go from "Happy Days" middle class to the working poor because of Reagonomics.

Then it’s not a valid Religious commission.

ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!

... if I get to pick the church.

I don't think they'd like the results.

Last edited Tue Apr 14, 2026, 01:38 PM - Edit history (1)

don't appear in the Constitution." Constitutional originalism, the province of the small mind.

next birth control
then any romance novels or adult anything
they wrote it all down, don't be surprised

This issue was adequately addressed by Thomas Jefferson :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom

What they call "weaponization" of the government against Christianity is upholding religious freedom by ensuring that no religion can impose its beliefs on others.

If they think their faith is endangered by prohibitions against utilizing public schools and property to promote their particular religion, then apparently their personal faith is not nearly as strong as they would have us believe.

These are the same people who don't want Mosques in their communities.

Their idea of religious "liberty" in government includes Christianity, to the exclusion of others. That's what "Christian Nationalism" is all about.

If public schools included a daily session of official prayer, would they object to a variety that included readings and practices in the Islamic faith and others, representing the religions of all peoples who are US citizens?

... is an intolerable violation of the first amendment.

And that includes laws banning abortion.

Obscenely, the Six Black-Robed traitors increasingly corrupt "interpretations" of our constitution have enabled the theocrats to enact laws that are morally reprehensible violations of the most fundamental rights of the people.

Is that really part of the gospel of Jesus, which is ostensibly the basis of the Christian religion?

I can understand a belief that an eternal soul is planted at the moment of conception, though there is no evidence of that scientifically or (as far as I know) in the bible. In my view, a microscopic zygote is not a person.

How much of that supposed "religious belief" is cultural patriarchy for the subjugation of women?

...by transforming it into an institutional, hierarchical entity that, above all, served the political goals of the state, the process of institutionalizing and co-opting spiritual practice to serve political ends has been repeated again and again.

Or as Talarico puts it, Constantine was essentially the first Christian Nationalist -- the first to corrupt the teachings by embracing the love of power over the power of love.

IMO, the core of early Christianity -- it's embrace of equality, community, radical sharing, and the notion that people committed to putting selfless love into practice were a revolutionary force for good -- can be difficult to discern in the muck that has been piled on in the doctrines of many Christian denominations.

Not all denominations are Christian Nationalist, but it seems to me that doctrine of "mainstream" denominations tends to be co-opted to serve the interests of those who hold the upper hand at a given point in history, whether it be the subjugation of women to the patriarchy, the exploitation of workers by those with wealth and power, or the oppression of minority ethnic groups to the majority.

There are of course exceptions -- denominations or doctrines that empower the oppressed -- but those seem to get co-opted too as they go "mainstream."

I could, of course, be full of shit. I haven't made a formal study of it.

But, as far as the question of when life begins, it is a matter of religious doctrine -- doctrine shaped by political forces.

For example, in the Catholic Church doctrine against abortion at any stage was one of Pope Pius IX's dictums. In 1869 he issued Apostolicae Sedis, which eliminated the distinction between animated and unanimated fetuses, applying automatic excommunication to abortion at any stage.

Unlike many of the other immoral declarations of Pope Pius IX, this one has not yet been deemed erroneous by later Vatican councils. Pius IX doctrine that has been deemed erroneous includes: No Freedom of Conscience, No Salvation outside the Church, No Rights for Non-Christian Religions, No Respect for Other Christian Churches, No Socialism, and No Condemnation of Slavery

If you are curious, erroneous beliefs which Pope Pius IX tried to impose on the Church compares his teachings to the revised teachings of Vatican II.

And, whatever this or that denomination may assert, it appears that the bible is all over the place on when life begins. For example, in When does life begin? Reckoning with surprising answers in Scripture, Rev. Dr. Dan Brockway examines various bits of scripture. His conclusion:

Bottom line, the original biblical and New Testament source material is unclear on when the life of the soul begins.

It's also apparent that church doctrine has been changed by men motivated by more than furthering the teachings of Jesus.

And yet, that is what constitutes organized religion, for better or worse. So it can be said that abortion is against their religion (or some sects of Christianity). No humility required.

Nothing can be gained by arguing that point with them, but it is absolutely necessary to ensure that people in power (such as the Supreme Court) can't subvert or corrupt our Constitutional law as the early church did to Christianity.

Are very different from what most people understand today.

It was not written as “the establishment of a religion”.
It is written as “an establishment of religion”.
This means no creations of any religion can be legislated. Not buy bull reading, not sacraments, not prayers, not performance or lack thereof, not commandments, not clothing, not sexuality.
They will ultimately fail in their attempts to enforce any such legislation, but I wish the process for reversing the travesties they are trying to impose on us were as fast as the original imposition.