Away-Bee-616 t1_jecquk6 wrote on March 31, 2023 at 1:36 AM

Reply to comment by ThatDarnedAntiChrist in TIL That There's a Bible Belt In The Netherlands by iamasinglepotassium

I'm a Christian and a patriot (patriot = nationalist for my purposes) but I do not like the idea of theocracy nor do I like modern examples of theocracy (Middle East countries including Israel, the Vatican, North Korea...) I know that separation of church and state is more of an unspoken rule in the USA but it's a good rule. Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding you but are you advocating for a christian theocracy? If so I'm not buying.

ThatDarnedAntiChrist t1_jedb6i3 wrote on March 31, 2023 at 4:30 AM

Number one, the separation of church and state isn't an idea, it's the first line in the First amendment.

Number two: the article I posted the link was warning about Christian nationalists. I'm not advocating for a Christian theocracy, I'm concerned people too stupid for their own good think we can have one here. I'm all for a secular government and the free practice of one's faith. God has no business in government, and government has no business in religion, as long as that religion doesn't deprive anyone of their rights.

Away-Bee-616 t1_jedcxup wrote on March 31, 2023 at 4:49 AM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew on Thomas Jefferson's correspondence to call for "a wall of separation between church and State", though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute and the terms "church" and "State" do not appear in the Amendment.

Also I couldn't open the link. My phone's fucky I'm getting it fixed soon. The first amendment just says the federal govt cannot make any religion a state religion. This implies a separation of church and state and for all intents and purposes that's what it means but for instance law makers can still use their papist or Mohammedan values when writing or voting for a law.

ThatDarnedAntiChrist t1_jedhbdi wrote on March 31, 2023 at 5:38 AM

>but for instance law makers can still use their papist or Mohammedan values when writing or voting for a law.

Most likely Baptist, Presbyterian, or Evangelical values. Just remember most domestic terrorists identify as protestant evangelicals. And it's Islamic, not Mohammedan. Unless you somehow gravitate towards the early 20th century.

I would expect any person to be guided by their values, be them religious or not. It's when they expect their religious dogma to become part of law that's an issue.