Two frightening questions, to some:

1) Where, in the First Amendment, does it actually say that there is a separation of Church and State?

and

2) Where is there any clause of the First which states there is Freedom specifically FROM Religion?

Now, the Establishment Clause means they can't recognize a state religion. They can make no law abridging the free practice of religion.

But, especially in the Republican/Conservative/Originalist thinking, could one group or another force the recognition that you have to have SOME form of religion in your life, as a matter of law? In that they can't tell you how to practice it OR prefer one over another...

If you start taking a look at this at the level of that some religion in everyone's life IS required, and allowed to be required under the Constitution (in Republican/Conservative/Originalist thinking -- think "Go ye into all the world..."), doesn't the Roe reversal make sense, as abhorrent as it is?

Mike

On 6/24/2022 1:24 PM, Michael Falkner wrote:
> But, especially in the Republican/Conservative/Originalist thinking, could one group or another force the recognition that you have to have SOME form of religion in your life, as a matter of law? In that they can't tell you how to practice it OR prefer one over another...

Thomas Paine says no.

--
ÄLSKAR - Fänga Dagen

Слава Україні та НАТО

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 12:40:39 PM UTC-7, Ken Olson wrote:
> On 6/24/2022 1:24 PM, Michael Falkner wrote:
> > But, especially in the Republican/Conservative/Originalist thinking, could one group or another force the recognition that you have to have SOME form of religion in your life, as a matter of law? In that they can't tell you how to practice it OR prefer one over another...
> Thomas Paine says no.

This Court does not recognize Thomas Paine.

Mike

> Now, the Establishment Clause means they can't recognize a state religion.. They can make no law abridging the free practice of religion.
>
> But, especially in the Republican/Conservative/Originalist thinking, could one group or another force the recognition that you have to have SOME form of religion in your life, as a matter of law? In that they can't tell you how to practice it OR prefer one over another...

Technically, even if they could, the "Church of No God" (atheism) or the "Church of Who Knows What's Out There?" (agnosticism) could count as a religion.

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 5:16:40 PM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> > Now, the Establishment Clause means they can't recognize a state religion. They can make no law abridging the free practice of religion.
> >
> > But, especially in the Republican/Conservative/Originalist thinking, could one group or another force the recognition that you have to have SOME form of religion in your life, as a matter of law? In that they can't tell you how to practice it OR prefer one over another...
> Technically, even if they could, the "Church of No God" (atheism) or the "Church of Who Knows What's Out There?" (agnosticism) could count as a religion.

It would actually have to be declared as such, though -- not the absence of one.

Mike

On 6/24/2022 8:16 PM, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
>> Now, the Establishment Clause means they can't recognize a state religion. They can make no law abridging the free practice of religion.
>>
>> But, especially in the Republican/Conservative/Originalist thinking, could one group or another force the recognition that you have to have SOME form of religion in your life, as a matter of law? In that they can't tell you how to practice it OR prefer one over another...
>
> Technically, even if they could, the "Church of No God" (atheism) or the "Church of Who Knows What's Out There?" (agnosticism) could count as a religion.

Isn't that basically the U-U's are?

--
ÄLSKAR - Fänga Dagen

Слава Україні та НАТО

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 5:16:40 PM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> > Now, the Establishment Clause means they can't recognize a state religion. They can make no law abridging the free practice of religion.
> >
> > But, especially in the Republican/Conservative/Originalist thinking, could one group or another force the recognition that you have to have SOME form of religion in your life, as a matter of law? In that they can't tell you how to practice it OR prefer one over another...
> Technically, even if they could, the "Church of No God" (atheism) or the "Church of Who Knows What's Out There?" (agnosticism) could count as a religion.

no they couldn't. Jefferson was a deist, right? Your all-inclusive definition would say that was a religion. It's not. Is there an actual "Church of No God"? No, there isn't.

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 6:04:07 PM UTC-7, Eric Ramon wrote:

> no they couldn't. Jefferson was a deist, right? Your all-inclusive definition would say that was a religion. It's not. Is there an actual "Church of No God"? No, there isn't.

Which raises the question of what I asked above?

And then answer Ken's question as to whether that's the Universal Unitarians (if I have that correct)...

Mike

On 2022-06-25, The NOTBCS Guy <don.p.del.grande@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Now, the Establishment Clause means they can't recognize a state religion. They can make no law abridging the free practice of religion.
>>
>> But, especially in the Republican/Conservative/Originalist thinking,
>> could one group or another force the recognition that you have to
>> have SOME form of religion in your life, as a matter of law? In that
>> they can't tell you how to practice it OR prefer one over another...
>
> Technically, even if they could, the "Church of No God" (atheism) or
> the "Church of Who Knows What's Out There?" (agnosticism) could count
> as a religion.

We have a defacto state church. It flies the Pride flag.

--
"Systemic Racism' is such a perfect Marxist formulation. It
delegitimizes and entire society without blaming anyone in particular,
so it generates little opposition. It signifies everything and nothing
simultaneously. It can't be proven or disproven. It's genius
propaganda. -- Noah Pollak

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 4:51:45 AM UTC-7, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:

> We have a defacto state church. It flies the Pride flag.

Try again, you bigoted sack of shit.

Mike

On 6/25/2022 11:02 AM, Michael Falkner wrote:
> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 4:51:45 AM UTC-7, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
>
>> We have a defacto state church. It flies the Pride flag.
>
> Try again, you bigoted sack of shit.
>
> Mike

:-)

--
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice, there is." Ruben Goldberg

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 1:24:45 PM UTC-4, Michael Falkner wrote:
> Two frightening questions, to some:
>
> 1) Where, in the First Amendment, does it actually say that there is a separation of Church and State?

Nowhere, it's a fiction. The goal is to keep the state out of religion, not the other way 'round.

<snip>

-TE

“I never thought I’d live to see the day when the right wing would become the cool ones giving the
middle finger to the establishment and the left wing becoming the sniveling self-righteous twatty
ones going around shaming everyone.”
-Johnny Lydon, The Sex Pistols

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 3:32:33 PM UTC-7, TE wrote:
> On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 1:24:45 PM UTC-4, Michael Falkner wrote:
> > Two frightening questions, to some:
> >
> > 1) Where, in the First Amendment, does it actually say that there is a separation of Church and State?
> Nowhere, it's a fiction. The goal is to keep the state out of religion, not the other way 'round.

If religion is in the state, then how is the state not in religion?

You're asking an impossibility there.

But your point is otherwise correct. Look at the amount of reference religion and God gets in government...

Mike