Thomas Jefferson still supported separation of church and state nonetheless, and regardless, the inequalities and injustices of a single religion ruling over other religions is FAR too much of a problem to be considered worth it. Also the phrase is enshrined in our First Amendment’s bill of rights, and not all of the founding fathers supported the idea, but Jefferson very much did. The Bible swearing in isn’t a law favoring any religion’s power or ability, merely a symbol of a common religion, while holding no actual power or authority to give to a religion. Using Thomas Jefferson against me only works in a certain context, and he still stated:
"Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine our civil rights.
Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people and leads to corruption with religion itself. Erecting the wall of separation between church and state, therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
- Thomas Jefferson
If one makes laws based on a religious belief, without any reason other than that, it is in fact a violation of that separation. If one creates a law that would specifically fund a religious group for a non-charitable purpose, then it is a violation of their separation. One is allowed to have faith in politics, it’s even allowed to affect your beliefs, but it cannot be the basis of it.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution4mos4MO
What Thomas Jefferson was talking about in your quote was that civilians should not be required to participate in a specific church by law, which you would have known had you read that in context and not taken at face-value cherry-picked selective quotation hand-selected by the Left for ideological purposes. Jefferson supported that prayer and Protestant Christianity be taught in Virginia's public schools, and believed that all government policies must reflect the Judeo-Christian moral tradition. Just because prayer, and religion, are taught in public schools does not mean that you are… Read more
@9CJ6CB64mos4MO
And yet, according to every standard we hold today the ideal of that is one of moral wrong. Just because one is not prevented from their own worship doesn’t mean that said government will not be extremely biased towards their own, and therefore overly biased against the other religions if forced to choose between one or the other. It’s not right, it’s not fair, it’s a bad idea to hide behind. If all policies reflect one groups’ beliefs, others beliefs will be discredited, harmed, or undermined by the belief that trumps, which is why the best option to go down is one of impartiality between religions and the separation of one specific religion’s values from the rest of the government. If one reigns, no matter what, it will lower the others’ freedoms in the process.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution4mos4MO
How? How would teaching creation in schools infringe upon the rights of atheists and Muslims, etc to worship as they will? How will creating policies that promote civic virtue cause anything but prosperity and integrity to any society? I don’t need to hear what you believe for the third time, I need to hear why you believe it.
@9CJ6CB64mos4MO
Because creationism is straight up false, and unless you teach the creationist ideals of every religion in a HISTORICAL context rather than presenting it as fact, it is, in many forms, unfounded and state-sponsored conversion. Not everyone agrees with said “civic virtues” on a lot of areas. Less than 40% support a gay marriage ban, yet that’s a “civic virtue” of the Bible. Would you ban that? No, it’s a disgusting idea to govern a country by religious ideals because it ALWAYS throws someone, somewhere, someway out of the equation and openly discriminated… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution4mos4MO
"Because creation is straight up false"? Hate to burst your bubble, but that's another fallacy. You're essentially arguing that "Evolution/alternative religions are true because creationism is false," thereby begging the question and reasoning in a vicious circle. Another fallacy you used was the appeal to the majority, claiming that because less than 40% support a "gay marriage" ban than homosexual sodomy MUST be morally upright. Finally, you finished your illogical tirade by (again!) sidestepping my question of how teaching biblical values infringes upon freedom of worship by assuming your own position in a second vicious circle. I'm sick of the fallacies, if you're going to argue with me, than you might as well learn HOW to argue first....
