Originally Posted by garysher

There is no reason why there cannot be Muslim Senators or Representatives in the US. We should not even be aware of what religion or lack of religion an elected official supports.

Originally Posted by garysher

Religion doesn't take second place or any other place to any other special interest group. Religion has NO PLACE AT ALL in a secular government.

That puts religion a lot further back than second place.




Thomas Jefferson
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation
of ideas he disbelieves and abhors
is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Source: Virginia Statutes of Religious Freedom, 1779

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

Tell that to the people who opposed Jefferson's propagation of the idea that slavery is ok, evidenced by his personal stable of slaves.

Tell that to the opponents of the current Iraq War.

Tell that to the opponents of homosexual marriage in Massachusetts.


Or anything else the govt spends money on that you disapprove of.

The fact is you can run for office on any special interest platform EXCEPT a religious one.

Originally Posted by garysher

Did anyone pay taxes to promote slavery?

Yes. By funding a government that allows slavery you are guilty by association.


Did anyone pay taxes to support homosexual marriage?

In Massachusetts - yes. See above



While we all must pay taxes to support the Iraq War whether we approve or not, nothing about the Iraq war (or your other examples) is mind or thought controlling. A state supported religion is meant to control minds.

No it isn't !!

Britain has a state religion - the Church of England. Britain also has freedom of religion, and has done for centuries.

Britain has the largest mosque and the largest Hindu temple in Europe. Millions of people are anything but Anglican, or have no religious faith at all.

Italy, home to the Catholic church, can tell a similar story about the co-existence of state religion with complete religious toleration.

Where do you get this nonsense about "controlling minds"?



Furthermore, any religion which needs the aid of government to succeed wouldn't be worth worshiping anyway.

Originally Posted by waitingtables

History has substantiated her opinion. It is clear that religion should stay out of politics simply because it is likely to destroy our system if it doesn't.

The history of the US has substantiated her opinion, but that opinion is not borne out by the experiences of many many other countries, where state religions happily co-exist with complete religious freedom.

But you yanks certainly have been thoroughly brainwashed to think otherwise!

Many Americans seem to have this implicit belief that what they have is the best, but all too often that belief relies on a lack of information about the world at large.


Our founding fathers were quite clear that there should be no religion in government, and they left God out of the Constitution. It is a secular document, like it or not. Our nation was founded by a majority of Freemasons, not religious fanatics.

Originally Posted by garysher

Originally Posted by garysher (government collecting fees for Focus on the Family)

Did anyone pay taxes to promote slavery?
Yes. By funding a government that allows slavery you are guilty by association.

Did anyone pay taxes to support homosexual marriage?
In Massachusetts - yes. See above

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

No government funds are required to allow slavery or homosexual marriage. Therefore no tax money supports them.

I have already explained this once but will repeat it for your benefit.

If you are paying tax to a government that endorses slavery then you are guilty by association of supporting slavery.

Just like if you lend your car to a bank robber so he can get away.

Your govt maintained an apartheid system that valued black men as only one-third of a white man, and discriminated in many other legal ways.

Homosexual marriages in Mass are funded by taxpayers who pay the salaries of the officials who certify the "marriage" and the rent on the offices where these bogus "ceremonies" take place.



The very purpose of having a state religion is (1) to provide state funding to the "right" religion, (2)provide state recognition to the "right" religion.

The very word "toleration" implies that you are wrong, but we will just put up with you anyway and perhaps you will change your mind and see the error of your ways. True freedom of religion requires adherents to move beyond toleration to respect, i.e. I might possibly be wrong no matter how sure I am of my beliefs so it ill behooves me to show any lack of respect to others. True freedom of religion means that adherents of any religion have equality under the law. Equality is lacking in states with a sponsored religion no matter how tolerant they are.

Now you are trying to redefine the meaning of "tolerance":

tolerate • verb 1 allow (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) to exist or occur without interference. 2 patiently endure (something unpleasant).

Where does tolerance imply a lack of respect?

And where is the lack of equality in the examples I gave in the previous post?

Do you really believe that muslims or pagans have equality with Christians in America?


Perhaps you should open your mind. Why else would any religion desire governmental recognition/aid/support than the fact that they fear they cannot stand on their own merits?