What is your stance on religion in politics?

PFC Alexander Oliveira — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:22:04 -0500

We all know about the separation of church and state, but we always see candidates appealing to their religious audiences. why is America so deeply held in their religious beliefs and why has that been brought into politics? on the flip side of the discussion, could we ever see an atheistic or agnostic president? have we had one that I am unaware of?

Response by SFC Frank Hartley made Mar 4 at 2016 11:22 AM

SFC Frank Hartley — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:22:45 -0500

Can you show me where this separation of church and state is located at?

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Mar 4 at 2016 11:30 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:30:45 -0500

Separation of church and state is not included in the founding documents of this nation PFC Alexander Oliveira. When this nation was founded there was concern that a king-like figure would arise [Washington declined] and that a church would be associated with the government like most of Europe. Most of the early settlers to this nation were fleeing religious persecution in the nations they left.
Each person lives out a faith or lack of it in their daily activities. Statesmen and women and politicians have personal belief systems which may or may not be congruent or consistent. Honest people reveal what motivates them. Any politician who does not mention what they believe in is not to be trusted.
What are your thoughts COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Stephen C. LTC Private RallyPoint Member CW5 Private RallyPoint Member SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" SGT Forrest Stewart SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT SGT Randal Groover SPC Private RallyPoint Member SrA Christopher Wright SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made Mar 4 at 2016 11:31 AM

SPC Andrew Griffin — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:31:44 -0500

I believe it should play a part! But I don't like it when it because Intrusive on candidates! People's personal relationship with God is just that "Personal"! We shouldn't infringe on that! We shouldn't criticize or critique anyone based on their Religion or the God they serve! Lets keep it Personal!

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Mar 4 at 2016 11:35 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:35:22 -0500

Our founding fathers knew the pressures of undue religion in politics, thus the leaving of England for the New World by many. Yet there seemed to be a Christian backing in the found fathers as well. So I believe there has to be a fine line walked - this was set out in the Constitution - you all remember this document!

We've currently got a muslim for president, anything can happen.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Mar 4 at 2016 11:41 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:41:15 -0500

You may thank whatever or whomever you believe in that our Founders were influenced by Western Civilization and its root in Judeo-Christianity when they fabricated this new nation. Our amazing people would never have achieved its preeminence among the nations of the world and history. By acknowledging each individual's right to decide and direct their own fate, they unleashed the creative genius and work ethic that built this great nation while others faltered. That same faith inspired the abolitionists to shed their blood to free others from bondage. That same faith inspired our people to place themselves in harm's way to defend the world from the tyranny of fascism and communism and now, Islamism. Anyone who would represent We the People in any capacity, in any office, would hopefully continue that tradition. Thus, anyone who would denigrate that tradition will not be supported by We the People. It is not necessary that they espouse a particular brand of religion, but at least acknowledge it and celebrate its important contribution to the fabric of American society. It is one of the threads that holds the rest together.

Response by MAJ Byron Oyler made Mar 4 at 2016 11:53 AM

MAJ Byron Oyler — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:53:23 -0500

My job is being a people person and learning about people. I allow these discussions and listen intently before offering any response. What people believe can give good guidance on how they will work and avoid bad situations.

Response by PO2 Mark Saffell made Mar 4 at 2016 11:55 AM

PO2 Mark Saffell — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:55:36 -0500

Interesting question. I believe the US was founded with religion a large part of the constitution. The funny part of that is they put stuff in the constitution to keep religion out of politics yet they formed the country based on religion. Hard to understand intent. I believe congress should open and close with a prayer. If your a congressman that doesn't like religion...LEAVE during the prayers. Money should stay just how it is. Christmas trees should be allowed on Government buildings. Again if your a person that doesn't believe in religion...LEAVE I don't believe because a small minority doesn't like something then they keep it from everyone else. Here is for my liberal friends. If you don't like a TV show or movie...TURN THE CHANNEL. If you don't like a song...CHANGE STATIONS. if you don't like prayers...LEAVE. But most of all STAY OUT OF MY BUSINESS and STOP trying to push your political views and BS onto me and others.

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Mar 4 at 2016 12:05 PM

SSG Ed Mikus — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 12:05:23 -0500

people have the misconception that common religion means common values.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Mar 4 at 2016 12:12 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 12:12:51 -0500

There are a few things to look at. First, Christians on both sides of the spectrum tend to be active voters. Possibly at little more on the Evangelical side. So politicians do not want to alienate this bloc. So there will some pandering to them. Second, a person's faith is a big part of who they are and it is good to have some insight into that for our candidates. I don't think any President has necessarily favored their own faith over others in terms of policy decisions. But I am sure it has influenced them. I do think that right now it would be political suicide for someone to come out and say they are an atheist or agnostic. That may change in the future.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Mar 4 at 2016 12:15 PM

Capt Mark Strobl — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 12:15:05 -0500

PFC Alexander Oliveira - Whether it's religion, economics, or otherwise - I try to side with the candidate who best represents me, my family, and our interests.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Mar 4 at 2016 12:21 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 12:21:22 -0500

Opposed. Theocracies are historically not awesome.

Response by Sgt Joe LaBranche made Mar 4 at 2016 12:22 PM

Sgt Joe LaBranche — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 12:22:44 -0500

PFC Alexander Oliveira, politicians will do, say, and appeal to anyone or anything to get elected. They want to make sure they don't offend anyone or any group. They realize our foundation is built on Christian belief and that the majority of our population aren't ready to vote for a nonbeliever. People need hope and faith, especially in tough times.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 4 at 2016 12:29 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 12:29:34 -0500

Religion is a Private matter. Politics are a Public matter. Why bring Private matters Public?

Response by SSG Michael Scott made Mar 4 at 2016 12:31 PM

SSG Michael Scott — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 12:31:58 -0500

No, and hell no. This country was founded on religious principals called Christianity. Look at the history books, damn redcoats, kings, and dictators. Sharia Law will NEVER mix well with the U.S. Constitution. There should NEVER be a muslim to be president of the United States of America. Because, there is one now, who is not following, or enforcing the law of the land. He is making his own law as he goes along. Yes, he was a professor of teach the constitution the way he wanted to. Not the way, it should have ethically be taught with integrity.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Mar 4 at 2016 12:48 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 12:48:47 -0500

I do not care about anyone's personal religious views. I say that being I can believe one thing and a Buddist can believe another,, but we respect one another equally. TO ME, as a politician to begin invoking God (in the Christian sense) as a "standard" or "litmus test" to see if you're American, we have a problem. We've had some come with the "Anti-Muslim kick" or "Save the Jews, Save Israel". If you believe fine. If you don't fine. If you believe in a God that's different that mine, fine. I don't care, but don't make your religion the "official" religion of the US. Don't make it as if God really cares that his name is on the piece of paper we use as currency. He doesn't care about your mega-church, or anything else. I believe while running, don't flaunt your religious views. They are personal, the same way I wouldn't care who you're sleeping with. If asked talk about how YOU believe in what you do, not how your religion is better than someone else's because they're killing in mass numbers now, but Christians never did it, but if they did, it was done thousand's of years ago. Keep them separate. I've heard politicians talk about radical Islamic folks, but no one presses them on radicalized Christians here in the states. You can't effect change on one, but give the other as pass. And it doesn't matter if one is violent more than the other, both are dangerous and should be treated accordingly.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html

Are All Terrorists Muslims? It’s Not Even Close

What percentage of terror attacks in the United States and Europe are committed by Muslims? Guess. Nope. Guess again. And again...

Response by SPC Timothy Repetto made Mar 4 at 2016 1:19 PM

SPC Timothy Repetto — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 13:19:15 -0500

Whats up with all the religious questions Oliveiira? Religion plays a big part of how you are taught and raised as a child from your parents and the decisions that you make as an adult. Popular belief is that; if you are religious you tend to look out for other people and take in their thoughts too. Where as an atheist is believed to be more selfish because religion doesn't suit them there for they are self centered. These aren't the case. religion is a personal choice. The majority American society believe that your decision making ability is altered depending on what religion you practice. Take abortion for example. Very religious thing when you want to talk about beginning stages of life in general. However some one might not believe that that is even an issue at all. If the government would stop making laws on everything we would be better off and let people make their own decisions and be tolerant of one another. Whether or not you agree shouldn't be relevant because you have the freedom to generate your own ideals and opinions the way you see fit. As do all Americans. The real question you should research on is "What does religion do for people and what is it's impact?". Look at different religions and see how they impact their participants lifestyles. Then generate your own reason as to why it's such a big important part of this country and its history.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Mar 4 at 2016 1:50 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 13:50:36 -0500

http://www.wallofseparation.us/founding-fathers/

Wall of Separation Between Church and State » Founding Fathers

Many conservative Christians and politicians often parrot the claim that America’s Founding Fathers were virtually all (it not all) evangelical Christians (view a partial listing of Christian organizations and individuals who are making such claims, or listen to the current speeches of many Republican and Tea Party politicians). To prove their claim, they typically turn to selective quotes from persons identified as “Founding Fathers.”

Response by BG David Fleming III made Mar 4 at 2016 2:02 PM

BG David Fleming III — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 14:02:51 -0500

The infusion of God in to governments starts with the Pledge of Allegiance. "One nation under God"! "In God we trust" on our currency. I say, the separation of Church and State should be invoked when your church teachings run it direct contradiction to one duty! Duty to country should be paramount! Doesn't mean you're not a good christian or that you should talk about it!

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Mar 4 at 2016 2:05 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 14:05:05 -0500

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. (From the 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism)

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Mar 4 at 2016 2:07 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 14:07:55 -0500

Well, you said it right there PFC Alexander Oliveira ... those are "Candidates" and they're appealing to the religious among their possible voters. There is no rule, law, or clause prohibiting religious beliefs, or prohibiting such an appeal. The First Amendment only serves to suggest that the Federal government cannot establish a State Religion, and furthermore cannot interfere with the free practice of religion by the people. Though I am not a religionist, (I consider myself a Diest) I do know that many people DO hold deep religious sentiments, and such an appeal makes such a candidate someone closer to their "comfort" zone.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Mar 4 at 2016 2:15 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 14:15:50 -0500

Religion does not belong in government, and the wording in the Constitution is "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Notice the word NO, therefore NO in politics.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2016 2:50 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 14:50:04 -0500

They are inseparable. Religion (and lack thereof) influence most of our basic principles.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2016 2:53 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 14:53:09 -0500

I believe that the church plays some part in the state...

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2016 5:43 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 17:43:21 -0500

I think that religion and politics do not mix. There is a reason why God doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution.

People can believe in whatever they want, but it becomes a problem when they force those beliefs or the rules of their belief system on those who do not want it.

Religion does not deserve a seat at the table.

Response by SFC Kenneth Hunnell made Mar 4 at 2016 5:59 PM

SFC Kenneth Hunnell — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 17:59:27 -0500

Religion and politics should be given a wide berth.
I would hope that religion would give you an understanding of what to do that is right for all, not just the few.
Where as politics goes, just learn to accept other people as they are.
You will get alone with others, if you just do what is right

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Mar 4 at 2016 6:42 PM

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 18:42:48 -0500

PFC Alexander Oliveira I'm not aware of any President that claimed to be that in our history, but I haven't researched it either. I don't think there is anything wrong with religion in politics as long as it's for the right reasons and not just to obtain votes. We've had a lot of politicians preach the word and then on the other hand break their faith and the 10 commandments - look at Bill Clinton, possibly the very First (First Man) or should we say the (First Adulterer) of the White House.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Mar 4 at 2016 7:48 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 19:48:50 -0500

The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 Amendments which are the founding fathers guarantees of protection for individuals. They added these amendments as a group after outlining the responsibilities of the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of the Federal government and then making it clear that what was not specifically designated to the Federal government belonged to the people.
For some reason modern progressives and liberals of earlier generations seem to believe that the Bill of Rights were focused on establishing limitations. These people tend to look for freedom from religion in the 1st amendment, freedom from guns in the second amendment, etc.
[Editorial Comment] I got tired of a few RallyPoint members commenting under my response with their ideas that the first amendment was to protect government from religion.
Thanks CPT Jack Durish Sgt Richard Buckner SSG Michael Scott SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" LTC John Shaw SFC Bernard Walko SGM Mikel Dawson

Response by 1stLt Steven P. made Mar 4 at 2016 8:17 PM

1stLt Steven P. — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 20:17:53 -0500

I think there is a huge misunderstanding of what separation of Church and State meant. If you go back and read the original letters, and documents of the founding fathers and the first five presidents of the United States you will find that the perception we have today is far from what they thought they were writing.
Remember that most of the founders were from England will help to put it in perspective. There was a “State” religion in England. Wars have been fought in England about the official religion. Heads have been lost because you believed in another religion. This is the backdrop of the founding fathers. (Remember, to this day we see people fighting over their religion, and not just the Muslim religion. Think the Irish --- Protestants v Catholics).
The founding father did not want a prescribed state religion. They believed they were founding a nation with the Judeo-Christian background they wanted or came from. Even Ben Franklin, an avowed agnostic, wanted to make sure that GOD was referenced in the Declaration of Independence. It is referenced in most of our constitutional writings and was never deemed to be a problem because of the meaning of separation of religion and state.
We now take that separation of church and state to an obscene and unjustified level. John F Kennedy proved that being a Catholic did not mean we would be governed by the Pope if a Catholic was elected. (A big issue during that election). It was until we got the populist or left wing members of the Supreme Court that it became a triable issue. We should revert to the time when the separation of church and state was only a Federal issue and was to be sure that the government did not have a STATE religion. The ten commandments are/should be still allowed if for no other reason they are good moral rules. The prayer given daily in the Senate and House of Representatives does not make those body Christian or more likely to do God’s works.

Response by CSM William Payne made Mar 4 at 2016 10:32 PM

CSM William Payne — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 22:32:41 -0500

The arguments here are exactly why other than stating your personal beliefs, in my opinion religion should be kept out of politics. I'm not referring to the discussion of religion. I am a religious person but I think that politics should stay out of pulpit and conversely religion should stay out of the government's house and therefore affairs of the civil nature. A majority of the issues in the world today are due to countries in which government and religion are almost one in the same, and I'm not just referring to the Muslims.

Depending on your beliefs you will be able to find more than enough "proof" to substantiate your argument either way so there can be no winners here. My argument below is information that has not been interpreted by another source that just reinforces my preconceived beliefs but my personal interpretation of the words as expressed directly by Thomas Jefferson.

No the 1st Amendment is not to protect the government from religion, it is to protect the citizen from overbearing religion. Jefferson made this clear time and time again in his writings. In the colonial days, if you were British that would have been the Anglican Church, if not most likely the Catholic Church. Many of the early wars of Europe were stoked by fires of the differences of the two churches and the countries aligned to each thanks to Henry the VIII. Are you seeing a theme here?

Below is the epitaph on Thomas Jefferson's Grave. He wanted to be remembered for just three things.

"Here was buried
Thomas Jefferson
Author of the Declaration of American Independence
of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom
& Father of the University of Virginia"

Except from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities."

January 16 1786 Thomas Jefferson’s revolutionary Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was enacted by the Virginia General Assembly. This stirring document, ushered through the legislature by the tactical brilliance of James Madison, provided the ideological basis for the religion clauses of the First Amendment."
http://www.vahistorical.org › thomas-jefferson

How can it not be any more clear that Jefferson was addressing exactly the kind of situation as county clerk Kim Clark not fulfilling her civil duties due to her religious beliefs and therefore diminishing, enlarging or affecting the civil capacities of those applying for an marriage license? Her actions are in direct violation of everything that Jefferson wrote about above. Her practice of her religious freedom is in direct conflict of Jefferson's interpretation. She is free to practice her religion as long as it doesn't violate the religious freedom of those she has sworn to serve.

The term "separation of Church and State" was coined by Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptist in 1802. Clearly he was referring to the 1st Amendment when he talks about the separation between Church and State. So no, you cannot find the term "separation between Church and State" anywhere in the Constitution. But is it really that difficult to make the connection based on the writing of Jefferson below?

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Library of Congress

That's my two cents worth.

Virginia Historical Society

Discover Virginia’s rich and unique history by visiting our research library, attending an event, or exploring one of our exhibition galleries.

Response by SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury made Mar 4 at 2016 11:16 PM

SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 23:16:08 -0500

We've had a lot of leaders who were "Deists" who believed in a Supreme Being but didn't go much deeper than that. Aaron Burr came the closest to any staunch atheist in the White House, but he lost the election. There may have been others but I don't have that knowledge for now. I know Kennedy being Catholic was a huge issue during the 1960 Election. People were concerned that he would take orders from the Pope and try to circumvent the Constitution. Kennedy had to address that issue to the American Public and even after that his victory over Richard Nixon was razor thin and many believed that his rich father Joseph bought the election for him.

I am glad we have had people with religious convictions, but I don't want someone in with such religious convictions that they would be unable to adequately govern those who choose not to believe. While I am a Christian - I don't want a Pat Robertson in office because I believe in what the Bible said when Jesus told Peter, "Give unto Caesar the things that be Caesars, and to God the things that are Gods." I don't want a Holy War, yet I don't want a war against my beliefs and the Amendment that gives us the freedom to choose.

My issue with the current candidates is that their "religion" seems to be just enough to try to appeal to the voters. Aside from Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee, I don't see sincerity in the candidates and Trump makes a joke out of it. However, I think he is typical of many in America who believe, yet really aren't actively involved in their faith or faith traditions.

While I have my beliefs, if I was a cake decorator I would have no problem baking a cake for a gay couple and don't think it wrong to do so. The same people who oppose it should remember that the Bible itself says we are "in the world, but not of the world." We are to be more like pilgrims traveling through than to try to crusade to make this place our holy site. Elected officials have a duty to represent ALL of their electorate - not just the ones who agree with them. An effective one would do things and work for laws that are for the greater good of America - not special interests, convictions, or causes.

In short, I'd like them to be "middle of the road" but believe that a person should have some measure of religious convictions. But to be a religious head of state shouldn't mean that they function like a bishop, imam, rabbi, or any other sort of religious official. We have plenty of those to handle those matters.

Response by SFC Tyrone Almendarez made Mar 5 at 2016 12:41 AM

SFC Tyrone Almendarez — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 00:41:09 -0500

Response by LTC Charles T Dalbec made Mar 5 at 2016 2:04 PM

LTC Charles T Dalbec — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 14:04:16 -0500

Religion belongs on its own merits as well as the same for politics. That was proven with President John F Kennedy..

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2016 6:30 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 18:30:44 -0500

In my opinion, if a lesbian or gay can be in the Military with no problems, an agnostic or atheist could run. I don't know if they would be nominated, but if they have a ton of money, yes.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2016 1:50 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 01:50:31 -0500

We have eroded the social contract. Back when we were a new nation, religion and politics were separate. As our tax code was created, religion and its institutions were given a pass due to their complete separation from the government.

Today churches want to have their cake (politics) and to eat it too (tax exempt). We need to put both back in their proper lanes. If you have a religion, you are free to practice it as you see fit up and until it infringes on the rights of another. Once you start trying to force the values of your religion onto the population at large (many of whom do not want it), then you are no longer deserving of the protections of either the first amendment or the tax code.

Response by PV2 Glen Lewis made Mar 6 at 2016 5:49 AM

PV2 Glen Lewis — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 05:49:17 -0500

I think politicians use it as a playing card to win their way into office. The morals and values of religions are great as a foundation for honest and dedicated political leaders but I don't see a lot of that card in the deck once they get there. I don't see anything wrong with politicians expressing their religious beliefs but I certainly see few if any of them who don't sway from them once they're in and can use their offices to further their own interests.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2016 4:03 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 16:03:26 -0500

I will let George Washington handle this question. “We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition… In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793

Response by Maj John Bell made Mar 6 at 2016 4:11 PM

Maj John Bell — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 16:11:15 -0500

By its very nature religious/spiritual beliefs speak to a person's core beliefs. A core belief that is not deeply held is not a core belief. In most cases, I'm not sure that religion is the significant discriminator that people think it is. Most protestants in the pews do not know doctrinal differences well enough to tell the difference between a Lutheran and a Methodist etc.... (Before anyone gets mad, I said most, not all). I daresay, although I may be wrong, that beyond the doctrine of Papal Authority, many Catholics and Protestants do not know their doctrinal differences. Amazingly, many beliefs held dear to Christians, are held dear to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos, etc. and even atheists. Observe how someone treats the weak within his sphere of influence. That tells you more than any label he, or you put upon him.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2016 4:27 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 16:27:42 -0500

Take it out. We are not all part of the same religion, so injecting one religious point of view and the possibility of building policy off of that is not what we do. Last time I checked we are very many diff kinds of Americans with many diff kinds of religions with the right to practice our beliefs freely (for the most part). The best thing politicians can do is find a common ground, respect each others beliefs, and stay the course in writing policy, and making decisions that benefit our country as a whole.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2016 8:00 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 20:00:18 -0500

In Thomas Jefferson ' s letter he mentions a separation of church and state but it is not what you think. The letter was referring to the constitution as it states The Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the practice there of. Our very nation was started by a people who came here fleeing religious persecution. Since they were protestants they lived with constant persecution in Europe. Religion has always had a hand in our government, the first book that Congress paid to have printed was a bible. See the Christian religion has helped our government to rule wisely and justly as long as our government is full of Godly men. We can see what is happening today because of ungodly men.

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Mar 6 at 2016 8:23 PM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 20:23:53 -0500

The founding fathers were deeply religious men. It is modern fiction and spin that they were not religious. They showed great respected for God and the great majority of them, if not all, were Christians, and believed that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the promised Messiah, the Savior, the Redeemer of the world (as I do). As LTC Ford has so well written, they feared a government sponsored, approved, official church, hence the 1st amendment, congress shall make no law regarding religion (and some other stuff). The founding father's writings are full of references to God and their reverence to God.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2016 6:38 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 06:38:34 -0500

I thibk some of us here are confusing the religious faith of our leaders with the consideration of specific religion when writing policy.

Response by PO3 Donald Murphy made Mar 7 at 2016 10:09 AM

PO3 Donald Murphy — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 10:09:33 -0500

The easiest answer is that once you allow lobbying, then anyone can purchase their own laws, regulations, rules by "buying a politician." Oh okay - maybe not "buying" - but when I put four million in your reelection fund, and then comment that "it would be great if gays weren't allowed to marry" then it should come as no surprise that you vote that way. On a bad Sunday, a huge Catholic church in New York can generate tons of money. This is why politics panders to big religion.

Response by SGM Robert Speakman made Mar 7 at 2016 7:48 PM

SGM Robert Speakman — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 19:48:43 -0500

I will always stand up for my reliigion and that is the worst thing this country has done was take God out of religion

Response by PO3 David Miller made Mar 7 at 2016 9:25 PM

PO3 David Miller — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 21:25:59 -0500

No where in the Constitution is there separation of church and state. Religion plays a major part in who you vote for. For example, if you are strongly against abortion because of religious beliefs, are you really going to vote for a candidate that is pro-choice? Also, each candidate must take in view others beliefs if they wish to get that side of the vote.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2016 9:23 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Mar 2016 09:23:36 -0500

We have freedom of religion so as to allow any religion to be practiced without government interference and also to keep government from establishing a state religion, telling everyone what to believe. This is what was happening in Europe during the Dark Ages when the Catholic church ran everything. And that is why we need separation of church and state in this country. Which religion would you want running the government?

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Mar 8 at 2016 8:36 PM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Tue, 08 Mar 2016 20:36:57 -0500

This is not the right forum for me about this discussion. We had one similar to this & had some who used it to demean and degrade Catholic Bishops and Cardinals for the sex abuse scandal. When I voiced my thoughts, I was quickly voted down and blocked by an AF S/Sgt & still blocked by this individual. So I guess I will take a pass & return to watching the Bruins vs Tampa Bay which is more my speed. But am a devote Catholic or try to be.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Mar 8 at 2016 10:09 PM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:09:22 -0500

The English were religious. The English came over here to the new world and brought their religion with them. Then slowly but surely a new nation is formed...with Religion right there ....in and out of Politics...and it continued for years and years.....people start moving here from Europe...and bring their religion...religion grows......till not to long ago something insane known as "political correctness" became prevalent....and is being crammed down our throats and taking away "religion" of many forms...mainly from Atheists and Agnostics who do not believe....or Muslims who seem to have a problem with ALL OTHER RELIGIONS except theirs....OH BOO HOO HOO....a small number of people cry and complain and the next thing you know...we can't have religion in school....we can't have religion in the work place and now...many public places too.

FOR years the JEWS have been here...practicing their religion along side of many other religions...mostly Christians of different denominations and Catholics...and there has not been any problem...The JEWS never had a problem with other Religions.......and though Muslims go WAY BACK in time...they were not really a lot of Muslims in the US till ...well recently...like in the past 10-15 years...Muslim religion started growing exponentially....and all of the sudden many Muslims try and empose their religion and way of life...their Sharia law onto others and they complain...moan and groan and bitch and complain....because they don't want to live peacefully with many other religions....and then there are those who are Agnostic or Atheist and these groups have decided they don't like Religion.. and now it's completely out of hand....they don't have to participate...they don't have to practice and or like religion or religion other than theirs....but these folks want to take it all away from every one else who is different from them....RIDICULOUS!

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 10 at 2016 12:50 PM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:50:49 -0500

I think the discussion really boils down to the "freedom of" vs "freedom from" argument. Personally I believe that the way that our Constitution was arranged was to ensure that no one would be forced to belong to a church, banned from practicing their religion, or prevented from expressing their views. That very protection is being used to ban people from practicing their religion and from expressing their religious views, because it is being misinterpreted as freedom from religion. People are such pansies now-a-days, that they get "offended" to have to listen to a Jehovah's Witness go through their door-to-door preaching. People get "offended" when a government official openly professes their faith, people get "offended" when they see a religious object within sight of government property, etc, etc. The problem is people are sheltered too much, and they have nothing better to do than sit around finding things to whine about. The day that a politician tries to ban Islam, you will find me on the side of those fighting for religious freedom. The day that you find a politician that tries to force his constituents to stop practicing their religion or belong to a church or prevents them from building a religious building because they disagree with their religion, you will find me on the side of religious freedom. The day that politicians try to force churches to perform gay marriages, or provide their members with birth control and abortion coverage that violates their faith, you will find me on the side of religious freedom. When it comes to stupid things like ten commandments monuments on government property, I say people need to get a life.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Mar 10 at 2016 1:17 PM

SGT Richard H. — Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:17:24 -0500

My opinion is that the biggest problem with religion in politics is that politics is a religion all its own. Seriously. People take things from politicians on faith that they would very likely question if they read it in a bible.

Response by SPC Harold Bustamante made Mar 12 at 2016 12:25 AM

SPC Harold Bustamante — Sat, 12 Mar 2016 00:25:26 -0500

the bill or rights, keep it separate

Response by SPC Najla Switzer made Mar 17 at 2016 7:17 AM

SPC Najla Switzer — Thu, 17 Mar 2016 07:17:29 -0400

Opposed. vehemently opposed.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Mar 17 at 2016 8:29 AM

1LT Aaron Barr — Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:29:23 -0400

Unions routinely attempt to influence their members, the government and the people at large because government policy and the economic interests of their members often overlap. Industry trade groups do the same for the same reasons. Women, racial minorities, homosexuals, transsexuals etc. do the same thing because government policy and their interests often overlap. Is it so hard to imagine that government policy and religious and moral issues would overlap as well?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 5:01 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:01:50 -0400

Religion hasn't been discredited by secular government. Imagine for a moment if the official state religion was Southern Baptist Protestant Christianity. Everything that government did wrong would discredit not only government but religion. Let's look at Denmark for a moment... their flag is a white cross on a red field, over half the population is Atheist. In an effort not to pick on Christianity, let's look at Japan next. The Japanese were an extremely religious people, until they lost WW2. Now almost 2/3rds of Japan is Atheist. Compare either of those countries to the US, where only 1 in 10 is an Atheist.

If Atheists were intent on becoming dominant in the US, the very first thing they should do is make the State religion one they wish to see discredited.