The House just passed a bill that could politicize churches

SGT Anna Kleinschmidt - Certainly and a church that uses tithes to contribute to political campaigns violates the law and pay their taxes or lose their tax exempt status, the IRS is not a friendly collection agent. Freedom of Religion is certainly a slippery slope, particularly as the federal government encroaches on more and more of individual day lives, the Hobby Lobby example is perfect, I disagree with their views as well but completely disagree with anyone who attempts to force them to behave the way we think they should behave. There is an easier solution to use the 10th amendment and restrict the Government in our lives altogether. It would be much easier if rather than forcing businesses to provide healthcare force businesses to subsidize health insurance. That way there would be a free market for insurance providers rather than the current employer negotiated rates. Hobby Lobby individuals could sign up for the insurance of their choice rather from the limited selection available. The free market would allow the risks to be spread further and more evenly across the national spectrum further reducing costs. If you don't believe in baking a cake for a gay couple I suggest you have a sign on your door prominently demonstrating your rules of business. most locations like that would promptly lose so much business they'd go bankrupt and close the shop. A free market will solve many of life's problems without the need for a massive federal government from dictating the aspects of our lives. The only organization that should be mandated are public institutions and those institutions which have a monopoly, things like electrical services, but there are no monopolies on bakeries.

MAJ (Join to see) The solution to the Hobby Lobby situation would be agreeable, but the law on the bakery would not be a solution without government intrusion. Let's say they are exempt if they put up a sign, but if they refuse the sign they are then subject to charges of discrimination. Government intrusion applies.

SGT Anna Kleinschmidt - Concur, If you are a bigot be a proud bigot and let society rip you to shreds, at least shame you to obscurity.

I MAJ (Join to see) now that is a statement I agree with 100%

Do you take it to the extreme that Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King should not have campaigned the civil rights act? Freedom of Religion is far to complex to do justice with simple statements like the above. Government continuously encroaches on the freedoms of religion, it's not a black and white issue.

Which of the Founding Fathers created that phrase and where can I find it, specifically, in the Constitution? written as exactly that? And, yes, I do know about the variety of SCOTUS "interpretations".

Traced to Thomas Jefferson. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen - We've all read the first amendment and the no religious test clause. Freedom of Religion in 1776 didn't mean the freedom from religion context that modern liberals want it to be. The entire purpose of the 1st amendment was to prevent the Government from dictating what religious beliefs were acceptable. At the time nine colonies had "state" level religions, the first was solely to prevent the federal government from enforcing one of those religions on the other similar to what had been done in Europe for the last 1500 years. Freedom of Religion is entirely a limit to the Federal Government in order to protect an existing state right, it is not the ability of the federal government to dictate religious beliefs or limit what churches can teach, now behaviors are fair game, but not dogma. Thankfully each of the colonies removed their state level religions.

Agree, being from Connecticut I'm well aware of how the current states were formed by people seeking relief from the prevailing religious beliefs of where they resided.