US Supreme Court Leans Toward Repudiating Separation of Church and State

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Separation of church and state is a notion I do not support.

I see it as impossible to enforce.

A person cannot shut off half his thinking when entering a political office.

I also believe that the teaching of all religions should be mandated.

We are duty bound to show our children the goods and evils of religions.

They should learn as early as possible to reject the homophobia and misogyny of our more vile religions.

All moral people will agree.

Regards
DL

The answer is simple. Don't let believers hold office. If they are conflicted they shouldn't be allowed to stand.

What conflict, as God is never debated by governments.

Believing or not has nothing to do with a politician doing his job.

Like in most work places, the religious are just asked to keep their Gods out of the work place.

If you want to stop evil, how about the satanic Christian church that funded the Ugandan Kill the Gays bill.

Now if we had a morality test based on equality to weed out political homophobes and the misogynous, ---- sign me up.

Regards
DL
 

[No one]

What planet are you from?
Does this planet's atmosphere get you high?

[Tank]

Separation of church and state is a notion I do not support.

I see it as impossible to enforce.

A person cannot shut off half his thinking when entering a political office.

I also believe that the teaching of all religions should be mandated.

We are duty bound to show our children the goods and evils of religions.

They should learn as early as possible to reject the homophobia and misogyny of our more vile religions.

All moral people will agree.

Regards
DL

The answer is simple. Don't let believers hold office. If they are conflicted they shouldn't be allowed to stand.

What conflict, as God is never debated by governments.

Believing or not has nothing to do with a politician doing his job.

Like in most work places, the religious are just asked to keep their Gods out of the work place.

If you want to stop evil, how about the satanic Christian church that funded the Ugandan Kill the Gays bill.

Now if we had a morality test based on equality to weed out political homophobes and the misogynous, ---- sign me up.

Regards
DL
 

The conflict of insanity vs sanity. At the end of the day believers are self delusional. I don't want that sort of person running the government of any country. But as there are so many nutters I suppose some will slip through.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Separation of church and state is a notion I do not support.

I see it as impossible to enforce.

A person cannot shut off half his thinking when entering a political office.

I also believe that the teaching of all religions should be mandated.

We are duty bound to show our children the goods and evils of religions.

They should learn as early as possible to reject the homophobia and misogyny of our more vile religions.

All moral people will agree.

Regards
DL

The answer is simple. Don't let believers hold office. If they are conflicted they shouldn't be allowed to stand.

What conflict, as God is never debated by governments.

Believing or not has nothing to do with a politician doing his job.

Like in most work places, the religious are just asked to keep their Gods out of the work place.

If you want to stop evil, how about the satanic Christian church that funded the Ugandan Kill the Gays bill.

Now if we had a morality test based on equality to weed out political homophobes and the misogynous, ---- sign me up.

Regards
DL
 

The conflict of insanity vs sanity. At the end of the day believers are self delusional. I don't want that sort of person running the government of any country. But as there are so many nutters I suppose some will slip through.

When American's, a dumbed down people, elect media stars instead of professional politicians, what do you expect?

Regards
DL

[Magdalena]

When American's, a dumbed down people, elect media stars instead of professional politicians, what do you expect?

Regards
DL

By the way, you have 4 spelling errors...
...Speaking of "poor communication ability."

I offer my sympathy to you too.
 


Regards
M-F-er

[billy rubin]

Separation of church and state is a notion I do not support.

I see it as impossible to enforce.

A person cannot shut off half his thinking when entering a political office.

I also believe that the teaching of all religions should be mandated.

We are duty bound to show our children the goods and evils of religions.

They should learn as early as possible to reject the homophobia and misogyny of our more vile religions.

All moral people will agree.

Regards
DL

The answer is simple. Don't let believers hold office. If they are conflicted they shouldn't be allowed to stand.

What conflict, as God is never debated by governments.

Believing or not has nothing to do with a politician doing his job.

Like in most work places, the religious are just asked to keep their Gods out of the work place.

If you want to stop evil, how about the satanic Christian church that funded the Ugandan Kill the Gays bill.

Now if we had a morality test based on equality to weed out political homophobes and the misogynous, ---- sign me up.

Regards
DL
 

The conflict of insanity vs sanity. At the end of the day believers are self delusional. I don't want that sort of person running the government of any country. But as there are so many nutters I suppose some will slip through.

When American's, a dumbed down people, elect media stars instead of professional politicians, what do you expect?

Regards
DL

 in my opinion vthe professional politicians are no more skilled than the media stars.

[Tank]

...

 in my opinion vthe professional politicians are no more skilled than the media stars.

You can hardly tell them apart now. More so on the right wing.

[Recusant]

The title says it all. I'm regularly reminded of how much I despise the right-wing Christian zealots on the US Supreme Court. Don't think I'm going to be pleasantly surprised when this decision is announced.

"The Supreme Court is poised to make taxpayers fund anti-LGBTQ discrimination" | Vox

For years, the Supreme Court has flirted with the question of whether religious conservatives may simply ignore laws prohibiting discrimination against LGBTQ Americans. The Court's Republican majority frequently rules in favor of business owners and institutions that refuse to serve gay or trans people. But these cases often rely on ad hoc reasoning that seems designed to give religious conservatives a narrow win without resolving broader questions about whether people with anti-LGBTQ religious views have an absolute right to violate civil rights laws.

On November 3, however, the Court will hear St. Mary Catholic Parrish v. Roy, which squarely presents the question of whether the Constitution authorizes discrimination by religious schools. Given the Court's past behavior in similar cases, it's hard to imagine St. Mary ending in anything other than a victory for religious groups that wish to exclude sexual or gender minorities.

The case also presents another, related question: When does the Constitution require states to subsidize religious institutions? The Republican justices' recent decisions suggest that they are eager to make taxpayers spend a great deal more money to promote religion.

The case concerns a Colorado law that pays for preschool education for all 4-year-olds in the state. Families with eligible children may choose from a broad range of private and public schools, including religious schools. But the state also bars schools that participate in this program from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Religious preschools that discriminate may continue to operate in Colorado. Although Colorado does have a broad ban on anti-LGBTQ discrimination, that ban exempts places that are "principally used for religious purposes." So the sole issue in St. Mary is whether Colorado's taxpayers must fund religious schools that engage in discrimination.

[Continues . . .]

[billy rubin]

american religious organizations enjoy tax-exempt status, under the requirement that they refrain from political activities. i would make the argument that disenfranchising legal citizens from participation in their organization constitutes a political act, and that the status should be revoked.

currently there is a megachurch in the states that has just explicitly endorsed a right-wing political candidate. i expect we will hear more abou tthis.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/oct/29/new-mexico-church-endorses-republicans

[Recusant]

Ah, the "Johnson Amendment." It's never been enforced in any meaningful way, but getting it off the books is an ongoing project for the true believers of the Trump regime.