What more can be done to guarantee the separation of church and state?

[Anonymous]

I was hired as an observer during the GOP caucuses in Iowa. When the proceedings commenced, the precinct captain wanted everyone to bow their heads while she led a prayer. I was shocked. It was a Christian prayer. I thought to myself: "How can she assume that everyone here is Christian... or her denomination of Christianity? What if there are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists or Agnostics here?" I shared this experience with a friend who told me that Christian nationalism is part of the GOP platform. I think that the US Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion... not the freedom to force people to participate in religious activity... especially during a political event. I am aware that there are chaplains in the military... and that Congress opens with a prayer, but I still believe that it is fundamentally incorrect to force anyone to pray. People can pray privately or with their religious group all day... every day, if they wish. I just don't believe in coercion.

[AviatorTom]

Nothing more can be done. The other day, Joe Biden gave a political speech to a group of worshippers in a church, introduced by the pastor. An obvious violation if church vs state. That church should lose its don't pay taxes benefit.

[Asker]

Agreed!

[Asker]

ALL religious groups who support or entertain ANY politicians should pay taxes?

[RedInnocent69]

Well, putting it in the Constitution didn’t work. Let’s try killing conservatives.

[Asker]

Is that supposed to be funny?

[RedInnocent69]

No. It’s supposed to be helpful.

[nolabels]

The GOP are free to do as they wish, as all groups are in pertaining to prayer.
Those in attendance who didn't wish to participate in a Christian prayer were not being required to do so.
Those of other faiths WERE FREE to use those same moments to offer prayer of their own choosing.
Others may FREELY choose to completely abstain.

The concept is known as Freedom.
Learn it, know it, live it.

If the attendees were being individually monitored and forced to recite the prayer if found to be not vocally participating, coercion could be said to have occurred.

I'll eat my hat if you can prove that was the case.

This continued twisting of the meaning of law must end.

[Asker]

Ok, what condiments do you prefer with your hat? You weren't there.

[nolabels]

Show me the proof.

[Asker]

Everyone else being monitored. It was a GOP caucus.. Again, I was there. You weren't. When you are told to stand up and bow your head, it's coercion. She didn't say that you have the right not to participate. I have attended many Democratic caucus events too... for years. Not ONE time was there any group praying going on. The implementation of religion in politics and government begins there. People criticize sharia law, but it's the same sentiment. Religious people thinking it's for the "good" of everyone and society... so, it's justified.

[nolabels]

https://youtu.be/Wxk1cyYJe-o?si=D3gP_U3Q0pejoDCP

[WindAtMyBack]

This has nothing to do with "separation of church and state". A political party is not the state. It is a private group. So not only are they allowed to pray all they want, the state is required to protect their right to do so.

[Asker]

Don't appreciate a political party even introducing prayer of a very specific religion in their proceedings.

[WindAtMyBack]

It's doesn't matter whether you appreciate it or not. They have a right to do it. It's a private group. Nobody forces you to attend. You do so voluntarily. If you don't like what they do, then just don't go. You also have the same right to start a new group and pray or not pray as much as you want.

[Asker]

It's not just a private group. It's a MAJOR political party! We only have TWO major political parties in this country. You act like this is a sewing group or dalmatian puppy club!

[WindAtMyBack]

Being a major political party is completely irrelevant. BOTH major parties have an agenda. You could make the same claim about every one of the hundreds of items on their agenda.

Even if you take away the parties and simply talk about liberals and conservatives. Whenever they gather together, there is an assumption that everyone who "belongs" to a particular group agrees with the entire slate of issues.

For example I've been to a number of protests in my time, including large protests in DC. They never stick to the issue that you are there for. The speakers assume that everyone there agrees with the entire liberal or conservative agenda. I think it's stupid to assume that, and it ends up turning people away who might otherwise side with them on a particular issue. BUT they have an absolute right to do it. I have even witnessed a large portion of the crowd booing the speaker for doing this.

Whether or not they should be praying at such a caucus is irrelevant. I wouldn't want to be around that either. But they have a right to do it. It is not about separation of church and state because a political party, no matter how large, is not the state.

Your implication that it should not be allowed is what would violate the separation of church and state. Because the only way to truly disallow it is through legislation or judicial action. Both of which would mean the government telling people they can not practice their religion.

[Asker]

Being a major political party is COMPLETELY RELEVANT! Are you kidding? If religious fanatics take control of either party, we're screwed! This isn't rocket science! Christian nationalism is part of Project 2025... which is being pushed by members of the GOP!

[WindAtMyBack]

Bullshit.

[Asker]

Guess you left your ability to do research and think critically out in your car...

[WindAtMyBack]

I don't have to do any research to know you're wrong. The problem is that you think that just because you don't like something, then it must be banned.

Speaking of research. Have you researched whether or not a political party is a part of the government? I have. It's not.

They have a RIGHT to pray. And that right is protected. You seem to think that because they influence government that it takes away that right. It doesn't.

[Dargil]

Defining what it means and doesn't mean in the Constitution. The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" It doesn't say a coach can't pray before a football game. Leftist obsession with separation of church and state has gotten out of hand. It never meant freedom from religion.

[Avicenna]

I don't think you understand what separation of church and state means. It doesn't mean that First Amendment rights are done away with in all public settings. It also doesn't mean that people pretend that religions don't exist.

[Asker]

I'm absolutely clear about this concept. T don't pretend other religions don't exist. You can have your religion... just don't ram it down my throat pretending that you have a right to do so.

[Avicenna]

That's not what happened in the scenario you described. If it actually did occur as you describe, you were not invited as a participant in the caucuses; furthermore, from your comments, you are clearly a leftist who is hostile to Christianity and the Republican Party.

In all likelihood, you made this up and just wanted to repeat a far left talking point about your political opponents. What, anyhow, is a "Christian nationalist"? That sounds like a pejorative made up by Democrats for propaganda purposes during elections.

[Asker]

Check the contents of Project 2025. It's the blueprint for another Trump term. Carefully analyze the parts regarding Christianity influence in our society. No, this is not a "pejorative made up by Democrats for propaganda purposes during elections."

[Avicenna]

Let me ask you this, why were you allegedly hired to be an observer at an Iowa Republican caucus when you clearly are a Democrat?

The fact that you're anonymous and an obvious Democrat means you aren't credible. And you haven't defined this alleged "Christian nationalism".

Here apparently is the Project 2025 policy document:

https://www.project2025.org/policy/

Show us exactly where it says what you claim it does.

You say it's a blueprint for another Trump term, but what does Trump himself say?

[Asker]

I was hired by a media group. I was paid to do it. Why does my political affiliation make me not "credible"? That makes no sense. Do you lose any credibility for attending ANY event, no matter WHAT of event it is?

Here are just a few quotes from the document. The reference and source is clear as day to anyone who has actually bothered to read a bible:

"Marriage is between one man and one unrelated woman." – Project 2025, page 481

"Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family." - Project 2025, page 481

"Grant allocations should protect and prioritize faith-based programs that incorporate local churches and mentorship programs or increase social capital through multilayered community support (including, for example, job training and social events." - Project 2025, page 481

"Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classified as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered." -Project 2025, page 13

The website clearly says it's a "2025 Presidential Transition Project" right on the main page. Trump will follow the bouncing ball to keep the support of the Heritage Foundation... just like he did with his justices on the SCOTUS. Project 2025 is a playbook.

[Avicenna]

So you say you were planted in a caucus meeting by a "media group". Is your story corroborated in any way by a written article (not that that is some guarantee it's actually true)?

Your political affiliation matters very much due to bias and the large amount of propaganda that leftists pretending to be journalists post. You posting anonymously means you are trying to hide while asking us to believe everything you say without anything to back it up. You're simply not credible.

Anyone can claim to have a "Presidential Transition Project", but unless it's from Trump's own team and endorsed by him, it's merely a third party proposal. The fact that you try to claim it's Trump's is further indication of bias and untruthfulness on your part to further a political agenda.

As for the quotes from the document which you have cherry-picked, I will check to see what the context is and will verify that you've quoted them accurately. But given the dishonesty and bias you have already shown, I doubt very much that you are indicating anything other than your own bias toward anything that disagrees with your own extreme views.

I don't want to assume that you support teachers and libriarians sending pornography in their official roles, but by complaining above, you certainly leave the impression that you do want teachers and librarians to be able to do it (few actually would).

Also, despite me asking you to do so, you haven't defined "Christian nationalism".

[Avicenna]

At the end of the day, we see that you are an extreme leftist who hates Christians and doesn't understand what searation of church and state actually means.

[Avicenna]

Well, well, well, unsurprisingly you didn't actually do any of the legwork yourself, you just copied from this article without citing it:

www.salon.com/.../

[Asker]

What are you talking about? That's exactly what happened! I wasn't a participant. I was a paid observer. I'm not hostile. I just believe that religion should be left out of politics. What are you smoking?

[Asker]

Interesting. You just showed your cards. You just proved that you know absolutely nothing about Project 2025. Did you actually check the source in the document? NO, YOU DIDN'T! You people are pathetic and are all hyped up on destroying what's left of our freedoms.

[strateguy632]

duh, the others would respect... the Christian same as we respect all other religions... except the extremists who oppose us or stifle us... wait isn't THAT precisely what you are trying to do here?

[Asker]

Who is "us"? Who are the "extremists"? Do you respect Satanists, atheists or agnostics, or are they the "extremists" you are referring to?

[Dongie]

I didn't bother to read all about how Christianity offends you. But what difference does it make if 2 or 3 prayed. Are you in a hurry or just like depriving those unlike yourself of their rights? You say you were at the republican shindig? Are you a republican? Atheist?
If it had been Islam would you be having this question?
I really don't care, just wondering. But it's your life, free will and all.

[exitseven]

I was a volunteer for a local Republican gubernatorial candidate and I never saw anything like that going on. Sometimes you just come across a holy roller.

[Asker]

It happened here in Iowa.

[exitseven]

I was in the Air Force with a guy from Iowa. He was a nice enough kid but I think he was sort of a Bible thumper.

[Asker]

Not surprised...

[Drewtate]

Nothing. Thing about democracy is that voters can vote for the end of it.

[Asker]

Terrible thought.

[Drewtate]

If you don't like democracy

[Asker]

I like democracy, NOT theocracy. The US is not a theocracy.

[Drewtate]

If you like democracy you have to accept it if the people vote to end or vote for a theocracy

[Asker]

You are talking about voting to turn a democracy into a theocracy. By definition, that would be the END of democracy! I don't want to end up like Iran or Iraq under sharia law. That's insane! I don't think you would like it either!

[Drewtate]

Then you are opposed to democracy

[Asker]

I'm opposed to theocracy, not democracy. Those are two entirely different forms of government.

[Drewtate]

But if voters vote for it democracy rules.

[Twalli]

The chaplains in the military represent all possible religions. I've heard of Jewish and Muslim chaplains as well as Christian.

[Asker]

Where are the representatives of atheists or agnostics... or Satanists for that matter? Why be so selective?

[Twalli]

I haven't heard of any other chsplins, but atheists and agnostic don't really need the services of a Chaplin, and I don't know if Satanists do either.

[Asker]

So they don't represent all religions then. Satanism is a religion.

[Twalli]

Does it require religious direction? I mean if you're devout in Christianity, Judaism, or Islam killing people inwar can cause a theological crisis. I have a feeling that killing us but treated as a major theological crisis in Satanism.

[Twalli]

*is not

[Asker]

Interesting. Why join the military voluntarily if it conflicts with your religious beliefs? I think you have been watching too many bad horror movies about Satanism. By the way, there are far more religions not even listed here.

[Twalli]

You want to protect people
You wqntvto repay the country that had given you so much
They pay for your college (A second cousin and her husband actually could only afford college because of this.)

Really Chaplin help direct religious practices in the military as well as help people justify religiously immoral acts through prayer or confession.

[Nerdvana]

Just curious, how did someone make you pray?

[NamerOfStars]

SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM!

[Asker]

WTF?

[LiamJHayden]

Caucuses are not a government operation.

[Anonymous]

Banning all organized religion in public spaces