Very interesting thought. As Islam expands in US, we may very well need to have that fight.

The Founders agreed that reason was key to good governance, but again, felt that a lack of religion would be to the detriment - not the good - of the people. Washington makes this very point in his farewell address (where he also warns against political parties and long-term relationships with foreign nations).

"Seperation of church and state means separating government from irrational church doctrines..."

And what is rational to one isn't going to be rational to another. That's the challenge. There is a very fine line between allowing everyone the right to pursue happiness according to their own desires and proscribing certain behaviors because they violate someone else's pursuit of happiness. But the very act of proscribing certain behaviors is in fact to act based on a belief in what is right and what is wrong. Instead of falsely labeling an idea as a "church" doctrine, a secularist doctrine, etc., it's simpler to avoid the guilt-by-association fallacy and just state what the moral principle under discussion is. Let the evidence speak for itself and the chips fall where they may. There is nothing that says that a principle espoused by a religion is automatically false nor the contrary.

Religion, of any sort, tends to be malleable, allowing followers to see it as they choose. Even Islam has believers like the Sufi, who take a mystical view of the faith that rejects violence. Christian Identity is very theocratic, but they are an extremely small population of believers.

Should we attempt to create a set of attributes that define a legitimate religion acceptable to have 1st amendment rights? We could define a set of attributes, such as recognition of the supremacy of secular law, and rejection of violence except in defense of the national interest, but undoubtedly we would find ourselves in court, accused of violating a religion of its 1st amendment rights. That may be a fight worth having.

VIDEO: Does "Satanism" count as a "Theocracy"?
Does the deliberate killing or torture of a human being, or, the DELIBERATE poisoning and destruction of our ecosystem count as a legitimate expression of "Freedom of Worship"?
https://facebook.com/piphd/videos/101...

As Ayn Rand said to have a moral government it must be established on a morality of reason free from the arbitrary irrational caprice of established religions and chemical phantasies. Government itself must be moral which means enacting laws that affect all people equally. Seperation of church and state means separating government from irrational church doctrines of any kind not just allowing the practice of religions what ever that means.

Islam is one of the three Abrahamic religions of the Semitic tribes of the Middle East. All three are based on false premises about reality and depend on a religious basis of tribal law. The difference with the US is law is based on the principle of individual sovereignty while all religions are based on moral sovereignty of their non-existent God. The Mullahs or Priests become the rulers based on false premises and personal predilections. .Sharia is not law but arbitrary religious doctrine. Go individual sovereignty and get real law.

Islam is a front for a terrorist organization..it is anti-civilization, anti-liberty, anti-freedom, anti-life, and anti-progress...most politicians and the media are too politically correct to discuss it honestly...

Catholicism is a theocracy, too. It has it's own state.

Plenty of American Christians think America is or should be a Christian state.

Islam has had a history of religious tolerance at times. It's not monolithic. That doesn't deny all the violent and theocratic aspects of its history and teachings.

One can not have freedom of thought without it taking shape in action, and that is religion. The choice of one's god can take many forms - from money to people to ideas, but they are all religion.

One could argue that in a theocratic state the clergy become the politicians. We certainly see it in the Iranian Mullahs. I think this is one of the dangers of a theocratic state.

Agreed. The Founders were very specific in that they didn't want any religion to be supported by taxation. That being said, both Washington, Adams, and Madison all explicitly lauded the role religion (Christianity specifically) had in spreading virtue and upholding society. Each feared greatly for a country that set aside the moral virtues of religion for secularism.

Yes, but the phrase "separation of church and state" from Jefferson in that letter does not mean an irreligious government as many claim. Instead, it means a government which gives broad leeway to the practice of religion, neither burdening one to pay for things he does not believe in nor proscribing any sort of religious test to hold office. Washington says as much in his addresses as does Madison. Without exception, the Founders were all Christian - yet of differing sects. What they didn't want was one particular version of Christianity becoming like the Anglican or Church of England to the English with taxes being diverted in its support.

Very well expressed blarman.
The part that confuses me is that we know Islam comes with Sharia, it's inseparable, it's part of it, you can't have one without the other, and we can't abide Sharia, yet we don't attempt to stop Islam simply because it has a religious element.

We know what a self is. It is not the "origin of all things". We live in a physical universe.

self (sĕlf)
n. pl. selves (sĕlvz)
1. The total, essential, or particular being of a person; the individual: "An actor's instrument is the self" (Joan Juliet Buck).
2. The essential qualities distinguishing one person from another; individuality: "He would walk a little first along the southern walls, shed his European self, fully enter this world" (Howard Kaplan).
3. One's consciousness of one's own being or identity; the ego: "For some of us, the self's natural doubts are given in mesmerizing amplification by way of critics' negative assessments of our writing" (Joyce Carol Oates).
4. One's own interests, welfare, or advantage: thinking of self alone.
5. Immunology That which the immune system identifies as belonging to the body: tissues no longer recognized as self


Self = individual

Why adopt reason as a guiding light if not to benefit self?

Freedom from government coercion for religion means separation of church and state.

You can find info on Original intent when it comes to freedom of religion and other Constitutional matters on this site (first one I came across). Oddly enough, for those always griping and pretending to know, there is no direct wording for the separation of church and state anywhere in the Constitution.
https://www.varsitytutors.com/earlyam...

You cannot use the coercion of government to promote your religion whether or not you get away with 'conversions'.

Who is the clown who downvoted the rejection of the bizarre claim that Objectivism means that the "self is the origin of all things" in contrast to religious supernaturalism?

"freedom of religion" applies only to the government mandating a religion or belief that people must adhere to. At the time States were requiring people to believe a certain way in order to hold public office AND there was great anxiety that government would force the people to change their religion (as England did).

You cannot separate a person from their beliefs, even in government.

While your observations are correct, I would like to propose several possible causes for inaction.

From the conservative viewpoint, freedom of religion is not only guaranteed by the Constitution, it is sacrosanct in protecting one's own freedom to worship. The real conflict comes when those who choose Islam want to override the Constitution and create a sub-culture where Sharia is supreme. And we have seen plenty of objection to that from conservatives.

From the progressive standpoint, they don't see any problem with it because Sharia's authoritarian bent is exactly what they want. Their problem is in deceiving themselves that if they give in to Sharia and support it that it won't eat them alive afterwards. It's very similar to the mainstream media's suicidal support of the progressive agenda because the progressive agenda wants to ban free speech!

Libertarians are probably some of the most outspoken about this because they want neither religion nor a theocratic/authoritarian government. But this portion of people is rather small and not particularly paid attention to in the news media.

Theocracy is religion in action when they get the power to impose it. It isn't "no longer technically a religion". It is their religion. Politicians are morally intimidated by religion.

No one says "self is the origin of all things". That doesn't even make sense as a sentence. Rejecting belief in the supernatural does not mean every individual is somehow the "origin" of everything, whatever that is supposed to mean. Individualism, let alone Ayn Rand's philosophy, is not solipsism.

Theocracy is part of the religion. It is their political enforcement of their religion. It isn't "technically not religion".

Politicians don't publicly reject the Sharia law agenda because they are morally intimidated to not say anything against religion.

Yes. It does require a mystical belief, but since it's combined with a "form of government" it becomes a theocracy and is therefore no longer technically a religion - so it conflicts with our form of government. I'm wondering why this conflict isn't brought up every time someone mentions Islam in the USA. Freedom of religion, yes. Freedom to form whatever government within our borders your "religion" dreams up, I would think should be a big no. I'm curious why this isn't brought up by people within our government who presumably would like for our government to be the law of the land.