https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4502733985bb6e&ei=78

Analysis Story by Brad Reed • 2h • 2 min read

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) celebrated his re-election as speaker on Friday by reading from a prayer that he falsely attributed to American founder Thomas Jefferson.

Salon's Amanda Marcotte wrote Tuesday that Johnson's inclusion of a fake Thomas Jefferson prayer is more than just hapless historical illiteracy, but is rather part of a concerted effort by right-wing Christians to rewrite the history of the United States.

"Replacing facts with phony history is a linchpin of the Christian nationalist movement," Marcotte contends at the start of her piece.

She then pieces together contextual clues to conclude to explain why Johnson's use of the phony Jefferson prayer was deliberate.

Waiting for wackos to tell us Thomas Jefferson was a Christian in 3.2.1…

Historians are split on whether Jefferson was a Deist or a Christian with some even saying a pious Christian.

However, one thing we know for sure as they are in black and white is that Jefferson was quite fond of including prayers in much of his correspondence -- even governmental use correspondence. Thus, I find this Salon article to be a bit over the top in its analysis -- not surprisingly so for the known leaning of this rag. What is surprising is that people actually read Salon.

https://publicwitness.wordandw...story-of-how-speaker

The Surprising Story of How Speaker Johnson Read a Fake Jefferson Prayer

Brian Kaylor
Jan 06, 2025

(last paragraph of the article)

After an exaggerated version of a false claim about Jefferson was printed in a program by the House chaplain’s office, the speaker of the House with a history of embracing fake quotes to justify Christian Nationalism and attack church-state separation gave the “spurious” claim its biggest platform. While many people on social media criticized Johnson for the claim, others shared it as truthful. This false claim, decades in the making, has received a new burst of support thanks to Chaplain Kibben and Speaker Johnson. It will now be easier for preachers and politicians to also bear false witness about Jefferson’s faith. For as Jefferson himself actually wrote, “He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time.”

ME,
The claim is that there is no proof he said this prayer. There is also no proof he did not. We do know he was fond of including prayers in correspondence. I think you and the MSM are blowing it out of proportion.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Historians are split on whether Jefferson was a Deist or a Christian with some even saying a pious Christian.

However, one thing we know for sure as they are in black and white is that Jefferson was quite fond of including prayers in much of his correspondence -- even governmental use correspondence. Thus, I find this Salon article to be a bit over the top in its analysis -- not surprisingly so for the known leaning of this rag. What is surprising is that people actually read Salon.

Lane -
Read this book; "The 5000 Year Leap." In it, the author gives very specific evidence that this nation was founded as a Christian nation. The "separation of church" and state is a very liberal reading of the federalist papers that discuss such.

The founders were all, religious men, who knew and stated so, that America, to be a moral and just nation, must have religious grounding.

The Leviticus, was HEAVILY leaned on for the founding of this nations founding documents.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Historians are split on whether Jefferson was a Deist or a Christian with some even saying a pious Christian.

However, one thing we know for sure as they are in black and white is that Jefferson was quite fond of including prayers in much of his correspondence -- even governmental use correspondence. Thus, I find this Salon article to be a bit over the top in its analysis -- not surprisingly so for the known leaning of this rag. What is surprising is that people actually read Salon.

Lane -
Read this book; "The 5000 Year Leap." In it, the author gives very specific evidence that this nation was founded as a Christian nation. The "separation of church" and state is a very liberal reading of the federalist papers that discuss such.

The founders were all, religious men, who knew and stated so, that America, to be a moral and just nation, must have religious grounding.

The Leviticus, was HEAVILY leaned on for the founding of this nations founding documents.

Bullshit. Where does the Constitution, the nation's founding charter, say that the US shall be a Christian nation? In fact, it says the opposite, doesn't it?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is clear on his face. Disinformation about letters some men supposedly wrote is irrelevant.

We are a secular government.

Those like Dr. Easter who seek to impose their religious beliefs upon the public decoys and law must be opposed in debate, voting, and the courts.

The government must tending neutral.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Historians are split on whether Jefferson was a Deist or a Christian with some even saying a pious Christian.

However, one thing we know for sure as they are in black and white is that Jefferson was quite fond of including prayers in much of his correspondence -- even governmental use correspondence. Thus, I find this Salon article to be a bit over the top in its analysis -- not surprisingly so for the known leaning of this rag. What is surprising is that people actually read Salon.

Lane -
Read this book; "The 5000 Year Leap." In it, the author gives very specific evidence that this nation was founded as a Christian nation. The "separation of church" and state is a very liberal reading of the federalist papers that discuss such.

The founders were all, religious men, who knew and stated so, that America, to be a moral and just nation, must have religious grounding.

The Leviticus, was HEAVILY leaned on for the founding of this nations founding documents.

Bullshit. Where does the Constitution, the nation's founding charter, say that the US shall be a Christian nation? In fact, it says the opposite, doesn't it?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is clear on his face. Disinformation about letters some men supposedly wrote is irrelevant.

"Some letters, some men wrote."

Those some letters are called the federalist papers and are the framework of the constitution.

I will be present for and happy to have the debate.

Roland,
The Founders were for freedom of religion and wanted no establishment church of the State. But make no mistake…there was NO desire or deference to the concept of freedom from religion. They were quite happy for prayer to be used in school. In fact Jefferson expected it. He referenced the morals of Jesus be the fundamental for all decent humans and said as much often.

Give these morons a break.....they are the results of liberal, government funded education......they haven't learned to think and learn past what the liberal education system indoctrinated them....

They probably don't want to know the truth....

To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.

Thomas Jefferson

quote:

Those some letters are called the federalist papers and are the framework of the constitution.

Not the framework, no. The materials, tools, and scaffolding maybe. Ideas that gave rise to the Constitution, yes; but not all of them made it into the final product. The delegates argued and argued over the final product.

The idea the US should have a king was shit-canned.

The idea there should be an official US religion also got trashed.

But the idea that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion did make it into the final product: the Constitution.

quote:

Roland,
The Founders were for freedom of religion and wanted no establishment church of the State. But make no mistake…there was NO desire or deference to the concept of freedom from religion. They were quite happy for prayer to be used in school. In fact Jefferson expected it. He referenced the morals of Jesus be the fundamental for all decent humans and said as much often.

You don't understand the argument, but instead resort to the logical fallacy of apppeal to authority (your favorite rhetorical trick).

What any one (or a dozen) constituional delegates wanted is irrelevant. What counts is the plain meaning of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Which supreme court ?

Anyone here who has taken the time to read the individual 13 States charters, Bills of Rights, etc. that reference rights to worship and that were extant and the law in 1789?
Maybe you should.

The 1st Amendment and those in the original 10 referred to Federal rights (and some prohibitions) but until the later cases which extended the 14th Amendment to the States, some states actually had state supported churches.

James Mason’s draft for Virginia is interesting because it pretty well has the assumption that God grants human rights but no one should be penalized for disagreeing how to worship “their” concept of God. It’s a freedom of religion right, not a freedom from religion mandate.

Take a look at the other 12. Some don’t even mention God, but most do.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nj15.asp

Interesting that only Protestant citizens seem to have had religious rights in some states.

XVIII. That no person shall ever, within this Colony, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner, agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor, under any presence whatever, be compelled to attend any place of worship, contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall any person, within this Colony, ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rates, for the purpose of building or repairing any other church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right, or has deliberately or voluntarily engaged himself to perform.

XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect. who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.

Do we really want a nation founded in Belief in Fiction, plus the attendant religious dogma?

The Founders thought maybe that's not a good idea.

So, they made the constitution secular.

It was a fight then and it is now. Religious zealots are relentless, and the Founders knew it.

Now, the concept of Belief in Fiction has expanded. That's how Trump won the election and exactly why he had so much support from evangelicals and other Christofascists. Once one crosses the threshold, the event horizon so to speak, into the Belief in Fiction, where is the line distinguishing reality from Fiction? When politics, worldviews and religious belief entwine --- well the Founders knew about that. We have lost the distinctions. The consequences are upon us.

It's clear the direction they are pushing for, and their beliefs are clear too.

I ask why this is not absolutely recognized?

The Christian Nationalists, Christofascist, know it darn well. WTF is wrong with the rest of the nation?

ME… you can’t just mandate as true your desire that our founding fathers and mothers did not believe that God existed (and exists) and call that a fact. You’re entitled your own feelings, but not your own made up facts.

You certainly can argue they were mistaken in their belief, but it’s belittling to whomever educated you to deny their belief in God had no influence in the original documents.

Judge, you have made a very good point IMO.

And you have misinterpreted my point(s).

Let me explain.

What I'm saying is that the Founders did not question or address the existence or nonexistence of God in the founding principles of the Nation - the rule of law and the constitution, which they chose to make secular for a reason. And that reason was NOT to deny or affirm the existence of God.

They were agnostic about it.

What they did, or attempted to do, is minimize the influence of religious zealots in the workings of governance.

It's the effect, namely the end justifies the means, of religious zealotry belief, that they knew would corrupt the founding principles - the rule of law.

We see it demonstrated today, in the era of Trump(ism).

The whole "Separation of Church and State" argument is nothing more than Thomas Jefferson making the statement that (at the time) were 7 official state religions.

Connecticut- Congregational church
Delaware - Christian Faith
Maryland - Christian Faith
Massachusetts - Congregational Church
New Hampshire - Protestant Faith
New Jersey - Protestant Faith
South Carolina - Protestant Faith.

Not that there "shouldn't be one" It was his words that the Federal Government, couldn't, and shouldn't choose one over the other. But the states are free to do so.

quote:

What any one (or a dozen) constituional delegates wanted is irrelevant. What counts is the plain meaning of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

And interpreted using historical documents to derive the original intent of those delegates.

Yes, I understand the argument extremely well.

Steve, where is the line?

The Founders drew the line as clearly as they could, given the religious push of the day, which has not diminished.

They formed a secular nation, a secular constitution and a secular rule of law. It can't get clearer than that.

Every argument to the contrary is religious mud.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
The whole "Separation of Church and State" argument is nothing more than Thomas Jefferson making the statement that (at the time) were 7 official state religions.

Connecticut- Congregational church
Delaware - Christian Faith
Maryland - Christian Faith
Massachusetts - Congregational Church
New Hampshire - Protestant Faith
New Jersey - Protestant Faith
South Carolina - Protestant Faith.

Not that there "shouldn't be one" It was his words that the Federal Government, couldn't, and shouldn't choose one over the other. But the states are free to do so.

And the Bill of Rights did not apply as limitations upon state legislatures when Jefferson was alive. Caselaw provide previously and multiple times.

In Jefferson’s time a state could restrict who could poses firearms so any federal limitation.
The Constitution sets no frame for electing a religious political leader. The Constitutional Officers are clearly secular.

quote:

It was his words that the Federal Government, couldn't, and shouldn't choose one over the other. But the states are free to do so.

That was before the 14th Amendment, which extended the government contraints of the Bill of Rights to the states. The states are no longer free to choose an official state religion.

quote:

What I'm saying is that the Founders did not question or address the existence or nonexistence of God in the founding principles of the Nation

Ah…but they did! Just read the initial document…the Declaration of Independence. The whole principle for the nation is the inalienable rights granted by God.

The Declaration of Independence is not what governors us.

We had a technically two governments after the Declaration of Independence. That is if you do not count the colonial Congress.

The Constitution as Amended is what sets the frame work of our government.

You know that. You are intentionally trying to mislead people.

quote:

The whole principle for the nation is the inalienable rights granted by God.

Yes, Lane.

But the rights of man, in the new nation, were pursuant to a secular constitution.

That's why I said they didn't deny God. They acknowledged God to pacify the True Believers.

If you really acknowledge the amazing thing they did, it's astonishing. They formed a new nation achieving the balance in the ideas of and distinctions of "a Christian Nation" vs a "Nation of Christians".

And YOU want to destroy those distinctions.

Never the less…the inalienable rights granted to man by God…is the sole reason the country was founded.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Never the less…the inalienable rights granted to man by God…is the sole reason the country was founded.

I don't think that's true, regarding the "sole reason". I also don't think that's the central founding principle.

“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's” is a phrase from the Bible that summarizes the relationship between Christianity, secular government, and society. It appears in the synoptic gospels in Matthew 22, Mark 12, and Luke 20.

The "problem" arises because a lot of Christian zealots view the secular Govt vs their beliefs, duty to God as they interpret it, in fundamental conflict. So, they default to their version to duty to God. AND, they seek to remove the conflict by forcing the Govt to conform to their beliefs.

The Founders knew about this conflict and intentionally sought a workable remedy, which was and still is a secular government.

==============================

There is and has been much overlap between religious and secular morals and ethics, regarding individual rights and duties.

As I recall Locke said Life, liberty and property. Jefferson changed it to Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I think both declared it God given, but administered by a secular government.

So I see no conflict by the Founders defining inalienable rights, virtues and duties that parallel religion. The social contract parallels religious belief in civil society without mention of it.

It seems to me that religious True Believers these days have interpreted Locke's Social Contract part about "do unto others" literally in a way not originalist. It's more like do unto others before or because they do it to you. Also, it's "due unto others", which is zilch. "Others" is tribal in this context.

We do not incorporate for protection “inalienable rights.”

When the Courts started to extend the Bill of Rights against the state legislatures they extended fundamental rights. When one reads how the courts determine a fundamental rights, God has nothing to do with it.

Of course, no one has read the cares o have provident support my period and learn why I state my position.

The Declaration of Independence is not what forms, our Federal Government.

As a matter of fact, Jefferson had "issues" with religious fundamentalism:

https://youtube.com/shorts/RA8...?si=-Y41YX0qq70KcF7K

Christopher Hitchens gives history lesson on Islamic Fundamentalism and America

Yes, President Thomas Jefferson sent the U.S. Navy to blockade Tripoli in 1801 as part of the First Barbary War:
Background
In 1800, the ruler of Tripoli, Yusuf Karamanli, demanded that the United States increase its tribute to Tripoli by $225,000 or face war. Jefferson tried to negotiate with the Barbary states, but was unable to do so because they believed their religion justified enslaving and plundering non-Muslims.

https://www.monticello.org/res...a/first-barbary-war/

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
As a matter of fact, Jefferson had "issues" with religious fundamentalism:

https://youtube.com/shorts/RA8...?si=-Y41YX0qq70KcF7K

Christopher Hitchens gives history lesson on Islamic Fundamentalism and America

Yes, President Thomas Jefferson sent the U.S. Navy to blockade Tripoli in 1801 as part of the First Barbary War:
Background
In 1800, the ruler of Tripoli, Yusuf Karamanli, demanded that the United States increase its tribute to Tripoli by $225,000 or face war. Jefferson tried to negotiate with the Barbary states, but was unable to do so because they believed their religion justified enslaving and plundering non-Muslims.

https://www.monticello.org/res...a/first-barbary-war/

You just tried to use a moral equivalency of Christianity vs. Islam? Calling both Religious Fundamentalism?

I'm not sure of the point your attempting here?

Tomorrow, I will find the exact Federalist papers, and exact words used by Jefferson on "separation". However, I believe you and I have had this debate before?

This discussion is a very good example of why government should stay out of religion.

From around our nation our friends here have chimed in with opinions and preferences. Some are nuanced differences, some are seismic. In my life I have been attached to a mega non denominational, an Assembly of God, an Independent Baptist, a Southern Baptist and lasty Catholic. Each had differences and id guess different ideas about Christianity in the government or religion in the government. My very Bible thumping mother has attended about four different churches in the last twenty years with I assume similar experiences.

I suspect Doc Lane and I have some different ideas about religions role in government as does M.E., Jtex, Steve, etc. I like the Mormons and everything about them, but I'm not sure I want an LDS prayer forced on my kid in school or at a session of Congress.

In school I'd just a soon have the curriculum focused on the basics. if they've got that down pat how about some Latin. Maybe Russian poetry or astronomy. Advanced physics. I don't see how Doc Lanes version of Southern Baptism vs my Alaskan version of Independent Baptism can be helpful in 2nd grade.

To me Congress seems a mess. In the interests of fairness and equality, allowing a Satanic Church prayer today at the beginning of the session because we had a Methodist prayer yesterday and tomorrow is scheduled to be Islamic prayer I don't think makes Congress better.

I think it best to put our nuanced differences aside when it comes to religion and Christianity in government by just leaving it out.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Never the less…the inalienable rights granted to man by God…is the sole reason the country was founded.

I don't think that's true, regarding the "sole reason". I also don't think that's the central founding principle.

“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's” is a phrase from the Bible that summarizes the relationship between Christianity, secular government, and society. It appears in the synoptic gospels in Matthew 22, Mark 12, and Luke 20.

The "problem" arises because a lot of Christian zealots view the secular Govt vs their beliefs, duty to God as they interpret it, in fundamental conflict. So, they default to their version to duty to God. AND, they seek to remove the conflict by forcing the Govt to conform to their beliefs.

The Founders knew about this conflict and intentionally sought a workable remedy, which was and still is a secular government.

==============================

There is and has been much overlap between religious and secular morals and ethics, regarding individual rights and duties.

As I recall Locke said Life, liberty and property. Jefferson changed it to Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I think both declared it God given, but administered by a secular government.

So I see no conflict by the Founders defining inalienable rights, virtues and duties that parallel religion. The social contract parallels religious belief in civil society without mention of it.

It seems to me that religious True Believers these days have interpreted Locke's Social Contract part about "do unto others" literally in a way not originalist. It's more like do unto others before or because they do it to you. Also, it's "due unto others", which is zilch. "Others" is tribal in this context.

Freedom! The inalienable right granted to man by God, as acknowledged by the DOI, was the sole basic reason for the breakaway and thus the foundation.

Yes Joshua, we all know the DOI is not a governing document. But it speaks highly to the mindset and thought processes of the founders — things they acknowledged and were willing to die for.

quote:

I don't see how Doc Lanes version of Southern Baptism vs my Alaskan version of Independent Baptism can be helpful in 2nd grade.

The versions don’t matter. It’s the habit that does.

You filled in the operational effects of my historical context. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
The whole "Separation of Church and State" argument is nothing more than Thomas Jefferson making the statement that (at the time) were 7 official state religions.

Connecticut- Congregational church
Delaware - Christian Faith
Maryland - Christian Faith
Massachusetts - Congregational Church
New Hampshire - Protestant Faith
New Jersey - Protestant Faith
South Carolina - Protestant Faith.

Not that there "shouldn't be one" It was his words that the Federal Government, couldn't, and shouldn't choose one over the other. But the states are free to do so.

And the Bill of Rights did not apply as limitations upon state legislatures when Jefferson was alive. Caselaw provide previously and multiple times.

In Jefferson’s time a state could restrict who could poses firearms so any federal limitation.
The Constitution sets no frame for electing a religious political leader. The Constitutional Officers are clearly secular.

quote:

That's why I said they didn't deny God. They acknowledged God to pacify the True Believers.

That's a huge stretch there Mangina! Even for your estrogen addled brain......

ME -

from; "The 5000 Year Leap"

In 1787, the very year the Constitution was written, that same Congress passed the "Northwest Ordinance". In it, they emphasized the essential need to teach religion in school.

Here is how they stated it;

Article 3; Religion, Morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

Religion - Which might be defined as "fundamental system of beliefs concerning mans origin and relationship to the cosmic universe as well as his relationship with his fellowmen."

Morality - Which may be described as a "standard of behavior distinguishing right from wrong."

Knowledge - Which is "an intellectual awareness and understanding of established facts relating to any field human experience or inquiry (ie, history, geography, science,etc).


Benjamin Franklin - "Here is my creed; I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by providence. That he ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting his conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion." (Smyth, writings of Benjamin Franklin, 10:84)


From Washington's farewell address;

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion ...Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue and morality is a necessary spring of popular government.

These are not my words. These are the founders own. However, they don't ring of Liberal or Progressive values.



They never once said "separation of church and state". They say, very specifically, There will be no state sponsored religion. However, they were all in line with America needs to be a spiritual nation. They just wouldn't argue about which following of Christianity should or shouldn't be followed.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I don't see how Doc Lanes version of Southern Baptism vs my Alaskan version of Independent Baptism can be helpful in 2nd grade.

The versions don’t matter. It’s the habit that does.

Which habits? Who's prayers?

I don't believe in your version of the Bible.

Your certainly welcome to believe in your version, I just don't think that your version is in anyway more valid than mine, nor do I think the government should promote either of our viewpoints.

Likely best that government remains secular.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I don't see how Doc Lanes version of Southern Baptism vs my Alaskan version of Independent Baptism can be helpful in 2nd grade.

The versions don’t matter. It’s the habit that does.

Which habits? Who's prayers?

I don't believe in your version of the Bible.

Your certainly welcome to believe in your version, I just don't think that your version is in anyway more valid than mine, nor do I think the government should promote either of our viewpoints.

Likely best that government remains secular.

"It’s the habit"

It's the indoctrination.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
As a matter of fact, Jefferson had "issues" with religious fundamentalism:

https://youtube.com/shorts/RA8...?si=-Y41YX0qq70KcF7K

Christopher Hitchens gives history lesson on Islamic Fundamentalism and America

Yes, President Thomas Jefferson sent the U.S. Navy to blockade Tripoli in 1801 as part of the First Barbary War:
Background
In 1800, the ruler of Tripoli, Yusuf Karamanli, demanded that the United States increase its tribute to Tripoli by $225,000 or face war. Jefferson tried to negotiate with the Barbary states, but was unable to do so because they believed their religion justified enslaving and plundering non-Muslims.

https://www.monticello.org/res...a/first-barbary-war/

You just tried to use a moral equivalency of Christianity vs. Islam? Calling both Religious Fundamentalism?

I'm not sure of the point your attempting here?

I believe you and I have had this debate before?

Yes, it's a relentless "debate". That's only because zealots can't leave it to abide the Founder's intentions.

And I did make some equivalence out of the comparison "of Christianity vs. Islam? Calling both Religious Fundamentalism?"

It's not a moral equivalence that I was making. I don't want to get into that, so I'll just post a link to a video short which I agree with. I can't say it better than Christopher Hitchens. https://youtube.com/shorts/u6c...?si=Iv7MjXOjdplHo_qf

However, I think there is some equivalence - Faith and belief -- evidence not necessary, indoctrination, various sects or interpretations, justifications of violence and means, and other similarities. The exception which the Founders made is in the separation of church and state with the secular constitution. It's the flip side of Sharia law, and should remain so for obvious reasons. The Christian nationalists, Christofascists, want the Christian version of Islamic Sharia law.

It should be obvious by now that the Christian Nationalist zealots want to conflate politic, their version of religion, law, and government. As with all zealots, or cults, it's full on or full off. That's why giving an inch in compromise is not gonna work. They will not be satisfied until they have the whole enchilada. It's like a light switch --- is the constitution secular or not? It's a yes or no question. Since the answer is it's secular, then why? The Founders saw the dangers and harms of religion in governance.

Zealotry and the associated Belief in Fiction, existent boundaries are variable, uncertain and flexible, essentially corrupt. Whatever corruption exists in a secular system is not remedied in a religion-based system - it's multiplied. Where are the boundaries of Belief in Fiction? It's as simple as that.

The religious zealots want to reconcile their religious beliefs with the Nation's governance, then there will be no distinction of render unto Ceasar, or God...

IMO, that's their problem, and I shouldn't have to suffer it.

It's how we got the curse on the Nation of Trumpism. Look at all the spin, propaganda, lies, mis/disinformation, claims of lawfare, victimhood, specific to ONE MAN, namely Trump. For the most part he beat the secular System, the rule of law, with the help of Christians. And they elevated HIM to a position of immense power, supposedly to serve on their behalf, under a pretense of the Greater Good. It's about as clear as it gets - "The End Justifies the Means" scenario. And there's a lot more where that came from in the realm of Belief in Fiction.

What's wrong with this picture? A partial answer is that the "System" has morphed, largely due to Christian influence, from the Rule of Constitutional Law to a basterdized conflation of Rule of Man, God, with some remnants of rule of law, all done through the existing system, with promises to change all that.