Quote:
Originally Posted by strandinthewind
The establishment clause of the First Amendment and just about all of the docs surrounding the formation of the US Cont. specifically prohibit the Govt. from establishing a national religion. This means that the govt. cannot put religion into law. In other words, what is the difference between having a nationally sanctioned religion and having various laws based solely on religious ideals with no nationally sanctioned religion. There is no difference.
I see that. However, I also think an elected official should be able to say "You know I do not personally believe in that, but I realize I have no right to put my personal beliefs into law because doing so would violate the rights of Americans who think and believe differently than I do." I mean how hard is that  |
See I take "the government cannot establish a national religion" to mean they cannot form something along the lines as, say, the Church of England and then enforce everyone to go to that church, and to practice that faith.
As for the 2nd part...well, we can dream on and hope for a president that says something like that. No politicians are perfect. We all are witness to that. If anything, politicians seem to be crooked as they come right? Faith based or not.
It also popped into my mind that every president I can recall in my lifetime (Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr) have all been Christian presidents. As a figurehead they seemingly have more sway and influence. I recall any of them going out of their way to say that their faith had no bearing on any of the important decisions they had to make.