Moreover, although it is true that everyone who works in any job inevitably carries their experiences and beliefs, including their spiritual beliefs, there is obviously a vast difference between having the freedom to entertain personal spiritual beliefs in the privacy of one’s mind and (mis)using the power of the state to impose those beliefs on the other citizens of that state. In this regard, religion poses what is arguably the greatest threat to democracy: a mindset that ignores (indeed, vilifies, even demonizes) the wishes of the minority. When religious believers declare themselves to be the sole arbiters of public morality, public immorality (war, genocide, torture, The Inquisition, etc.) will almost surely follow.

I’ve printed your comment in full, even though you haven’t included any links to the material you’ve cited. I leave it to readers to double-check to make sure that your historical assertions are accurate. In the meantime, I would urge you to provide links to reputable sites to substantiate this material.

As an attorney, I am well aware that there is a maxim in law that when interpreting enacted law, the first and only method, when the meaning seems clear from the words themselves, is to rely only on the words themselves. With that maxim in mind, you need to go to the source and reconsider the exact wording of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ask yourself how it is that those words establish a national religion, where non-believers are made second-class citizens or where Jesus is honored as a Divine. The founding fathers certainly knew all about the many claims regarding the alleged divinity of Jesus. They all knew about the Bible. Many of them were, to some extent, religious. As you can see by a simple and quick reading of the First Amendment, all of these questions are fully answered:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As the U.S. Supreme Court held in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), the government “should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion”.

The Amendment to the Third Article reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Some people quote the “wall of separation” statement as if it was written
into the Constitution. It wasn’t.
Thomas Jefferson said: ‘I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of
the whole American people [the First Amendment] which declared that their
legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation
between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of
the nation IN BEHALF OF THE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE…..” (emphasis added). Jefferson’s statement actually addressed the concern that GOVERNMENT could attempt to disallow or ban RELIGION, thereby infringing upon the rights of
the people to have and EXPRESS their religion.
From the 1789 Congressional debates on the “no establishment of religion”
Amendment, these are the most pertinent thoughts as expressed by members
regarding the core intention of the Amendment. These expressions reveal
that core intention to be that no particular DENOMINATION would be
established as the official NATIONAL RELIGION. I have highlighted the
essential words and phrases in all capital letters.
Mr. SYLVESTER had some doubts of the propriety of the mode of expression used in this paragraph. He apprehended that it was liable to a construction different from what had been made by the committee. HE FEARED IT MIGHT BE THOUGHT TO ABOLISH RELIGION ALTOGETHER.
Mr. GERRY said it would read better if it was no religious DOCTRINE shall
be established by law.
Mr. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that
Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation
of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner CONTRARY TO THEIR
CONSCIENCE. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say,
but they had been required by some of the state conventions, who seemed to
entertain an opinion, that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave
power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into
execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to
make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, and
establish a NATIONAL RELIGION; to prevent these effects he presumed the
amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.
Mr. HUNTINGTON said . . . By the charter of Rhode Island, no religion could
be established by law; he could give a history of the effects of such a
regulation; indeed the people were now enjoying the blessed fruits of it.
He hoped, therefore, the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure
the rights of conscience, and the free exercise of religion, BUT NOT TO
PATRONIZE THOSE WHO PROFESSED NO RELIGION AT ALL.
Mr. MADISON thought, if the word ‘NATIONAL’ was inserted before religion,
it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the
people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined
together, and establish a religion, to which they would compel others to
conform. He thought if the word ‘National’ was introduced, IT WOULD POINT
THE AMENDMENT DIRECTLY TO THE OBJECT IT WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT.

The intention was, although back then there weren’t as many different
denominations as there are now, to not establish, say, the Baptist Church as being the official church of the United States. This is abundantly clear in a
reading of the member’s statements and concerns. It also makes perfect sense as many knew all too well the oppression that could result because England had an official state church (The Church of England). Further, to reiterate, the
PROTECTION was imbued to Faith (religion) to prevent it being usurped by the GOVERNMENT. This is precisely what is being done now when some are distorting the Constitution to ban the Ten Commandments and mention of God in school, etc.
There are NUMEROUS statements by these same men and others admnishing that God was a NECESSARY element to American life and Government. There is no real controversy about what the Constitution and the intent behind it was. The only controversy is that created by the lying claims of some that our Constitution intended no place for religion in Government or public expression.
Let no one tell you that America was not and is not a Christian Nation, or that Judeo-Christians have no right to express and exercise the Faith in any and EVERY venue of life, INCLUDING Government.

But I haven’t seen an actual double feature since the Tivoli (local repertory cinema with 7 different double features a week in the 1970’s and 1980’s) went multiplex.

In my experience most strongly religious people are abjectly and horrifyingly in terror of the Great Abyss. So much so that they will accept any ludicrous claim as long as they are promised a reprieve from oblivion.

Most of the rest (again, this is in my experience) are just lazy. They don’t really give a s**t one way or the other. It’s just something they do so the wife won’t get mad or they won’t seem like a weirdo.

This documentary will do little to affect either kind of religious person.

“[Separation of Church and State] was not a sop to Jews or Muslims or ACLU atheists. It was developed to keep some Christians from ruling the consciences of other Christians”

This article from the Houston Chronicle lists many events of the early, “more Christian” America that make me glad that we have less Christian values now than then. Or arguably more, depending on whose version of “Christian” we are using.

1) I find it utterly absurd that Christian fundies should be discussing this issue at all, as if American federal government policy in the 21st century should hinge upon whether or not George Washington took communion more than two centuries ago.

2) The fact that Christian fundies are so vigorously pursuing their goals through political means speaks volumes about their inability to achieve their goals through non-political means; i.e., prayer.

I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that “jihadism” is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, “…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration.”

Romney, whose Mormon faith has become the subject of heated debate in Republican caucuses, wants America to be blind to his religious beliefs and judge him on merit instead. Yet he seems to accept excluding Muslims because of their religion, claiming they’re too much of a minority for a post in high-level policymaking.

http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/1627
http://www.slate.com/id/2178568/

It ought to be borne in mind that Romney is not a mere rank-and-file Mormon. His family is, and has been for generations, part of the dynastic leadership of the mad cult invented by the convicted fraud Joseph Smith. It is not just legitimate that he be asked about the beliefs that he has not just held, but has caused to be spread and caused to be inculcated into children. It is essential. Here is the most salient reason: Until 1978, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was an officially racist organization. Mitt Romney was an adult in 1978. We need to know how he justified this to himself, and we need to hear his self-criticism, if he should chance to have one.

The Book of Mormon, when it is not “chloroform in print” as Mark Twain unkindly phrased it, is full of vicious ingenuity…