Two things I want to talk about, politics wise

[ShinyCrystals]

The first one is...

Do you all think the separation of religion and politics/government in the United States of America is poorly dealt with nowadays? I mean, The first amendment, if that is the right one, says that religion and politics/the government should be separate and they are not supposed to mix with each other in the United States. However, in many cases, like with the GOP, or republican party (but not limited to those), it seems many politicians in the country seem to incorporate their views, which are religion based, in politics in some way. I remember someone here mentioning a group with religious views in the 70s that said they were pro-life and got many people to vote republican back then. If I recall correctly, that was all a mix between politics and religion. Shouldn't that not be happening, and if it should not, do you all think that the government is doing poorly in upholding the separation of religion and the government like they should?

The second thing is, is the country of the United States, mainly its majority, the white people, afraid of immigration?

I mean, as the majority, white people have so much power in some way, and while I am not completely sure how the majority and minority thing works well, I am sure that can change well if another race/ethnic group becomes the majority. I learned in history class in high school that in the future, (this was back in the 2000s, by the way), Hispanics will one day become the majority of the United States. If that is still true, which I am sure it is, I think the majority of the United States that is the Caucasian people, or whites, do not want that happening, and may try to prevent that, as they will lose power if that happens. Now, this is probably not THE only reason for immigration regulation in the USA, but I think a possible reason for regulating immigration and all the laws and such that come with it is to prevent a majority change. I could be wrong, but that is what I think so far.

So, what do you all think of all this? Feel free to let me know, and point out if I am wrong on anything.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Based on what I read in the papers, US separation of church and state is honoured more in the break than the observance.

Yes, white Americans are terrified of brown non-Americans (same source).

Boru

[ShinyCrystals]

Based on what I read in the papers, US separation of church and state is honoured more in the break than the observance.

Yes, white Americans are terrified of brown non-Americans (same source).

Boru

Huh? What do you mean by the very first sentence?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Based on what I read in the papers, US separation of church and state is honoured more in the break than the observance.

Yes, white Americans are terrified of brown non-Americans (same source).

Boru

Huh? What do you mean by the very first sentence?

I mean I don’t experience it firsthand (I’m not an American) and that there seem to be a whole lot of Americans paying lip service to the ‘wall of separation’ as they gleefully engage in dismantling it.

Boru

[ShinyCrystals]

Huh? What do you mean by the very first sentence?

I mean I don’t experience it firsthand (I’m not an American) and that there seem to be a whole lot of Americans paying lip service to the ‘wall of separation’ as they gleefully engage in dismantling it.

Boru

I see what you mean now. Thanks for explaining.

[arewethereyet]

I don't want laws in the US to be based on religious rules. For me, it's simple as that.

If people want to follow the rules of their religion that's just fine.

Using law to force religion upon others is what I see as a breach of the separation of church and state.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

One thing to remember about US citizens, most of them are frequently unaware of what all the shouting is about.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Republicans claim to be "originalist" [i.e. supporting the "original intent" of the Framers of the Constitution] but have carved out an exception for religion in their own minds. It's not very different from Christian literalists who cherry-pick the shit out of their "inerrant" book.

[ShinyCrystals]

The Republicans claim to be "originalist" [i.e. supporting the "original intent" of the Framers of the Constitution] but have carved out an exception for religion in their own minds. It's not very different from Christian literalists who cherry-pick the shit out of their "inerrant" book.

I see. Well, as long as mankind has existed, or for a very long time, religion has been used as a means of power, so the fact that at least republicans do that kind of thing and try to incorporate religion with US politics is not too surprising.

On another note, on the majority thing I mentioned, about the Hispanics eventually becoming the majority of the USA, the current white majority, mainly those who discriminate against other races, seem to know this, which is why republicans like Donald Trump had tried to heavily restrict immigration, if  the words "heavily restrict" are even the right words.

[LinuxGal]

The Republicans claim to be "originalist" [i.e. supporting the "original intent" of the Framers of the Constitution] but have carved out an exception for religion in their own minds. It's not very different from Christian literalists who cherry-pick the shit out of their "inerrant" book.

Most of the Framers were secularists.  They called Thomas Paine a deist but The Age of Reason reads like slightly more hardcore Richard Dawkins, or a slightly toned down Christopher Hitchens.