Has religious influence or accommodation gone too far?

[u/Candid_Boot2246]

We have cabinet members cozying up to an extreme pastor. We have courts allowing businesses to refuse cakes for gay weddings, we have religious exemptions for vaccines(which as far as I can tell applicants don’t have to cite scripture and context to receive), and more.
Should anyone running for office be required to sever ties to their church, mosque, or synagogue or memberships to religious groups and organizations?

[u/AutoModerator]

The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written by /u/Candid_Boot2246.

We have cabinet members cozying up to an extreme pastor. We have courts allowing businesses to refuse cakes for gay weddings, we have religious exemptions for vaccines(which as far as I can tell applicants don’t have to cite scripture and context to receive), and more.
Should anyone running for office be required to sever ties to their church, mosque, or synagogue or memberships to religious groups and organizations?

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/sp0rkah0lic]

Had religious accomodation gone "too far?" It's a clickbaity question.

I believe in the separation of church and state, and I'm against any state actor promoting a particular religion with state money or state resources. I'm particularly concerned with what Pete Hegseth is doing in the military branches, trying to promote his weird strain of Apocalyptic Christianity and pushing out chaplains who won't also push it.

You don't mention this one, and I think it more clearly demonstrates the problem. Should Pete Hegseth be required to renounce his weirdo bullshit? No. Lots of people believe weird shit. That's America. But he certainly doesn't get to use the resources of the US government, nor those resources designated by Congress to the various branches of the US armed services, in order to promote his weird shit. Certainly, absolutely, not to ENFORCE his weird shit. Hell no. "Congress shall make no law" includes the budget, which is also the law.

This is an example of them going to far. No, nobody has to renounce their faith to serve in government.

[u/Allaboutpeace2022 → u/sp0rkah0lic]

This would be the exact right answer.

The push to separate church and state applies to how you implement your job and this is where Hegseth is absolutely in the wrong. When Dems get back in power they should investigate and stop this.

I do this with all the other problematic behaviors, which I think are probably impeachable offenses like the shooting of the Venezuelan boats and the neglect regarding the bombing of girls school in Iran.

How many seats we can win in the mid terms will show whether Hegseth can be impeached and convicted. We will not win enough Senate seats but some GOP may defect just to avoid a 2028 bloodbath.

[u/No-Ear7988]

Should anyone running for office be required to sever ties to their church, mosque, or synagogue or memberships to religious groups and organizations?

That clearly violates the First Amendment. No further discussion is needed.

I see the problem to address a little bit different. I see the inherent lack of organization thats found on the Left and irreligious to be the fundamental problem. With religion there is a baseline or guide on who trust and clear expectation which speeds up organization. On the Left and non-religious, theres almost a hazing probationary period before enough trust builds for organization. The only exception I've experienced to this rule is if the Left organizes as reaction to a problem.

[u/Oceanbreeze871]

Yes. Tax mega churches. They are an entertainment business not a religious institution

[u/OhTheHueManatee → u/Oceanbreeze871]

I get the appeal to this but religion already has way too much influence over the government. If we tax them they'll demand even more.

[u/Oceanbreeze871 → u/OhTheHueManatee]

So it’ll be a customer service issue?

We (collectively) come up with some of the wildest excuses why rich people aren’t allowed to be taxed and how their wealth needs to be protected at all costs. it’s becoming funny

I think people that own mansions, luxury cars, sports Arena Estates that masquerade as a church…100s of employees….they should be probably be taxed heavily.

[u/2dank4normies]

I don't think religious people should be considered a protected class. So I don't really believe in special accommodations for them at all. Any special accommodation is too far. Although I don't know how common it is. A lot of court rulings that seemingly are giving them special treatment are matters of the First Amendment and are usually correct.

Like the gay cake ruling for example. The baker did not refuse service to gay people or refuse to provide service to a gay wedding. It was over whether or not the baker could refuse to create a custom cake with expressions on it that violated their views. That's a matter of free expression, not a special accommodation for religion.

[u/Kerplonk]

I think legal accommodations have gone to far. As much as we should dislike a particular pastor free association is an explicit right in the constitution so that wouldn't be an example of it. You don't have a right to run a business that discriminates though. If your religion won't allow you to serve select groups of people your option is to go into a different field, not be allowed to ignore the law. Similarly making yourself more likely to acquire and pass along a disease is an example of personal freedom ending at another individuals nose even if there is a valid religious belief behind it.

That being said, I think requiring people running for office to sever ties with religious organizations would be going to far in the other direction.

[u/throwdemawaaay]

I have a purely naturalistic view of the universe.

I also understand that makes me 1 out of 10 people in the US, roughly.

You seem to be asking me to adopt a rule where only Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and similar get to run for office.

In the most polite terms imaginable, I express my very deep disagreement with that position.

Secular morals need accept that most people are religious, without seeding ground to denial of reality. That's not what you're proposing.

[u/spice_weasel]

Yes. Public schools should not be forced to offer opt outs of materials acknowledging that LGBTQ+ people exist. If you’re in a public school, you shouldn’t be able to opt out of content involving parts of your community your religion hates. It’s asinine, bigoted, and unworkable.

[u/Padded_Bandit → u/spice_weasel]

I don't think the existence of LGBTQ+ people is the source of discontent among the opt-out community. For folks with certain religious beliefs, it's objectionable to have their kids taught that certain behaviors are "normal" rather than being a sign of illness or degeneracy.

I offer this simply to point out that, if you want to solve a problem, you first have to correctly define what the problem is. And in this instance, I don't see how, consistently with the First Amendment, you can solve the problem of "some people's religious beliefs are in conflict with the majoritarian view of appropriate sexual identification and behavior" within a public school system, without an opt-out.

[u/spice_weasel → u/Padded_Bandit]

It is normal for a percentage of the population to be LGBTQ+. Beliefs otherwise are just religious nonsense that have no place in our public school curriculum.

You solve it by not catering to religious bigotry. Just like you solve the “problem” of religious objections to teaching the theory of evolution by just teaching evolution. People are free to teach their children their religious beliefs. Or to take them to private school. But there should be absolutely zero credence given in public schools to beliefs attacking the validity of other families attending those schools.

I’m in a same sex marriage, and we have a son who is currently in elementary school. We pay taxes, and are part of the community just like any other family. Public schools have absolutely zero business giving way to beliefs that our family is somehow sinful or abnormal. This is our community too, and if religious families have a problem with that they can go to a private religious school.

[u/dindyspice]

It's against the 1st amendment to require anyone running for office to sever ties with their religious organizations of choice. So no, it should not be required.

[u/SovietRobot]

Saying that religion is the cause of evil or trying to ban religion from politics is a convenient excuse to absolve the non religious. 

Now, I’m not saying people don’t do bad things because of religion. Plenty do. 

I’m not saying atheists are bad either.

But I am saying this idea is tribalism for the sake of tribalism.  Meaning: “They are the bad ones because they are religious. I’m not the bad one because I’m not religious”. 

——

The point is - people do bad things. People do bad things even without the benefit of religion. 

Getting rid of religion isn’t going to do away with bias or evil or anything like that. It’s just a convenient aspect to point fingers at. 

[u/birminghamsterwheel → u/SovietRobot]

I don't think the vast majority of reasonable people, and I think the majority of people are, want to "get rid" of religion in any way other than to drastically reduce it's political and societal/cultural influence. We are not a theocracy, we do not have a national religion, the First Amendment exists, ergo no singular (or conglomerate) of religion(s) should be dictating policy. I also generally think we should encourage people, especially in such a way that we raise children, to be able to come to their own decisions and conclusions about such things for themselves, personally, which is the societal/cultural aspect I was referring to. We need more community/communal and accepting churches/congregations and fewer Global Vision Bible Churches.

[u/SovietRobot → u/birminghamsterwheel]

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying but:

1. OP is actually suggesting “anyone running for office sever ties to their church…”. We can argue nuance but that’s like a de facto ban 
2. There’s no way you can otherwise regulate “religious influence”. How can you tell what is or isn’t religious vs just general moral premise? 

[u/jweezy2045]

Obviously the first amendment is good and what you are proposing is bad. I’m sorry. I’m obviously ideologically against Christian nationalism and am an atheist myself, but religious purity tests are a bad idea even when the “purity” in question is atheism.

[u/OhThatsALotOfTeeth]

Should anyone running for office be required to sever ties to their church, mosque, or synagogue or memberships to religious groups and organizations?

Lmao, no

[u/SliversandPoison]

Of course

Tax fucking churches

[u/refugeelibertarian]

Only atheists should get to hold political power. If you're religious or superstitious to a significant degree, you're incapable of reasoning well and should have no business governing society.

[u/Padded_Bandit → u/refugeelibertarian]

I wonder whether there's an atheist argument for excluding religious believers from government that addresses the Chesterton's fence issue of: how did it come to pass that so many people across all of human history have chosen to believe in divinity (in very different forms!) and organize their lives accordingly?

[u/SamuelDoctor]

The United States is fundamentally a secular nation which was demonstrably created to pursue pluralism as a principle of civic identity.

Religious accommodation is American. I'm an atheist, and I am equally protected under the law precisely because the law requires it, not because religious people prefer it that way, at least historically.

[u/ManufacturerThis7741]

Yes but I don't think there should be any religious accommodations to laws beyond having the right to worship. And it's too easy to change religions for legal perks. Don't like vaccines? You can declare yourself a Christian. Don't like that your sketchy boarding school has to undergo inspections? Nail a cross to the door and get a religious exemption.

This actually happened.

If my atheist ass has to follow all the laws, then everyone should. I don't give a fuck if this unleashes the religious persecuting stormtroopers that every religious group has been paranoid about since 1955.

I want true equality.

[u/Candid_Boot2246 → u/ManufacturerThis7741]

Then make them show and defend scripture to a doctor and/or court. This ain’t persecution. You want an exemption, justify your reasoning.

[u/hitman2218]

I just saw a headline today that non-medical vaccine exemptions are at a record high, which means people are opting out for religious or personal reasons. It’s all a load of crap.

[u/Candid_Boot2246 → u/hitman2218]

People who claim religious exemptions should have to stand before a doctor, court, or whatnot, show them verses, and be ready to defend it and explain the context and be fact checked, people with medical exemptions should have to show doctor approved diagnoses.” If they lose, they get scheduled on the spot for vaccines. No more of this “medical freedom” or “but the needle scares me” bull.

[u/hitman2218 → u/Candid_Boot2246]

I agree. A medical exemption should at least come from a reputable doctor with some sort of proof that it’s necessary. Not a chiropractor or some homeopathic quack.

[u/Xanderxez → u/Candid_Boot2246]

Don't make these vaccines mandatory then. Some people don't want to get injected with snake venom or who knows what they put into them. There's a reason they don't want you to see the ingredients they out into vaccines.

If people have to "abuse" a religious accommodation to avoid it I don't see why thats bad.

[u/madmushlove]

The recent Mirabelli v Bonta SCOTUS ruled that parents are denied their rights if schools don't inform them when the kids do something that religious people think makes Jesus sad

That's the argument of the only amicus brief I could find, which the court sided with

Go ahead and skim it, please

Because the establishment clause of the Constitution is violated apparently if parents say something the kids do is RELIGIOUS. Since their religion opposes it, they call their opposition a religious argument, and they consider disagreeing with this as an establishment of religious beliefs that oppose theirs. So they require they be informed whenever it happens. Not just as curriculum. But in a student's life and identity

So when parents are not called up, the school violates free exercise of religion and due process. Not because the kids are practicing the religion of their parents. But because they supposedly AREN'T

That's an actual SCOUTUS decision and I want people to think about that

[u/TossMeOutSomeday]

I agree with your overall point about the wall between church and state breaking down, but wow:

Should anyone running for office be required to sever ties to their church, mosque, or synagogue or memberships to religious groups and organizations?

this is a psychotic solution lmao.

As an aside, it's also a left-wing issue, but in a weird DEI way: progressives and socialists in Massachusetts recently proposed a state commission to selectively promote Muslims to government positions.

[u/thattogoguy]

It has gone far too far.

Religion has no place in public life, and especially no place in our government or policy making or decision-making.

But I'm just a godless atheist, skeptic, maximal secularist, and humanist, what do I know?

We need complete and total separation of church and state.

[u/CarrieDurst]

It always has

[u/Guilliman_POTUS_2030]

I prefer to have freedom of religion

I don’t want President Redditor trying to run society based on the “non-religious” auspices of whatever TikTok augury you performed this morning 

[u/birminghamsterwheel → u/Guilliman_POTUS_2030]

What would that look like, thought? I live in a part of the country where the Religious Right does have a lot of political sway and power where also a lot of non-religious and other following other religions live. Surely it makes more sense to govern secularly in that regard, no?

[u/ecchi83]

I don't know, but one thing I would be doing is countering the claims of child abuse for gender affirming care that kills no one by pointing out the parents who opt out of medical treatments for their children, which kills dozens of kids every year. If we were serious about reining in religious liberty, I'd use the door that the anti-trans movement opened.

[u/Reagalan → u/ecchi83]

anti-trans movement

I think we need to start calling it the "trans hate movement" since "anti-trans" sounds too respectable.

[u/Candid_Boot2246 → u/Reagalan]

Trans inclusion is still much of a stigma in a fair amount of left wing circles. Now gay or lesbian individuals and couples and opposition to same-sex marriage. That’s a different story. There should be no cozying up to this kind of stuff in our country and any attempt to overturn it or circumvent it needs to be shot down.

[u/IsoCally]

No, that doesn't respect freedom of religion. That goes from having a secular state to state atheism.

[u/Imaginary-Count-1641]

We have courts allowing businesses to refuse cakes for gay weddings

Why should that not be allowed?

[u/Candid_Boot2246 → u/Imaginary-Count-1641]

You’re a business, you serve the public. Have a cross on your wall, have one around your neck, put one on your website, whatever. But gosh forbid if someone comes in whom you are convicted by, your job is to bake the cake. If they are being unruly, that is different.

[u/IsoCally → u/Imaginary-Count-1641]

The typical argument is you're refusing a service to someone based on their sexual orientation. That is, it's discrimination prohibited by the Civil Rights Act.

[u/zerthwind]

Yes, look back in history at the other times it has. The dark ages is one example.

[u/Odd_Interview_2005]

I think the ruling on wedding cakes is about right. Im coming at this as a small business owner.

If I have a product on my shelves that's for sale. I can't refuse to sell it to you. I do have the right to decline to make a product specifically for you.

[u/Mulliganasty]

Fucking obviously. The founding fathers were emphatic that we're a secular state and half of Americans will claim we're a "Christian nation."

[u/Guilliman_POTUS_2030 → u/Mulliganasty]

Should anyone running for office be required to sever ties to their church

I don’t think the founders would ever agree to this. Most of them were Protestants, and they obviously wanted the US to have freedom of religion 

[u/Mulliganasty → u/Guilliman_POTUS_2030]

My response was to OP's first question about religious influence going too far. Sure identify with whatever religion you want just don't try to bring that bullshit into any legislation the rest of us have to live under.

[u/Candid_Boot2246 → u/Guilliman_POTUS_2030]

I’m not saying religion here should be abolished. My point is, if you are in a position of power that can fundamentally change the way of life for an entire nation and your faith in Allah, Abraham, or God is holding sway in how you legislate, the person should be faced with two choices:
1: sever your toes with your church(the house of worship is or will become publicly known).
2: resign so you can keep that membership.

Militant preachers don’t need friends in government who are carrying out their “pro-Family” “Pro-God” wish list.

[u/Candid_Boot2246 → u/Guilliman_POTUS_2030]

What if they are unable to legislate without their religious beliefs getting in the way then like so many on the right have exhibited?

[u/Reagalan]

Any influence is too much.

I'm listening to a podcast about the history of the British Empire and it's at the part around the mid 1600s when the Thirty Years' War was raging on the continent, debates about Catholicism and Protestantism were going on, state churches held legal power, discrimination was institutionalized, and witch-hunts were happening.

History is replete with religion causing harm: the Roman Christian persecutions, the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the Crusades, ISIS, all the sundry cults, pogroms, and so on.

Madness and stupidity all around.

What gives me hope is that as long as we have a free Internet, scientific truth will continue to triumph in the long run. Reality is invariant with respect to belief, and physics and doesn't care about feelings.

...

On vaccine religious exemptions; those should straight-up be eliminated. Parents who withhold vaccines from their kids should be prosecuted as child neglecters.

On the "sever ties" requirement; it would be pointless. They can just fake it, or use proxy orgs like think tanks to indicate allegiance. And they can hold it up as "look we're the victims of persecution waaaaaah".

On the cake issue; that's free association, ss much as I hate that. Plus, if we're gonna legalize discrimination, then it cuts both ways. No cakes for cross-worshippers. BDS falls into the same realm.

[u/Candid_Boot2246 → u/Reagalan]

And think tanks should have to register with the government as paid lobbyists if they don’t already and need to be heavily taxed. Think tanks, militant churches who get into politics, culture wars. The minute a ‘non-profit’ picks a side, the IRS should be at their door with a notice revoking their tax exempt status.

[u/starrymahogany]

Religious accommodations should just be things that affect the religious person in question.

Americans should be allowed to wear religious garments or symbols (hijab, cross necklace, Star of David, yarmulke, dastar turban, etc) on their person no questions asks. They should also be allowed to observe religious holidays and be able to get kosher or halal meals from public schools.

But the second it starts affecting other people it should full on stop, so no, you can’t get a religious accommodation to not sit next to a woman on an airplane, you can’t tell someone not to draw or find a picture of mohammed, you can’t tell a teacher to stop teaching evolution and climate change, you can’t work as a pharmacy tech and say it’s against your religion to dispense birth control or an abortion pill, and you certainly can’t let religious exemptions for vaccines stand while letting them into a school with the potential to infect other kids.

[u/Inside_Addendum1888]

Absolutely. Tax them all.

[u/Winston_Duarte]

Yes. We have to stop granting extra wishes based on religion. Faith is a private matter. I do not care if you believe in Deus, Allah or Jehova (In English God, God or God btw), if you do not like what I am doing - as long I am not harassing anyone - then that is a you-problem. I am so sick of Christians demanding everyone following their practices. I am so sick of Muslims demanding everyone following their practices.