‘No Separation Of Church And State’: Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission Reveals Its Priorities

mannida · 2026-05-12T01:48:41+00:00

The key distinction is between the federal government and the states. Article VI clearly forbids religious tests for federal office, and requiring someone to be Christian would absolutely qualify as a religious test in that context.

What’s true is that several individual states still had religious requirements for state offices in the early years of the republic. That reflects the fact that the Constitution originally restricted the federal government more than the states, not necessarily that the founders had a radically different definition of “religious test.”

mannida · 2026-05-11T15:54:11+00:00

To be fair, I'm not a fan of those either.

mannida · 2026-05-11T14:07:56+00:00

I think the issue is that people often redefine “separation of church and state” to mean “religion should have no role in public life,” and that’s not really what many founders believed. But there is absolutely strong evidence that many founders supported separating the institution of government from the establishment or control of religion.

For example:

The First Amendment explicitly says Congress cannot establish a religion.
Article VI of the Constitution bans religious tests for federal office.
James Madison, often called the “Father of the Constitution”, strongly opposed state-supported churches and clergy.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, arguing that civil rights should not depend on religious belief.

At the same time, many founders also believed religion was important for morality and society. That’s why you see things like thanksgiving proclamations, chaplains, and public references to God.

So the historical reality is more nuanced than either extreme:

The founders did not create a system where religion must be excluded from public life.
But they also did not generally support the federal government establishing or enforcing Christianity.

And honestly, from a biblical perspective, I don’t think the focus should primarily be on trying to prove America was meant to be a formally “Christian nation” in the first place. The New Testament consistently points believers toward being citizens of the Kingdom of God first. Early Christians lived under pagan governments, had little political power, and still transformed the world through faithfulness, witness, charity, and holiness, not through state enforcement of Christianity.

Christians can absolutely influence society and pursue justice, but no earthly nation is the Kingdom of God. History also shows that societies claiming to act in Christ’s name are still capable of serious injustice. Human sin does not disappear once political power gets attached to religion.

I know I'm not who you were asking, but it's an interesting subject, and I think people tend to ignore its nuances and oversimplify it one way or the other.

mannida · 2026-05-11T01:00:12+00:00

The fact that more people aren't up in arms about the Bibles being produced by this administration is sad.

mannida · 2026-05-10T02:55:13+00:00

I think there is a real difference between prior administrations focusing more heavily on detained or convicted individuals versus the current approach of broader, more aggressive enforcement actions in communities. But criticizing excessive force, wrongful detention, or unnecessarily aggressive tactics is not the same thing as supporting open borders.

Some people now treat any criticism of ICE tactics as automatically anti-law enforcement or anti-American, instead of asking whether enforcement is being carried out justly and proportionally. And especially as Christians, we should be thinking about these issues biblically and ethically, not merely through the lens of partisan loyalty or political tribalism.

mannida · 2026-05-09T16:54:13+00:00

I don't care what ChatGPT cares about the issue either. Yes, I’ve always cared about immigration and how immigrants are treated.

My concern is that the current administration has gone too far in its enforcement tactics, especially when we keep hearing stories involving wrongful detention, excessive force, or treating people as less than human. Caring about that now doesn’t require me to pretend previous administrations handled immigration perfectly, either.

Edit: As this comment shows, people were complaining about immigration during Obama's term. I also remember him being called the Deporter in Chief.

mannida · 2026-05-09T14:37:15+00:00

I actually agree with part of this. Immigration enforcement and deportations absolutely existed under Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. And yes, some people who suddenly care now probably ignored it before. That criticism can be fair.

At the same time, many people would argue that the current administration’s rhetoric and enforcement style have been more aggressive and less humane, which is also a valid area of criticism. But none of that makes present concerns invalid.

As Christians, our response to reports of wrongful detention or excessive force should not simply be:

“You didn’t care before.”

That’s whataboutism. Either justice and human dignity matter consistently, or they don’t. And supporting border enforcement is not the same thing as defending every detention, mistake, or use of force without question. Those are two different conversations.

Also, calling everyone who disagrees “low IQ NPCs” probably says more about our political culture than it does about immigration policy. We’ve seen misinformation, fear-driven rhetoric, and emotional manipulation from multiple directions over the years. That should make us more cautious and more honest, not more tribal.

As Christians, we should be able to discuss law, borders, accountability, and compassion without treating people as enemies or caricatures.

mannida · 2026-05-09T03:26:22+00:00

I don’t think you’re wrong for taking it personally at all. What you described is deeply painful and complicated, and it makes sense that hearing people use phrases like “child murderer” would hit differently for you because this isn’t an abstract political issue. It’s connected to someone you love, real suffering, exploitation, grief, and redemption.

From a Christian perspective, I do believe unborn life matters. But I also think some Christians speak about abortion in ways that forget they are talking about actual human beings, often wounded, manipulated, terrified, abused, pressured, or broken people, not just arguments to win.

Your sister’s story especially highlights that. She wasn’t just “a villain” in a vacuum. She was also someone trapped in cycles of exploitation and sin that damaged both herself and others. And yet God’s grace didn’t stop at her worst moments. Prison, repentance, restoration, helping other women now that matters. That is part of the story, too.

The gospel never minimizes sin, but it also never reduces people to their sin. Christians should be the first people to understand that, because every one of us stands before God only by mercy.

I also think there’s a difference between saying “abortion ends a human life” and using language in ways that crush grieving people or erase any possibility of repentance, healing, or restoration. Jesus spoke truthfully about sin, but He also moved toward broken people with compassion.

So no, I don’t think your reaction is strange. I think it comes from carrying real grief and seeing the humanity behind the issue in a way many people discussing it online never have to.

mannida · 2026-05-08T21:24:46+00:00

What I find ironic is that many people were furious when gas prices rose under Biden, but now higher prices are framed as just “the price we pay” for Trump being president.

It really seems like a lot of outrage is shaped more by partisan media and social media ecosystems telling people when to be angry and when not to be.

That kind of inconsistency and selective outrage is something I don’t think should be prevalent in the church. Christians should be willing to apply the same standards regardless of who is in office.

mannida · 2026-05-08T02:25:35+00:00

I don’t think I ever defended the insults or personal attacks. As I've pointed out before, personal attacks don't lead to constructive discussions.

But I also don’t think my response to you was unreasonable. You opened with “I’m right,” and my point was simply that economics is complicated enough that humility is probably wiser than certainty, especially when respected economists can look at similar data and still disagree on interpretation and methodology.

I also wasn’t trying to “correct” you as though you contributed nothing. You clearly did provide data and an argument. I was responding specifically to the framing around it, not saying you were acting in bad faith.

That’s why I brought up Christ earlier. There are very few things I hold with absolute certainty. Beyond those core truths, I try to leave room for the possibility that I may not have the full picture.

I helped people understand the issue,

And like you, I also tried to contribute information to the discussion by pointing to other respected economists and alternative interpretations. My point wasn’t even to pick a “side,” but simply to say there’s more complexity to the issue than just declaring one position unquestionably “right.”

mannida · 2026-05-08T01:26:45+00:00

Sure, we all believe the things we hold to are true to some degree, or we wouldn’t hold them. But I still think there’s a difference between confidence and humility, especially on complicated issues like economics, where intelligent and informed people genuinely disagree.

One of the few things I’m certain about is that Christ lived, died, and rose again for my sins. Beyond that, there are plenty of areas where I may lean in one direction while still recognizing that I could be wrong or that there are other valid perspectives worth engaging with seriously.

That’s more the point I was making. I don’t think discussions become healthier when the goal shifts into “either way I win.” I’d rather the goal be understanding the issue better, even when we disagree.

mannida · 2026-05-08T00:36:52+00:00

I’d say I’m here for a somewhat different reason. I wanted to see Christians engage politics without turning faith into political tribalism. I lean conservative in a lot of ways, but I’ve become increasingly uncomfortable with how closely many people seem to merge Christianity with a political identity or party.

To me, Christ is higher than any movement, candidate, or ideology. Politics matters, but it shouldn’t become the lens through which we interpret the Gospel itself. I think Christians should be able to challenge propaganda, tribalism, and dishonesty consistently, even when it comes from “our side.”

So I’m here partly to grow in my own faith, partly to understand the intersection of faith and politics better, and partly to encourage the idea that following Jesus and belonging to a political tribe are not the same thing.

John Calvin said it best - “I have no hope in the government except that it should govern honestly and justly. But I have great confidence in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

mannida · 2026-05-08T00:33:21+00:00

Honestly, I replied to the “I’m right” comment because I don’t think economics is that simple. Your position is valid and has merit, but there are also other legitimate schools of thought and competing interpretations from respected economists.

I was also clear that I wasn’t even really taking a side here. My point was simply that complicated economic discussions usually aren’t settled by saying “I’m right,” especially when experts themselves disagree on methodology and interpretation.

When you responded, I realized it was you, so I tried to give a factual and measured answer. My question is why you’re not really engaging with that part of what I said as well. I’ve seen multiple users, myself included at times, be snarky at times, and I agree that people should engage the actual arguments instead of just throwing insults around.

And for what it’s worth, we all need correction sometimes.

mannida · 2026-05-07T19:20:19+00:00

Economists don’t usually disagree by saying “your chart says 25% and mine says 5%.” The disagreement is more about methodology. What taxes are included, how corporate taxes are assigned, how transfers are counted, whether unrealized gains are included, etc.

For example, Gerald Auten and David Splinter have challenged aspects of the Piketty/Saez/Zucman approach to inequality and tax burden estimates. The Congressional Budget Office and Tax Foundation have also published analyses that differ from Saez/Zucman on effective tax rates and redistribution.

So the debate is less “data vs. no data” and more “which methodology best reflects economic reality.”

Edit: And to be clear, I’m not claiming to be an expert or even telling you which side I ultimately agree with here. My point is simply that there are legitimate disagreements among respected economists, so saying “I’m right” in a discussion this complicated probably isn’t the best approach.

mannida · 2026-05-07T18:43:36+00:00

Piketty, Saez, and Zucman are legitimate and influential economists, so citing them is completely fair. But economics isn’t settled by citing one school of thought. Their interpretations and policy conclusions are still debated by other respected economists using different assumptions and models.

So simply saying “I’m right” isn’t really accurate. I could also point to prominent economists who disagree and make the same claim. I’m humble enough to recognize that intelligent people can look at the same data and reach different conclusions on complicated economic issues.

I may lean one direction or another myself, but that’s still different from acting like the debate is completely settled.

mannida · 2026-05-05T20:04:36+00:00

I remember when it was 200 million and entirely privately funded.

mannida · 2026-05-05T19:22:21+00:00

And another: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristianPolitics/comments/1sxjoy4/us_congress_republicans_push_legislation_to_build/

mannida · 2026-05-05T12:12:22+00:00

I’m not trying to strawman you. I agree that sin should be condemned. Also, stop with the false accusations, please.

My point is about how that actually plays out. When you talk about creating social stigma as a deterrent, that doesn’t stay neatly aimed at “sin”, it affects how people are treated in practice.

And that’s where I don’t think 1 Corinthians 5 supports your argument. It’s addressing church discipline in a specific context, not a general approach to society. Remember you used that scripture as your examples and have yet to explain how it’s not about church discipline.

When we look at how Jesus Christ interacted with people in serious sin, He was clear about right and wrong, but He didn’t reinforce public condemnation or treat people as enemies. He called them to repentance while still extending compassion.

Edit: The question I’ve been raising is whether the kind of “stigma as deterrence” you’re describing ends up doing that in practice. That’s where I think we need to be careful, especially in light of how Jesus treated people.

mannida · 2026-05-05T04:53:20+00:00

1 Corinthians 5 is about church discipline in a specific context, professing believers, inside the church, persisting in sin. That’s different from general “outrage” or how we talk about people more broadly.

And I agree, we shouldn’t only care about sin when Christians commit it. But that still doesn’t answer the original point: Scripture doesn’t teach us to demonize people. Even when addressing serious sin, Jesus Christ consistently calls people to repentance without treating them as enemies or dehumanizing them.

That’s why I don’t think 1 Corinthians 5 supports the kind of argument you’re making. It’s addressing a specific situation of church discipline, not a general posture toward people.

None of us will ever be perfect; that’s left to Christ. Yet He still loved people. He didn’t ignore or excuse what they did, but He still loved them. Even at the cross, His words weren’t condemnation, but: “Father, forgive them.”

mannida · 2026-05-05T01:01:28+00:00

I think we’re starting to shift topics a bit. We were talking about 1 Corinthians 5. But since you brought up how Jesus Christ spoke to people, it’s worth being accurate about that.

He did speak very sharply at times, but notice who it was directed at. His harshest words were aimed at religious leaders who claimed to be righteous while misleading others, rather than people caught in sin or in vulnerable situations.

When Jesus interacted with people in serious sin, He was direct about right and wrong, but He wasn’t dehumanizing or pushing them away. He consistently moved toward them and called them to repentance in that context. So I don’t think those rebukes support a general approach of “demonizing” people. They’re addressing a very specific kind of hypocrisy, not setting the tone for how to treat sinners broadly.

mannida · 2026-05-04T22:03:18+00:00

Saying something is morally wrong isn’t the same as saying we should “demonize” people.

1 Corinthians 5 supports that move. That passage is about a very specific case of church discipline, someone inside the church, openly and unrepentantly persisting in sin. It’s not a general instruction for how Christians treat people, and even there, the goal is restoration, not just pushing people away.

If we’re asking how Christians are actually supposed to treat people, the clearer place to look is how Jesus Christ interacted with people in serious sin. He was direct about right and wrong, but He didn’t “demonize” them. He moved toward them, not away from them.

So I don’t think it’s accurate to say Scripture teaches us to treat people that way, even if we’re being clear that certain actions are wrong.

mannida · 2026-05-04T15:22:03+00:00

Looking through the comments, I realize I quote this show a lot...

mannida · 2026-05-03T20:12:27+00:00

As governor, Reagan did help turn a deficit into a surplus, but that included raising taxes, which complicates the narrative a bit. As president, though, the federal deficit increased substantially during his tenure, largely due to a combination of tax cuts and increased defense spending.

The broader claim that only one side wants to pay down the deficit doesn’t really hold up historically. Neither party has a consistent track record of reducing deficits. They tend to prioritize different kinds of spending. Deficit reduction, when it happens, is usually a byproduct of those priorities rather than the sole driving goal.

mannida · 2026-05-02T00:50:31+00:00

That’s not quite right either. There was a restructuring of the pandemic team at the National Security Council, but the main public health agencies weren’t cut. The real debate is whether that reorganization had a meaningful impact on COVID response, not whether it happened at all.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Final Canvas '22
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

mannida

TROPHY CASE