comment: >
  
  Because when a law is primarily rooted in religious justification, it is A LOT MORE LIKELY to be devoid of benefit for humanity. Sure, that won't always be the case, but sometimes it will, and the result is catastrophic. We could have instead only passed laws rooted in well-understood benefit for humanity and use that as our litmus test, rather than using "is it religious?", and we'd pretty much be guaranteed better results.
context: I'd argue there's a perfectly consistent difference.
  In the examples you bring up, Warnock and Biden are saying that their religious views are binding on them: Warnock is a Christian, so Warnock should act with compassion.
  Separation of church and state is brought up when someone attempts to force their religious ethics on others, outside of the agreed-upon functions of the government (e.g. the common welfare and all that stuff).
  Nobody would care if an Evangelical Christian politician, who was gay, said "I'm just going to avoid romance entirely because I believe my faith prohibits homosexuality", which is analogous to Warnock trying to be compassionate because of his faith. >
  
  
  In the examples you bring up, Warnock and Biden are saying that their religious views are binding on them
  
  Except "on them" means "on what they advocate for." They're both representative politicians, which means their actions directly impact the laws that get made.
  Are you telling me that for Sen. Warnock to be motivated by his faith to support a law of universal healthcare because that's consistent with being compassionate that he is not "forcing his views" on the rest of society? I mean all laws force some view on society, so you can't dispute that. Why would it be bad for Sen. Warnock to have a religious motivation for good policy like universal healthcare, even though that would thereby force his religious view on others? >
  
  The government providing a secular service based in part of religious motivations of a politician is very, very different than the government using force to enforce religious rules upon people.
  the government providing healthcare isn't forcing religious views on you.  The government depriving someone of the right to marry, based on the views of a church, is forcing religious law on them.
  there's a fundamental difference here. >
  
  There is a yuge difference between allowing one's faith to inform one's decision making process and literally codifying religious belief into law. When people cite sep of church and state, they are almost universally referring to the latter. >
  
  
  There is a yuge difference between allowing one's faith to inform one's decision making process and literally codifying religious belief into law. When people cite sep of church and state, they are almost universally referring to the latter.
  
  What's the difference? Jesus said to give to those in need. That sounds a lot like welfare programs to me. Are you saying it is wrong to codify one's religious belief of giving to those in need by promoting welfare programs? >
  
  Giving to people in needs hardly belongs to any particular religion. Now if Biden were to push for outlawing meat on Friday's during lent because he's catholic you would see the kind of criticism from all sides of the political spectrum for that decision that the left is putting towards certain aspects of the GOP right now. >
  
  It's not really a dog whistle if you're just saying it explicitly, though, right? There isn't anything covert here, they're just condemning politics based on religious belief that conflicts with their politics, and being silent about politics based on faith that doesn't. Not really anything so complicated there, is there? Like if you came out and said that you want to ban birth control because satan told you to, I would be against that, but if you said instead that you wanted to ensure reproductive rights continue to be protected legally because of satanism, you know, whatever, I'm not going to take issue with that
  Or to put it another way since my politics is based on what I think is good, correct, and moral, I can't really take issue with religious beliefs which lead people to share my political positions as those beliefs must therefore be some amount of good, correct, and moral in order to get there >
  
  
  I am convinced that the "separation of church and state" cry is actually more of a dog whistle for people who want an excuse to be bigots against religious people because most of those same people don't seem to care when prominent left-leaning figures expressly say that their left-leaning politics are driven by their religious views.
  
  I'm curious: what bigotry do you see in the United States against religions? >
  
  There's a ton of anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim bias in America, especially in conservative circles. >
  
  Its a typical USA based white christian response, they think they are the most persecuted group and that there is a war against christianity while they themselves are most often the oppressors who wish to force people to live by their religious beliefs. I mean just look at the abortion and gay marriage debate. They loooooove to play the victim while victimizing others. Incidentally also a beloved tactic of the republican party
  Edit: typo >
  
  Christians are the most persecuted group in the world. I’m not talking harassment, I’m talking literally persecution that results in death or forfeiture of property/rights based on their faith. >
  
  No, I don't mind leaders being religious.
  If yes as you say an atheist dictaor bans gay marriage, that is equally as bad as when a religious one does it.
  Just the same, a politician wanting to feed the poor because that's what Jesus did has my full support.
  But that's not really a secularism problem.
  That's when say bishops get an unelected place in the house of Lords in England. Or when churches get religious exemtion in the States. Or when atheists aren't allowed to run for office in Texas (Supreme court overruled that, but the law is still technically in the books).
  But just the same if say catholics can't run for office (19th century England, long gone thankfully).
  The seperation of church and state means that the State doesn't take sides. And that is super important! If the State doesn't take sides because god demands they don't take sides, that's absolutely fine. >
  
  I agree with this! But you are the first person in this comment thread to say that. Most everyone else is attacking religion when it's used to support conservative politics while saying "oh it's fine, no big deal/some other excuse" when it's used to support liberal politics—which is proving the point of my post. >
  
  The reason that people do that, is because the laws that often times get pushed, are done so, and stem directly from religion.  If I am not part of your religion, then why should I have to abide by your laws.
  I am from a very conservative area (Kansas).  Some places cannot sell alcohol on Sundays.  Why would that be a thing, if it wasn't for religion?  The catholic church funds a lobbying firm that is directly across the street from our state's capitol.  They spent millions last year to lobby and fund campaigns that aligned with their beliefs, and influence laws.  Why should they be allowed to do that, when there is supposed to be a separation there?   The church doesn't want the government influencing them, but they want to influence the government.
  I have no problem with people being religious, following their religion, etc., but I have a problem when they want to force it on others, and when they ignore their constituents because of religion.  If your job is to represent your constituents, then you should do it, even when it goes against your personal beliefs.  There are people that represent Kansas, who struck down the Value Them Both amendment (protecting abortion rights) that have all but said they will try to restrict it more.  If that is their outlook, than IMO, they have failed their constituents.
  I think that may be why the left gets a little more of a pass on it, as you seem to think.  They are willing to look past some of the traditional stances and don't seem as bound by it. >
  
  
  I am from a very conservative area (Kansas).  Some places cannot sell alcohol on Sundays.  Why would that be a thing, if it wasn't for religion?
  
  So you're saying this is a problem, but if a secular data-driven group came to town and started lobbying the government to make the entire place a dry county and can't sell any alcohol at all, you'd be 100% okay with that, simply because it wasn't religious people doing it? That would be textbook bigotry.
  If you WOULD still have a problem with the alcohol ban, then you don't actually have an issue with the religious side (the motive)—you have an issue with the practical side (the ban). >
  
  I am a Christian who believes in separation of church and state.
  It is incredibly dangerous to mix government and church, since policy makers can abuse doctrine to maintain power. It is also a fallacy to equivocate God and Government. Is it truly wise to let the government believe it represents the most powerful authority on existence? You can imagine how that leads to fascism.
  Additionally, we need perspectives outside of the church in order to effectively criticize and improve infrastructures. Churches historically have a terrible track record when responding to criticism. Is that something worth attaching to government? >
  
  
  It is incredibly dangerous to mix government and church, since policy makers can abuse doctrine to maintain power.
  
  So you think Senator Warnock is a bad/dangerous politician because of his statement? >
  
  Faith-based values can be A reason for an action. It just can't be the ENTIRE reason. >
  
  But why does it even matter? You're saying it's bad if someone says "I support universal healthcare because it's what Jesus would have done," but it's suddenly good if they say "oh and also MLK Jr. would have wanted it, too"? >
  
  No, I'm saying it's good if they say "Here are the reasons why this country would benefit from universal healthcare." Appeals to authority are a distraction regardless of who the authority is. >
  
  
  you can't use religious reasons as a basis for justifying a proposed change in the law."
  
  I think it's a tiny bit more nuanced than this. I would add "without/in spite of the effect those laws on the community". If someone uses religious language to justify a law, that will also be of great benefit to the community, it would be silly to oppose that law just because of the religious language.
  The times you really hear the separation of church and state come out is when religion is used to justify laws that will negatively affect society as a whole, at that point it stops being that the church and state just so happen to agree, but that the church is actively influencing the state. For example if someone were to want to bring back prohibition on the grounds that drinking is sinful. We know prohibition doesn't work and to try it would be incredibly damaging for the community as a whole. >
  
  
  The times you really hear the separation of church and state come out is when religion is used to justify laws that will negatively affect society as a whole, at that point it stops being that the church and state just so happen to agree, but that the church is actively influencing the state.
  
  Warnock sounds like he is definitely allowing the church (his faith) to actively influence the state (he's a politician; he "advocates" for policies). Is that a bad thing or is it not? >
  
  I would disagree. Justice, mercy, and compassion are all good things, so there's nothing there yet that indicates he's going to use his faith to justify doing harm to the community.
  Once he starts doing that then I fully agree that's when the "separation of church and state" should come out, but again opposing people you think will do good in the community just because they are motivated by religion is silly. >
  
  How can it be anti religious bigotry and tolerant of religion in politics at the same time? Obviously it would seem religious motivations alone are not the problem. >
  
  It isn't anti-religious bigotry, it is calling out conservative Christian ideology. A lot of that is being pushed for as religious beliefs (i.e. anti-gay rights, anti-choice, etc) comes from the old testament and often times from a stance of hate on the far right. Obviously moderate views exist, but the loudest voices tend to be the churches that advocate extremism. Where are those on the right arguing for increasing funding to social programs? Christ's teachings often times contradict the position of the right, particularly the MAGA crowd.
  For example (paraphrased):
  "Do unto others what you would have them do to you" "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" "give all your wealth to charity and follow me" "all who live by the sword, die by the sword" "forgive them father for they do not know what they do" "blessed are the peacemakers"
  How does that fit in with the right's stances on gun control, taxes, using said taxes to fun education and social services instead of war. Jesus never took as stance on abortion or homosexuality, or tax cuts for business at the expense of the poor... 
  It isn't anti-religous bigotry, it is anti-hypocrisy and anti-bigotry. No one is pushing any laws to ban religious practices, just saying that religious views shouldn't be forced into policies. >
  
  On one hand, you say Christ's teachings contradict the position of the right (I agree).
  On the other hand, you say "religious views shouldn't be forced into policies."
  So that means you oppose a political who "forces their religious views into policies," even if those religious views are exactly what Christ taught (promoting peace, forgiving people who make mistakes, giving more money to charities, etc.)?
  If you say yes, why?
  If you say no, that proves you don't actually oppose religious views in politics—you just oppose policies you disagree with, so religion is kind of irrelevant. >
  
  People don’t fight religion for the sake of fighting it. They don’t think the separation of church and state is necessary in a vacuum. They believe separation of church and state is necessary because of the tendency for religious views to be unchanging, or incredibly slow to change. If someone is agreeing with me I have no incentive to tell them the reason they agree with me isn’t the reason I think they should agree with me. There’s simply not enough energy in the world to fight people who already agree with me when there’s others who are actively fighting what I believe in. >
  
  The political side doesn't matter. I don't want to be governed by anyone else's faith. 
  Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase. He also wrote his own Bible with all of Jesus' miracles removed. Use your faith to govern your life, not mine. >
  
  If a law serves a legitimate government purpose, you should be able to justify it with secular reasoning.
  If the sole motivation is religion, the claimed "legitimate government purpose" is just a pretense.
  mercy, justice, and compassion are secular values just as they are religious ones.
  
  If ANY conservative politician said this, people would be having a heyday and lambasting them for it.
  
  I have a hard time believing any politician would be blasted for calling for, without any detail: justice, compassion, and mercy.
  On the flip side, that there are many parts of the country in which someone who is openly atheist would have no chance in hell of winning (statewide office in Georgia is one of those places). Even if the atheist said their atheist values drove them to be compassionate, merciful, and to advocate for justice. >
  
  You ignored the religious part of Sen Warnock's quote: "I will continue to lift up the values that derive from all of our faith traditions and allow my faith to be the foundation for the things that I advocate for."
  He literally says HIS faith will be the foundation for what he, a lawmaker, advocates for.
  
  If a law serves a legitimate government purpose, you should be able to justify it with secular reasoning.
  
  But why? So what if Jesus (religious) said something is good/bad vs John Locke (secular)? They're both two dead men. Opposing the former while praising the latter smells like unnecessary identity discrimination. >
  
  Again, you are ignoring the multitude of comments which are indicating that personal religious beliefs aren't cause for concern (except in cases of extremism), but separation of church and state is about specific policies that are attempting to codify religion into law. Additionally, there's a huge difference between "Jesus helped people, so I should help people" and "Jesus helped people, so I should help people but only if they believe in Jesus". That's where separation of church and state comes into play. >
  
  The motivation for a law doesnt matter yes, but the reasoning absolutely does. If its good/bad because your dogma says so and someone else subscribes to none or different dogma, that's it there's no discussion you can have.
  But if it's good/bad because of x, y, z you can have an actual discussion and come to an agreement. >
  
  I mean, religious people can make political compromises too. You can believe something is always bad and still agree that, in politics, you may not be able to get 100% of what you want. >
  
  Im not talking about compromises, but coming to an actual agreement. 
  If you can support your religiously motivated law with reasonable arguments, then that's great. Society can now discuss those arguments and come to some consensus. But if you can't, we'll maybe you should think about why would your religion prescribe unreasonable values. >
  
  You will probably think that I am one such person, given my recent CMV about the religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident.
  I guess I'm not quite sure when you choose to classify actions as "bigotry". I don't think there is any truth to the claims made by any religion, so at best I am going to disagree with the things they say. I think you are arguing that I hold views like "since you hold religious belief X, I conclude that YOU, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, are dumb / stupid / whatever insulting thing you want", right? And to address that, no, that's not what I believe. I do not extend my opinions on religion to think that anyone is less of a person simply because they are religious.
  Why? Because I'd be a hypocrite to do so, seeing as how I was religious myself for 27 years, and it came to an end not because of me magically becoming a non-idiot overnight. I just realized, this is all a great mystery, one which we can fill with whatever belief we want, and I simply chose to no longer fill it with belief in a god of any kind. It's a personal choice and not one that says anything about the character of a person, because it's a total mystery.
  Yes, I'm always going to oppose negative consequences propelled by religious beliefs, like trying to oppress and control women and the LGBTQ+ community, but I don't extend that to believing that the PERSON who holds the views is [insert insult here], so no, I wouldn't agree that this counts as bigotry.
  That's also why I wouldn't have a problem with anyone on the left being religious, because if their religious views aren't resulting in any harm done to anyone, I have no real reason to oppose them. >
  
  This
  
  Yes, I'm always going to oppose what comes of religious beliefs
  
  Isn't consistent with this
  
  That's also why I wouldn't have a problem with anyone on the left being religious, because if their religious views aren't resulting in any harm done to anyone, I have no real reason to oppose them.
  
  So you don't "always" oppose "what comes of religious beliefs." You only oppose it if you think it's bad. Which is fine—everyone should oppose stuff they think is bad.
  My question is why single out religion if you're not actually opposed to all religious things (I assume you agree with Senator Warnock's policies, generally speaking, even though he is religious, which disproves your first quote)? That sounds like it's just attacking religious people instead of attacking their harmful policies. I don't need to attack a person's culture in order to criticize the things they do that harm people. >
  
  
  So you don't "always" oppose "what comes of religious beliefs." You only oppose it if you think it's bad.
  
  I could use better phrasing, but sure, you're at least somewhat correct here. It's true that I do not mind some of what comes from religious beliefs, but I do oppose others.
  The key here is the litmus test on whether this is actually good for humanity. A lot of political implementations of religion clearly have zero tangible benefit, like restricting the rights of the LBGTQ+ community and not letting them marry, for example. Literally pointless. But something like implementing universal Healthcare, that DOES have a tangible, measurable benefit for people, one that exists independent of religion, so I wouldn't have a reason to oppose it.
  Basically, yeah, sure, some of what comes from religious belief is good and some is bad, and I'm comfortable distinguishing between the two based on tangible benefit to humanity. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. 
  
  My question is why single out religion if you're not actually opposed to all religious things (I assume you agree with Senator Warnock's policies, generally speaking, even though he is religious, which disproves your first quote)? That sounds like it's just attacking religious people instead of attacking their harmful policies. I don't need to attack a person's culture in order to criticize the things they do that harm people.
  
  Because people can choose whether to be religious. They can't choose their skin color or even the culture they are a part of. I have yet to see any solid evidence that "culture" is responsible for anything anyway, as the things we try to assign to culture, like saying black culture is the reason why the black community is poor, are actually just a result of systemic racism that affected them as a whole and caused them to be poor in the first place.
  As an aside, you are freely associating "attacking religious beliefs" with "attacking religious people", and I don't think you should be able to do this. You are the one making it about yourself, not me. >
  
  
  The key here is the litmus test on whether this is actually good for humanity
  
  Is that not an entirely subjective standard? >
  
  Joe Biden is a devout Catholic. He personally opposes abortion, but also believes that it remains a constitutional right that should be available to any who would want it.
  This is the big difference between left and right wing religious people. Left wing people practice their religion and adhere to their own beliefs, obviously allowing it to generally inform their policy positions like being decent and such. Right wing people insist on legislating their religion into law and forcing it on everyone else. >
  
  Don't Catholics oppose the death penalty? Couldn't we say the same thing about that? "We shouldn't let Catholics support laws banning the death penalty because that would be legislating their religion into law and forcing it upon the populations of the states who still like executing criminals." ?? >
  
  Separation of church and state: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
  This has nothing to do with jesus being a leftist anarchist. It has nothing to do with what policies jesus may have wanted to see established in America or anywhere else.
  If you feel the constitution and amendments contain dog whistles I'd say you're in too deep and should reconnect with reality. >
  
  If a politician's argument for a particular policy is primarily "this policy is generally good for everyone" and a politician wants to mention "I also support this thing because of my personal religious faith" then that's not terribly problematic, as you can mostly ignore the latter argument and focus on the former.
  If the argument for a policy is primarily one of religious support with no secular justification, or a slight fig leaf of an argument pretending to justify the policy from a secular perspective, that's a problem.
  The examples you give about Warnock and Biden might become problematic if all, most, or even a significant minority of the arguments supporting those issues relied entirely on religious reasoning. But arguments like that make up only a tiny fraction of overall discussion. >
  
  
  that's a problem.
  
  Why is that a problem? That is what I am trying to get a better understanding of. Who cares if Jesus or John Locke was the basis for their motivation? They're both two men who died. >
  
  Because when a law is primarily rooted in religious justification, it is A LOT MORE LIKELY to be devoid of benefit for humanity. Sure, that won't always be the case, but sometimes it will, and the result is catastrophic. We could have instead only passed laws rooted in well-understood benefit for humanity and use that as our litmus test, rather than using "is it religious?", and we'd pretty much be guaranteed better results. >
  
  Can you point to a specific leftwing policy justified by religion?   
  Your quotes are just generalized, no specific policy recommendations.   
  The right has specific policy proposals based on religious belief - anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc. Left has no such policies justified by religion. That is the difference. >
  
  Welfare programs (caring for the poor). Universal healthcare (treating the sick, valuing life). I know plenty of left-leaning religious people who frequently talk about how these political policies are in line with their religious views and in fact are justified by them.
  My point with the Warnock quote is that if any conservative politician said "my faith is the foundation for all I advocate for," the left would be attacking them as violating the separation of church and state, while no one bats an eye if Warnock says it.
  
  The right has specific policy proposals based on religious belief - anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc. 
  
  There are atheists who would have the same policies though. China (openly atheist government) doesn't support LGBTQ+ rights and Mao strongly persecuted gay people. I have heard of atheists who oppose abortion because they think it's wrong for secular ethic reasons. Presumably you'd oppose those people---even though they aren't religious---because you disagree with those policies. If you say yes, that proves the religious part isn't the root of your disagreement—it's the effect of the policies. And at that point, that means opposing things on the basis of religious motivation just becomes a way to attack someone's identity instead of attacking the policy they promote based on its harmful effect. >
  
  Here is a quick and easy way to analyze a hypothetical proposal. 
  Would an atheist acting in good faith have proposed the same policy? 
  
  
  If yes, liberals do not see an issue on separation grounds.
  
  
  If no, then the left will have an issue on separation grounds.
  
  
  The left is consistent, just because a person proposing a policy says thier faith guided them, it's not an issue unless there is no reason to propose the policy beyond the faith it's self, which is clear to see using the guideline above. >
  
  
  Would an atheist acting in good faith have proposed the same policy?  
  If yes, liberals do not see an issue on separation grounds.If no, then the left will have an issue on separation grounds.  
  The left is consistent, just because a person proposing a policy says thier faith guided them, its not an issue unless there is no reason to propose the policy beyond the faith it's self, which is clear to see using the guideline above.
  
  The problem is that you CAN find atheists who believe in various things religious people believe in. Some atheists believe abortion is bad because of secular ethics. Does that mean that the left will suddenly be okay with atheist politicians who restrict abortion access? Obviously not. Which proves my point: the issue isn't with the religion or lack thereof, but with the policy's perceived outcomes. And at that point, attacking the religion just becomes an identity attack. >
  
  I'm pretty sure this is just because the religious right in America is in love with oppression. People don't want to be oppressed by someone else's favorite book club.
  I don't care why people want to feed the hungry or house people without homes. 
  I do care why people want to imprison people for providing their children healthcare or why people aren't allowed to even mention their spouse's existence. >
  
  
  I do care why people want to imprison people for providing their children healthcare or why people aren't allowed to even mention their spouse's existence.
  
  But you and I would be opposing those bad policies if they happened under an atheist government, too, right? (I mean I hope so.) Which means religion isn't the issue, it's the bad policies that are the issue.
  I'm not saying it's bad to say "a religion that advocates for killing gay people is bad," but that's not what most people say. They usually just say "don't force your religion on me." Which becomes hypocritical when they're 100% okay with "good" religion being forced upon them (ie.., Senator Warnock voting for policies based on his faith tradition that we both probably support.). >
  
  If person A holds a view that person B disagrees with, and that view is based on a religion, it's reasonable for person B to disagree with that religion as well, no? If person B disagrees with other religious beliefs of person A, it's reasonable for person B to want any legislative implications of those beliefs to be as minimized as possible, right? Especially if those beliefs are specific to that religion (i.e., things like anti-gay marriage to certain Christian theologies, not things like anti-murder, about which most religions agree)
  In the Warnock and Biden examples, they are either (a) advocating things that most people agree on (justice, compassion, mercy, protecting democracy, working together), or (b) saying things that don't have a clear meaning ("allow my faith to be the foundation for the things that I advocate for", "there's an oath to God and country to uphold"). >
  
  Warnock is literally saying that, as a lawmaker, he allows his faith to be the basis for what he advocates for. How is that not explicitly injecting his faith into his policymaking?
  If it's fine to base a policy on your religious motivations simply because "most people agree" on that thing (i.e., "murder is bad"), the religion isn't the problem. >
  
  Ned to see your data >
  
  I think you're cutting apart the argument a bit too much. 
  First, I don't think many people oppose religious references in speeches strickly on principle. They largely oppose bad legislation, which often has strickly religious underpining, or "bad takes" for a lack of a better word.
  Second, obviously, people can agree on general principles without sharing underlying motivations. A non-religious person that values compassion can agree that compassion is important with a religious person, there's no real oppostion there. If you want to, say, give to the poor for explicitely christians reasons, I'm not going to stop you. If you want to support universal healthcare because you think Jesus wants you to, I'm also fine with that. Those are good things which I agree with for various reasons. Unless your motivations are outright sinister, I'm going to be fine with them. >
  
  FWIW it is spelled "strictly". >
  
  This is inconsistent. If the motivation is a dog-whistle for anti-religious views, then support for expressions of faith inspiration by left wing politicians would be evidence against your view. >
  
  Separation of church and state was designed to protect the church. It states that congress can’t pass a law designating a certain religion and also doesn’t allow the state to interfere with religious practice or designating all of us to be of a certain religion. Has nothing to do with their religious beliefs influencing public policy >
  
  Isn't everything you put your energy in a career settings an act of faith your example are people citing aspirations not demanding they need to happen because god said told them to. E.G. both quotes don't use declarative language like need or must. >
  
  Do you believe that separation of church and state means that no one in a position of public power has values influenced by religion? The very people who gave us that amendment had values influenced by religion. >
  
  
  Saying "you can't do X action because of your religion" does nothing to actually stop harmful acts; it just becomes a form of thought policing.
  
  But in this case, "X-action" is taking rights away from others and/or using one religion to create laws (which is biased against other religions and atheists). Whereas laws based in science and philosophy are more justifiable (and later changeable if the science / philosophy changes, whereas religion does not change, even when it's wrong [see: Biblical sexism and slavery])
  Neither of which are in the spirit of a secular Democracy. The whole idea of American government is the separation of Church and State.
  Letting people's imaginary friend affect real-world policies is not a good idea. The idea of the Enlightenment (the movement on which our government is based) is about science, not fantasy.
  The act of not letting the religious make laws for everyone else is not bigotry. I could just as easily say that the act of letting the religious make laws is bigoted against the areligious and members of other religions. 
  Religious people are well-able to create laws, they just can't use their religion as the reason, they have to think of an actual reason. That's what I think you're missing.
  
  If people are only complaining about religious motivations in politics when those politics are conservative, attacking people's religion is just a dog whistle for anti-conservative and/or anti-religious vitriol.
  
  No. Because Conservatives use religion as the reason for their laws. Which is not how the American Government was ever supposed to work. Using religion to make laws is literally unAmerican >
  
  Are you essentially arguing it's both anti-religious bigotry, but also they're fine with religion among democrats? If wanting a separation of church and state was a leftist dog whistle for anti-religious bigotry, then you would either have left politicians hearing the whistle and avoid discussing their religious beliefs (which is not happening) or Warnock and Biden would be losing support among leftists because of their beliefs (again, not really happening). So if anything you could say it's just the left hypocritically criticizing the right (I disagree but other people have already done a decent job voicing why). If you have a serious problem with hypocritical criticism in politics I have some really bad news about all of human history. >
  
  Religious motivations is different from pushing religion. To generalize this, if we assume that my religion encourages all good things and discourages all bad things, someone could argue that any “good” law could be inspired by my religion and thus a religious law. That’s obviously not what’s happening here. >
  
  When people cry "separation of church and state", what they want is to not have laws and policies in place that are explicitly derived from religious belief, such as banning abortion or gay marriage because it is against god. The left is not pushing such policies.
  It's less about religious motivations in a politician's actions and more a religious basis for laws and policies that people are against. >
  
  
  If people are only complaining about religious motivations in politics when those politics are conservative, attacking people's religion is just a dog whistle for anti-conservative and/or anti-religious vitriol.
  
  I find that, generally speaking, the religious policies that are objectionable are those where they want to tell us that we can't do something because it's against their religion. Do you have any similar restrictive policies that the religious left supports? You're separating the people from the policies and it doesn't make sense in that vacuum without context. >
  
  /u/IndependentPoole94 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  No, I don't mind leaders being religious.
  If yes as you say an atheist dictaor bans gay marriage, that is equally as bad as when a religious one does it.
  Just the same, a politician wanting to feed the poor because that's what Jesus did has my full support.
  But that's not really a secularism problem.
  That's when say bishops get an unelected place in the house of Lords in England. Or when churches get religious exemtion in the States. Or when atheists aren't allowed to run for office in Texas (Supreme court overruled that, but the law is still technically in the books).
  But just the same if say catholics can't run for office (19th century England, long gone thankfully).
  The seperation of church and state means that the State doesn't take sides. And that is super important! If the State doesn't take sides because god demands they don't take sides, that's absolutely fine. >
  
  I agree with this! But you are the first person in this comment thread to say that. Most everyone else is attacking religion when it's used to support conservative politics while saying "oh it's fine, no big deal/some other excuse" when it's used to support liberal politics—which is proving the point of my post. >
  
  I'd argue there's a perfectly consistent difference.
  In the examples you bring up, Warnock and Biden are saying that their religious views are binding on them: Warnock is a Christian, so Warnock should act with compassion.
  Separation of church and state is brought up when someone attempts to force their religious ethics on others, outside of the agreed-upon functions of the government (e.g. the common welfare and all that stuff).
  Nobody would care if an Evangelical Christian politician, who was gay, said "I'm just going to avoid romance entirely because I believe my faith prohibits homosexuality", which is analogous to Warnock trying to be compassionate because of his faith. >
  
  
  In the examples you bring up, Warnock and Biden are saying that their religious views are binding on them
  
  Except "on them" means "on what they advocate for." They're both representative politicians, which means their actions directly impact the laws that get made.
  Are you telling me that for Sen. Warnock to be motivated by his faith to support a law of universal healthcare because that's consistent with being compassionate that he is not "forcing his views" on the rest of society? I mean all laws force some view on society, so you can't dispute that. Why would it be bad for Sen. Warnock to have a religious motivation for good policy like universal healthcare, even though that would thereby force his religious view on others? >
  
  I think even you understand what "forcing religious views" mean. Like even you must understand how unbeliavably absurd is it to compare supporting welfare state, which is the prefered method in nations that arent religious anyway with for example making wearing burqas mandatory or making it illegal for women to get abortions or go to schools. When people talk about forcing views, you can bet its usually restricting someone´s personal freedoms. >
  
  As well as finding a way to allow discrimination to people based on some religious, ethnic, racial or sexual status, orientation or identity in a public enterprise. >
  
  It's not really a dog whistle if you're just saying it explicitly, though, right? There isn't anything covert here, they're just condemning politics based on religious belief that conflicts with their politics, and being silent about politics based on faith that doesn't. Not really anything so complicated there, is there? Like if you came out and said that you want to ban birth control because satan told you to, I would be against that, but if you said instead that you wanted to ensure reproductive rights continue to be protected legally because of satanism, you know, whatever, I'm not going to take issue with that
  Or to put it another way since my politics is based on what I think is good, correct, and moral, I can't really take issue with religious beliefs which lead people to share my political positions as those beliefs must therefore be some amount of good, correct, and moral in order to get there >
  
  There is a yuge difference between allowing one's faith to inform one's decision making process and literally codifying religious belief into law. When people cite sep of church and state, they are almost universally referring to the latter. >
  
  
  There is a yuge difference between allowing one's faith to inform one's decision making process and literally codifying religious belief into law. When people cite sep of church and state, they are almost universally referring to the latter.
  
  What's the difference? Jesus said to give to those in need. That sounds a lot like welfare programs to me. Are you saying it is wrong to codify one's religious belief of giving to those in need by promoting welfare programs? >
  
  Religious motivation for policy is not the same as the state establishing a religion or enforcing the practice of a religious doctrine. >
  
  Faith-based values can be A reason for an action. It just can't be the ENTIRE reason. >
  
  But why does it even matter? You're saying it's bad if someone says "I support universal healthcare because it's what Jesus would have done," but it's suddenly good if they say "oh and also MLK Jr. would have wanted it, too"? >
  
  No, I'm saying it's good if they say "Here are the reasons why this country would benefit from universal healthcare." Appeals to authority are a distraction regardless of who the authority is. >
  
  The reason that people do that, is because the laws that often times get pushed, are done so, and stem directly from religion.  If I am not part of your religion, then why should I have to abide by your laws.
  I am from a very conservative area (Kansas).  Some places cannot sell alcohol on Sundays.  Why would that be a thing, if it wasn't for religion?  The catholic church funds a lobbying firm that is directly across the street from our state's capitol.  They spent millions last year to lobby and fund campaigns that aligned with their beliefs, and influence laws.  Why should they be allowed to do that, when there is supposed to be a separation there?   The church doesn't want the government influencing them, but they want to influence the government.
  I have no problem with people being religious, following their religion, etc., but I have a problem when they want to force it on others, and when they ignore their constituents because of religion.  If your job is to represent your constituents, then you should do it, even when it goes against your personal beliefs.  There are people that represent Kansas, who struck down the Value Them Both amendment (protecting abortion rights) that have all but said they will try to restrict it more.  If that is their outlook, than IMO, they have failed their constituents.
  I think that may be why the left gets a little more of a pass on it, as you seem to think.  They are willing to look past some of the traditional stances and don't seem as bound by it. >
  
  
  I am from a very conservative area (Kansas).  Some places cannot sell alcohol on Sundays.  Why would that be a thing, if it wasn't for religion?
  
  So you're saying this is a problem, but if a secular data-driven group came to town and started lobbying the government to make the entire place a dry county and can't sell any alcohol at all, you'd be 100% okay with that, simply because it wasn't religious people doing it? That would be textbook bigotry.
  If you WOULD still have a problem with the alcohol ban, then you don't actually have an issue with the religious side (the motive)—you have an issue with the practical side (the ban). >
  
  Science already says alcohol is harmful. That in and of itself isn't a good enough reason to restrict behavior though. Science cannot provide suggestions on what laws to pass, it can only provide a model of a given slice of reality. E.g. science says climate change exists. It cannot offer legislative solutions to climate change. Science can potentially indicate whether a given technology is effective at mitigating some factor of climate change. It cannot conclude whether it is "worth it". In other words science cannot inform morality. It can only tell us what the reality is approximately.
  Being biased against all religion isn't problematic bigotry. It's when you single out a religion that it's problematic. Take Christians or atheists singling out Muslims as an example of problematic bigotry.
  Saying, "religions shouldn't influence our laws," isn't a problem. >
  
  
  you can't use religious reasons as a basis for justifying a proposed change in the law."
  
  I think it's a tiny bit more nuanced than this. I would add "without/in spite of the effect those laws on the community". If someone uses religious language to justify a law, that will also be of great benefit to the community, it would be silly to oppose that law just because of the religious language.
  The times you really hear the separation of church and state come out is when religion is used to justify laws that will negatively affect society as a whole, at that point it stops being that the church and state just so happen to agree, but that the church is actively influencing the state. For example if someone were to want to bring back prohibition on the grounds that drinking is sinful. We know prohibition doesn't work and to try it would be incredibly damaging for the community as a whole. >
  
  
  The times you really hear the separation of church and state come out is when religion is used to justify laws that will negatively affect society as a whole, at that point it stops being that the church and state just so happen to agree, but that the church is actively influencing the state.
  
  Warnock sounds like he is definitely allowing the church (his faith) to actively influence the state (he's a politician; he "advocates" for policies). Is that a bad thing or is it not? >
  
  I would disagree. Justice, mercy, and compassion are all good things, so there's nothing there yet that indicates he's going to use his faith to justify doing harm to the community.
  Once he starts doing that then I fully agree that's when the "separation of church and state" should come out, but again opposing people you think will do good in the community just because they are motivated by religion is silly. >
  
  How can it be anti religious bigotry and tolerant of religion in politics at the same time? Obviously it would seem religious motivations alone are not the problem. >
  
  
  I am convinced that the "separation of church and state" cry is actually more of a dog whistle for people who want an excuse to be bigots against religious people because most of those same people don't seem to care when prominent left-leaning figures expressly say that their left-leaning politics are driven by their religious views.
  
  I'm curious: what bigotry do you see in the United States against religions? >
  
  There's a ton of anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim bias in America, especially in conservative circles. >
  
  And I agree, but OP is claiming the left is being anti-religion. And I would like examples of this. >
  
  If a law serves a legitimate government purpose, you should be able to justify it with secular reasoning.
  If the sole motivation is religion, the claimed "legitimate government purpose" is just a pretense.
  mercy, justice, and compassion are secular values just as they are religious ones.
  
  If ANY conservative politician said this, people would be having a heyday and lambasting them for it.
  
  I have a hard time believing any politician would be blasted for calling for, without any detail: justice, compassion, and mercy.
  On the flip side, that there are many parts of the country in which someone who is openly atheist would have no chance in hell of winning (statewide office in Georgia is one of those places). Even if the atheist said their atheist values drove them to be compassionate, merciful, and to advocate for justice. >
  
  You ignored the religious part of Sen Warnock's quote: "I will continue to lift up the values that derive from all of our faith traditions and allow my faith to be the foundation for the things that I advocate for."
  He literally says HIS faith will be the foundation for what he, a lawmaker, advocates for.
  
  If a law serves a legitimate government purpose, you should be able to justify it with secular reasoning.
  
  But why? So what if Jesus (religious) said something is good/bad vs John Locke (secular)? They're both two dead men. Opposing the former while praising the latter smells like unnecessary identity discrimination. >
  
  Again, you are ignoring the multitude of comments which are indicating that personal religious beliefs aren't cause for concern (except in cases of extremism), but separation of church and state is about specific policies that are attempting to codify religion into law. Additionally, there's a huge difference between "Jesus helped people, so I should help people" and "Jesus helped people, so I should help people but only if they believe in Jesus". That's where separation of church and state comes into play. >
  
  The motivation for a law doesnt matter yes, but the reasoning absolutely does. If its good/bad because your dogma says so and someone else subscribes to none or different dogma, that's it there's no discussion you can have.
  But if it's good/bad because of x, y, z you can have an actual discussion and come to an agreement. >
  
  I mean, religious people can make political compromises too. You can believe something is always bad and still agree that, in politics, you may not be able to get 100% of what you want. >
  
  Im not talking about compromises, but coming to an actual agreement. 
  If you can support your religiously motivated law with reasonable arguments, then that's great. Society can now discuss those arguments and come to some consensus. But if you can't, we'll maybe you should think about why would your religion prescribe unreasonable values. >
  
  Joe Biden is a devout Catholic. He personally opposes abortion, but also believes that it remains a constitutional right that should be available to any who would want it.
  This is the big difference between left and right wing religious people. Left wing people practice their religion and adhere to their own beliefs, obviously allowing it to generally inform their policy positions like being decent and such. Right wing people insist on legislating their religion into law and forcing it on everyone else. >
  
  Don't Catholics oppose the death penalty? Couldn't we say the same thing about that? "We shouldn't let Catholics support laws banning the death penalty because that would be legislating their religion into law and forcing it upon the populations of the states who still like executing criminals." ?? >
  
  You're conveniently skipping over the actual point. The issue is not and has never been that people are generally influenced by their religion in determining their sense of morality or ethics. The issue is and has always been people wanting to enforce their very specific dogma on everyone else.
  Now, if you're going to define literally every single decision any person with a belief system as forcing their morality on the rest of the world, then there's no discussion to be had other than one about how utterly nonsensical that entire idea is. >
  
  Separation of church and state: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
  This has nothing to do with jesus being a leftist anarchist. It has nothing to do with what policies jesus may have wanted to see established in America or anywhere else.
  If you feel the constitution and amendments contain dog whistles I'd say you're in too deep and should reconnect with reality. >
  
  Can you point to a specific leftwing policy justified by religion?   
  Your quotes are just generalized, no specific policy recommendations.   
  The right has specific policy proposals based on religious belief - anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc. Left has no such policies justified by religion. That is the difference. >
  
  Welfare programs (caring for the poor). Universal healthcare (treating the sick, valuing life). I know plenty of left-leaning religious people who frequently talk about how these political policies are in line with their religious views and in fact are justified by them.
  My point with the Warnock quote is that if any conservative politician said "my faith is the foundation for all I advocate for," the left would be attacking them as violating the separation of church and state, while no one bats an eye if Warnock says it.
  
  The right has specific policy proposals based on religious belief - anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc. 
  
  There are atheists who would have the same policies though. China (openly atheist government) doesn't support LGBTQ+ rights and Mao strongly persecuted gay people. I have heard of atheists who oppose abortion because they think it's wrong for secular ethic reasons. Presumably you'd oppose those people---even though they aren't religious---because you disagree with those policies. If you say yes, that proves the religious part isn't the root of your disagreement—it's the effect of the policies. And at that point, that means opposing things on the basis of religious motivation just becomes a way to attack someone's identity instead of attacking the policy they promote based on its harmful effect. >
  
  
  Saying "you can't do X action because of your religion" does nothing to actually stop harmful acts; it just becomes a form of thought policing.
  
  But in this case, "X-action" is taking rights away from others and/or using one religion to create laws (which is biased against other religions and atheists). Whereas laws based in science and philosophy are more justifiable (and later changeable if the science / philosophy changes, whereas religion does not change, even when it's wrong [see: Biblical sexism and slavery])
  Neither of which are in the spirit of a secular Democracy. The whole idea of American government is the separation of Church and State. To use the French term: Laïcité.
  Letting people's imaginary friend affect real-world policies is not a good idea. The idea of the Enlightenment (the movement on which our government is based) is about science, not fantasy.
  The act of not letting the religious make laws for everyone else is not bigotry. I could just as easily say that the act of letting the religious make laws is bigoted against the areligious and members of other religions. 
  Religious people are well-able to create laws, they just can't use their religion as the reason, they have to think of an actual reason. That's what I think you're missing.
  
  If people are only complaining about religious motivations in politics when those politics are conservative, attacking people's religion is just a dog whistle for anti-conservative and/or anti-religious vitriol.
  
  No. Because Conservatives use religion as the reason for their laws. Which is not how the American Government was ever supposed to work. Using religion to make laws is literally unAmerican >
  
  
  The idea of the Enlightenment (the movement on which our government is based) is about science, not fantasy.
  
  Science can't tell us what is right and wrong. The ethics of John Locke is just as much fantasy as the ethics of Jesus Christ under that logic. Why is John Locke a credible source right now, but if a bunch of people started praying to him he would suddenly become a bad source? That makes no sense
  
  Conservatives use religion as the reason for their laws.
  
  Religion is the practice of following the teachings of other people, usually those who are dead, about what is right and wrong. How is that any different from the Founding Fathers who based the government on the teachings of other people (philosophers), usually those who were dead, about what is right and wrong. The fact that some people pray to Jesus and not John Locke is irrelevant. >
  
  Are you essentially arguing it's both anti-religious bigotry, but also they're fine with religion among democrats? If wanting a separation of church and state was a leftist dog whistle for anti-religious bigotry, then you would either have left politicians hearing the whistle and avoid discussing their religious beliefs (which is not happening) or Warnock and Biden would be losing support among leftists because of their beliefs (again, not really happening). So if anything you could say it's just the left hypocritically criticizing the right (I disagree but other people have already done a decent job voicing why). If you have a serious problem with hypocritical criticism in politics I have some really bad news about all of human history. >
  
  !delta. Not sure if you're the first who has pointed this out, but I think you are correct in showing that maybe it's not a dog whistle, it's just people on the left deciding to throw a free punch at conservative people's religious identities, claiming they oppose "religion in politics," but hypocritically turning a blind eye when left politicians inject their left-leaning religious views into politics.
  So, not a "dog whistle," just "hypocrisy that attacks people's identity." >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/greangrip (2∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  I am a Christian who believes in separation of church and state.
  It is incredibly dangerous to mix government and church, since policy makers can abuse doctrine to maintain power. It is also a fallacy to equivocate God and Government. Is it truly wise to let the government believe it represents the most powerful authority on existence? You can imagine how that leads to fascism.
  Additionally, we need perspectives outside of the church in order to effectively criticize and improve infrastructures. Churches historically have a terrible track record when responding to criticism. Is that something worth attaching to government? >
  
  
  It is incredibly dangerous to mix government and church, since policy makers can abuse doctrine to maintain power.
  
  So you think Senator Warnock is a bad/dangerous politician because of his statement? >
  
  It isn't anti-religious bigotry, it is calling out conservative Christian ideology. A lot of that is being pushed for as religious beliefs (i.e. anti-gay rights, anti-choice, etc) comes from the old testament and often times from a stance of hate on the far right. Obviously moderate views exist, but the loudest voices tend to be the churches that advocate extremism. Where are those on the right arguing for increasing funding to social programs? Christ's teachings often times contradict the position of the right, particularly the MAGA crowd.
  For example (paraphrased):
  "Do unto others what you would have them do to you" "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" "give all your wealth to charity and follow me" "all who live by the sword, die by the sword" "forgive them father for they do not know what they do" "blessed are the peacemakers"
  How does that fit in with the right's stances on gun control, taxes, using said taxes to fun education and social services instead of war. Jesus never took as stance on abortion or homosexuality, or tax cuts for business at the expense of the poor... 
  It isn't anti-religous bigotry, it is anti-hypocrisy and anti-bigotry. No one is pushing any laws to ban religious practices, just saying that religious views shouldn't be forced into policies. >
  
  On one hand, you say Christ's teachings contradict the position of the right (I agree).
  On the other hand, you say "religious views shouldn't be forced into policies."
  So that means you oppose a political who "forces their religious views into policies," even if those religious views are exactly what Christ taught (promoting peace, forgiving people who make mistakes, giving more money to charities, etc.)?
  If you say yes, why?
  If you say no, that proves you don't actually oppose religious views in politics—you just oppose policies you disagree with, so religion is kind of irrelevant. >
  
  I think you are unfairly suggesting that religion is only peace and love, but there is a lot of violence and slavery and horrible things too. 
  I don't think it's right to cherry-pick what you like about the religion for the sake of this discussion. >
  
  People don’t fight religion for the sake of fighting it. They don’t think the separation of church and state is necessary in a vacuum. They believe separation of church and state is necessary because of the tendency for religious views to be unchanging, or incredibly slow to change. If someone is agreeing with me I have no incentive to tell them the reason they agree with me isn’t the reason I think they should agree with me. There’s simply not enough energy in the world to fight people who already agree with me when there’s others who are actively fighting what I believe in. >
  
  The political side doesn't matter. I don't want to be governed by anyone else's faith. 
  Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase. He also wrote his own Bible with all of Jesus' miracles removed. Use your faith to govern your life, not mine. >
  
  You will probably think that I am one such person, given my recent CMV about the religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident.
  I guess I'm not quite sure when you choose to classify actions as "bigotry". I don't think there is any truth to the claims made by any religion, so at best I am going to disagree with the things they say. I think you are arguing that I hold views like "since you hold religious belief X, I conclude that YOU, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, are dumb / stupid / whatever insulting thing you want", right? And to address that, no, that's not what I believe. I do not extend my opinions on religion to think that anyone is less of a person simply because they are religious.
  Why? Because I'd be a hypocrite to do so, seeing as how I was religious myself for 27 years, and it came to an end not because of me magically becoming a non-idiot overnight. I just realized, this is all a great mystery, one which we can fill with whatever belief we want, and I simply chose to no longer fill it with belief in a god of any kind. It's a personal choice and not one that says anything about the character of a person, because it's a total mystery.
  Yes, I'm always going to oppose negative consequences propelled by religious beliefs, like trying to oppress and control women and the LGBTQ+ community, but I don't extend that to believing that the PERSON who holds the views is [insert insult here], so no, I wouldn't agree that this counts as bigotry.
  That's also why I wouldn't have a problem with anyone on the left being religious, because if their religious views aren't resulting in any harm done to anyone, I have no real reason to oppose them. >
  
  This
  
  Yes, I'm always going to oppose what comes of religious beliefs
  
  Isn't consistent with this
  
  That's also why I wouldn't have a problem with anyone on the left being religious, because if their religious views aren't resulting in any harm done to anyone, I have no real reason to oppose them.
  
  So you don't "always" oppose "what comes of religious beliefs." You only oppose it if you think it's bad. Which is fine—everyone should oppose stuff they think is bad.
  My question is why single out religion if you're not actually opposed to all religious things (I assume you agree with Senator Warnock's policies, generally speaking, even though he is religious, which disproves your first quote)? That sounds like it's just attacking religious people instead of attacking their harmful policies. I don't need to attack a person's culture in order to criticize the things they do that harm people. >
  
  
  So you don't "always" oppose "what comes of religious beliefs." You only oppose it if you think it's bad.
  
  I could use better phrasing, but sure, you're at least somewhat correct here. It's true that I do not mind some of what comes from religious beliefs, but I do oppose others.
  The key here is the litmus test on whether this is actually good for humanity. A lot of political implementations of religion clearly have zero tangible benefit, like restricting the rights of the LBGTQ+ community and not letting them marry, for example. Literally pointless. But something like implementing universal Healthcare, that DOES have a tangible, measurable benefit for people, one that exists independent of religion, so I wouldn't have a reason to oppose it.
  Basically, yeah, sure, some of what comes from religious belief is good and some is bad, and I'm comfortable distinguishing between the two based on tangible benefit to humanity. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. 
  
  My question is why single out religion if you're not actually opposed to all religious things (I assume you agree with Senator Warnock's policies, generally speaking, even though he is religious, which disproves your first quote)? That sounds like it's just attacking religious people instead of attacking their harmful policies. I don't need to attack a person's culture in order to criticize the things they do that harm people.
  
  Because people can choose whether to be religious. They can't choose their skin color or even the culture they are a part of. I have yet to see any solid evidence that "culture" is responsible for anything anyway, as the things we try to assign to culture, like saying black culture is the reason why the black community is poor, are actually just a result of systemic racism that affected them as a whole and caused them to be poor in the first place.
  As an aside, you are freely associating "attacking religious beliefs" with "attacking religious people", and I don't think you should be able to do this. You are the one making it about yourself, not me. >
  
  
  The key here is the litmus test on whether this is actually good for humanity
  
  Is that not an entirely subjective standard? >
  
  If a politician's argument for a particular policy is primarily "this policy is generally good for everyone" and a politician wants to mention "I also support this thing because of my personal religious faith" then that's not terribly problematic, as you can mostly ignore the latter argument and focus on the former.
  If the argument for a policy is primarily one of religious support with no secular justification, or a slight fig leaf of an argument pretending to justify the policy from a secular perspective, that's a problem.
  The examples you give about Warnock and Biden might become problematic if all, most, or even a significant minority of the arguments supporting those issues relied entirely on religious reasoning. But arguments like that make up only a tiny fraction of overall discussion. >
  
  
  that's a problem.
  
  Why is that a problem? That is what I am trying to get a better understanding of. Who cares if Jesus or John Locke was the basis for their motivation? They're both two men who died.