comment: >
  
  Faith-based values can be A reason for an action. It just can't be the ENTIRE reason.
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?