Dusty Deevers sagt, die Trennung von Kirche und Staat sei „blasphemisch“

Blasphemous? Maybe. Constitutional? Definitely.

American historian here.

Your Constitution would like you to know it was written specifically so that fanatical asshats like Dusty Deevers can never have control of the levers of American government.

Madison intended to protect Americans from the 1500 years of tyranny the Church and Christian rule inflicted on Europe.

Stay in school, kids.

Don’t be a Deevers.

Dusty is a dub bitch, ALL CHURCHES need to be TAXED.

Fuck you and your religion. 

*-this statement brought to you by the First Amendment*

Whatever you say, Dusty Beavers.

„I want your tax dollars but don’t want to pay any taxes“ energy

He’s from Oklahoma, he probably can’t read the constitution to know that it’s part of the deal.

Never trust a guy named Dusty Deevers

Christian Nationalism is what’s blasphemous.

Hey, this country was founded on separation of Church and State. Shove blasphemy up your ass you psychotic shitbags! Keep your insane Christofascism OUT of my government!

Dusty fully approves of „marrying“ 12 year olds. Just like his Orange God.

He should go live in Afghanistan so he has plenty of religion in his govt.

Religion is the root of hate and fear and is made to control weak minded people if you need religion to make you a good person you a follower and need help more people have died over religion then anything else in the history of man think of it this way if God created all of in his image he did a really bad job and should be fired

Our nation was not „founded on Christianity“ but enlightenment era principles that turned away from the religious authority of the church, away from the divine right of kings, away from a national religion, and towards reason, rationality and democratic ideals.

The framers organized these principles together to write our founding documents. They challenged and feared the merging of religion and government. They rejected the Church of England and repeatedly rebuked the idea of a national religion or church.

There is substantial evidence and documentation that points to these facts:

The Bible even reveals how Jesus Christ himself believed in the concept of the separation between church and state:

Mark 12:17, „Jesus said to them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.“

That said, it is documented *fact* that the founders were opposed to the union of religion and government.

Some were even self proclaimed deists who dismissed with the idea that a divine hand is meddling in our affairs. Instead, they emphasized the importance of rationality, intellect and observation in understanding nature and how society should be governed.

Thomas Jefferson is often credited with coining the phrase „a wall of separation between church and state“ in his letter to the Danbury Baptist association.

Jefferson’s metaphor became part of constitutional jurisprudence. He was later quoted by Chief Justice Morrison in Reynolds v. United States in 1878, and was famously referenced in the Supreme Court Case, Everson v. Board of Education, which interpreted the First amendment’s establishment clause as intending to erect that „wall of separation.“

Jefferson’s writings have been referenced in a series of important legal cases and public debates throughout our history.

His famous words are invoked to stress the importance of how this separation protects the rights of the people, and how it preserves the functionality of government and the virtue of religious practice. This includes protecting Americans from a repressive, governing religious authority, and guarding one’s religious practice from government intervention.

Roger Williams, an early puritan minister, founder of the state of Rhode Island and the first Baptist Church in America, was the first public official to call for „a wall or hedge of separation“ between „the wilderness of the world“ and „the garden of the church.“

Rogers was an early American statesman *and* minister who acknowledged the need for this separation.

James Madison interpreted Martin Luther’s „Doctrine of Two Kingdoms“ as a conception of the separation of church and state.

During a debate in the House, Madison also contended, „Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body.“

In his writings years later he documented his support for the „total separation of the church from the state.“

„Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States,“ Madison wrote, and he declared, „practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution.“

John Locke also promoted this idea. In his, „A Letter Concerning Toleration,“ Locke argued that, „ecclesiastical authority must be separated from the authority of the state, or ‚the magistrate.'“

George Washington wrote to a group of clergy who protested in 1789 against a lack of mention of Jesus Christ in the Constitution; stating, “You will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction.”

That same year, he wrote to the Baptists of Virginia, “…no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.“

Furthermore, „One Nation under God“ wasn’t even added to the pledge of allegiance until the 1950s, when there was a moral panic and religious revival that unfairly persecuted anyone who was assumed to be gay, communist, atheist, or anything but a god fearing, Christian-American „patriot“ for that matter.

The pledge of allegiance was first published in 1892 in an Issue of „The Youth’s Companion,“ an American Children’s Magazine.

Francis Bellamy—a Christian **socialist**—who was said to have „championed the rights of working people and the equal distribution of economic resources,“ which he believed was inherent in the teachings of Jesus Christ no less, worked for the magazine and drafted the „Pledge of Allegiance“ as part of a marketing campaign to solicit subscriptions and sell U.S. flags to public schools.

The issue coincided with the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus reaching the Americas; an advertising gimmick.

Bellamy „believed in the absolute separation of church and state“ and intentionally did not include the phrase „under God“ in his pledge.

What’s more, Bellamy „viewed his Pledge as an ‚inoculation‘ that would protect immigrants and native-born but insufficiently patriotic Americans from the ‚virus‘ of radicalism and subversion.“

Additionally, „In God we trust“ wasn’t officially adopted and mandated for our currency until the mid-20th century as part of an effort to distinguish the U.S. from the big bad atheist communists of the Soviet Union.

And all of that aside, I shouldn’t have to remind those on the religious right that our very first amendment prohibits the government from „respecting an establishment of religion.“

The Supreme Court has also expanded on this, settling the debate and establishing three basic rules that must be followed in order to not violate the clause.

Government actions:

– must have a secular purpose
– must not promote or inhibit religion
– must not create excessive entanglement between the church and state

The religious right believes that they are „under attack“ due to things like secularization and a decreasing number of religious fundamentalists in the US. They even feel victimized by the long-held principle that diversity is a strength in America.

But these are features, not bugs, and distinctively American features no less.

They’re also convinced that the mere existence of non-christian religious practices, progressive ideas and secular institutions represents some kind of existential threat to their white, Christian hegemony. This threat of course includes a growing acceptance of marginalized and vulnerable groups—especially those deemed „inferior“ because of their ethnic backgrounds or their refusal to subscribe to conservative and/or Christian dogma.

They believe that their religious and moral superiority entitles them to governance, and that history proves them right on this matter. But it does not. In fact, „God’s design“ was not included in the American blueprint.

The fact of the matter is, religion is *not* the bedrock upon which our country, its constitution and its government was founded. And regardless of how many Christian Nationalists have slithered their way into our government, it is still wholly un-American to even suggest that Christianity be used as some state tool to pacify and educate citizens, or become the basis for this country’s rule of law.

It *is* self evident, that in the United States of America, religion has no place in government, and vice versa.

„Give to God what is God’s, and give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.“

– Actual Jesus.

Sounds like Dusty Deevers hates the United States of America. He should leave.

I’m so over Christians, they cause trouble wherever they’ve gone in this world. 99.9% are absolute hypocritical weirdos. I wish they’d fuck off to some designated area where they can live their weird lifestyle and leave the rest of the world alone.

First of all, no it isn’t. That is ludicrous.

Second of all, Dusty, go fuck yourself.

This un-patriotic, un-american asshat is blasphemous

I can tell by looking at him he’s a pervert.

wtf is a dusty deevers

Fascist fuckers, I’m not interested in participating in a controlled cult