"Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labor in vain."

I'm disturbed by the History Channel putting this series on. That channel has completely gone down the drain. Instead of a look at actual history they dramatize and update the Bible for the new "special effects" generation.

They should change their name.

but I also believe that if we vote somebody into office who's principles are rooted in their religion then we have no reason nor right to complain if and when they use those principles in their decision making.

What is your religion, poltical party, and Church+State view

Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it in some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government and Religion neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed, is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against. And in a Government of opinion like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law was right and necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was, which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects dissenting from the established sect was safe, and even useful. The example of the colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all sects might be safely and even advantageously put on a footing of equal and entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the Declaration of Independence has shown that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent country. if a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States which had abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virginia, where it is impossible to deny that religion prevails with more zeal and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronized by public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson: the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

Wait, do you mean that without constraint? Obviously, anybody that is actually religious is going to have it affect their thought process and thereby their decision making, but you make it sound like it should be a blank check, so to speak. What if they start trying to do radical things under the guise of God's direction?

People who claim the US was founded on religion and Christianity was meant to be part an parcel apart of that government are completely ignorant of our country. To be quite honest the man who wrote the 1st Amendment makes the Democrats support of the separation of church and state seem rather half hearted and quaint.

I'm disturbed by the History Channel putting this series on. That channel has completely gone down the drain. Instead of a look at actual history they dramatize and update the Bible for the new "special effects" generation.

They should change their name.

Well, you mostly described yourself as Hindu. Or perhaps Theravada Buddhist.

Would you be opposed to to them putting on a series about the rites and rituals of the Aztecs, or superstition in the Congo? How about a series on Greek, Roman, or Norse mythology? How about the gods of ancient Egypt? These are all historical topics that I'm sure at one point or another have been aired on the history channel. WWII is, after all, only so large a subject. If you don't have any problem with these topics, then why the vitriol against a series on a look at this ancient religious text? The special is about an ancient text and the stories told therein, not an anthropological look at that time and place in history. There is a difference. Regardless of belief in religion or not, it has played and still does play a vital role in almost every society. Huge swaths of people form their belief systems on it. A discussion of religion in the context of history is still a valid historical study. And if you don't like it, I'm sure Beavis and Butthead reruns are airing on VH1. The power to avoid this travesty is a simple click away.

For every time I've seen religion stuffed down people's throats I've seen science used as a bludgeon to mock belief. "But it's science so it's fact so go pound sand with your fairy tales." No. It's theories on what most closely mirrors our understanding of life. Instead of all this "fuck you!" no "fuck you!" back and forth, how about we stop all that nonsense and let shit like that pass us by. There is plenty of stuff that not everyone agrees with - in fact, I'd argue you can't find a single topic that doesn't have a healthy debate for both sides.

As for me and the topic of discussion here, I grew up in a religious household but am of no particular religion. Spiritual, with agnostic leanings. I'd call myself Independent or Libertarian if forced to quantify my political leanings, and my feelings on the Church+State issue are much like my feelings on the Monetary+State issue. Neither belong together. And that not only includes opposing any language catering to religion in laws but also the denial of any religious activity.