Did you write this? or was it found somewhere? Either way, here here! I couldn't have said anything better.

It's from a speech Obama gave a while back.

Link to Speech

"This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. "

So .... an American's view held for religious reasons somehow makes it less valuable than an American's view that is held for a secular or relativistic reason? So we have turned an amendment originally designed to protect religious freedom and expression a full 180 and turned it into "you're opinion does not count in America if you are religious". It doesn't get any more messed up than that.

Yikes. I am so glad he actually came out and said that. Now we know.

No, you came out and put those words in his mouth. I've read Obama's comments a few times and nowhere can I find anything resembling "your opinion does not count in America if you are religious" in his words.

He says himself that he is a religious man and that religion helps shape his values and opinions. However, religion-specific opinions have no place in politics, whereas universal concerns do. The key here is religiously specific.

If a law cannot be defended without invoking religion, then it should not be law. Otherwise you are not protecting religious freedom, you are mandating a religious view.

Sorry for my tardiness, Ryan, but I have not been back in awhile. I must admit I am shocked at your defense of this. I will repeat the words you put in Mr.. Obama's mouth, since you don't like my summary.

"However, religion-specific opinions have no place in politics, whereas universal concerns do."

Nowhere does the constitution even remotely imply that a citizen's opinion has to pass a "religious motivation test" in order to be worthy of representation by their elected officials. In fact, the idea that politicians are somehow Constitutionally charged with getting into the heads of their constituents to determine whether the reasons for their beliefs are religious in nature for the purposes of discounting them in their policy-making efforts is extremely anathema to the concept of "Church/State Separation", which is the notion that a religious body-meaning an organized church-should not dictate policy, that it should make any lover of constitutional freedom shudder. This clause is for the purposes of preserving religious freedom and the rights of people OF ALL FAITHS to have equal access to representation by their government, not to restrict what may be counted by their politicians as "legitimate opinions" addressing "universal concerns" and what is not. Again I ask, are opinions of those who are atheist or secular humanist in thinking entitled to equal representation? Is the government allowed to impose the views of the "church of free thought unless you disagree", as this type of thinking seems to imply? You can't impose an absence of religion anymore than you can impose the views of a particular sect of Christianity on the public. Furthermore, what is an example of these "universal concerns" you describe? Would one of them happen to be "Thou shalt not kill"? The vast majority of our laws are based on moral concepts that are, at their core, religious in nature. This is consistent with our history.

The limitations you describe on acceptable political viewpoints absolutely in no way resemble my country or it's Constitution.

Honestly, I fail to see where we disagree here, and furthermore where you disagree with Senator Obama.

I'm going to assume the key misunderstanding here is the terms 'religion specific' and 'religiously motivated'.

Of course our laws are in many cases reflections of our religious beliefs. Yes, "Thou shalt not kill" is both a religious and a universal value. But that is my point exactly, this biblical rule can be directly translated into a universally accepted human moral that murder is wrong. Therefor the religiously motivated "Thou shalt not kill" has an acceptable universal translation worthy of lawmaking.

Again, I agree that the concept of Church/State separation is to protect those of all faiths. To take it a step further, it is to protect the rights of those whose faith falls in the minority. The concept of Church/State separation needs to be taken further than just restricting a organized church from dictating policy, it also needs to protect the beliefs of those in the minority from a religious majority with more voting power.

No one is arguing here that a religiously motivated concept should be disqualified from being made into law. The argument is that the concept in question should be accepted by those of all faiths (or no faith at all), and not *only* cater to the mores of one particular sect. The key here being the word "only", if it caters to your religion and the world at large (ie, thou shalt not kill), wonderful. However if it caters to your religion and only your religion (ie, Christian prayer in public schools) then there is no place for it in our legislation.

"it also needs to protect the beliefs of those in the minority from a religious majority with more voting power."

That is where we disagree. This concept is discriminatory and unconstitutional. It impedes freedom, not the other way around. Because, who is to decide whether a concept is "worthy of lawmaking"? Judges who are hostile to the religious beliefs of the portion of the electorate who hold them? Who decides what portion of their beliefs are religious in nature and should be discounted? This is open license to be used (as it is being used) as a tool to declare war on the expression of certain faiths.

You use the example of Christian prayer in public school, but this is not a law that was made, but a Supreme Court decision. Decades later you have supression of basic religious freedoms because of it. Courts making ludicrous decisions such as telling a teacher they can't have a Bible with them at work to read during their break, telling students who are all interested and willing that they can't meet after school for a Bible club, or censoring the speeches of Validictorians at graduation. Granted, since the taxpayers are unfortunately funding these schools, the taxpayers should have a say in what goes on, but even if you apply that standard, most taxpayers do not support censorship of religious expression in public schools.

When you have vaugue edicts from the federal government, people at the local level will try to further define them to suit their own agenda and desires, and that is what is happening. The more federal control of minor personal matters the more freedom is restricted. The common expression "let's not make a federal case out of this" really applies here. Nobody who signed the Constitution of Bill of Rights could have ever imagined these principles being distorted in the way they are today. The position that you support is the total reverse of the original Constitutional intent. A teacher having a Bible in the room or someone referencing Scripture is not serious cohersion, nor is a valedictoian mentioning God at commencement. Even if it were an aggressive religious speech, if you don't believe it yourself, what does it hurt you? Why would you be closed to hearing other things...even if you have decided that religion is idiotic and you will never believe it. I would never dream in a million years of using the federal government, of all things, to suppress the expression of the numerous idiotic opinions that piss me off. You deal with it, that's life in a free country. Seriously... I ask you to think about this long and hard!

In said free country the communities involved should be able to set their own standards. If anything, the federal government ought to be protecting the Christians who's free expression is being surpressed while expressions of Islam and other faiths are being encouraged (and actually on list of "accepted expression" in schools who have ludicrously banned the term "Christmas")... that would be more in line with the intent of the amendment, but frankly I would still rather the government stay out of it.

No, we are very far off on this one. I would ask you to at least consider revisiting this one, though. The Constitution is not a tool to be used to suppress beliefs one is afraid of hearing or does not want to hear. People of any faith have a right to express that faith in a reasonable manner, just as others have equal right to reject it. There is no "right to not be offended or uncomfortable" in the US Constitution and definitely no exclusionary passages for views that can be ascribed as "religious" in nature when it comes to lawmaking. This is absolutely a contemporary and invented concept that is anti-freedom at it's core.