Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Major Nikon

(36,925 posts)

7. It's also true that people who work for the government can wear religious symbols while on duty

Reply to cali (Reply #1)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 10:24 AM

Apr 2015

They can also display religious symbols in their government provided work areas.

So individual public displays and imaginary friend conversations pertaining to individual religious affiliations are allowed and will never be separate. However, the government can't endorse any particular religion, force anyone to participate, or require any sort of religious tests for office, nor can they discriminate against anyone on the basis of religion.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

27 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

You can Believe our Founding Fathers, or you can Believe the Teapublicans [View all] riqster Apr 2015 OP

Alas, church and state have never been truly separate cali Apr 2015 #1

Not so much a myth as a regrettable series of unconstitutional actions. riqster Apr 2015 #2

Well, the SCOTUS is the arbiter of what is constitutional, so cali Apr 2015 #3

And the Dred Scott decision? Constitutional? riqster Apr 2015 #4

Sure- until it wasn't. But seriously cali Apr 2015 #5

OK, so we just accept the Repub theocracy as a given? riqster Apr 2015 #13

that isn't even close to what I'm pointing out. You have a tendency to simplify things cali Apr 2015 #20

It's also true that people who work for the government can wear religious symbols while on duty Major Nikon Apr 2015 #7

All true. riqster Apr 2015 #16

I have always read the separation to mean that the government cannot set up a government jwirr Apr 2015 #17

That's exactly how I interpret it too justiceischeap Apr 2015 #18

Yes. jwirr Apr 2015 #19

Including my immigrant ancestors. riqster Apr 2015 #22

I think they have hootinholler Apr 2015 #21

Yep. It has been an ongoing travesty. riqster Apr 2015 #23

Let's not pretend the Supreme Court is anything but a political arm of the Republican party world wide wally Apr 2015 #6

that's a rather wide net. And no, not every Justice and not every decision. cali Apr 2015 #8

My opinion would differ greatly if there were five liberal Justices world wide wally Apr 2015 #10

that makes no sense. cali Apr 2015 #12

And then it would merely be political arm of the Democratic party, yes...? LanternWaste Apr 2015 #26

Hardly world wide wally Apr 2015 #27

Who are frequently outvoted by the Roberts Five. riqster Apr 2015 #24

Which is why we need to GOTFV. De-elect a lot of Repubs. riqster Apr 2015 #25

The fact that Adams and Jefferson agreed on the subject speaks volumes. iandhr Apr 2015 #9

Very good point. riqster Apr 2015 #14

... napkinz Apr 2015 #11

Good finds. riqster Apr 2015 #15