Could we have a little help that, God?

fathers were not 'religious'. They left Europe and England to get away from religious zealots. Sad that we seem to have to relearn that again. I cringe when I see Pence and his lot praying with the dumpster in the Oval Office...now that is sacrilegious.

The rest were either irreligious or unaffiliated.

Organized religion may or may have not been invented to increase political power, but it certainly was useful toward that end. For pretty much all of recorded history religion and government were synonymous. The Age of Enlightenment was a relatively modern event. The marriage of religion and government made both stronger, just to the detriment of the masses.

'to the detriment of the masses'

People.

The idea that power should originate with the people was literally a revolutionary concept. Before that power was divinely endowed. When the only entity you have to answer to conveniently agrees with you all the time, life becomes much easier.

Power wielded on false pretenses works out well until the peasants revolt.

In the late 1300's and moving forward there were quite a few examples of power wielded by those who claimed the grace of god that ended with the brutal murder of the wielder and their families.

In fact, the revolutionary nature of non-religious government is less about the emergence of secular morality or the concept of human rights and more about evolution. Societies that eschewed religious government proved themselves to be more effective and powerful economically.

Weird how religious hierarchy often mirrors the Mafia. Payoffs, skimming, tithes, bribes, fawning for power, murder of challengers -- it's the same old primate tribal routines wearing two different masks.

People typically rioted because they were starving, or because they didn’t want to assimilate under a different sky daddy. The biggest reason why things started to change is easier travel allowed for a better exchange of ideas. When the message is harder to control, the cat comes out of the bag.

I think there should be some limits on religious worship. I don't believe that animal sacrifice is acceptable in our society. Certainly not human sacrifice. (I'm not suggesting you condone these things).

I think it is proper to intervene when parents do not consent to lifesaving treatment for their children because of their absolute albeit absurd belief in the power of prayer.

I agree with you about church involvement in government. No need for it. It would harm our government as well as the church.

Just adding my two cents.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

and the people are part of a religious sect, then there's no way to stop it apart from saying, "I don't care if you do have a supermajority, your values and morality will not be implemented."

Of course, non-church-based values and moralities would be fully implementable.

The result is to say that if you're in a church, you're less of a citizen than those not in a church.

The rights pertain to the people and, in the view of the founders, are not granted by government but instead government is there to secure the rights. The rights do not belong to the government per se.

Do you want the king running your church?
.
http://assets.amuniversal.com/6b3ddda05d46012ee3bd00163e41dd5b