charlie kirk's murder - How much do you care?

[kalm]

I miss old kalm. It's sad to see what you've become my friend.

Liar. We just talked last night.

[GOD]

Liar. We just talked last night.

I know, and I carry your burdens if you remember Galatians 6:2

[kalm]

Liar. We just talked last night.

I know, and I carry your burdens if you remember Galatians 6:2

Here we come to a turning of the season
Witness to the arc towards the sun
The neighbor's blessed burden within reason
Becomes a burden borne of all in one

And nobody, nobody knows

Let the yoke fall from our shoulders
Don't carry it all, don't carry it all
We are all our hands in holders
Beneath this bold and brilliant sun
But this I swear to all

[Baldy]

I miss old kalm. It's sad to see what you've become my friend.

Why is kalm "wrong" on this one? I am saddened by kirk's murder and I feel for his wife and kids. I also disagree with much of what he believed and think it's dishonest to "canonize" him without recognizing his more extreme positions. What more extreme positions? The separation of church and state, that a woman should submit to a man (my personal opinion is that kirk's position that a woman should submit to her husband is just as unhinged and extremist as letting trans athletes compete in women's sports).

I raised my daughter to be a strong, independent woman. I want her to find a husband who loves and respects her for who she is. Someone who can be her equal partner, not her superior.

Kirk said he believes women should submit to their husbands only under very specific conditions.



He disagreed with the idea of church and state on moral grounds.



Kirk was a moderate and his ideas are about as mainstream as you can get. It's the wackadoodles who are painting him as some sort of far right Christian nationalist extremist.

[BDKJMU]

Other than the idea that Kirk never supported political violence as a way to suppress someone else's speech.

Houndy was referring to gun deaths not political violence ...

"I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
- charlie kirk

If Kirk supported everything (short of banning all guns) that the Left has called for:
-Closing the so called ‘Gun show loophole’
-Red flag laws
-Ban on modern sporting rifles (what the left likes to call ‘assault weapons’
-Ban on so called high capacity magazines
-Even the more extreme ban on hand guns, CCW, etc
It wouldn’t had made one iota of difference. The assassin used a bolt action rifle that was his granddaddy’s. That’s literally the last thing that would be banned short of muzzleloaders and maybe single shot shotguns. And no background check is going to keep someone from granddad’s old bolt action rifle.

[UNI88]

Why is kalm "wrong" on this one? I am saddened by kirk's murder and I feel for his wife and kids. I also disagree with much of what he believed and think it's dishonest to "canonize" him without recognizing his more extreme positions. What more extreme positions? The separation of church and state, that a woman should submit to a man (my personal opinion is that kirk's position that a woman should submit to her husband is just as unhinged and extremist as letting trans athletes compete in women's sports).

I raised my daughter to be a strong, independent woman. I want her to find a husband who loves and respects her for who she is. Someone who can be her equal partner, not her superior.

Kirk said he believes women should submit to their husbands only under very specific conditions.



He disagreed with the idea of church and state on moral grounds.



Kirk was a moderate and his ideas are about as mainstream as you can get. It's the wackadoodles who are painting him as some sort of far right Christian nationalist extremist.

Specific conditions? That wife should submit to the husband only if the husband submits to Christ? Has Travis Kelce submitted to Christ?

“Engage in reality more … Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.”

He (and others) are entitled to that opinion. They are not entitled to try and force that opinion on those that disagree with them. Attempting to do so is a right wing version of woke.

Can religious upbringing inform and influence our morality? Yes. Is it the only thing that can? No. There are plenty of moral atheists and plenty of immoral Christians. The irony of being lectured about Christianity and morality by someone who supports a President who has has 5 children with 3 different wives; cheated on those wives with a future wife, a porn star, a Playboy model and others; been accused of rape/sexual assault by 26+ women; been found guilty of sexually abusing and defaming a woman; been taken to court for failing to honor his financial obligations, etc. is beyond rich.

In 2018, Kirk said “We do have a separation of church and state, and we should support that.” In 2022 he said “There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication. It’s a fiction. It’s not in the Constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.”

Sorry charlie but “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is clear. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists, not Christians, and the US is not and has never been a Christian nation.

charlie kirk was well read, well spoken and very good at spinning his positions to make them acceptable but saying that women should be subservient to men is not a moderate position.

[kalm]

Kirk said he believes women should submit to their husbands only under very specific conditions.



He disagreed with the idea of church and state on moral grounds.



Kirk was a moderate and his ideas are about as mainstream as you can get. It's the wackadoodles who are painting him as some sort of far right Christian nationalist extremist.

Specific conditions? That wife should submit to the husband only if the husband submits to Christ? Has Travis Kelce submitted to Christ?

“Engage in reality more … Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.”

He (and others) are entitled to that opinion. They are not entitled to try and force that opinion on those that disagree with them. Attempting to do so is a right wing version of woke.

Can religious upbringing inform and influence our morality? Yes. Is it the only thing that can? No. There are plenty of moral atheists and plenty of immoral Christians. The irony of being lectured about Christianity and morality by someone who supports a President who has has 5 children with 3 different wives; cheated on those wives with a future wife, a porn star, a Playboy model and others; been accused of rape/sexual assault by 26+ women; been found guilty of sexually abusing and defaming a woman; been taken to court for failing to honor his financial obligations, etc. is beyond rich.

In 2018, Kirk said “We do have a separation of church and state, and we should support that.” In 2022 he said “There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication. It’s a fiction. It’s not in the Constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.”

Sorry charlie but “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is clear. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists, not Christians, and the US is not and has never been a Christian nation.

charlie kirk was well read, well spoken and very good at spinning his positions to make them acceptable but he was not a moderate.

This is a hell of a read that’s adjacent to this discussion.

In 1980, Gertrud Scholtz-Klink, an unrepentant former leader of the Nazi women’s bureau in Berlin from 1934 to 1945, described her former job to historian Claudia Koonz as “influencing women in their daily lives”.

To her audience – approximately 4 million girls in the Nazi youth movement, 8 million women in Nazi associations under her jurisdiction, and 1.9 million subscribers to her women’s magazine, Frauen Warte, according to Koonz – Scholtz-Klink promoted what she called “the cradle and the ladle”, or reproductive and household duties as essential to national strength.

“There was a whole array of women’s magazines that glorified housewives” in Nazi Germany, says Koonz, a professor emerita of history at Duke University. “It would be the equivalent of social media today.” Frauen Warte contained nothing too political – just broadly appealing lifestyle content about keeping a clean and well-provisioned home while raising a healthy family, with occasional debates about how much makeup one should wear. A barefaced look was preferred – much like the “clean girl” trend of today. “In a censored society everyone needs debates about harmless topics,” says Koonz.

In 1980, Gertrud Scholtz-Klink, an unrepentant former leader of the Nazi women’s bureau in Berlin from 1934 to 1945, described her former job to historian Claudia Koonz as “influencing women in their daily lives”.

To her audience – approximately 4 million girls in the Nazi youth movement, 8 million women in Nazi associations under her jurisdiction, and 1.9 million subscribers to her women’s magazine, Frauen Warte, according to Koonz – Scholtz-Klink promoted what she called “the cradle and the ladle”, or reproductive and household duties as essential to national strength.

“There was a whole array of women’s magazines that glorified housewives” in Nazi Germany, says Koonz, a professor emerita of history at Duke University. “It would be the equivalent of social media today.” Frauen Warte contained nothing too political – just broadly appealing lifestyle content about keeping a clean and well-provisioned home while raising a healthy family, with occasional debates about how much makeup one should wear. A barefaced look was preferred – much like the “clean girl” trend of today. “In a censored society everyone needs debates about harmless topics,” says Koonz….

As authoritarian regimes rise, they often rely on a women’s movement to keep society stable and operational on a household level, framing regressive policies in more approachable and alluring terms. This is especially true for fascist regimes, which rely on mass participation to advance their extreme nationalist agendas. Today, that role is being taken up by the digital “womanosphere”, also called the femosphere.

A counterpart to the “manosphere”, an influential online sphere redolent with misogyny, the womanosphere is an informal web of online creators who rally around normative femininity. Its idea of womanhood is informed by anti-queerness, white supremacy, fundamentalist Christianity and traditional maternalism. It also maps on to the extreme, discriminatory agenda of Project 2025, which aims to roll back historical victories of the women’s movement such as workplace equality, education and healthcare.

These values are platformed by conservative millennial and gen Z content creators including Alex Clark, host of the Maha wellness podcast Culture Apothecary; “professional yapper” Brett Cooper; YouTuber Isabel Brown; conservative provocateur Candace Owens; anti-transgender activist and podcast host Riley Gaines; Christian influencer Allie Beth Stuckey; and publications such as the “conservative Cosmo”, Evie magazine. Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk’s conservative student group, held a yearly women’s summit where marriage, procreation and homemaking were key topics.

//www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interact ... SApp_Other

[UNI88]

Why is mocking biden and his cancer okay but mocking charlie kirk's murder not?

[BDKJMU]

Specific conditions? That wife should submit to the husband only if the husband submits to Christ? Has Travis Kelce submitted to Christ?

“Engage in reality more … Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.”

He (and others) are entitled to that opinion. They are not entitled to try and force that opinion on those that disagree with them. Attempting to do so is a right wing version of woke.

Can religious upbringing inform and influence our morality? Yes. Is it the only thing that can? No. There are plenty of moral atheists and plenty of immoral Christians. The irony of being lectured about Christianity and morality by someone who supports a President who has has 5 children with 3 different wives; cheated on those wives with a future wife, a porn star, a Playboy model and others; been accused of rape/sexual assault by 26+ women; been found guilty of sexually abusing and defaming a woman; been taken to court for failing to honor his financial obligations, etc. is beyond rich.

In 2018, Kirk said “We do have a separation of church and state, and we should support that.” In 2022 he said “There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication. It’s a fiction. It’s not in the Constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.”

Sorry charlie but “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is clear. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists, not Christians, and the US is not and has never been a Christian nation.

charlie kirk was well read, well spoken and very good at spinning his positions to make them acceptable but he was not a moderate.

This is a hell of a read that’s adjacent to this discussion.

In 1980, Gertrud Scholtz-Klink, an unrepentant former leader of the Nazi women’s bureau in Berlin from 1934 to 1945, described her former job to historian Claudia Koonz as “influencing women in their daily lives”.

To her audience – approximately 4 million girls in the Nazi youth movement, 8 million women in Nazi associations under her jurisdiction, and 1.9 million subscribers to her women’s magazine, Frauen Warte, according to Koonz – Scholtz-Klink promoted what she called “the cradle and the ladle”, or reproductive and household duties as essential to national strength.

“There was a whole array of women’s magazines that glorified housewives” in Nazi Germany, says Koonz, a professor emerita of history at Duke University. “It would be the equivalent of social media today.” Frauen Warte contained nothing too political – just broadly appealing lifestyle content about keeping a clean and well-provisioned home while raising a healthy family, with occasional debates about how much makeup one should wear. A barefaced look was preferred – much like the “clean girl” trend of today. “In a censored society everyone needs debates about harmless topics,” says Koonz.

In 1980, Gertrud Scholtz-Klink, an unrepentant former leader of the Nazi women’s bureau in Berlin from 1934 to 1945, described her former job to historian Claudia Koonz as “influencing women in their daily lives”.

To her audience – approximately 4 million girls in the Nazi youth movement, 8 million women in Nazi associations under her jurisdiction, and 1.9 million subscribers to her women’s magazine, Frauen Warte, according to Koonz – Scholtz-Klink promoted what she called “the cradle and the ladle”, or reproductive and household duties as essential to national strength.

“There was a whole array of women’s magazines that glorified housewives” in Nazi Germany, says Koonz, a professor emerita of history at Duke University. “It would be the equivalent of social media today.” Frauen Warte contained nothing too political – just broadly appealing lifestyle content about keeping a clean and well-provisioned home while raising a healthy family, with occasional debates about how much makeup one should wear. A barefaced look was preferred – much like the “clean girl” trend of today. “In a censored society everyone needs debates about harmless topics,” says Koonz….

As authoritarian regimes rise, they often rely on a women’s movement to keep society stable and operational on a household level, framing regressive policies in more approachable and alluring terms. This is especially true for fascist regimes, which rely on mass participation to advance their extreme nationalist agendas. Today, that role is being taken up by the digital “womanosphere”, also called the femosphere.

A counterpart to the “manosphere”, an influential online sphere redolent with misogyny, the womanosphere is an informal web of online creators who rally around normative femininity. Its idea of womanhood is informed by anti-queerness, white supremacy, fundamentalist Christianity and traditional maternalism. It also maps on to the extreme, discriminatory agenda of Project 2025, which aims to roll back historical victories of the women’s movement such as workplace equality, education and healthcare.

These values are platformed by conservative millennial and gen Z content creators including Alex Clark, host of the Maha wellness podcast Culture Apothecary; “professional yapper” Brett Cooper; YouTuber Isabel Brown; conservative provocateur Candace Owens; anti-transgender activist and podcast host Riley Gaines; Christian influencer Allie Beth Stuckey; and publications such as the “conservative Cosmo”, Evie magazine. Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk’s conservative student group, held a yearly women’s summit where marriage, procreation and homemaking were key topics.

//www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interact ... SApp_Other

Lol it’s obvious a leftist wrote this. Riley Gaines isn‘t anti-transgender activist. She‘s anti men playing women‘s sports activist.

[BDKJMU]

Why is mocking biden and his cancer okay but mocking charlie kirk's murder not?

Biden has a history of lying about himself, lying about Trump (very fine people hoax, suckers and losers hoax) and despicable lies about other people.

Biden lied about his wife and daughter being killed by a drunk driver and publicly smeared an innocent man to his death.

Continuously lied about how his son dying in Iraq.

Checking his watch at Dover.

Biden went on national TV and lied about Border Patrol agents whipping migrants and threatened them (‘they will pay, there will be consequences‘).

He talked about how he wanted Trump to be locked up.

Biden and Trump really do hate each other.

Shouldn‘t mock Biden’s cancer, but he really is an SOB.

[BDKJMU]

…Vice President JD Vance credited Kirk, in part, for his current role in the Trump administration and vowed to support the TPUSA movement.

"You ran a good race, my friend, I love you," Vance said. "We've got it from here."…

….Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard were among some of Trump's Cabinet that spoke at the memorial service.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, Deputy Director of the FBI Dan Bongino, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin and Kelly Loeffler, head of the Small Business Administration, also were in attendance.

Additionally, billionaire Tesla and Space X CEO Elon Musk was seen sitting next to Trump during part of the memorial service….

….Christian author Frank Turek recounted witnessing Kirk’s final moments on the way to the hospital after the Sept. 10 shooting at Utah Valley University.

"Charlie’s been like a son to me," he said, noting that he was only a few feet away when Kirk was assassinated.

Turek described running with the security team toward the SUV.

"No father would stand back and go, no, you just take my son. Take him. I’ll meet you at the hospital. I got into the back of the SUV," he said. "Charlie's so tall, we can't close the door," Turek explained, adding that the TPUSA security team drove "all the way to the hospital with the door open."

He said that during the car ride he kept yelling, "Come on, Charlie! Come on! Come on!" He said that he was looking down at Kirk when he realized that the 31-year-old husband and father had died…..

…..Approximately 90,000 people gathered for Kirk's memorial service, TPUSA confirmed to Fox News Digital.

About 70,000 mourners filled State Farm Stadium to capacity, while another 10,000 joined from overflow venues, including Desert Diamond Arena and other nearby viewing points.

The turnout marked one of the largest public memorial services in recent years.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/top-5- ... ce-arizona

[kalm]

This is a hell of a read that’s adjacent to this discussion.


//www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interact ... SApp_Other

Lol it’s obvious a leftist wrote this.

What gave it away? The big words and lack of pictures?

[UNI88]

Why is mocking biden and his cancer okay but mocking charlie kirk's murder not?

Biden has a history of lying about himself, lying about Trump (very fine people hoax, suckers and losers hoax) and despicable lies about other people.

Biden lied about his wife and daughter being killed by a drunk driver and publicly smeared an innocent man to his death.

Continuously lied about how his son dying in Iraq.

Checking his watch at Dover.

Biden went on national TV and lied about Border Patrol agents whipping migrants and threatened them (‘they will pay, there will be consequences‘).

He talked about how he wanted Trump to be locked up.

Biden and Trump really do hate each other.

Shouldn‘t mock Biden’s cancer, but he really is an SOB.

You missed the irony of trump calling biden an SOB because trump is just as much of an SOB as biden.

If people are losing their jobs for mocking kirk's death then people should lose their jobs for mocking biden's cancer, Hoffman's death, etc. What's good for the goose is good for the gander goes both ways.

[GannonFan]

Biden has a history of lying about himself, lying about Trump (very fine people hoax, suckers and losers hoax) and despicable lies about other people.

Biden lied about his wife and daughter being killed by a drunk driver and publicly smeared an innocent man to his death.

Continuously lied about how his son dying in Iraq.

Checking his watch at Dover.

Biden went on national TV and lied about Border Patrol agents whipping migrants and threatened them (‘they will pay, there will be consequences‘).

He talked about how he wanted Trump to be locked up.

Biden and Trump really do hate each other.

Shouldn‘t mock Biden’s cancer, but he really is an SOB.

You missed the irony of trump calling biden an SOB.

If people are losing their jobs for mocking kirk's death then people should lose their jobs for mocking biden's cancer, Hoffman's death, etc. What's good for the goose is good for the gander goes both ways.

Hasn't that been going on for quite some time, i.e. people posting crap on social media, getting called out for it, getting doxed, and then getting fired for it? It literally happens every day, it's like a new normal in this country for the past decade or so. Many times it's politically based, but it can also just be people not agreeing on something non-political and it gets ugly. I don't see social media ever going away, so it's something that will be with us for quite some time.

[Baldy]

Kirk said he believes women should submit to their husbands only under very specific conditions.



He disagreed with the idea of church and state on moral grounds.



Kirk was a moderate and his ideas are about as mainstream as you can get. It's the wackadoodles who are painting him as some sort of far right Christian nationalist extremist.

Specific conditions? That wife should submit to the husband only if the husband submits to Christ? Has Travis Kelce submitted to Christ?

“Engage in reality more … Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.”

He (and others) are entitled to that opinion. They are not entitled to try and force that opinion on those that disagree with them. Attempting to do so is a right wing version of woke.

Can religious upbringing inform and influence our morality? Yes. Is it the only thing that can? No. There are plenty of moral atheists and plenty of immoral Christians. The irony of being lectured about Christianity and morality by someone who supports a President who has has 5 children with 3 different wives; cheated on those wives with a future wife, a porn star, a Playboy model and others; been accused of rape/sexual assault by 26+ women; been found guilty of sexually abusing and defaming a woman; been taken to court for failing to honor his financial obligations, etc. is beyond rich.

In 2018, Kirk said “We do have a separation of church and state, and we should support that.” In 2022 he said “There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication. It’s a fiction. It’s not in the Constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.”

Sorry charlie but “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is clear. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists, not Christians, and the US is not and has never been a Christian nation.

charlie kirk was well read, well spoken and very good at spinning his positions to make them acceptable but saying that women should be subservient to men is not a moderate position.

No. You didn't pay attention. Shocker.

The wife only submits to the husband only if he submits himself to Christ and abides and lives by Christ's teachings. Meaning if the husband takes advantage of it and abuses his wife in any form, he breaks that 'contract'. Besides, it's extremely unlikely that a woman who isn't religious and doesn't believe in that scripture is going to marry a religious man who does. Your poor example of an argument is clearly a non sequitur.
BTW, who said anything about forcing or using the police powers of government to force that way of life on anyone? I know for a fact that Charlie Kirk didn't.

Oh wow, Charlie evolved. How dare he. lol
You cited what is known as the Establishment Clause. It's not called the separation of church and state clause. The Establishment Clause prevents the government from establishing a state religion and it allows its citizens to practice any religion they wish. The founding fathers were all almost exclusively Christian. They obviously weren't bible thumping evangelicals (to use today's terms) because they all came from many different Christian religions, but they wanted our new nations laws to reflect the monotheistic moral code that almost all Christian religions share.

[UNI88]

Specific conditions? That wife should submit to the husband only if the husband submits to Christ? Has Travis Kelce submitted to Christ?

“Engage in reality more … Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.”

He (and others) are entitled to that opinion. They are not entitled to try and force that opinion on those that disagree with them. Attempting to do so is a right wing version of woke.

Can religious upbringing inform and influence our morality? Yes. Is it the only thing that can? No. There are plenty of moral atheists and plenty of immoral Christians. The irony of being lectured about Christianity and morality by someone who supports a President who has has 5 children with 3 different wives; cheated on those wives with a future wife, a porn star, a Playboy model and others; been accused of rape/sexual assault by 26+ women; been found guilty of sexually abusing and defaming a woman; been taken to court for failing to honor his financial obligations, etc. is beyond rich.

In 2018, Kirk said “We do have a separation of church and state, and we should support that.” In 2022 he said “There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication. It’s a fiction. It’s not in the Constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.”

Sorry charlie but “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is clear. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists, not Christians, and the US is not and has never been a Christian nation.

charlie kirk was well read, well spoken and very good at spinning his positions to make them acceptable but saying that women should be subservient to men is not a moderate position.

No. You didn't pay attention. Shocker.

The wife only submits to the husband only if he submits himself to Christ and abides and lives by Christ's teachings. Meaning if the husband takes advantage of it and abuses his wife in any form, he breaks that 'contract'. Besides, it's extremely unlikely that a woman who isn't religious and doesn't believe in that scripture is going to marry a religious man who does. Your poor example of an argument is clearly a non sequitur.
BTW, who said anything about forcing or using the police powers of government to force that way of life on anyone? I know for a fact that Charlie Kirk didn't.

Oh wow, Charlie evolved. How dare he. lol
You cited what is known as the Establishment Clause. It's not called the separation of church and state clause. The Establishment Clause prevents the government from establishing a state religion and it allows its citizens to practice any religion they wish. The founding fathers were all almost exclusively Christian. They obviously weren't bible thumping evangelicals (to use today's terms) because they all came from many different Christian religions, but they wanted our new nations laws to reflect the monotheistic moral code that almost all Christian religions share.

I didn't need to pay attention to the entire spiel, I disagreed with the initial part and didn't need to hear the rest. I don't agree that a wife should submit to her husband under any circumstances and don't think it's a moderate position. IMO, a husband and wife should be an equal partnership where they love and respect each other. And don't tell me that's what the Bible says. The Bible says a lot of things that we don't exactly follow. Do we chastise Christians for charging interest on money that they lend?

The Founding Fathers that were deists or leaned toward deism were some of the giants (Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, George Washington and James Madison and John Adams was a Unitarian) who played the significant roles in the founding of this great republic.

Yes, Christian principles were part of the foundation of the country but the US is not and has never been a Christian nation. The Establishment Clause is clear that the government will not establish a religion or prohibit people from worshipping or not worshipping whatever religion or non-religion they choose. How should that not be interpreted as the government should keep it's nose out of people's religious decisions (i.e separation of church & state)?