The reason people speak on it is because it's slowly starting to hold the government back on certain subjects in the US. Like, abortion or gay marriage. Religious people will sit there and say my bible specifically says this is not allowed, but when they are asked other things they should be doing as per their bible, they say things like you. "Jesus died for my sins". "I'm not perfect." It's all they can say because they don't want to believe themselves to be hypocrites about their own religion.
It's actually been the insanity of the left that has provoked most of it.
Track back the personal connections of the people involved even in the abortion bombings. John Burt is a common name that crops up - a former Marine and a prior member of the KKK. These are people with a history of radical agendas and affiliation with very liberal organizations (the KKK is politically liberal contrary to popular belief - the only "right" concept they have is Nationalism - which they subscribe to the concept of a Nation of Men; which means that nations are ethnic in nature and that the laws of a nation should serve the interests of the race who comprises it).
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Anyway - after creating much of the abortion issue years ago and it having been solved, it has now been stirred up again by using the government to fund abortion clinics. Like most things funded by the government - these people will abort goats if the government will pay them (just like clinics that accept medicare will dialyze a jar of peanut butter if the government will accept the paperwork and pay them). Because of this - you get scenarios where Planned Parenthood enables child *** slavery by performing abortions for the slaves and not reporting the incident to the police even when the situation is made blatantly clear to them.
Which, obviously, is going to piss any sensible human being off.
The healthcare requirements that mandate coverage for abortions (even for 50 year old women and 20 year old men) are also irritating from a number of standpoints. This compounds with the charge to try and make abortion a legally guaranteed right simply provokes a response from Christians.
That's why we have separation of church and state. So things like that won't happen. Our presidential candidates should not have to speak on their personal beliefs like gay marriage or abortion. However it makes for two of the most important talking points to some citizens. In the bible belt, religious people will likely not vote for Hillary because she is a pro-gay and pro-choice. However they will vote for someone like Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney... These days our politicians have to speak on their religious beliefs otherwise they wouldn't even be thought of.
Hillary is just a vile human being. She's flip-flopped on her abortion and gay rights stance so many times that no one really takes her seriously. She's hateful and condescending toward her staff as well as reporters. She's guilty of perjury in the least and should be serving a life sentence behind bars for her actions while in the State Department. Quite literally no one wants to talk to her on the campaign trail. The 'impromptu meetings' she had were scheduled events staged by democratic party staff (most of whom didn't know what their meeting was about until moments before - THAT is how toxic the woman is).
Of course - she isn't spending time behind bars - because the Democrats are actually running candidates like Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney. Most of the GOP is actually the Democrat party, and the voting public has caught on.
The problem with "separation of Church and State" is that no one really understands what it means, anymore. The idea that it was meant to somehow keep any kind of religious sentiment out of law is just not what was actually going on:
You must be registered for see links
"The phrase “separation of church and state” was initially coined by Baptists striving for religious toleration in Virginia, whose official state religion was then Anglican (Episcopalian). Baptists thought government limitations against religion illegitimate. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson championed their cause.
The preamble in Act Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia (1786), affirms that “the Author of our Religion gave us our ‘free will.’” And that He “chose not to propagate it by coercions.” This legislation certainly did not diminish religious influence on government for it also provided stiff penalties for conducting business on the Sabbath.
Nor did the Constitution inhibit public displays of faith. At ratification, a majority of the thirteen several and sovereign states maintained official religions. The early Republic welcomed public worship. Church services were held in the U.S. Capitol and Treasury buildings every Sunday. The imagery in many federal buildings remains unmistakably biblical.
...
The phrase “separation between church and state” was reintroduced by former Klansman Hugo Black, historically one of our most liberal Supreme Court judges. In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black invoked Thomas Jefferson stating, “The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ . . . that wall must be kept high and impregnable.”
Thomas Jefferson thought differently. The Danbury Baptists wrote to him congratulating his election and objecting to the First Amendment. They thought it implied government dispensed what was not government’s to give. Jefferson agreed.
His reply clearly applied “Separation of Church and State” to the establishment and not to the free exercise of religion. As he expressed, what communities did and how they worshipped were not federal affairs. Jefferson later said the central government was “interdicted from intermeddling with religious institutions.” Such were state matters.
Freedom of religion was partly moral – protecting our most cherished liberty – and partly pragmatic. Religious animosity tears society asunder, particularly when church is affixed to government. With freedom of conscience assured, conflict becomes less likely. The First Amendment was an insightful compromise between church and state, federal and local authorities. The framers desired to avoid the controversies which engulfed Europe.
As James Madison warned in Federalist 10, “The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; . . . A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, . . . ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power . . . divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good.”
Thus the Constitution decreed that Washington had no occasion or authority to interject itself into matters as obviously local as doctrines of faith. Congress was not empowered to establish a church because the framers feared that concentrated power, whether favored religions, standing armies, banking monopolies, or an overarching federal government, invited tyranny. "
Separation of Church and State was not to prevent laws from being written that have a basis in religious morality. It was to prevent the establishment of favored religions and tyrannical systems of central control.
All of the problems we see running rampant in our society, now, are a direct result of our nation not abiding by the Constitution. We followed the liberal interpretation into nations of men and now we are poised to kill each other into our separate sections of the continent - just like Europe.
European politics begets European outcomes.
When has he done that? Lol.
Maher is a sort of box of chocolates - you truly never know what you're going to get.
Maher is an intellectual person and does what intellectuals most often do - comment on the errors of others. Sometimes, Maher is dead on the money. Other times, he's in the ball park. And, sometimes, he's lecturing a mirror.
What makes Maher tolerable is the fact that he will actually consider data if it is presented to him and/or review his stance if reality seems to be contradicting his expectations.
