They may not be legally allowed to implement religion in the government yet every day there are serious attempts to do so. Often they get away with it.

@DavidLaDeau. Oh no, they are legally allowed to implement sone aspects of their religion into the government, just not all aspects of their religion.

@JFishburnVelazq That is the problem. In addition they try to impliment things that are not legal.

@DavidLaDeau
No, they're allowed to implement some, not the entire religion itself because that would mean harming people of other religions which the Government is not allowed to do. Laws that have some religious aspects to it can get pass, like anti-abortion laws, but laws like stoning someone who doesn't believe in a particular religion is not allowed to get passed.

"In God we trust" and "One nation under God" does not outwardly favor Christianity but it does exclude Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheist/agnostic, and to a certain extent Islam in that God is not their name for him. Not to mention Vikings or Pastafarians

@273kelvin Good point. I can see that Buddhism is given short shrift. It would be hard for them to say the pledge of allegiance with sincerity. Seems to me they have grounds for a lawsuit. And of course atheists are in the same boat. If you can get it changed I won’t object.

I’m not sold on the others because “God” has an equivalent translation in their languages. You wouldn’t expect a Frenchman to object by saying it should be “Dieu”.

@WilliamFleming In which Hindu God would trust? Not to mention Scientologists etc. Admittedly "God" is quite all-encompassing but only for monastic religions.

@273kelvin Brahma, that contains all the other gods and the entire cosmos.

So far as Scientologists, they can kiss my ass. I don’t know anything about these Vikings but I suppose they must worship Woden if they are true to the name.

@273kelvin One must distinguish the Constitution from the legislation passed in the state houses of 50 individual and separate governments, as well as that of the Nation. Motivated by a surge of anti-Communist fear, and supported by many religious organizations, "In god we trust" was added to our paper currency, as well as the term "Under God" inserted into the pledge of allegiance in the 1950s. State capitals have passed even more religoiusly motivated bills. As of this moment, our Constitution does not reference or acknowledge a deity--in other words, it is officially agnostic.

@p-nullifidian The UK is different as in we have them inside the tent... They have a few guaranteed seats in the lords which are mich weaker than your senate. So they get their say but no power.
The recent time they brought something up was in response to the current crisis in Ethiopia "As a bishop, I feel that it is incumbent upon me to raise the subject of locust plagues"

@273kelvin Having lived in Europe for several years, I recognize the distinctions. However, as an anti-monarchist, I am revolted by the concept of a 'sovereign' who is both head of the state, as well as the Church of England. And yet, one must ask, which circumstance is to be preferred: a nation with a consititutionally mandated indifference toward religion or a deity, yet filled with zealous religious organizations and leaders who wield great political power, versus a nation with embedded religious institutions and leaders who appear to have been neutered, politically?

@p-nullifidian You have the 2nd amendment to protect you from an elected dictatorship. The monarchy fulfills the same function here. No ayatollah can usurp the church, no general can organize a coup as they all swear allegiance to the queen.
The odd one was Bulgaria. After the fall of the USSR and their satellites. The king came back from exile and stood as president on the condition that he abdicated all rights to the throne and would only serve one term in order to help with the transition. He got elected and I asked a Bulgain guy I worked with what he was like? "Well, he was okay at 1st but then he sent too long playing playboy with King Juan Carlos in Spain. That said he was a lot better than the corrupt bastards we have had since"

Christianity close behind.

@jlynn37 True, but only because of the votes.

@Sticks48 In my opinion, by the ignorance and gullibility of the population.

@jlynn37 50% of the country have an IQ in double digits. What do you expect?

Yes but Scientology have found to their cost waving the freedom of religion card in court only works if you a 10 million plus registered voters backing up your claims.

@LenHazell53 whatever, as you say it is Yes, no buts apply though, all religions enjoy freedom of religion, all of them.

@Mofo1953 Legally yes, but in practice no, for example witchcraft was only accepted as a religion in the USA in 1973 because of religious pressure, The Satanic Temple fought for the legal and Tax exempt status and was recognised as a religion in 2013, the much older Church of Satan has never sought that status but gained it when the Temple did by association.
Scientology has only been recognised as a religion in the USA since 1993 (2013 in the UK) and there has been an ongoing campaign to revoke that status ever since owing to their blatantly criminal activities such as operation snow white.
Indigenous American religions were not recognised as such until 1978 and some up to the 1960s where outrightly banned.
The Unification Church (Moonies) though technically recognised as a church has none of the benefits of such and has been continually prosecuted for tax evasion since 1982 by both the state of New York and the federal treasury.

So as Orwell might have put it All religions are equal, but some are more equal than others.

@LenHazell53 i don't want to go on with this crap ad infinitum, legally yes period. No more comments from my side.