> Religion has nothing to do with it, besides indicating a familiarity with US politics being mistaken as understanding.

It was just another example how US blurs things that should be separated. In most European countries this would be a big NO for government to express a certain religion. You have it literally printed on your money.

Reddit block quotes don’t work on HN, try asterisks.

This once again has very little to do with the situation at hand though I’m afraid, if you’d like more information as to why a president can seemingly tell a specific corporation what to do on a whim, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investmen...

I think it's reasonable to say that the modern trend of expansive executive power going unchecked is comparable to the mixing of religion in American politics.

In both instances they're the result of the Constitution being so old and sacrosanct that you can no longer amend it in a meaningful way. You simply change the norms, stack the courts, and you've knocked out the leg of the stool that was supposed to uphold these ideals. A modern president moving around money allocated by Congress flies in the face of the Constitution. Same with an immigration ban based on religion. But the game has changed to "us v them", and if you get enough of your team in the judiciary they'll sign off whatever you want.

That’s an interesting take and far more reasonable than pointing to words on currency and the concept of a pardon, it goes down especially well with the “American Religion” inherent in the near worship of the founding fathers and biblical constitution too!