politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I'm European, but I think this goes against the First Amendment of the American Constitution:
It super is. They don't care
Everyone is well aware, but they are throwing spaghetti at the wall, hoping they can get something before the Supreme Court, which is controlled by people capable of shamelessly rationalizing any possible partisan decision, regardless of what the Constitution says.
Yes but our Supreme Court also goes against the Constitution, so it's a toss-up if this is legal or not.
i did no see them obey their constitution yet. did they start to do so recently?
Not sure if that's sarcasm, but I'll explain regardless:
This part means that the government is not allowed to favor one religion above the others. A state releasing a mandate would fall under this. A mandate is "an authoritative command or instruction".
its partly sarcasm, but i have only seen one group of such poorly administrated countries that i've heared their president announcing a "war between good and evil" which IS by itself a religious thing and that following "commanded" war WAS against unwanted religions (called the axis of evil) and as i now learn again(!) also very specifically against that so called constitution. Was that religious action against religions prosecuted? Where surviving victims payed compensation? i guess not. So my question stays a true question, did they recently started to follow their constitution?
That specific war was acompanied with the very same types of lies that they always use to make it look like killing and destroying would actually be for something good but always is only for political power, exploiting other nations, getting oil and other resources for free or hellish cheap or to humilitate other religions, cultures, nations. Has there been a war they fought that was "not" also for oil in the first place? i remember that one guy answered this positive with the name of a war, then after looking into details that war also was about oil. No i do not believe all the other lies around reasons for that specific war either.
I cant say that i ever saw the US stand for freedom of religion. But i saw them fight a fking religious war. And i see that Mnt Rushmore IS a fking Monument for all to remember that they always until today gave a shit on their "freedom of religion" laws - they also highly disrespect properties of others if they just want to have it or want to harm someone by taking it away. But i personally believe that the rushmore monument was only build to harm the Religion of the locals who are also the lawful owners of that mountain until today. And that at least since building of mnt rushmore there had not been a single day, not a single hour or minute when the US acted like they would really care "freedom of religion" or care to not(!) intentionally harm religions they might dislike for whatever reason, the opposite is the case, they do harm them and do so for religious reasons and it looks more than "only intentional" to me, more like real madness. (i am not talking about the people, but only about who the people allowed to call themselves the leaders of the people - btw, have you recently had a president elected by the majority of people, or was it the opposite really? well different story there but similar broken like nearly everything you hear about the US...) And mnt rushmore is only one obvious and daily public showcase example of actively disrespecting religions and lawful ownership - at least if these owners happen to be a religious group they "proactively disrespect" of course. Did you read that story where recently a gov official named a sacred event of natives to be "the" event or cause of drug trafficking from other countries or such? obviously wrong and directly against a specific religion. was that prosecuted? didn't hear about that "follow the constitution" part of that story, guess that part just does not exist and never will...
Is that what that "glorious" constitution is about? "disallowing" laws or orders against other religions while at the same time allowing to just kill others for religious purposes and just ignoring ownership laws just bcs its a religion they want to harm or just humilitating them at will?
Now ask any in the US to tell me Mnt Rushmore would be a great monument of the Fathers/Founders of the Nation or such and so on, without sounding fanatically religous while as a nation doing literally the same with mnt rushmore for so many ages now what he'ld say some other nation on the other side of the world would not be allowed to do right now bcs that is such a bad thing and his great nation would be so much "the good one" bcs it is fighting against such evil bastards who are taking land by force which is not their rightful own? How would that anybody tell me that without sounding fanatically religious and insane at the same time? now i see this as a rethoric question and do neither expect one nor really want to read or hear such attempts...
but how should one react to such a nation if not with sarcasm when they act like such shit? do ya believe when they tell you your nation wouldn't be such bastards while you visit such a monument of 'disrespecting religion and commanding other property to be destroyed for humulitation'? i'ld feel ashamed that such a nonument even happened to exist in the first place.
now again, did they give mnt rushmore back to the lawful owners, thus stopping a governmental "command" against a religion? if so, i guess i'ld have heared about it in the news already, maybe with different headlines, but that would be a show, the us finally sticking to their own laws after centuries !! no, i do not see any such constitution in real effect over there, not today and not during the past centuries as far as i can tell of what i know, read or have heard. And repeating lies does not make them real, it just makes all who do so look stupid in the long run.
one cannot 'have' or 'own' code of ethics, one can live it or not. there is no 'having' morality without really living it. one does not "have" a constitution if that constitution is not lived all the way. maybe imagine a bank robber who'se very own code of ethics forbid robbing banks but he did so anyway and says some lies as excuse which only pass "gramatic" tests on it to show ar least any "correctness" but all other tests not? and due to his lies and his code of ethics he would not be charged to give back the money he robbed but can live free and enjoy the money gain because he pinned some code-of-ethics on his fridge... only sometimes acting like something is mostly only faking it.
remember: "not" cheating only while your wife is around, still is cheating ALL the time. Same with constitutions.