this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
1393 points (97.6% liked)
Malicious Compliance
18048 readers
2 users here now
People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.
======
-
We ENCOURAGE posts about events that happened to you, or someone you know.
-
We ACCEPT (for now) reposts of good malicious compliance stories (from other platforms) which did not happen to you or someone you knew. Please use a [REPOST] tag in such situations.
-
We DO NOT ALLOW fiction, or posts that break site-wide rules.
======
Also check out the following communities:
!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Doesn't that go against separation of church and state, and if this is government pushed, isn't this a first amendment violation?
The way it was worded basically said that it had to be the national motto, thereby not making it a religious text to bypass the concerns you mentioned.
What I don't understand is how the national motto can be a religious one without breaking the first amendment.
It hasn't reached the Supreme Court for a decision, but lower courts have basically said that it's not establing a religion because it's used in a secular and patriotic fashion. (My interpretation of my understanding of the ruling).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aronow_v._United_States
You can blame 1956 Cold War era Congress (red scare) and Eisenhower.