Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion.
None of that means much of anything if the Supreme Court feels like saying otherwise.
All them Originalists on the SCROTUS gonna be like "WUT? that's not what they meant.....Now. hold this funnel for my beer..."
Thomas is the primary originalist here, let's not paint them all with the same brush. If Congress would impeach him, we might have a decent(ish) Court. See my list of "liberal" opinions they're rendered (above).
"Well akshually 1A specifically says Congress, but this is a state level law, so we'll allow it".
SCOTUS can hardly be relied on to make conservative calls. Been collecting these for a couple of months.
Scotus has always been conservative. Get out of here with this bullshit. You think a few liberal rulings sprinkled over the cake of conservatism means anything? History has already proven otherwise.
It’s the duty of SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution into law. They already ruled against exactly this in 1980.
Stone v. Graham, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on November 17, 1980, ruled (5–4) that a Kentucky statute requiring school officials to post a copy of the Ten Commandments (purchased with private contributions) on a wall in every public classroom violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which is commonly interpreted as a separation of church and state.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Stone-v-Graham
Let’s just hope our newly conservative SCOTUS doesn’t have a different opinion.
Oh you.
All they have to do is redefine "establishment". That's child's play for this court.
Or reverse the incorporation principle and say that Congress applies solely to the federal government.
Or cite precedent from the Spanish inquisition.
All of these people can go fuck themselves. They can put copies of "the" ten commandments up in their homes or their places of worship and we'll tolerate it. That's how tolerance works.
Those not in their little book club have zero fucks to give when it comes to their rules. Their rules are for them; they don't apply to others in a secular nation.
Christofascists
Fuck ALL of that
Christian nationalism is not Christianity.
American media needs to start calling it like it is and pointing out how these groups are, in fact, anti-Christian. Not that that will ever happen. Just keep pretending they're legitimate and see where that gets us.
Yet everyone who pushes for measures like this self-identifies as Christian, at least in public.
If Christianity's good name needs to be untarnished, then liberal Christians need to do more. Rather than expecting the media to delineate between the two.
Eh, I don't know how much playing the No True Scotsman really gets us, though.
I don't want any religion of any kind having any say over what we do in a secular context. All of them, no matter what they are called, can go fuck themselves the minute they think they get special privileges over others.
No true scotsman fallacy.
This is not the no true Scotsman fallacy. This is people claiming a name while behaving in a way opposite, or at least unrelated, to what that name represents.
It would be like if I were to vocally claim to be a socialist while actively promoting capitalism in my actions and fighting against socialist causes.
These people would claim that they are the only TRUE xtians, and declare that other denominations are not "real" xtians (or just call them "pagan", lol, which is xtian-speak for "RINO").
John 3:16 says absolutely nothing regarding behavior. If you claim that someone in their heart doesn't truly "believe" you are stepping into divine revelation which is solely reserved for god according to Christian doctrine.
How convenient for them.
They will force you to follow their version of Evangelical Christianity. There's no way around that. They want to enforce their fascist pedophile religion on all Americans. If you do not follow their religion they will make you or kill you. That will happen. That is their goal. Do not doubt this for a second. There will come a day if they succeed where they put people who do not believe what they believe up against the wall. Atheists up against the wall. Jews up against the wall. Buddhists up against the wall. Eventually even other Christians up against the wall.
Arm yourselves.
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!”
He said, “Nobody loves me.”
I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
He said, “A Christian.”
I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?”
He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “Me, too! What franchise?”
He said, “Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
--Emo Phillips
Another great thing for the Right is that the GOP knows that these laws are going to get challenged in the courts.
So, the law is defended by taxpayers [whether they like it or not] while the Left has to raise money. Left folks have to divide their contributions between causes. Win-win for the Right.
"Christian", NOT Christ-ian!!
The Christian bible, itself gives this concept, but, since it was written a "Day as a Thousand Years" & a "Night as a Thousand Years" ago, it nails false-Jews, aka "Jews", using our new falsifying-quotes technology ( that John the gospeler didn't have, which "justified" all the Catholic murdering of Jews..
John was railing against not Jews, but false Jews, aka "Jews".
This is blatently-clear in that he repeatedly called his guru "rabbi", instead of using some non-Jewish title for him, in those places )
See right here, how substituting the word Christian for the word Jew, and then doing it again with every religion, puts things back in proper perspective: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202%3A9&version=AMP
We have to use language correctly, & stop platforming gaslighting, through typography, or we are helping the bad-guys win through our spinelessness.
_ /\ _