"Ugh, every time! If they keep doing it, I'm going to just stop trying to get the government to favor my religion"
HolyFuck, I need to do this.
We talking about Louisiana?
We're talking about a lot of states
Welcome to Utah where visiting the state capitol is the same as touring a Mormon temple 🤣
Utah is actually a theocracy, it's why the state was founded
and Florida and Utah and Oklahoma and Iowa and Texas and Georgia among others lol
I was going to include Arizona but Governor Hobbs is an actual red blooded fucking American patriot and she's been vetoing the recent wave of christian nationalist bills
The 1st Amendment originally stated that no religious ideals governed the people. I'm not sure how that got lost in translation.
I can do all things with an amendment taken out of context
...or a bible passage taken out of context
Well, it originally only applied to the Feds until the incorporation doctrine was developed in the early 20th century. So, not much point in appealing to what it originally said.
You do realize this argument applies to freedom of speech as well? Kind of ruins your point when you realize it didn't change the original law, it just forces states to follow the bill of rights as a whole.
You do realize this argument applies to freedom of speech as well?
Of course. The second amendment too. The entire bill of rights in fact.
I don't know about all states in the union, but I know my state has provisions in the state constitution guaranteeing things like freedom of speech and the right to arms. So even without the incorporation doctrine, those would be protected on the state level, which is how it was handled before the doctrine was adopted.
But there's a reason these rules were expanded to include states
If you just ignore something was it ever really "lost"?
Yuuup
we havent' had a proper goverment ever
wym?
i mean capitalism and its frenzies
You don’t make any sense. Like we can’t even tell if we agree with you or not because you’re skipping a lot of words and it’s hard to follow what your point is
i have to apologize for actually having preped this comment through self love. we never had a government that organized the people, instead of ruling them. till now its been always a rule-giver (be it a king, president or political party) making the rules and enforcing them to the people with force. the government never played a role for ones person place in life, exept for the offer of an millitary career. sure, there are many programs for disabled or disadvantaged people, but thats only the tip of the iceberg. while the government only told us what to do and what not to do, it should tell us what we could do. we, the people, should be offered everything while being walked through the steps of finding ones right place.
the steps being: 1. finding what you like. 2. doing what you like. 3. (extra step) if bored, repeat.
while this sound simple at first, there are many hardships to look ahead for that damn first step.
lets say someone likes gaming. the government wouldnt help somebody who wants to be a gamer, while this is a perfectly fine existence. so there we find a discrepancy of our unity for us, the people.
the government should provide, not enslave.
you might say, hey, everybody has to work a "real job" as this was partially true hundred years ago. partially as were always people who couldnt go through the hardship of "hard work", simply because that wasnt who they were. priests, artists and aristocrats are just some examples. a hundred years ago, because the automation of the worklife makes the need for hard workforce more obsolete, year by year.
and yes I am a sinner, but also the second coming of christ. deal with it.
der "echte herr" hat mich wieder weggesniped .
Sorry to be so dense (I work insane hours and live under a rock, don’t watch the news) but what’s the point?
I few up with a bunch of fundamentalists but none of them were trying to force people to join or anything like that
What's the point of what? Trying to use the government to promote your religion?
I can’t think of recent examples where Christians have done this is what I’m saying. But I also don’t really pay attention to national news
Those are monuments, not bills or legislation
And? Public funds are being spent to promote one religion over all others
Not that I've seen. If they were, Is that unconstitutional?
Literally yes. The First Amendment established the separation of church and state federally; and the Fourteenth Amendment applied the First Amendment to the States, along with all state actors, which include establishments that use public funding.
Now, I think it is still okay to display religious symbols and monuments and such in public places, so long as there is no discrimination or favoritism. You can have the Ten Commandments as long as you also allow the Quran, or the Torah, or a statue of Baphomet, or a festivus pole. What tends to happen, as shown in the meme, is that whenever a Christian monument goes up somewhere, the Church of Satan, ACLU, Freedom From Religion Foundation, and other groups rally to put up competing religious symbols there too, in order to test whether or not those would also be allowed. They’re just trying to make sure that it’s all being done fairly and constitutionally.
Where is the separation of church and state in the Constitution though? Where are those words used?
This is not how constitutional law works, if it were the Bill of Rights would be unenforceable. The founding fathers extensively used the terms separation of church and state, along with secularism in their other works to drive this point home.
That’s a fair question, because those actual words are not in the First Amendment or in the Constitution anywhere. The phrase “separation of church and state” actually comes from one of Thomas Jefferson’s letters that he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut after the Constitution was signed into law. Here’s the relevant quote:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
He actually quotes the First Amendment language in there, which is that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It has been US Supreme Court jurisprudence for over two hundred years that this was meant to establish a wall between the government and any specific church or religion.
I’ll put it this way: imagine being a tax paying citizen of the United States, but you are a devout Buddhist. Now you come to find out that some of the money you paid in taxes is going toward building a huge cross in front of the city hall of the town where you live. The cross has no meaning to you, but you were forced by law to help pay for it. And maybe when you’re going to city hall to conduct your business, you feel that cross looming over you. It makes you feel like an outsider, like you don’t belong. And it starts to feel like maybe you aren’t welcome there, or you’ll be treated differently, because you don’t feel the same way about the cross as some other people in town. It might even make you consider changing your faith or hiding your practice of it to fit in. That’s where the part about “prohibiting the free expression thereof” comes in. If the government is endorsing a specific religion and you are threatened with losing your liberty and being imprisoned for tax evasion if you don’t help pay to push that religion, how can it be said that you are free to express your religious beliefs?
Literally yes. The First Amendment established the separation of church and state federally
Federally and it specifies legislation passed by Congress, it says nothing about Public Funds.
The Constitution says what the Constitution says, what you're doing is essentially Eisegesis
They're using the government to promote one's religion. Which is what this is about
How is this unconstitutional? The Constitution only specifies legislation by Congress
14th Amendment extends the bill of rights beyond just things congress passes.
I fail to see where...
Have you ever even READ the Constitution???
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This paragraph is the only part of that amendment that is relevant to our discussion, where within is what you claim stated? What privileges or immunities are being abridged? Lol
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
I fail to see where...
Section 1 of the 14th amendment.
Well, the texas gop is going on about Christian values and how we must stop immoral things such as gays, trans, and women having rights.
Then they pass laws on that
Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can join our Discord and listen to our Podcast. You can also make a meme or donation for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
"In God We Trust"
Moderator removed comment
16d
But can you name a policy or bill brought forward listing religious belief as the reason?
What are you asking for, specifically? Would you like to see policies and bills that have "this bill is rooted in Christian ideas of right and wrong" in their text? Or is it enough to be given examples of politicians giving speeches about how certain policies should be passed because they are representative of Christian ideals? Or policies that favor Christianity over other religions?
Not trying to be rude, I want to know what you're looking for
Anything
So far I've seen nothing
Keep in mind them SAYING something and being able to DO something are two different things. They can't pass Laws with a Christian bias or even Christian reasons because of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, and before you say "they can overturn it", they can't without a 2/3rds vote. Fat chance of THAT happening
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
Edit:
I'm still waiting...
Off the top of my head, the Defense of Marriage Act back in the 90s and W Bush's attempt to codify marriage using the Bible as the basis of his definition
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
Also a lot of smaller instances of lawmakers blocking the construction of mosques in neighborhoods where they wouldn't have issues with churches
And in other ways, schools promoting Christian clubs but disallowing "Satan Clubs." Afaik those Satan Clubs aren't practicing sacrifice or bringing direct harm to others, which makes them healthier than a lot of school sports teams.
Few people are going to bring a bill to Congress with text explicitly spelling out that the bill is intended to favor Christians, because as you've pointed out that would be unconstitutional. But historically American law-makers have based their ideas of right and wrong in Christianity and it feels silly to pretend that the bias isn't there when even some modern politicians claim to be Christian Nationalists.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/myfox8.com/news/politics/christian-nationalism-explainer/amp/
Off the top of my head, the Defense of Marriage Act back in the 90s and W Bush's attempt to codify marriage using the Bible as the basis of his definition
Emphasis on "Attempt". It went nowhere because it hit into the Establishment clause
Next
Also a lot of smaller instances of lawmakers blocking the construction of mosques in neighborhoods where they wouldn't have issues with churches
That's from city officials, not Congress.
Next
And in other ways, schools promoting Christian clubs but disallowing "Satan Clubs." Afaik those Satan Clubs aren't practicing sacrifice or bringing direct harm to others, which makes them healthier than a lot of school sports teams.
Schools aren't Congress, I can't even believe I have to say that
Next
Few people are going to bring a bill to Congress with text explicitly spelling out that the bill is intended to favor Christians, because as you've pointed out that would be unconstitutional. But historically American law-makers have based their ideas of right and wrong in Christianity and it feels silly to pretend that the bias isn't there when even some modern politicians claim to be Christian Nationalists.
That's one helluva straw man
It would be better if it could be proven, but considering the nature of your statement it can't be. That's why you said it
Welp, game, set, and match
Thanks for playing ✌
Hey man, you asked for any examples of American Christians using government bills or policies to promote Christianity, and specified that you'd be happy seeing literally any examples. If you wanted me to cite examples from Congress specifically I would have appreciated you saying so sooner.
I'd still be interested in having a conversation with you about whether or not American Christians are using the government as a way to promote Christianity, but between the way you're moving the goalposts of suitable examples, the way you edited your one comment to say you were still waiting for examples after I provided you with some, and the "game, set and match, thanks for playing" comment I can't help but feel like you're grandstanding for an audience rather than being interested in good-faith discussion. I'd be happy to be wrong about that of course, but if you'd like to have another discussion it might be best if we did so another day as tempers seem to be high right now.
If you wanted me to cite examples from Congress specifically I would have appreciated you saying so sooner.
I literally shared a link detailing the Establishment clause, which details that no act of Congress shall establish legislation out of respect of any religion!
That was implied!
between the way you're moving the goalposts of suitable examples, the way you edited your one comment to say you were still waiting for examples after I provided you with some, and the "game, set and match, thanks for playing" comment I can't help but feel like you're grandstanding for an audience rather than being interested in good-faith discussion
Not really, but I've seen this claim so much, and have asked my question so much with no evidence from the opposing aisle to speak of, frankly I'm pretty much convinced this is all scapegoating, looking for One demographic to blame for everything rather than accept it is * ALL * our fault, every single one of us
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5187/text
Googled "prayer in schools" and found this one. I can probably find more if you want. Most aren't this blatant, but this one lays it out pretty clearly. For that reason, this one probably won't pass and is mostly showing off, but less blatant ones probably have passed.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5187/text
Googled "prayer in schools" and found this one. I can probably find more if you want. Most aren't this blatant, but this one lays it out pretty clearly. For that reason, this one probably won't pass and is mostly showing off, but less blatant ones probably have passed.
Introduced but is Unconstitutional because of the Establishment Clause forbidding any ruling in favor of religious belief
And the only way they can overturn that is with a 2/3rds vote, and with Christianity in decline in the US there is a VERY fat chance of this happening
My point stands
I don't deal in "probably" s
Either you have evidence that one has passed or you don't 🤷🏼♂️
How about the entire history of "In God We Trust"?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
Also, I'm not going to try too hard on this, because I have a feeling anything that did pass that doesn't directly cite Christianity as the reason will be written off as "not being about Christianity."
That was more referring to American history than religion
Your own link states:
"While the earliest mentions of the phrase can be found in the mid-19th century, the origins of this phrase as a political motto lie in the American Civil War, where Union supporters wanted to emphasize their attachment to God and to boost morale.[7] The capitalized form "IN GOD WE TRUST" first appeared on the two-cent piece in 1864 and initially only appeared on coins, but it gradually became accepted among Americans.[8]"
Congress approved this for that same reason as above, but rather to set themselves apart from the Soviets, who were Secular, not a religious basis
There really isn't anything that did pass, now you're just attempting to justify your inability to substantiate evidence by implying I am biased
That's a poor, and rather sad, means of debate
They changed the National Motto in 1956 to "In God We Trust" and printed it on all the currency.
Your first comment said "nothing has been brought forward with religious reasoning". I provided one that was brought forward. You moved the goalposts.
I provided evidence of bills passed with religious reasoning. You moved the goalposts again.
How am I supposed to interpret this as a good faith discussion?
Your first comment said "nothing has been brought forward with religious reasoning". I provided one that was brought forward. You moved the goalposts.
And that wasn't passed with religious reasonings, that's was passed to set apart the US from the USSR, for the same reason the Union did it in the American Civil War
I have not moved any goalpost, I said I wanted evidence where theyve passed, actually passed and not just attempted, legislation through Congress in respect of a specific religious belief.
And they havent
I provided evidence of bills passed with religious reasoning. You moved the goalposts again.
You literally haven't
How am I supposed to interpret this as a good faith discussion?
Idc what you interpret it as, if you can't answer the question because there is no evidence to back your claim what sort of claim is it, really?
I'm done with this. If you are going to pretend that "In God We Trust" isn't religious, then I'm done.
The one where a woman lied about being asked to make a website for a queer couple and refusing due to religious beliefs which ended up being supported by the courts , the proposed bills that would've allowed doctors to refuse healthcare to queer people on religious grounds, and the many times state governments have forced things like teaching Christian oriented intelligent design into biology classes are a few examples.
The woman lying is not govt or Congress, that's not what I asked
As for the supposed bills you can't even bother to substantiate evidence to say they exist
Edit: he blocked me
Thanks for playing ✌
The woman lying is not govt or Congress,
Typo on my part. I deleted part of the sentence at some point. The woman in question is Lorie Smith, who took this to the Supreme Court, who ruled that she is allowed to deny services on religious grounds.
The healthcare bill was the Florida Senate Bbill 1580, which among other things "prohibiting discrimination or adverse action against health care providers who decline to participate in a health care service on the basis of conscience-based objection," which later in the bill specifies includes religious objections, which can mean religiously motivated denial of trans healthcare for example would be a possibility under the bill.
There have also been a lot of intelligent design bills.
you can't even bother to substantiate evidence to say they exist
Based on your other comments, nothing short of Congress voting to make America a theocracy would convince you, and even then you'd probably try and find a way to say that doesn't count.
Edit: would also like to point out that this comment you wrote was removed, so the reason they didn't respind is cause they never saw it, not cause you "won" or something.
This guy just keeps shifting the goalposts everytime someone comments.
And the ACLU is the organization doing the actual work. TST and FFRF are more or less just cosplaying civil rights warriors.
ACLU doing actual work in addition to these guys.
They're each doing it in different ways. The ACLU is the backing force to the other two when it comes to it. The TST and FFRF are the smaller level ones that put the "religious freedom" to the test, and when the test fails they start the suit and the ALCU comes in to do the heavy lifting.
Yeah the ACLU fights the big fights, but someone needs to fight the smaller fights too. The ACLU can't bring a case about the chaplains in schools because there's nothing overt about it. However it TST is denied then the ACLU has a case, as TST is a Federally recognized religion, because the government is picking and choosing the religions that can participate and not having true religious equality.
FFRF fights small fights to remove possible pro single religion messaging.
TST fights the fight to see if there actually is openness to equal representation.
ACLU fights the big fights when it's shown that the civil liberties are not being supported.
Each plays their part, and to besmirch the lower levels is wrong.
Not the best passage, but the best I currently have.
2 Corinthians 8:12 NIV- For if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what one does not have.
29 missing replies
"I support freedom of religion."
"No, not like that!"