1017
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
1017 points (96.8% liked)
Not The Onion
11028 readers
1200 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
And the Constitution and its Amendments are very clear about a separation of church and state.
Some idiots think it means the government can't do anything to regulate churches. There a bunch of laws that disagree.
It actually explicitly doesn't say you can't relate churches.
If we're going strictly by what the words say, as long as the people are still legally allowed and freely allowed to practice their religion, Congress technically has the right to regulate religious institutions to their hearts content.
It's not like it says "shall make no law regulating an institution of religion."
The Vermont Constitution has a much more explicit freedom from religion:
Article 3. [Freedom in religion; right and duty of religious worship]
That all persons have a natural and unalienable right, to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings, as in their opinion shall be regulated by the word of God; and that no person ought to, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of conscience, nor can any person be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of religious sentiments, or peculia[r] mode of religious worship; and that no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by, any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship. Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of christians ought to observe the sabbath or Lord’s day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.
Everytime I hear of Vermont it feels like the only sane, progressive state in the US. It almost feels like a seperate country compared to everywhere else.
What's the opinion of it in the US?
You can't fart in a parking lot without stinking up a Subaru.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
We're the thinking of Vermont as a possible destination once my wife is eligible for her full retirement pension, and we can get out of this christo-conservative, handmaid's-tale-wannabe, craphole of a state (Texas).
We're not 'brown' but it would still be nice if Vermont had some more diversity by the time we get there.
It is entirely composed of a coat factory, an ice cream factory, and B&Bs.
I'd move there if y'all had better winters and beaches.
"no law" is not literal it is aspirational. At least according to what I have heard. If it was literal there could be zero rules about speech which breaks the constitutional ideas of oath of office and treason charges.
The aspirational would be a government that doesn't even know religion exists. It is taxed, regulated, and given the same respect as any other institution.
A bunch of states don't tax church property and both states and feds don't tax earnings for this reason.
Who watches the nightwatchers? Who or what systems could regulate the government? Ask yourself
Oh yeah the churches are the group that I'm gonna trust with that.
Can the argument not go both ways? I'm not saying I would trust the church to watch over the government or vice versa I'm simply making an observation that tyrannical government overreach etc is plausible and a potential cause for concern for any person that places a degree of their trust in the systems or bodies around them
Ok, show me where it says that then
Specifically, I like this line here, that was present in the third paragraph I quoted from the Constitution:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean that we specifically don't care if God, Allah, Buddha, or whoever says they are supposed to be in power?
Edit: and since we both want to be dickheads, today, why don't you show me where it says in the Constitution to base our laws around the bible?
None of that says that church and state must be separate, just that there can be no religious test. There's nothing in there barring him from saying "I think God blesses the people here"
In fact, to really be edgy, that also doesn't prevent the government from say donating $10B each year to some Christian church.
To your second point, I never suggested that the Constitution says we should base our laws around the Bible.
My only point is the oft quoted Separation of church and state is only an idea from the Jefferson papers. If you want to make sure church and state remain separate, and the new speaker doesn't start using federal funds for his church, perhaps it's time to actually put separation into the Constitution?
If no qualifying religious measure can be used to install a person into office, it stands to reason that religious belief shouldn't come into play.
I would hope our (the US') political system would be aware enough that writing private funding into any religious system would be seen as favoritism and the remaining belief systems would be righteously offended at the lack of consideration, or perhaps even the outright rejection of our beliefs.
This nation was built on immigrants (and the blood of natives, but that isn't what we are discussing) from every walk of life, every religious circle. To disregard others in favor of your own belief SHOULD be political suicide. These elected officials, after all, supposed to be elected to help with the concerns of the WHOLE populous, after all, not just a specific subset.
Playing religious favoritism has a high potential to try to convert the country into a religious state, as funding continues to be funneled into these specific religions, and in turn the churches funnel money back into the candidates as lobbying.
Coming to that point, does anyone who wants to to fund the church with government money which would be better used to take homeless off the streets, feed homeless children, or making people's lives in general, don't have the people's, or even God's best interests at heart?
Do they tithe their first ten percent, as the Bible says? Surely it would be in their tax records as charitable donations? If not, that would make me even more suspect of their intentions.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
That's really more a bar on state religion, that again doesn't really prevent our new speaker from say proposing a bill that donates Federal funds to his favorite church, so long as the government isn't in control of said church.
That would be news to Madison, the man who wrote it. He specifically wrote it to stop a religious funding policy in Maryland. As he pointed out funding would have to pick and choose which religions to fund
It would also be news to Jefferson- his letter to the Danbury Baptists highlights that states like Mass and CT established state religions under the confederation rules, which put Baptists in CT in the role of a religious minority, required to pay taxes to the Congregational Church. In colonial times it was the established religion, a state of affairs that would continue until it was 'disestablished' as the state religion via a state constitutional amendment in 1818.