this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
195 points (97.6% liked)

politics

31196 readers
1683 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 115 points 2 years ago (3 children)

That’s a prima facie violation of separation of church and state

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 46 points 2 years ago (2 children)

You're ignoring that the law states that the Commandments are “foundational documents of our state and national government.”

As you may be aware, it was very important to the Founders that people have no other gods and not make graven images. The U.S. Constitution specifically forbids taking the Lord's name in vain. And of course, it is required to keep the Sabbath holy.

No coveting, either, whether it be houses, wives, or animals. Those are right out.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 20 points 2 years ago

Your dry sarcasm leaves me parched. I'm here for it.

[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Taking the Lord's name in vain? Straight to jail.

[–] triptrapper@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

A good friend of mine is a Lutheran pastor. She explained that, contrary to what I was taught in Catholic school, "taking the Lord's name in vain" doesn't mean swearing or saying "god damn it." It means to bring up god or religion for your personal benefit. And, you know, of course it does. It's amazing how religious schooling gives people permission to twist language around like that.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 4 points 2 years ago

Commanding Yahweh to bring damnation in order to satisfy your personal frustration is exactly that.

[–] btaf45@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Would be awesome to have a t-shirt or bumper sticker with these 2 lines.

  1. Baal

  2. Yahweh

Edit: or even better, deface every public copy of the 10 commandments by writing this on it.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 4 points 2 years ago

Or just add at the bottom:

  1. Fuck pornstars and pay them to keep quiet.
[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Separation of church and state is not technically a law. However, SCOTUS ruled against exactly this in Stone v. Graham. My fear is that states are doing this to bait it back to our newly conservative SCOTUS.

More than 40 years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court overturned a similar state statute, holding that the First Amendment bars public schools from posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms. No other state requires the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools.

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/civil-liberties-groups-will-file-lawsuit-against-louisiana-law-requiring-public-schools-to-display-the-ten-commandments

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, well, if the fascists take over and try to codify Christian theocracy into our laws, that’s a thing that I actually do think would start a civil war.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The problem with civil war isn’t the justification, but the success against modern governmental warfare armaments.

What I’m saying is that this would incite state governments to rebel against the federal, perhaps taking (or convincing, or co-opting, or outright capturing) the military assets for their own interests.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

It’s historical …. Our historical right to own slaves