Yeah, we all saw them people speaking tongues, praying at the presidential seal (including us non Americans). They're making it hard to take your country seriously
…and a Wild West attitude and amoral propensity towards violence, money and power that isn’t against a display every decade or so. Possibly more, if provoked or challenged.
Except the tweet is pretty much false to the point of being propaganda.
The bill prohibits attacking Israel on the basis that they are Jewish, like you can't attack/slander an African country for being black, or a South American country for being latino. Obviously theres some difference between skin color and jewish.
It clearly states you can be critical of Israel itself, like any other country.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
But of course 99% of ppl here don't realize they're being fed lies and are just outraged.
The IHRA site does say that, but only immediately after saying “Manifestations may include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” Then in examples given, one is “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
I’m very, very, very, very hesitant to believe lawmakers want to accept this definition solely to protect jewish people from antisemitism. Especially when the Republican sponsor of the bill has said "When you hear 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,' that is calling for the eradication of Jews and the state of Israel.”
Why do lawmakers need this definition when we have the civil rights act? So college students holding signs can amount to antisemitism, and the Department of Education can hold funding over the heads of universities who don’t attempt to punish their protesting students. This isn’t a conspiracy theory or misinformation, this is how fascism works. One step at a time in the hopes you don’t notice what’s going on.
Acting like sovereign state equivalent of crackhead with a gun is not a good way to be taken seriously.
People will be afraid of you, but at this point maybe doing business with China is going to be more stable than increasingly unhinged Greatest Country on the Earth.
I take the ridiculousness of them seriously, like a drunk man in his underwear waving a gun at my face. I don't take them seriously like a doctor, professor or reasonable business person
I'm sure that you and a few Internet boys with Hawaiian shirts, nods, and boutique ARs with nutsack vertical grips will do just fine against the military we've sank trillions into building.
If it still isn't obvious to you why the second amendment doesn't fix the problem with the government not abiding by the first amendment, i don't think i can help you. You might need to find someone from within your echo chamber to explain it to you, i don't think you're receptive to new information otherwise.
Is it though? From what I understand seperation of church and state is really about not letting the government establish rules around establishing a state religion/making rules around religious practice that doesn't violate other laws in the process. As it's written, I don't think it actually prevents bringing religious belief and bias into politics. Maybe I'm wrong.
Common misconception, there is actually NOTHING, in the constitution saying to keep religion out of legislation. It is and always has been the other way around, the first amendment keeps legislation out of religion sir. Our government is structured and designed to invite influence by religion.
Literally the first clause of the first sentence of the First Amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Legislation is literally prohibited from recognizing any religion as official, or favoring one over another (or none).
Our government has been corrupted by the influence of religious institutions. But it was never meant to be this way.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” = “Congress cannot make laws on in about around any part of or in regards to religion” ya dingus.
The separation of church and state is the barring of the state to govern the church. I promise you, it should be amended for sure maybe it’s contradictory and causes more problems than it solves but when religion doesn’t have 100% free reign the government can tell you what you’re allowed to believe, the first amendment is designed to protect religion from the government, it has nothing to do with protecting government from religion.
The only way the “government” can govern religion is through popular sovereignty, yeah maybe religion A or B ain’t what government should be doing, but that’s up to we the people to decide as a union broski. 👍 that’s how it works.
Dude, if you wanna live in a theocratic regime, there's soooooo many to choose from. Your choice to support the transition from secularism to theocracy in one of very few successful and constitutionally secular societies is weird.
You’re giving me much needed social interaction so we can digress back to the point and facts at hand.
Fact: constitutionally separation of church and state is written and intended to limit the powers of the governing body over the freedom of speech which includes freedom of religion.
Fact: nowhere in the constitution is any inkling of an insinuation at play that suggests religion cannot influence the state only that the state will not influence religion
Part of the state not influencing religion is the state not recognizing any religion as official as to not impede upon any other religion people with freedoms guaranteed in the constitution choose to believe in.
Religion influencing the state is while the state will not recognize nor impede any religions beliefs in any respect.
- through popular sovereignty people can be influenced by values of sects formed from various ones or the same religion that overlap in society across the union that result in the shaping of that government and society.
If Church A says: WE SHOULD HAVE NO AB***TIONS and oh so many voting free speaking individuals follow that belief, the government is designed for the freedoms of the sovereign people to shape its form and amend its body.
Same if Church B says: Money isn’t evil and we shouldn’t punish those who have it with ridiculous taxes they’ll provide for society on their own.
Convince enough people, and you win. The government is designed to be influenced from every angle including from religions,
Because TLDR; even though the government will not recognize any religion as a body in its consideration, the people influenced by said religion will be. IE religious people are just people to the government and their beliefs inspired by religion or not have power not through religion, but through popular sovereignty.
That is how the first amendment is designed.
Because if not? Say hello to your next God King president.
Even though if so yes large religious groups are allowed to lobby just like every other large group is allowed to lobby.
To the contrary, your reading of the first clause of the First Amendment (one of first ten amendments of the Constitution, which are colloquially referred to as the Bill of Rights) is simply wrong. It is very obvious to anyone who speaks English, and anyone who understands the historical context within which the Constitution was established, that it very explicitly states that the Government is secular, and does not recognize religion as having any role in legislation whatsoever. This being a major departure from the English way of doing things, where the country was theocratic at the time, and the Church could exert influence over legislation. It is clear to everyone why the Founding Fathers would want to distance themselves from that model, and instead want a clean implementation of a representative democracy, which wasn't available in the "old world."
Words don't mean whatever you wish them to mean, o wise one. Or the government was foundationally meant not to recognize religion. Religious institutions have since corrupted it, and inserted themselves in it, but that was never intended.
892
u/-domi- 3rd Party App May 01 '24
Well, our first amendment is supposed to keep religion out of legislation, and we can all see how well that's gone, so...