• Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Doesn’t that go against separation of church and state, and if this is government pushed, isn’t this a first amendment violation?

      • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fucking hate this. There is a local public meeting that starts with a prayer to the Evangelical God in Jesus’s name that I’m forced to attend because of my job. I hate being essentially compelled to participate in prayer. The SCOTUS precedent supporting this is 100000000% Christian bias.

        • Patches@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          1 year ago

          The SCOTUS precedent

          Don’t worry they don’t believe in Precedent anymore. You just need to grease their wheels. I hear it’s cheaper than you think.

          • flerp@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s relatively cheap for their masters, but they won’t buck the leash that got them into their position

        • HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would start invoicing people for your time until you get a legal cease and desist. Then sue them, just because they accepted responsibility.

          Make it cost them money.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You could counter with a Baha’i prayer. They are still an Abrahamic religion, and they have literally hundreds of prayers for practically every topic.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          And you can’t disrupt the meeting by interrupting the prayer until they kick you out, because then presumably your employer would fire you, I assume? 'Cause if not, you should definitely ruin their motherfucking christofascist bullshit.

      • JackbyDev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Required ceremonial deism, even worse, yuck!

      • hglman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The worst part is that for the people making these policies it really isn’t religious, just a thing they can trick followers with.

    • Muffi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Look at the dollar bill. America has never given two shits about the separation of church and state.

      • HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        In god we trust was added in the cold war because the old saying may have promoted something other than capitalism

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, it was added during the cold war because the commies were seen as godless heathens and the religious assholes in charge seized the opportunity to push their brainwashing on us using “do the opposite of the commies” as an excuse. There was never any legitimate concern about “e pluribus unum.”

          It’s the same story as why they reflexively oppose almost anything proposed by a Democrat today.

    • Majawat@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The way it was worded basically said that it had to be the national motto, thereby not making it a religious text to bypass the concerns you mentioned.

      • Rev3rze@lemdit.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        What I don’t understand is how the national motto can be a religious one without breaking the first amendment.

        • Majawat@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It hasn’t reached the Supreme Court for a decision, but lower courts have basically said that it’s not establing a religion because it’s used in a secular and patriotic fashion. (My interpretation of my understanding of the ruling).

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aronow_v._United_States

          You can blame 1956 Cold War era Congress (red scare) and Eisenhower.