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.
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.
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.
I don’t want any prayer. It’s coerced religion.
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.
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.
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.
What I don't understand is how the national motto can be a religious one without breaking the first amendment.
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).
Doesn't that go against separation of church and state, and if this is government pushed, isn't this a first amendment violation?
Welcome to the fun world of ceremonial deism.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t want any prayer. It’s coerced religion.
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.
Interesting. I'm going to be petty and start defacing my money.
Required ceremonial deism, even worse, yuck!
The worst part is that for the people making these policies it really isn't religious, just a thing they can trick followers with.
Hahaha! They don’t give a fuck
Look at the dollar bill. America has never given two shits about the separation of church and state.
In god we trust was added in the cold war because the old saying may have promoted something other than capitalism
'E pluribus unum' was pretty good, but I liked 'mind your business' too.
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.
Which is a more detailed version of what I said.
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.
What I don't understand is how the national motto can be a religious one without breaking the first amendment.
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.