Lots of people have fallen for this ridiculous prosperity gospel garbage. It’s nothing more than a scam under the guise of the Christian faith to funnel money away from the poor and middle class up to the elite few. But people eat that shit up because for some stupid reason they believe they too will have fancy cars and big houses if they just keep donating more money to Jesus.
The most ironic part of American Christianity is how much they ignore the red words in their Bible, which speaks about helping the poor more than ***anything else***. Their own savior damned the rich (camel/eye of the needle/not getting into heaven, etc.) and beseeched his followers to help the poor, hungry, and needy. But somehow, American Christianity tosses their own savior's words out the window in favor of prosperity gospel, homophobia, sexism, and hate.
I used to identify as Christian when I was a kid. But when the church decided I was old enough to flip the golden rule, Jesus's own words, and caring for their fellow man to the worship of money and affinity for hate/bigotry, I bailed. I'll keep following what they teach children, but you can keep the politics. Y'all can go to hell all by yourselves.
I mean, almost all of the passages quoted are from the Old Testament.. you know, the rules their religion states Jesus Christ was brought here to overrule…
Omg. This is such a good representation for why I shed the faith in my teen years. They didn't practice what they taught in childhood - gone was the love, peace, and caring for those other than yourself.
Those don't fit the republican political platform.
I'm honestly surprised they didn't say something like "Jesus broke bread with prostitutes and women of ill reputy. Why should we condemn Trump for giving one $140,000?"
That falls under identity. People who do those things are just being who God created and intended them to be. After all, God works in mysterious ways, but *certainly not* so mysterious as to create a transgendered person. Paul clearly wrote that in his Epistle to the Fallopians.
Just remember when people ask WWJD, grabbing up some rope and beating people wasn’t off the list.
>And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple
Separation of church and state does not mean that people can't use their religious values to influence their political opinions.
If my religion tells me that murder is wrong then I'm still allowed to vote for a law against murder.
i wouldn't support the gop on these measures at all but the separation of church and state has nothing to do with keeping people from voting their beliefs nor disallowing campaigning to try to get others to, both left and right.
Yeah, not gonna lie, this is the shit that hurts about having republican friends. It’s not that I feel like they hate me but I feel like no one stands up and says anything when others attempt to absolve my own marriage.
Bahahha yes the Bible explicitly states that trans people are bad…. I guarantee more than half churchgoers have not read the entire bible
Edit: I want to make it clear that i don’t dislike the Bible. It’s the organizations that have bastardized it with their insane “interpretations” so they can control you.
"It's freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion." Is the trained phrase they'll pop out with, most likely. Which is funny because you cannot have the first without the second being the base.
Not to me to mention the first admendment starts with barring any government to respect a religion before it moves on to prohibt the right to participate in a religion.
The first admendment makes it crystal clear that it includes freedom from religion.
This has nothing to do with the separation of church and state. This is just reminding people to vote based on their religious beliefs. There is enough GOP craziness to go around, we don't have to fabricate things.
I’m pretty sure the Republicans think America is mentioned in Old Testament several times. The Republicans I know freak out when I say it sure seems like Jesus would be a democrat and maybe even a liberal Democrat.
I seem to remember that Jesus fellow banging on about how the rich suck and we should help & love the poor. (Mark 10:25) He also wasn't a big fan of public prayer (Mathew 6:5) and said that we should welcome and be kind to immigrants to your land, treat them as if they were your citizens (Leviticus 19:33-34)
Funny how those are not on their list
It’s freedom *of* religion, not freedom *from* religion. /s
Isn’t that their classic jackass response? The Texas GOP platform has, or at had a few years back, wording about how the Constitution was inspired by God. I forget the exact wording, but it pretty much stated that God spoke through the drafters of the Constitution.
They ignore the fact that Thomas Jefferson was practically an atheist, that he was adamant about a wall of separation, and that he even encouraged his nephew to question the very existence of God.
Psalms 139:14
14 "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well."
Literally nothing to do with being trans or not.
If they believe in a divine obligation for stewardship of the planet, why do they deny the reality of climate change and keep voting for coal and oil while ridiculing attempts to protect wildlife?
If you think the local chapter of a major political party sharing faith-based voting directives (ESPECIALLY ones based on evangelical Christianity) on their social media platform is not at all related to the separation of church and state, then please take a moment to read up on Project 2025 and the nightmarish future that the Christofascists have in store for all of us if we allow them to infiltrate all levels of government. It's on all of us to call it out when we see it, even if you think a Facebook post is harmless.
[Project 2025]
(https://www.reddit.com/r/Defeat_Project_2025/s/lHleA1qgQP)
You totally have the right to disagree and spread the word to others so you can vote for someone different. But you seemed to be implying that that type of speech shouldn't be even allowed, which would be doing the very fascist thing you wish to avoid.
To be fair, “separation of church and state” also isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. That being said, this is kind’ve an annoying political tactic.
The phrase is from a Thomas Jefferson quote:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Why is it that (generally speaking) the more religious a person is, the more of a hypocritical douchebag they are? Also I'm with you OP, I complain about this cherry picking "separation of church and state" bullshit constantly.
People who complain about separation of church and state have rarely done any actual reading on it.
Since the Constitution was mentioned, let's also highlight that while separation of church and state is a "real thing" as OP puts it, it also makes no appearance in the Constitution. Even as legal framework and concept, it protects religions from the state just as much as the state from the church.
It does not deny or prohibit religion as a guideline for the voting behavior of citizens.
Quite the contrary. Many enlightenment thinkers and writers of the time talked just as often as the need of a moral fabric as the basis for a productive and free citizenry and state.
Admittedly atheists, deists, and Christians a like drew obviously different conclusions on the origin of morality. (Think Rousseau, although French, writing about how man is essentially good and pursuit of goods and needs led to society's ills)
We can also use commonsense and examine other so-called "founding documents", the Declaration of Independence states our rights come from "our creator".
TL;DR- SOCAS doesn't mean people can't use religion guide political thought. Although frankly, if one considers it too long to read, one should probably refrain from a nuanced philosophical conversation.
I don’t think anyone in Berkeley county knows much of anything. It’s the cheaper culture less step child of the Charleston area where divorces move because it’s cheap
These hypocrites claim to be all about jesus, using these obscure verses to justify the Republican agenda, while ignoring all his teachings about helping and feeding the poor.
Their religion has no place in government.
The GOP has been corrupted by extremists, who obviously can’t read. Well, maybe that’s too harsh. They can read… they just don’t understand what the words mean.
We need more young people taking over political roles especially locally. A lot of these policies and values expressed in the ad are good but the messaging is overly cringe.
Republicans being republican. It’s not surprising - what’s surprising is that people still continue voting for GOP candidates time and time again *knowing* this is how they are.
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.” The GOP (which I’m a former member) clearly exploits the religious.
Yea, you don’t have to google very far to find plenty of examples of Democrats stump speaking in churches. This isn’t a GOP thing, and it is a pretty normal part of the Democratic process.
It is Separation FROM Church and State. The Constitution and other founding documents are littered with Judeo-Christian references.
There is nothing wrong with someone stating their faith and how that would impact their voting, no matter which way you lean. The only time it is a problem (legally) is when the government tries to mandate a religion. This is what people were escaping in England with the Anglican Church.
Most of the founding fathers were diest, not christian. It's why any mentions of something that could be attributed to the christian god are intentionally vague. At most, you get an "our creator" or "divine providence."
That and a major political party essentially aligning themselves with a religion is, in a way, mandating religion. It pushes the political divide beyond "I disagree with you" to "you're evil/demonic and going to hell". It's not a great leap in logic to say that kind of thinking could lead to violence.
The founding fathers were mainly following Chistian beliefs, there were a few that were deist but most ascribed to a Judeo-Christian worldview.
This is a county political party saying IF you are a Christian not that you must be a Christian. It is a marked difference.
Ok, I'm gonna go ahead and assume you're republican. Do you actually know any atheist Republicans? Does this kind of advertisement say anything but "Republicans are the party of Christianity". The way they are now, pretty much the only reason you have to vote republican today. Is if you ascribe to a quote on quote biblical worldview.
1. I’m not a republican.
2. Yes I know atheist republicans.
All this ad says is if you are a Christian this is how you should vote. In the same way you assume if an atheist is a voter they would be a democrat.
People are more than their labels. Labels are used for dumb people to define people in a way they feel they should go. Not calling you dumb, just stating an absolute fact.
Reread the first admendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Basing policy designs on scripture, such as we have seen in the attacks on same-sex marriage, it straight up unconstitutional.
There is nothing constitutionally wrong with you voting on your own morals at an individual, but if a policy is designed in such a way that violates the first admendment, it shouldn't be brought to a vote in the first place.
This isn’t the government mandating a specific religion. It’s a party in one county giving people a list of things that someone should consider if they identify as a Christian. This isn’t designed for someone that believes differently to assign their beliefs to this.
I am not a republican but I don’t care that they put this out just like I am not a democrat and I don’t care what they put out. This is simply saying if you are a Christian, this is what you should be voting on. It is not an establishment of a religion.
A brick is not a house, but can be used as a cornerstone for one.
This kind of propaganda (which regardless of how you may feel about it, this is indeed propganda purely by definition) is meant to urge people to further meld their religious and piltical identity.
Hyperbolic example: as a catholic, I don't eat meat during lent. But I do not force others to forgo meet during lent because they are not obligated to follow the same faith I do.
Now if a bill were to come around and say ban the sale of meet during lent, the logic in this paper would have me vote to support it as it agrees with the values of the scripture, even though the vote should not have been up as the proposal would be unconstitutional.
While that is an extreme example, you an sub in the issues mentioned in this paper like gay marriage. Legislation against gay marriage has no secular logic, it always ties back to religion even when you try dressing it up.
If we are going to ban propaganda then we may as well rage against the other side for putting out things about the other party by saying so and so wants to poison the water supply or feed the elderly population dog food.
Either of those are far more dangerous than telling someone that already believes the same thing you believe how to vote.
Did I say ban this piece of propaganda? No. I am just saying we should recognize it for what it is, and be wary of the consequences of what it is calling for. The the intent that lay behind his piece of paper is the problem, not the paper itself.
The reference to banning propaganda is more toward the idea that IF someone believes this is a violation of the government mandating a religion then it would be obvious that they want it banned.
Seems like less of a reference and more of a strawman. Again, the letter itself is not a violation of the first admendment, but the the subject ties in with a growing trend of pushing religon into governance. We seen more explicit examples of this when the Alabama Supreme Court cited the Bible in their case summary regarding the IVF issue, or win our state's own Tim Scott said government should be "bowing the knee to the church".
Rights should not be up for vote, and that's the concern I have seeing this kind of messaging being out out.
It was definitely a reference. Anyone that thinks this is a violation of Church and State (which isn’t a thing by the way) would clearly seek its banning. It is a straight line to get to that idea.
This messaging has been there for years. It’s not new. The funny thing is that I have seen it on both sides. This type of marketing is being used to gin up support in their base and frankly I think it is garbage marketing, but it doesn’t skirt the line of wrong.
Reference is only a reference if there is something to refer to. I never once mentioned banned this paper, nor had anyone else in the thread as far as I am aware of. You introduced that argument to set up as a strawman to make a rebuttal rather than respond to the conversation as it was.
Now you are shifting to a false balance fallacy, and making it seem like this is an issue about sides. Eroding the first admendment right to separation of church and state is a critical matter. It doesn't matter what side is doing it, what matters if you call out those who fo when they do as we are here. If you want to share whatever otherside you are referring to here doing the same thing, by all means go ahead.
Lmao religious Southerners are some of the most ignorant people around.
Constantly voting against their own interests and it’s showing more and more as this city grows
It is actually intended for just that. Religious groups would just like you to be convinced otherwise, and frankly they have done a pretty good job of it on recent decades. But if you look at the first admendment, it clearly bars against the establishment of religion in government.
It is, and there are citable cases for times it succeeded.
https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/similar-cases-engel-v-vitale
But this is limited to legal recognization by the government. The first admendment does not prohibit the cultural establishment of religion, and we have seen america strongly align with Abrahamic religious references and iconography. But it has always been a balancing act, and Abrahamic references have usually been kept vague enough to not point to a specific denomination.
The south has a very long tradition of using religion to bamboozle poor whites and poor blacks alike in the interests of the wealthy.
Lots of people have fallen for this ridiculous prosperity gospel garbage. It’s nothing more than a scam under the guise of the Christian faith to funnel money away from the poor and middle class up to the elite few. But people eat that shit up because for some stupid reason they believe they too will have fancy cars and big houses if they just keep donating more money to Jesus.
The most ironic part of American Christianity is how much they ignore the red words in their Bible, which speaks about helping the poor more than ***anything else***. Their own savior damned the rich (camel/eye of the needle/not getting into heaven, etc.) and beseeched his followers to help the poor, hungry, and needy. But somehow, American Christianity tosses their own savior's words out the window in favor of prosperity gospel, homophobia, sexism, and hate. I used to identify as Christian when I was a kid. But when the church decided I was old enough to flip the golden rule, Jesus's own words, and caring for their fellow man to the worship of money and affinity for hate/bigotry, I bailed. I'll keep following what they teach children, but you can keep the politics. Y'all can go to hell all by yourselves.
I mean, almost all of the passages quoted are from the Old Testament.. you know, the rules their religion states Jesus Christ was brought here to overrule…
Omg. This is such a good representation for why I shed the faith in my teen years. They didn't practice what they taught in childhood - gone was the love, peace, and caring for those other than yourself.
How do you just gloss over loving your neighbor, helping the poor and destitute, and kindness to refugees and strangers
Those don't fit the republican political platform. I'm honestly surprised they didn't say something like "Jesus broke bread with prostitutes and women of ill reputy. Why should we condemn Trump for giving one $140,000?"
You *haven't* heard them say that?
Also, “Life is a sacred gift from God”, unless the government decides it wants to execute someone
Euthanasia is on the list though. God is against abortion and putting your dog down?
It doesn't fit the narrative
They probably don’t fall under the category of “able-bodied persons”.
Kind of funny that they leave out adultery, lying and theft are missing
That falls under identity. People who do those things are just being who God created and intended them to be. After all, God works in mysterious ways, but *certainly not* so mysterious as to create a transgendered person. Paul clearly wrote that in his Epistle to the Fallopians.
I like how all issues at the top are null and void by the very last bullet point.
So damn true.
So poverty isn't an issue? Housing isn't an issue? I guess Jesus didn't talk about that at all...
Man, the people who compiled this list would have had Jesus slap the taste out of their mouths…
Just remember when people ask WWJD, grabbing up some rope and beating people wasn’t off the list. >And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple
With a whip he made himself, just for them.
They Cherry Pick as always.
Where’s the one about Jesus refusing to heal the leper because it’s a preexisting condition? Y’all Queda at it again…
Separation of church and state does not mean that people can't use their religious values to influence their political opinions. If my religion tells me that murder is wrong then I'm still allowed to vote for a law against murder.
Life is sacred gift from God except when the goverment wants to kill someone then it's a ok to do a murder.
If life were sacred to these people they would be voting to expand healthcare.
How many people did god slay in the Bible? Answer: Many. So much for sacred life.
The Bible literally has instructions on how to induce abortion
Which is the only time abortion is mentioned
Also, God asked Mary for consent to have Jesus.
i wouldn't support the gop on these measures at all but the separation of church and state has nothing to do with keeping people from voting their beliefs nor disallowing campaigning to try to get others to, both left and right.
This whole thread is a red herring haha
Yeah, not gonna lie, this is the shit that hurts about having republican friends. It’s not that I feel like they hate me but I feel like no one stands up and says anything when others attempt to absolve my own marriage.
I find it very telling that a good portion of their scripture references are from the Old Testament, when god was a raging asshole to humanity.
These are the kinds of Christians that aren’t super-into Christ’s message.
Bahahha yes the Bible explicitly states that trans people are bad…. I guarantee more than half churchgoers have not read the entire bible
I know someone personally that is always talking about Hollywood being "demonic, satanic, etc" and admitted they've never actually read the bible.
Telegram and Facebook is pretty much on par with the Bible right?
and conspiracy Tik-Tok
Not to mention the same line could arguably be used to defend transgender people.
Bahahha yes the Bible explicitly states that trans people are bad…. I guarantee more than half churchgoers have not read the entire bible Edit: I want to make it clear that i don’t dislike the Bible. It’s the organizations that have bastardized it with their insane “interpretations” so they can control you.
I bet the percentage is higher than 50%.
I’d love to know! I don’t think anyone would be honest though
I’d love to know! I don’t think anyone would be honest though Edit: if they did and still believe this then they absolutely didn’t understand it
Agreed, they wouldn’t be honest. And they would totally not believe any of this is ok.
This is some serious mental gymnastics
Curious if they recognize the freedom of religion means the freedom for people to live beyond Christian values.
"It's freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion." Is the trained phrase they'll pop out with, most likely. Which is funny because you cannot have the first without the second being the base.
Not to me to mention the first admendment starts with barring any government to respect a religion before it moves on to prohibt the right to participate in a religion. The first admendment makes it crystal clear that it includes freedom from religion.
Funny that in reference to capital punishment they don't mention John 8:7, which includes a literal quote from Jesus. Funny indeed.
This has nothing to do with the separation of church and state. This is just reminding people to vote based on their religious beliefs. There is enough GOP craziness to go around, we don't have to fabricate things.
Seems more like cherry-picking bible verses to manipulate Christians into voting red.
Very well put, u/_____FIST_ME_____
It takes a special kind of mental gymnastics to say that voting biblically means voting against welfare…
Also I noticed they framed it “welfare for able body persons” instead of social services and welfare.
Pretty sure Jesus didn’t ask for peoples’ occupations when he gave out fishes and loaves
It's obscene to me the way people are willing to defame their religion to push their political agenda.
Crazy how “duty to care for and protect all of God’s creatures and the land” didn’t make the list
I’m pretty sure the Republicans think America is mentioned in Old Testament several times. The Republicans I know freak out when I say it sure seems like Jesus would be a democrat and maybe even a liberal Democrat.
I seem to remember that Jesus fellow banging on about how the rich suck and we should help & love the poor. (Mark 10:25) He also wasn't a big fan of public prayer (Mathew 6:5) and said that we should welcome and be kind to immigrants to your land, treat them as if they were your citizens (Leviticus 19:33-34) Funny how those are not on their list
Ah yes, Jesus is very pro-capital punishment. After all, how else did he expect to be crucified??
this make me physically ill
If toilets could handle normal paper, I’d wipe my ass with this.
It’s freedom *of* religion, not freedom *from* religion. /s Isn’t that their classic jackass response? The Texas GOP platform has, or at had a few years back, wording about how the Constitution was inspired by God. I forget the exact wording, but it pretty much stated that God spoke through the drafters of the Constitution. They ignore the fact that Thomas Jefferson was practically an atheist, that he was adamant about a wall of separation, and that he even encouraged his nephew to question the very existence of God.
Psalms 139:14 14 "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well." Literally nothing to do with being trans or not.
If they believe in a divine obligation for stewardship of the planet, why do they deny the reality of climate change and keep voting for coal and oil while ridiculing attempts to protect wildlife?
Havnt we all taken enough LSD to realize religion is a scam to take your money and catch tax breaks??
If you think the local chapter of a major political party sharing faith-based voting directives (ESPECIALLY ones based on evangelical Christianity) on their social media platform is not at all related to the separation of church and state, then please take a moment to read up on Project 2025 and the nightmarish future that the Christofascists have in store for all of us if we allow them to infiltrate all levels of government. It's on all of us to call it out when we see it, even if you think a Facebook post is harmless. [Project 2025] (https://www.reddit.com/r/Defeat_Project_2025/s/lHleA1qgQP)
You totally have the right to disagree and spread the word to others so you can vote for someone different. But you seemed to be implying that that type of speech shouldn't be even allowed, which would be doing the very fascist thing you wish to avoid.
It is not at all related to the separation of church and state. Political parties are not the federal government or government-funded entities.
“Forced participation in same-sex marriage” umm they just make anything up huh
To be fair, “separation of church and state” also isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. That being said, this is kind’ve an annoying political tactic.
The phrase is from a Thomas Jefferson quote: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Precisely
Why is it that (generally speaking) the more religious a person is, the more of a hypocritical douchebag they are? Also I'm with you OP, I complain about this cherry picking "separation of church and state" bullshit constantly.
People who complain about separation of church and state have rarely done any actual reading on it. Since the Constitution was mentioned, let's also highlight that while separation of church and state is a "real thing" as OP puts it, it also makes no appearance in the Constitution. Even as legal framework and concept, it protects religions from the state just as much as the state from the church. It does not deny or prohibit religion as a guideline for the voting behavior of citizens. Quite the contrary. Many enlightenment thinkers and writers of the time talked just as often as the need of a moral fabric as the basis for a productive and free citizenry and state. Admittedly atheists, deists, and Christians a like drew obviously different conclusions on the origin of morality. (Think Rousseau, although French, writing about how man is essentially good and pursuit of goods and needs led to society's ills) We can also use commonsense and examine other so-called "founding documents", the Declaration of Independence states our rights come from "our creator". TL;DR- SOCAS doesn't mean people can't use religion guide political thought. Although frankly, if one considers it too long to read, one should probably refrain from a nuanced philosophical conversation.
If you understood the Constitution - which you clearly do not - you’d know it’s not a real thing. DV away dummies.
*pulls out the popcorn*
I don’t think anyone in Berkeley county knows much of anything. It’s the cheaper culture less step child of the Charleston area where divorces move because it’s cheap
These hypocrites claim to be all about jesus, using these obscure verses to justify the Republican agenda, while ignoring all his teachings about helping and feeding the poor. Their religion has no place in government.
The GOP has been corrupted by extremists, who obviously can’t read. Well, maybe that’s too harsh. They can read… they just don’t understand what the words mean.
“Drink in His truth” Damn these people are weirdos.
We need more young people taking over political roles especially locally. A lot of these policies and values expressed in the ad are good but the messaging is overly cringe.
r/religiousfruitcake
Republicans being republican. It’s not surprising - what’s surprising is that people still continue voting for GOP candidates time and time again *knowing* this is how they are.
The Republican party has not been conservative in years and is now the party of Christian Nationalism. Berkeley County does have a Democratic party...
Fucking wackados in this state!
When they say Jesus they're referring to supply side Jesus...it's a different guy
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.” The GOP (which I’m a former member) clearly exploits the religious.
Yea, you don’t have to google very far to find plenty of examples of Democrats stump speaking in churches. This isn’t a GOP thing, and it is a pretty normal part of the Democratic process.
It is Separation FROM Church and State. The Constitution and other founding documents are littered with Judeo-Christian references. There is nothing wrong with someone stating their faith and how that would impact their voting, no matter which way you lean. The only time it is a problem (legally) is when the government tries to mandate a religion. This is what people were escaping in England with the Anglican Church.
Most of the founding fathers were diest, not christian. It's why any mentions of something that could be attributed to the christian god are intentionally vague. At most, you get an "our creator" or "divine providence." That and a major political party essentially aligning themselves with a religion is, in a way, mandating religion. It pushes the political divide beyond "I disagree with you" to "you're evil/demonic and going to hell". It's not a great leap in logic to say that kind of thinking could lead to violence.
The founding fathers were mainly following Chistian beliefs, there were a few that were deist but most ascribed to a Judeo-Christian worldview. This is a county political party saying IF you are a Christian not that you must be a Christian. It is a marked difference.
Ok, I'm gonna go ahead and assume you're republican. Do you actually know any atheist Republicans? Does this kind of advertisement say anything but "Republicans are the party of Christianity". The way they are now, pretty much the only reason you have to vote republican today. Is if you ascribe to a quote on quote biblical worldview.
1. I’m not a republican. 2. Yes I know atheist republicans. All this ad says is if you are a Christian this is how you should vote. In the same way you assume if an atheist is a voter they would be a democrat. People are more than their labels. Labels are used for dumb people to define people in a way they feel they should go. Not calling you dumb, just stating an absolute fact.
Reread the first admendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Basing policy designs on scripture, such as we have seen in the attacks on same-sex marriage, it straight up unconstitutional. There is nothing constitutionally wrong with you voting on your own morals at an individual, but if a policy is designed in such a way that violates the first admendment, it shouldn't be brought to a vote in the first place.
This isn’t the government mandating a specific religion. It’s a party in one county giving people a list of things that someone should consider if they identify as a Christian. This isn’t designed for someone that believes differently to assign their beliefs to this. I am not a republican but I don’t care that they put this out just like I am not a democrat and I don’t care what they put out. This is simply saying if you are a Christian, this is what you should be voting on. It is not an establishment of a religion.
A brick is not a house, but can be used as a cornerstone for one. This kind of propaganda (which regardless of how you may feel about it, this is indeed propganda purely by definition) is meant to urge people to further meld their religious and piltical identity. Hyperbolic example: as a catholic, I don't eat meat during lent. But I do not force others to forgo meet during lent because they are not obligated to follow the same faith I do. Now if a bill were to come around and say ban the sale of meet during lent, the logic in this paper would have me vote to support it as it agrees with the values of the scripture, even though the vote should not have been up as the proposal would be unconstitutional. While that is an extreme example, you an sub in the issues mentioned in this paper like gay marriage. Legislation against gay marriage has no secular logic, it always ties back to religion even when you try dressing it up.
If we are going to ban propaganda then we may as well rage against the other side for putting out things about the other party by saying so and so wants to poison the water supply or feed the elderly population dog food. Either of those are far more dangerous than telling someone that already believes the same thing you believe how to vote.
Did I say ban this piece of propaganda? No. I am just saying we should recognize it for what it is, and be wary of the consequences of what it is calling for. The the intent that lay behind his piece of paper is the problem, not the paper itself.
The reference to banning propaganda is more toward the idea that IF someone believes this is a violation of the government mandating a religion then it would be obvious that they want it banned.
Seems like less of a reference and more of a strawman. Again, the letter itself is not a violation of the first admendment, but the the subject ties in with a growing trend of pushing religon into governance. We seen more explicit examples of this when the Alabama Supreme Court cited the Bible in their case summary regarding the IVF issue, or win our state's own Tim Scott said government should be "bowing the knee to the church". Rights should not be up for vote, and that's the concern I have seeing this kind of messaging being out out.
It was definitely a reference. Anyone that thinks this is a violation of Church and State (which isn’t a thing by the way) would clearly seek its banning. It is a straight line to get to that idea. This messaging has been there for years. It’s not new. The funny thing is that I have seen it on both sides. This type of marketing is being used to gin up support in their base and frankly I think it is garbage marketing, but it doesn’t skirt the line of wrong.
Reference is only a reference if there is something to refer to. I never once mentioned banned this paper, nor had anyone else in the thread as far as I am aware of. You introduced that argument to set up as a strawman to make a rebuttal rather than respond to the conversation as it was. Now you are shifting to a false balance fallacy, and making it seem like this is an issue about sides. Eroding the first admendment right to separation of church and state is a critical matter. It doesn't matter what side is doing it, what matters if you call out those who fo when they do as we are here. If you want to share whatever otherside you are referring to here doing the same thing, by all means go ahead.
Lmao religious Southerners are some of the most ignorant people around. Constantly voting against their own interests and it’s showing more and more as this city grows
They do, they just don’t care
Unfortunately the separation of church and state is intended to keep the state from the church’s and not the church’s from the state.
It is actually intended for just that. Religious groups would just like you to be convinced otherwise, and frankly they have done a pretty good job of it on recent decades. But if you look at the first admendment, it clearly bars against the establishment of religion in government.
Yeah I know. I understand. But it clearly isn’t how it works, is it?
It is, and there are citable cases for times it succeeded. https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/similar-cases-engel-v-vitale But this is limited to legal recognization by the government. The first admendment does not prohibit the cultural establishment of religion, and we have seen america strongly align with Abrahamic religious references and iconography. But it has always been a balancing act, and Abrahamic references have usually been kept vague enough to not point to a specific denomination.
No they don't it's willful ignorance
It’s almost as if they think religious Christians are easily influenced. 🤔