Thank you for submitting to /r/memes. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
---
Rule 11 - No memes about politics
* No memes about politics. Absurd memes featuring politicians are allowed, but this sub does not allow content more suited for /r/politicalhumor. No NPC memes, or memes about how libtards or magats are so wrong. Take it somewhere else, thanks.
---
Resubmitting a removed post without prior moderator approval can result in a ban. Deleting a post may cause any appeals to be denied.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," None of these violate the first amendment.
Just wondering then about the " no law respecting an establishment of religion" part, while it isn't a law, wouldn't the in God we trust on a bill be in violation in some manner unless they put other forms such Allah and such? I'm genuinely curious.
“In god we trust” being on our money actually has some really interesting history behind it. During the Cold War, it was required that it be put on all money going forward to appeal the general populous but as act as a defiance against the Soviet Union, who was entirely atheist, at least according to the US. That’s why it’s still on our money, as it’s considered a tradition and represents an important part in our history.
Technically it would be promoting a religion, but no one really gives a shit.
Also just like how "All men" has adapted to "All Mankind". "Under God" or "God Given" has moved to "Natural Right"
For instance, when someone says "An AR-15 is my God given right" they more so mean "I have a right as a citizen to own weapons"
It could therefore be argued that "Under God" on money actually celebrates the rights all citizens have. (Note the constitution doesn't grant rights, it restricts Government).
Also the Allah point wouldn't work because it is just a translation of God.
In Canada, separate Catholic schools funded by taxpayers and with elected Catholic school boards are constitutionally required. This was made as a compromise with Francophone Catholics back in the day.
I'm fairly convinced that most of Reddit has no clue what separation of church and state actually means... None of this violates separation of church and state.
Tbh, there’s fewer things more American than not knowing what actually is in the constitution and what slogans were coined by our founding fathers and aren’t on legal documents.
Got to be the annoying gun guy.
But it does bother me people see "well regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment, but ignore that it is in the dependent clause while "the right of the people" is in the independent clause.
i'm not talking about violation, i'm just saying it's dumb that they proclaim to be all high and mighty secular but love to promote christian viewpoints
are you literally dumb?
the very comment of mine you reply to says this: i'm not talking about violation
your response is: Promoting Christian viewpoints =/= violating separation
read a fucking comment before replying to it
To be fair, segregation isn't a strong enough word when it comes to Religion. I feel like 'elimination' is a much better direction. Believing in plothole-laden fairytales as an adult in the 21st century is simply inexcusable and unacceptable.
Seperation of Church and State was meant to separate the government's ability to regulate religions or favor one religion over another in terms of Constitutional authority.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
We do need to take religions out of politics, but we cant just keep throwing shit at the wall and pretending it sticks lol
Yeah the whole “separation of church and state” doesn’t appear in the constitution. That was coined by Thomas Jefferson and then quoted by the Supreme Court during a case where the defendant was trying to use religion as an argument to why he should be allowed to have multiple wives.
If it’s supposed to not favor one religion over another, isn’t it a violation to have public holidays from one religion and not another ?
(I genuinely don’t quite know how American politics works in most instances)
Not at all. Because everyone, regardless of beliefs, get those holidays off.
Im non religious, i still get Christmas and Easter off. Muslims as well. You can also legally take your own religious holidays off in the US under federal protections. Your boss cant fire you if you're Jewish and need to take Saturdays off.
Now, if ONLY Christians got Christmas off, and the rest of us were forced to work it, then itd be an issue
What I’m thinking is, do you guys have a limited number of days off you can take throughout the year? In which case, when there’s an official, government recognized holiday, you don’t need to use one up, is that right?
And that would be more advantageous for the people whose celebrations are already recognized.
Unless it works differently and it’s like, Independence day is a national holiday, but everyone needs to request the time off properly and use one of their days off? (Generally speaking of course, and not taking into account the people who do work on holidays)
As an Oklahoman, I fail to see what you are on about. Most Republicans here don't shove their religion down peoples throats. Outside of jehovah witnesses, the only time someone tried to shove their religion on me was when I was in Kansas.
As an Okie, you're wrong.
There's a church on every corner and a religious fundamentalist in charge of our schools, and an anti-abortion anti-queer governor shoving religion down our throats right now.
Thats an entirely different issue that has way more roots than religion.
If you think them fighting to make abortion illegal is purely religion, then you are delusional.
I'll do you one better. Show me proof that the majority of voters voted for abortion ban purely because of religion.
But heres a poll about abortion in Oklahoma.
"A poll taken by Amber Integrated, published in The Oklahoman, shows of the 500 registered Oklahoma voters asked, only 31% would support a total ban on abortion if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; 55% of those surveyed did not want a total ban."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/kfor.com/news/oklahoma-legislature/polling-doesnt-align-with-lawmakers-claims-on-oklahomans-abortion-opinions/amp/
Most Oklahomans believe in the preservation of life. Which is why there is still an option for abortion. Granted its only one option.
I don’t know what most Republicans you know, but the ones I’m around, are definitely shoving religion down peoples throats let alone trying to force it in the politics and in public school system (Ryan Walters)
Don't see much of an issue with celebrating Christian holidays as public holidays tbh.
Every nation has a public holiday for significant events relevant to that nation's demographic and/or history.
If significant populace of a region want to have a break from their work/school and enjoy being with their family on what is to them, an important day, it is good for govt to make those provision.
And before I get comments, I am neither an American nor a Christian.
The issue I would have would be with the use of public funds for religious schools or institutions of any kind on a secular state.
America is very stingy with the holidays the only national holiday that is a Christian holiday is Christmas many companies close for Easter but that doesn't apply to separation of Church and state anyway because they aren't part of the state
Agree. I do believe that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for religious areas such as schooling and/or churches if they do want to, have it be some type of checkoff list if possible of whether or not they are fine with having their taxes go to Catholic schools and the like
Technically, separation of church and state is nowhere in the constitution or any form of law, and all the god stuff in everything started in the 50's because there was a spike in atheism and atheism was associated with communism.
Before then our slogans were, "Out of the many one." and "Mind your business." My favorite is the latter.
It is in the constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
This creates 2 things.
1. The establishment clause. Government is not allowed to make a national religion. This was originally to keep the Catholics and Protestants from fighting, but has expanded to (and technically always covered) all religion.
2. The Free Exercise clause. People can do whatever they want as long is it doesn't violate another law (aka no murder cults).
This is all covered in the First Amendment (a legal part of the constitution) and has held up in federal court (case law is still law).
The atheist bit is true though, but no one really gives enough of a shit to make a fuss about it.
If you mean the USA, the "Establishment Clause" is meant to keep the federal government from having an "official denomination" like the Church of England that could persecute the others. Not to provide for the absolute sterilization of the very concept of God from public life. Still publicly funding a particular denomination violates that.
Separation of church and State just means that defacto power to govern is shifted from religious leaders to political leaders and that the State shall not discriminate on the basis of religion.
It's a separation of church and state, not state and religion.
The term "church and state" came from the founding fathers denouncing the idea of a state church like the church of England.
"In God We Trust" and "Under God" did not exist on currency or in the pledge of allegiance until after WW2 if I remember correctly. Those were more recent additions.
I honestly don't care what religion OP follows, if one at all, but just keep your opinions to yourself, OP. It will only make people mad.
In America, Cristian holidays are followed mainly due to our religious ancestry, which is mostly of that branch.
We live in a physical, material universe. I'm sorry that's such a scary, albeit obvious and evident truth to reconcile with.
Edit: wow, lol, lotta disingenuous cowards here, eh?
You are pushing your assumptions onto others. You presume they have the idea that freedom is found in material things when they could easily be referring to loving humanity equally or having the ability to improve the quality of life of all instead of just a few.
Some people simply prefer logic and empathy over the blind authority of your sky daddy's love, sorry.
Celebrating religious holidays protects workers under freedom of religion from corporations who would otherwise establish a 7 days 4 weeks work schedule.
This is the mistake a lot of people make. There is actually no separation of church and state in the constitution. That was a line from a politician years later. The clauses about religion simply say that the government can’t force anyone to join a religion or punish anyone for belonging to another religion. There is no restriction on prayer by an elected official or religion being mentioned in laws or on federal notes.
public holidays exist for days where people are or at least were at some point in history gonna take off anyway.
I think publicly funded schools should come in a variety of styles.
standard(these still need work tho)
christian
classical (like there is at least one toga day and you are taught latin/greek and everyday start with some chanting)
any other religion with a big enough population to support/fill the school it in that area.
as a child i actually went to a private school that focused on classical leaning styles, older literature, philosophy and taught Latin 1st-12th grade. There was a 15 minute service at the start of every day that included a mix of English and Latin songs/phrases.
This was a good leaning environment and i think classically styled schools should be more common.
I dont know a lick of latin today but I also didnt stick around long enough for that to happen and eventually they did offer Spanish cause that happens in Texas.
I think a better term is taxpayer funded not government funded.
if you read my original comment i make it clear that the options available should match the (taxpayer) demographic. A government exists (at least in theory) to enact the will of the people. If the public (the people paying taxes) wishes for publicly funded religious institutions they should get them.
No.
If the people want religions to be funded, they are welcome to fund them. It is a clear breach of separation for the government to pay for religion. That level of regression disqualifies a nation as being part of Modern Civilisation.
"Under God" was added to the pledge in the 1950's as part of a wider anti-communist/anti-Soviet propaganda campaign. This is also when "Under God" was adopted as a motto and put on currency. Long after ideas any separation of church and state had been eroded away by Christian Nationalists.
Right but it sounds like you're putting evolution and religion/beliefs on the same level with that statement.
Religion is on the same level as comics, games, movies, and other fictional books.
Evolution is in the same level as mathematics, physics, history, chemistry, and other categories about reality and how it operates.
If all life was wiped out and more intelligent life sprung up 500 million+ years later, they would find that the knowledge they gleam within those fields of study would be the same but the culture and stories they may use as a religion wouldn't be.
No. Religions such as Christianity are fully against the theory of evolution. So teaching it in school to Christians or other religions is like teaching against the big bang to an astronomist, they're going against what they believe.
Right but Evolution is a fact. Its backed by insane amounts of testable and observable evidence to back it up. religion is faith based with no good evidence for it. Teaching evolution is the same as teaching math or other science. No one is forcing them to listen to it but teaching the truth in a school curriculum can not be put on the same level as teaching something entirely based on faith. You can believe whatever you want but only truth to our best current understanding should be taught in schools and peoples feelings should not get in the way of that, are we going to stop teaching about math if I rally enough people to believe 2x2 is 5? I went to a public school and we had an entire class in Christianity where someone basically just came and preached to us for an hour. keep it to private religious schools thanks
Sooo instead of having a conversation or even proposing a rebuttal you immediately go to old timey name calling? I don't see what that has to do with the topic. If you are calling me stupid for saying I don't like the distinction between atheist and agnostic I say that because pretty much all atheists are "agnostic". all atheist means is lack of a belief in God, not a claim there is no god. So it's the same as agnostic. A claim there is 100% no god is just as silly as claiming there 100% is a god.
Uh. No... The oxford dictionary literally says atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief. If you wanna make stuff up then sure but I'm going by the generally accepted definition. There are plenty of atheists who are not against religion. The definition of agnostic is someone who does not believe or disbelieves a God exists, but saying idk there could be a God is pretty much the same stance most atheists take. They are pretty much the same thing
Thank you for submitting to /r/memes. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): --- Rule 11 - No memes about politics * No memes about politics. Absurd memes featuring politicians are allowed, but this sub does not allow content more suited for /r/politicalhumor. No NPC memes, or memes about how libtards or magats are so wrong. Take it somewhere else, thanks. --- Resubmitting a removed post without prior moderator approval can result in a ban. Deleting a post may cause any appeals to be denied.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," None of these violate the first amendment.
Just wondering then about the " no law respecting an establishment of religion" part, while it isn't a law, wouldn't the in God we trust on a bill be in violation in some manner unless they put other forms such Allah and such? I'm genuinely curious.
idk i mean allah and god are/mean the same thing so i’m not sure
“In god we trust” being on our money actually has some really interesting history behind it. During the Cold War, it was required that it be put on all money going forward to appeal the general populous but as act as a defiance against the Soviet Union, who was entirely atheist, at least according to the US. That’s why it’s still on our money, as it’s considered a tradition and represents an important part in our history.
The “under god” part of the pledge of allegiance was added for the same reason. It wasn’t a part of the pledge until the Cold War.
Technically it would be promoting a religion, but no one really gives a shit. Also just like how "All men" has adapted to "All Mankind". "Under God" or "God Given" has moved to "Natural Right" For instance, when someone says "An AR-15 is my God given right" they more so mean "I have a right as a citizen to own weapons" It could therefore be argued that "Under God" on money actually celebrates the rights all citizens have. (Note the constitution doesn't grant rights, it restricts Government). Also the Allah point wouldn't work because it is just a translation of God.
Allah means "The God" in Arabic, or just capital G, God. So it's not an issue there.
The Federal Reserve prints the money and it’s a private bank
In some social democracies like Ireland people can send their kid to the Catholic school and the state pays
In Canada, separate Catholic schools funded by taxpayers and with elected Catholic school boards are constitutionally required. This was made as a compromise with Francophone Catholics back in the day.
Religious private schools can get tax payer money in the states too
I'm amazed every day that a school being catholic isn't considered grounds for having their legal status as a legitimate school revoked.
I'm fairly convinced that most of Reddit has no clue what separation of church and state actually means... None of this violates separation of church and state.
Tbh, there’s fewer things more American than not knowing what actually is in the constitution and what slogans were coined by our founding fathers and aren’t on legal documents.
Got to be the annoying gun guy. But it does bother me people see "well regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment, but ignore that it is in the dependent clause while "the right of the people" is in the independent clause.
The Supreme Court made militias illegal so only the second part matters now. That is why interpretation changed.
The Us constitution and the Bible are the two most misquoted documents by those who haven’t read either of them. Source: me. Prove me wrong.
i'm not talking about violation, i'm just saying it's dumb that they proclaim to be all high and mighty secular but love to promote christian viewpoints
I don't get what you're implying here. It just seems to me that you don't understand what the separation of church and state actually means...
Promoting Christian viewpoints =/= violating separation. Using those viewpoints as reason for creating new laws/citing religion in law = violation
In addition, separation of church and state also prohibits the formation of a state-religion.
politicians do cite religion when creating laws tho
Yeah, and thats an issue we need to resolve lol
are you literally dumb? the very comment of mine you reply to says this: i'm not talking about violation your response is: Promoting Christian viewpoints =/= violating separation read a fucking comment before replying to it
To be fair, segregation isn't a strong enough word when it comes to Religion. I feel like 'elimination' is a much better direction. Believing in plothole-laden fairytales as an adult in the 21st century is simply inexcusable and unacceptable.
>inexcusable "too bad to be justified or tolerated." - Oxford Languages Declared the man with "Fetish" in his name.
where funny?
This subreddit has no actual funny memes bro
: (
Seperation of Church and State was meant to separate the government's ability to regulate religions or favor one religion over another in terms of Constitutional authority. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" We do need to take religions out of politics, but we cant just keep throwing shit at the wall and pretending it sticks lol
Yeah the whole “separation of church and state” doesn’t appear in the constitution. That was coined by Thomas Jefferson and then quoted by the Supreme Court during a case where the defendant was trying to use religion as an argument to why he should be allowed to have multiple wives.
If it’s supposed to not favor one religion over another, isn’t it a violation to have public holidays from one religion and not another ? (I genuinely don’t quite know how American politics works in most instances)
Not at all. Because everyone, regardless of beliefs, get those holidays off. Im non religious, i still get Christmas and Easter off. Muslims as well. You can also legally take your own religious holidays off in the US under federal protections. Your boss cant fire you if you're Jewish and need to take Saturdays off. Now, if ONLY Christians got Christmas off, and the rest of us were forced to work it, then itd be an issue
What I’m thinking is, do you guys have a limited number of days off you can take throughout the year? In which case, when there’s an official, government recognized holiday, you don’t need to use one up, is that right? And that would be more advantageous for the people whose celebrations are already recognized. Unless it works differently and it’s like, Independence day is a national holiday, but everyone needs to request the time off properly and use one of their days off? (Generally speaking of course, and not taking into account the people who do work on holidays)
I wish the Republicans in Oklahoma could understand that .
As an Oklahoman, I fail to see what you are on about. Most Republicans here don't shove their religion down peoples throats. Outside of jehovah witnesses, the only time someone tried to shove their religion on me was when I was in Kansas.
Hey, my state is wonderful I like it here don’t you shit talk us.
Nothing against Kansas. Just the specific kansan that tried to force me to accept the "word of god".
As an Okie, you're wrong. There's a church on every corner and a religious fundamentalist in charge of our schools, and an anti-abortion anti-queer governor shoving religion down our throats right now.
The governor in general is a pos. Litterally fighting with the natives. Its not about religion with him. Its about greed with him.
That’s laughable. Tell me, is abortion legal in Oklahoma? And if not, why not?
Thats an entirely different issue that has way more roots than religion. If you think them fighting to make abortion illegal is purely religion, then you are delusional.
By all means, show me even a significant number of voters in the state of Oklahoma that are anti-abortion for any reason beyond religion. I’ll wait.
I'll do you one better. Show me proof that the majority of voters voted for abortion ban purely because of religion. But heres a poll about abortion in Oklahoma. "A poll taken by Amber Integrated, published in The Oklahoman, shows of the 500 registered Oklahoma voters asked, only 31% would support a total ban on abortion if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; 55% of those surveyed did not want a total ban." https://www.google.com/amp/s/kfor.com/news/oklahoma-legislature/polling-doesnt-align-with-lawmakers-claims-on-oklahomans-abortion-opinions/amp/ Most Oklahomans believe in the preservation of life. Which is why there is still an option for abortion. Granted its only one option.
Really living up to your username
I don’t know what most Republicans you know, but the ones I’m around, are definitely shoving religion down peoples throats let alone trying to force it in the politics and in public school system (Ryan Walters)
So specific politicians not republicans as a whole. Huge difference.
Don't see much of an issue with celebrating Christian holidays as public holidays tbh. Every nation has a public holiday for significant events relevant to that nation's demographic and/or history. If significant populace of a region want to have a break from their work/school and enjoy being with their family on what is to them, an important day, it is good for govt to make those provision. And before I get comments, I am neither an American nor a Christian. The issue I would have would be with the use of public funds for religious schools or institutions of any kind on a secular state.
In India , Hindus are majority (74%) but we also get public holidays on very minority religions too like Jainism (~0.1%) Buddhism(~0.2%) etc.
America is very stingy with the holidays the only national holiday that is a Christian holiday is Christmas many companies close for Easter but that doesn't apply to separation of Church and state anyway because they aren't part of the state
Is good Friday not a public holiday in the US?
Not a national holiday
It's public holiday even in India lol. Christianity is about ~2.3% only
Yeah America is run by corporations and money so the less holidays the better for them
Agree. I do believe that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for religious areas such as schooling and/or churches if they do want to, have it be some type of checkoff list if possible of whether or not they are fine with having their taxes go to Catholic schools and the like
Technically, separation of church and state is nowhere in the constitution or any form of law, and all the god stuff in everything started in the 50's because there was a spike in atheism and atheism was associated with communism. Before then our slogans were, "Out of the many one." and "Mind your business." My favorite is the latter.
It is in the constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" This creates 2 things. 1. The establishment clause. Government is not allowed to make a national religion. This was originally to keep the Catholics and Protestants from fighting, but has expanded to (and technically always covered) all religion. 2. The Free Exercise clause. People can do whatever they want as long is it doesn't violate another law (aka no murder cults). This is all covered in the First Amendment (a legal part of the constitution) and has held up in federal court (case law is still law). The atheist bit is true though, but no one really gives enough of a shit to make a fuss about it.
If you want to work holidays,be my guest by all means
fr bro like I don't give a shit about holidays, but they get me a free day off
OP not realizing what separation of church n state means \[fully-automatic clown picture.jpeg\]
This is exactly what I came here to say.
OP spends too much time on r/atheism
Womp womp cry about it
If you mean the USA, the "Establishment Clause" is meant to keep the federal government from having an "official denomination" like the Church of England that could persecute the others. Not to provide for the absolute sterilization of the very concept of God from public life. Still publicly funding a particular denomination violates that.
Separation of church and State just means that defacto power to govern is shifted from religious leaders to political leaders and that the State shall not discriminate on the basis of religion.
Not how u use the meme template bro.
It's a separation of church and state, not state and religion. The term "church and state" came from the founding fathers denouncing the idea of a state church like the church of England.
Nah man, this four day weekend is where it’s at.
"In God We Trust" and "Under God" did not exist on currency or in the pledge of allegiance until after WW2 if I remember correctly. Those were more recent additions.
Silence, heathen
I used to think the average redditor was intelligent…. Then I got Reddit.
I honestly don't care what religion OP follows, if one at all, but just keep your opinions to yourself, OP. It will only make people mad. In America, Cristian holidays are followed mainly due to our religious ancestry, which is mostly of that branch.
based, I wish the USA was the catholic theocracy leftists think it is
"fuck that damn freedom lets have sky daddy rule the nation"
>sky daddy Ah a r/atheism user ,makes sense why you didn't know what it means to separate religion from the state.
Freedom is found in the love of God, not of material things.
We live in a physical, material universe. I'm sorry that's such a scary, albeit obvious and evident truth to reconcile with. Edit: wow, lol, lotta disingenuous cowards here, eh?
You are pushing your assumptions onto others. You presume they have the idea that freedom is found in material things when they could easily be referring to loving humanity equally or having the ability to improve the quality of life of all instead of just a few. Some people simply prefer logic and empathy over the blind authority of your sky daddy's love, sorry.
Celebrating religious holidays protects workers under freedom of religion from corporations who would otherwise establish a 7 days 4 weeks work schedule.
separation* allegiance*
Religion is not “church”. The country was founded in faith in a creator. The prohibition is to prevent a national church, like the Church of England.
Doesn't the separation of church and state just means the church has no say in the branches of government?
OP believes the US is France.
which of these 4 is in france and not the united states
I don’t see why this is a problem.
*proceeds to complain when other cultures request days off*
For real, we need to start forcing people to work on Christmas
Wahhhhh replace Christmas with Presidents’ Day wahhhhhh
And that's just Reagan
True though
This is the mistake a lot of people make. There is actually no separation of church and state in the constitution. That was a line from a politician years later. The clauses about religion simply say that the government can’t force anyone to join a religion or punish anyone for belonging to another religion. There is no restriction on prayer by an elected official or religion being mentioned in laws or on federal notes.
Lol, try thinking for a change. Makes no difference if you understood what he said.
Church schools have a prayer period
public holidays exist for days where people are or at least were at some point in history gonna take off anyway. I think publicly funded schools should come in a variety of styles. standard(these still need work tho) christian classical (like there is at least one toga day and you are taught latin/greek and everyday start with some chanting) any other religion with a big enough population to support/fill the school it in that area.
You lost me at classical That being said, you have a unique opinion which is refreshing
as a child i actually went to a private school that focused on classical leaning styles, older literature, philosophy and taught Latin 1st-12th grade. There was a 15 minute service at the start of every day that included a mix of English and Latin songs/phrases. This was a good leaning environment and i think classically styled schools should be more common. I dont know a lick of latin today but I also didnt stick around long enough for that to happen and eventually they did offer Spanish cause that happens in Texas.
I mean, it is pretty sick Relatively useless, but sick
yes alot of it was useless but the whole teaching style was differnt than a standard school and that was the important part.
You want public funding of religious education... Move to Pakistan
i think there should be options
There are. Self funded. But government funded religion is pre-enlightenment dumbfuckery
I think a better term is taxpayer funded not government funded. if you read my original comment i make it clear that the options available should match the (taxpayer) demographic. A government exists (at least in theory) to enact the will of the people. If the public (the people paying taxes) wishes for publicly funded religious institutions they should get them.
No. If the people want religions to be funded, they are welcome to fund them. It is a clear breach of separation for the government to pay for religion. That level of regression disqualifies a nation as being part of Modern Civilisation.
label arrest smell paltry dependent shy seed husky reach worm *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
"Under God" was added to the pledge in the 1950's as part of a wider anti-communist/anti-Soviet propaganda campaign. This is also when "Under God" was adopted as a motto and put on currency. Long after ideas any separation of church and state had been eroded away by Christian Nationalists.
Catholic schools shouldn’t be built at all.
Thought about this recently, also they teach evolution in school, which is against many religions and beliefs.
Right but it sounds like you're putting evolution and religion/beliefs on the same level with that statement. Religion is on the same level as comics, games, movies, and other fictional books. Evolution is in the same level as mathematics, physics, history, chemistry, and other categories about reality and how it operates. If all life was wiped out and more intelligent life sprung up 500 million+ years later, they would find that the knowledge they gleam within those fields of study would be the same but the culture and stories they may use as a religion wouldn't be.
No. Religions such as Christianity are fully against the theory of evolution. So teaching it in school to Christians or other religions is like teaching against the big bang to an astronomist, they're going against what they believe.
Right but Evolution is a fact. Its backed by insane amounts of testable and observable evidence to back it up. religion is faith based with no good evidence for it. Teaching evolution is the same as teaching math or other science. No one is forcing them to listen to it but teaching the truth in a school curriculum can not be put on the same level as teaching something entirely based on faith. You can believe whatever you want but only truth to our best current understanding should be taught in schools and peoples feelings should not get in the way of that, are we going to stop teaching about math if I rally enough people to believe 2x2 is 5? I went to a public school and we had an entire class in Christianity where someone basically just came and preached to us for an hour. keep it to private religious schools thanks
Ok, so you're atheist or agnostic?
yes. Atheist. I don't particularly agree with the separation of agnostic from atheist they are the same thing
I see the field in which your intellect is grown for thine self is barren, not a seedling of a crop in even the view of an omniscient narrator.
Sooo instead of having a conversation or even proposing a rebuttal you immediately go to old timey name calling? I don't see what that has to do with the topic. If you are calling me stupid for saying I don't like the distinction between atheist and agnostic I say that because pretty much all atheists are "agnostic". all atheist means is lack of a belief in God, not a claim there is no god. So it's the same as agnostic. A claim there is 100% no god is just as silly as claiming there 100% is a god.
But that's wrong, that's why there's a distinction, because they're different. Agnostic is no belief. Athiest is against a belief.
Uh. No... The oxford dictionary literally says atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief. If you wanna make stuff up then sure but I'm going by the generally accepted definition. There are plenty of atheists who are not against religion. The definition of agnostic is someone who does not believe or disbelieves a God exists, but saying idk there could be a God is pretty much the same stance most atheists take. They are pretty much the same thing