Anonymous #1 1d

Says who?

7

Anonymous #2 1d

Oops I misread this as being pointed at Christianity instead of just all religion. Still applies to one group of people though

-10

Anonymous #2 1d

Yea only one religion is attempting to overhaul the federal government right now so that’s fair

57

Anonymous OP 1d

Well I mean it’s not overhauling the government if it’s written into the foundation. Look up original intent by David Barton

-7

Anonymous #4 1d

That part of the pledge was only added in 1954

27

Anonymous #6 23h

But it harkens back to the Declaration

-10

Anonymous #4 23h

So does slavery

23

Anonymous #2 23h

If you can prove that your religion is real and everyone else is lying then it can become part of the government. Till then? Keep your fucking beliefs out of my and everyone elses rights and don’t push it down everyone else’s throats

21

Anonymous #7 23h

I was being sarcastic lol, I think it’s fucking horrendous that they think they can do this just because the founding fathers were Christian

11

Anonymous #7 23h

The /s is a tone indicator meaning “sarcastic”

13

Anonymous #6 22h

My bfs great grandfather is who wrote that part 🫠

4

Anonymous #3 21h

Anti american^^

3

Anonymous #4 21h

The constitution

1

Anonymous #2 18h

#2, the number of downvotes only confirms your skill at satire. Well played

8

Anonymous #10 13h

gen thought it was a real comment until the tone indicator. I’ve seen people proudly call themselves nationalists “since it means [they] love [their] nation” (😭) so this seems like a tame but genuine bad take in comparison

3

Anonymous #3 6h

literally no one thinks that except for christians

7

Anonymous #12 5h

Exactly cuz we are Christian country. I think we are in agreement.

-2

Anonymous #3 5h

you’re the definition of delusional.

3

Anonymous #11 5h

Just me and the founding fathers

-1

Anonymous #3 5h

The founding fathers disagreed with you lol

5

Anonymous OP 4h

fr do we not know basic history 😭 people immigrated to the colonies in large part to get away from religion-based oppression in Christian countries. separation of church and state is a 4th grade concept, and it’s embarrassing for a college student to be this ignorant…

8

Anonymous #11 4h

The phrase separation of church and state never appears anywhere in our founding texts, it comes from a letter from TJ to the Dansbury Baptists where he is telling them to make sure the state doesn’t corrupt the authority of the church to advance the ends of the state.

-1

Anonymous #11 4h

But please tell me how they disagree when many of our states had established Christian churches at the state level, main example being Maryland, the land of Mary, which had an official state church of Catholicism.

-1

Anonymous #3 4h

there’s this thing called subtext and doctrine, in case you didn’t know. the first amendment has always been interpreted as separation of church and state. quit being a pseudo-intellectual, you just sound like a conspiracy theorist or like you’re coping.

8

Anonymous #11 4h

Also I didn’t respond the dumbest part, the Christian pilgrims came to America not to ‘get away from religious-based oppression’ but rather they thought the old world wasn’t Christian enough and they came to create puritanical very fundamentalist Christian colonies. That’s why one of them is called the ‘puritans’ lol

-2

Anonymous #3 4h

they quite literally left because of religion-based oppression idk what to tell you. my bets on conspiracy theorist, but either way you’re a waste of time and breath.

8

Anonymous #3 4h

i mean yeah we are in agreement about that but it isn’t any different for christians and i don’t understand why it would be

7

Anonymous #3 4h

The Establishment Clause: Mandates that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". This means the government cannot establish an official state religion, endorse any particular faith over another, or force individuals to participate in religious activities. The specific phrase "separation of church and state" was coined by Thomas Jefferson in an 1802 letter, where he described the Establishment Clause as building a "wall of separation between Church & State"

7

Anonymous #3 4h

A founding father is literally telling you, 200 years later, you are wrong.

4

Anonymous OP 3h

The EC only talks about congress and thus the federal gov. And it doesn’t not limit the state in any way to establish a church if it wants to, but that is a digression. Even if the fed doesn’t establish a specific church it is still a fact that the country is a Christian country, founded by Christian’s with a deep respect for the moral and religious foundation of Western Society.

-1

Anonymous #3 3h

I understand debating for fun, so if you’re doing that, ignore me, but ca I ask why you’re so intent on America having state sanctioned religion? Why do you believe that would be better for us? I don’t think many of our current problems are caused by how Christian the population is, and I deeply value the freedom of religion that’s written into our constitution

6

Anonymous #3 3h

If the federal government is to follow a law or constitutional precedent, then every state residing within the federal governments jurisdiction has to follow that same precedent. A federal crime for example, applies to every state. A founding father, disavowed church and state being intertwined

1

Anonymous OP 3h

The 10th Amendment literally exists for this reason states have their own sovereign authority. Federal supremacy only kicks in when there’s a direct conflict, states aren’t just federal subsidiaries. And the Establishment Clause originally only applied to the federal government, states had official churches until the 1800s.

1

Anonymous #6 3h

I mean I’m not saying we need a state religion, just that we need a moral and religious population in order to make sense of our freedoms and liberties.

1

Anonymous #3 3h

Sovereign authority doesn’t mean they get the right to disavow constitutional precedents that would apply to the federal government and the jurisdictions the feds have.

1

Anonymous #3 3h

No we don’t. That’s a delusional argument.

3

Anonymous OP 3h

Delusional? John Adams literally said Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.​​​​​​​​​​​​​

1

Anonymous #3 3h

Yes delusional, because the actual foundational principles our government rely on are established. John Adams did not directly participate in the 1787 Constitutional Convention because he was serving as the U.S. ambassador to Great Britain. Regardless of his opinion, the foundation of our country separates State and Church.

3

Anonymous OP 3h

So because he missed one convention his input is just invalid? He was one of the most prolific political writers of the era, a key figure in shaping this country, and literally the second president. The man spent his entire life building what America is. You don’t get to just throw out a founder’s direct quote about the Constitution because it doesn’t fit your argument.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

1

Anonymous #3 3h

Read what I said one more time. He didn’t participate directly in the creation of the constitution. The thing that we base our country’s laws off of. I do actually because it’s not what was established in the foundational root of this country. His opinion means nothing if it’s not in the thing that guides our laws and our government in reference to constitutional principles

1

Anonymous OP 3h

By that logic Jefferson’s opinions are worthless too since he was also in Franceduring the convention. The Federalist Papers exist specifically because founder writings matter for interpreting the Constitution. Courts cite them constantly. Try again!

1

Anonymous #3 3h

Sure I will try again! Let’s talk court cases since you brought them up! Everson v. Board of Education (1947): The first major case applying the Establishment Clause to state actions, invoking Jefferson's "wall of separation" metaphor. McCollum v. Board of Education (1948): Struck down religious instruction in public schools.

1

Anonymous #3 3h

Engel v. Vitale (1962): The Court refused to allow state-composed, official prayers to be recited in public school classrooms, ruling that school-sponsored prayer is unconstitutional. Abington School District v. Schempp (1963): The Court refused to allow state-mandated Bible readings or the recitation of the Lord's Prayer to open the school day.

1

Anonymous #3 3h

I agree with moral, but I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with religious. If someone’s morals are tied into their religion that’s fine, but I don’t think that one necessarily gives rise to the other. That’s why I have an issue with your defense of state (little state, not country) churches- to me, they unconstitutionally restrict freedom without adding value. I think we just have to agree to disagree

1

Anonymous #3 3h

McCollum v. Board of Education (1948): The Court refused to permit religious instructors to enter public school buildings during the school day to give religious lessons.

1

Anonymous OP 2h

Everson 1947 was the FIRST time the Clause applied to states, 160 years post-founding. That’s not original intent, that’s modern reinterpretation. Also none of these cases touch what I actually said. I argued for a religious population, not a government mandated religion. Try reading my argument before responding to it.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

1

Anonymous #3 2h

So you’re disregarding court cases now?

1

Anonymous OP 2h

When did I say that?

1

Anonymous OP 2h

Ik ur scrambling and rapidly ChatGPTing but you can’t just make things up

1

Anonymous #3 2h

None of what I said was made up. Those are all real court cases that exist and went through. You not liking facts don’t make them go away. Yes or no do you acknowledge the countless court case decisions that reaffirm the intent to separate church and state?

1

Anonymous OP 2h

didn’t say those weren’t real court cases, 🙄at the federal level yes obviously I agree, but the level of at which the state can endorse religion is a hotly debated issue with new challenges coming to SCOTUS actively, previous cases are not settled jurisprudence

1

Anonymous #3 2h

Do states have to follow federal law yes or no?

1

Anonymous OP 2h

Yeah obviously, but that’s not the gotcha you think it is. The Establishment Clause only even applied to states starting in 1947 through the 14th Amendment, that wasn’t the original design. And what exactly federal law prohibits states from doing with religion is actively being re-litigated right now. Kennedy v. Bremerton in 2022 already blew up a lot of the old precedent.

1

Anonymous #3 2h

When the First Amendment was ratified in 1791, the word "State" applied strictly to the federal government. Do you acknowledge that the constitution and its amendments are considered law that applies federally, yes or no?

1

Anonymous OP 1h

Great we agree! You just admitted the First Amendment in 1791 only applied to the federal government, which is exactly what I’ve been saying the whole time.

1

Anonymous #3 1h

Not an answer. Try again!

1

Anonymous OP 1h

Ok here we go. The Bill of Rights was originally only a restriction on the FEDERAL government, that’s just a fact. States had official churches after 1791 because they could. It wasn’t until 1947 through the 14th Amendment that it even applied to states at all, and exactly how far that reach extends is still being fought at SCOTUS right now. So no, not settled.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

1

Anonymous #3 1h

I didn’t ask for your opinion on whether or not it was settled. Try again, hurry up. Yes or no, to the question I actually asked.

1

Anonymous OP 1h

Yes. And since you agree the First Amendment in 1791 only applied federally, you just confirmed my entire argument. States weren’t bound by it until 1947. That’s not original intent, that’s modern interpretation. So what exactly are you winning here?​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

1

Anonymous #3 56m

And we both agree that the constitution is the law of the land, correct?

1

Anonymous OP 50m

Yes, If we are gonna do Socratic questioning you gotta respond faster bro I’m getting bored

1

Anonymous #3 46m

Perfect. Then we both agree, that when referring to state, the intention was to refer to the government as a whole, the amendments are part of the constitution and applies federally, which means it’s a federal law. Extrapolate slightly!

1

Anonymous OP 8m

“Congress shall make no law” not states. That’s not extrapolation, that’s the literal text. If your logic worked, Barron v. Baltimore (1833) and a century of incorporation cases would’ve been pointless

1