Anonymous #1 4w

It’s almost like we have a clause in the constitution specifically saying not to

53

Anonymous #2 4w

Um not exactly that's more of an interpretation of the first amendment, I'm pretty sure

12

Anonymous #1 4w

Babe I’m talking about the establishment clause

16

Anonymous #1 4w

Because you need to be able to separate yourself from your bias when making decisions that effect other people in order to be an effective leader. And if you can’t justify that decision without invoking god, then you don’t have a REAL good reason. If you did, then you would’ve used that as a justification instead.

14

Anonymous #2 4w

Oh that's a pretty far stretch from what I said. State run religion or declaring official religion seems way further away from the 1st amendment from what I was saying.

3

Anonymous #1 4w

Any law made with the argument of religion is effectively imposing a favored religion. For example, because Christians might believe abortion should be outlawed, not every religion believes the same. That would be favoring Christianity in that case, which violates the establishment clause. Because we’re talking policy, the first amendment is kind of irrelevant here.

6

Anonymous OP 4w

I get you I'd agree that it should only be a supporting argument not a main one for politicians and people in actually power. But I'd probably disagree for everyday people if they wanna go full Bible for certain issues (some obviously not).

-3

Anonymous #2 4w

Yeah unless the law was a Bible quote this not how that works

-4

Anonymous #1 4w

That is objectively not true, we can use our critical thinking skills and spot legislation that is intrinsically religious-based without it outright saying it is. Obviously though, there are tons of examples of legislation that violates that clause (ex. Blue laws)

11

Anonymous #1 4w

your fairytales shouldn’t determine how I live my life

18

Anonymous #2 4w

SCOTUS said blue laws r constitutional though

1

Anonymous #1 4w

Which is insane to me, someone’s Sunday religious rules should not affect my ability to buy something to get drunk and watch NFL 💀

24

Anonymous #1 4w

yes, SCOTUS did uphold blue laws in the 1960s, but they did so because they argued that the laws served a secular purpose (providing a uniform day of rest for everyone), not just a religious one SCOTUS actually cautioned that if a law’s only justification is “because my religion says so,” it still runs afoul of the Establishment Clause

11

Anonymous #3 4w

Yes but every law gonna do that though. Once we gotta use ur "critical thinking" the law gonna stand. Thats why I thought u meant church vs state because it's a lot more practical

-3

Anonymous #1 4w

yeah a law must have secular justification, using religion as a basis for law is literally illegal in this country, so no you shouldn’t use religion to create policy or law

8

Anonymous #3 4w

Bruh u can use it as a basis the establishment clause/ 1st amendment is only concerned with the result

-2

Anonymous #1 4w

Actually, the courts use the Lemon Test (from Lemon v. Kurtzman), and the very first prong is that a law must have a “clear secular legislative purpose.” If the primary reason for a law is to advance a specific religion, it’s unconstitutional. You can’t just hide a religious goal behind a thin secular veil; if the “basis” is purely religious, the law is on very shaky ground.

11

Anonymous #4 4w

lordie im half curious what #1 is saying but also happy i dont have to deal with whatever bs it is

1

Anonymous #3 4w

I’d agree with blue laws if they actually enforced them and allowed every non-essential worker to have a day of rest, but it makes zero sense in my mind how it only applies to shutting down liquor sales. Especially considering most grocery stores have the alcohol sitting in one of the open aisles so it doesn’t affect staffing or operations at all. Not arguing with you, I appreciate you shedding light on it, it’s just nonsensical to me

1

Anonymous #2 4w

it used to be a bigger deal, it’s fully antiquated now

5