612
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
612 points (98.9% liked)
politics
19148 readers
2132 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It’s technically not against the Constitution. The First Amendment prevents the government from creating or establishing a religion, and thereby prevents the power of the government from expanding beyond civil matters.
SCOTUS further restricted religious public education by ruling against religion in public curriculum in Engel v. Vitale in 1962.
Having religious text on display without induction into the curriculum is legal. Only now that they’ve mandated one religion, other religions have a platform for equal representation. Maybe it’s time for The Satanic Temple to open a Louisiana congregation?
Lol no. And SCOTUS has said no several times. There is no, "oops I left my Bible out and accidentally converted some kids" carve out for government employees. Religion stays at the door.
SCOTUS has ruled against it in curriculum, but separation of church and state is from one of Johnson’s speeches, and not technically in the Constitution. I wish it were. My point wasn’t implying defense of the display. I don’t want it in schools either. I’m simply saying if they want to play by the rules of Originalism, then all churches deserve equal representation according to the Constitution.
That's already part of the SCOTUS rulings.
Do you have a link to that case ruling? I’d like to be up to date. I’m familiar with Engel v. Vitale, but that is exclusive to curriculum teaching. It does not apply to religious works on display.
Stone v Graham was exactly this. Kentucky tried to put the Ten Commandments into schools. SCOTUS said no.
That’s great! So there precedent. It’s only a lawsuit away from being removed.
Right! Precedent, like Roe v Wade!
Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court. Stone v. Graham has not been. If a case challenges the state, they can use it as precedent.
And then it can be overturned!
True. I wouldn’t put anything past this conservative SCOTUS.