• GraniteM@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 days ago

    If only the rest of the US could have made it as explicit as Vermont did:

    No person ought, or of right can be compelled, to attend any religious worship, or erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of his conscience.

    –Vermont Constitution, Article 3

  • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m still annoyed that the US adopted In God We Trust as our national motto in the 1950’s. No idea how that got through and wasn’t deemed unconstitutional.

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      It is part of propaganda to demonise the officially atheist USSR from the God (never mind which god we’re referring to)- loving Americans. 1

  • duderium2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    2 days ago

    Unless we’re talking about worshiping concepts like private property, greed, or human nature, all of which liberals adore quite fervently.

  • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    39
    ·
    2 days ago

    Just as long as you include the less traditional religions too, which the big one would be the LBGTQ+ belief system in the west.

    • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      3 days ago

      It does, though.

      The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws respecting an establishment of religion…

        • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          The radical right have repeatedly said that freedom of religion does not mean freedom FROM religion, and that is exactly why they have the “right” to force their religion upon others though law and courts. They read it as the Federal government is not allowed to choose one national religious sect, but states can enforce any religion they want, which happens to be a violent usurpation of “christianity”.

      • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        It only says that CONGRESS shall make no law. The states think they have that power to enforce a religion but the national government does not.

          • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            And yet, here we are…posting commandments in schools (and not Beatotudes) and removing women’s rights in accordance with God’s Plan

            • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 days ago

              Yes, but it’s not actually constitutional to do what Louisiana is doing. It’ll get challenged in federal court before too long.

              And the abortion rights thing is pure racism and control. They don’t want white women getting abortions because they don’t want to become the minority. Plus, the Bible literally has instructions for an abortion ritual, and says in multiple places that life begins at first breath.

    • nifty@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      I think get what you’re saying. Freedom from religion should be codified in some manner, and atheism should be afforded the same protections and rights. Right?

      • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Kind of, but not really. Look at France, they have freedom from religion. They’re not allowed to be religious fanatics in public. It’s why they banned the burkini.

        • enbyecho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          They’re not allowed to be religious fanatics in public.

          Oh they very much are. As long as it’s christian.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              18 hours ago

              No I think they made a really good point that you are ignoring because it doesn’t suit your narrative.

              When countries ban minority faiths they effectively reward the majority one.

              You can have freedom from religion without abolishing religion.

            • enbyecho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              You’re also missing the forest through the trees.

              This is the sort of thing someone says when they really don’t know what to say but want to sound like they have Very Profound Thoughts.

              • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 days ago

                Okay, since you need it spelled out… France may not have appropriately applied its freedom from religion, but that isn’t the point. The point is a country like France doesn’t just have freedom from a religious state, but also extends that further, and that’s the part we (the US) are missing. You got hung up on the detail instead of paying attention to the meaning I was conveying, hence missing the forest through the trees. There is nothing profound about it at all, just saying you’re looking far too deeply instead of looking at the bigger picture of what was said.

                • enbyecho@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  You got hung up on the detail instead of paying attention to the meaning I was conveying

                  Ima thinking what we have here is a failure to communicate, not so much a failure to understand.

                • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Then it sounds like they don’t have freedom from religion or freedom of religion. So I still don’t get what you think the issue is.

        • nifty@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          I mean, if they ban only Islamic religious symbols but not crosses, bhindis, or yarmulkes then they’re just punching down on a vulnerable and powerless minority. A society is only as good as it treats its most vulnerable, otherwise their culture is “might is right”, which isn’t a culture per se.

          • Snowclone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            France managed this by forbiding all religious displays of any kind in any public place, unless it’s over 200+ years old then it’s protected for being a historical display. Nothing outside of Catholicism has any display that old. Bing bang boom, only Catholic displays of a religious nature are allowed.

          • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            3 days ago

            I think you missed the forest through the trees on that one. I agree that you can’t half ass it though.