this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
1021 points (96.8% liked)

Not The Onion

12577 readers
1765 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, in his first remarks after being elected Wednesday afternoon, told Members of Congress that “Scripture” and “the Bible” are clear that they have been “ordained” by God.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA 38 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Some idiots think it means the government can't do anything to regulate churches. There a bunch of laws that disagree.

[–] RGB3x3 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It actually explicitly doesn't say you can't relate churches.

"Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

If we're going strictly by what the words say, as long as the people are still legally allowed and freely allowed to practice their religion, Congress technically has the right to regulate religious institutions to their hearts content.

It's not like it says "shall make no law regulating an institution of religion."

[–] GraniteM 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Vermont Constitution has a much more explicit freedom from religion:

Article 3. [Freedom in religion; right and duty of religious worship]

That all persons have a natural and unalienable right, to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings, as in their opinion shall be regulated by the word of God; and that no person ought to, 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 conscience, nor can any person be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of religious sentiments, or peculia[r] mode of religious worship; and that no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by, any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship. Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of christians ought to observe the sabbath or Lord’s day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.

[–] cashews_best_nut 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Everytime I hear of Vermont it feels like the only sane, progressive state in the US. It almost feels like a seperate country compared to everywhere else.

What's the opinion of it in the US?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

You can't fart in a parking lot without stinking up a Subaru.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA 2 points 1 year ago

I'd move there if y'all had better winters and beaches.

[–] afraid_of_zombies 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It is entirely composed of a coat factory, an ice cream factory, and B&Bs.

[–] afraid_of_zombies 2 points 1 year ago

"no law" is not literal it is aspirational. At least according to what I have heard. If it was literal there could be zero rules about speech which breaks the constitutional ideas of oath of office and treason charges.

The aspirational would be a government that doesn't even know religion exists. It is taxed, regulated, and given the same respect as any other institution.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

A bunch of states don't tax church property and both states and feds don't tax earnings for this reason.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who watches the nightwatchers? Who or what systems could regulate the government? Ask yourself

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh yeah the churches are the group that I'm gonna trust with that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Can the argument not go both ways? I'm not saying I would trust the church to watch over the government or vice versa I'm simply making an observation that tyrannical government overreach etc is plausible and a potential cause for concern for any person that places a degree of their trust in the systems or bodies around them