politics
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
view the rest of the comments
not exactly. a victory would have been for the court to disallow use to any religious organization at all - in accordance with the separation of church and state - but this (a settlement to allow equal use to all) is an acceptable compromise, imo.
I'll take what I can get. So much grim news on this front these days
I agree in spirit, but that's not what the lawsuit was. The lawsuit was victorious.
Eh, not quite what that means. Separation of church and state means no church in government decisions. It doesn’t mean “no church in the building.”
Thomas Jefferson wrote "a wall of separation" but since nobody ever reads his letter to the Danbury Baptists, this is how we end up where we are.
A secondary letter doesn’t really matter in this case. There’s nothing in the constitution saying “something owned by the government cannot be rented by a religious organization.”
The very concept is silly. Can’t have religious entities renting a room in a government building because government owns and operates those buildings. Okay. Ca they purchase land within city limits? Because the government owns and operates that land. And guess who controls the entirety of the US?
In reality, it is freedom of (and inclusively from) religion, with the government not being allowed to place any religion over any other. That doesn’t mean that religious groups can’t rent things from them, it means they can’t only rent to a specific religion, or give a specific religion a discount or extra fee.
The "secondary" letter is where the phrase "separation of church and state" comes from and has been quoted innumerable times by judges, elected officials. The complete context is:
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802.
Thomas Jefferson took this notion so seriously that he did not attend church services while President.
Cool cool cool.
So can you explain what that has to do with not renting out space to religious groups?…
Says you. It could absolutely mean the latter. We decide that.
See: France as a counterexample.
It’s pretty clear in the constitution what it means.
We collectively decide what the constitution means.
Mostly the Supreme Court decides, of course, but we can vote for presidents that will pick justices that agree with us and congressional reps that will impeach justices that don't.
Congress shall make no law respecting can be interpreted in different ways. Every part of the constitution is open to interpretation.
I’m sorry, but if your argument is that the constitution means everything and nothing depending on “us collectively” than you don’t really understand it.
That shows your ignorance.