President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Ya, wonder what those silly founders were so upset about and fled to the Americas to form a new country. Probably they just didn't like tea.
as always, wondering why anyone should care what a bunch of genocidal slaving rapists had to say hundreds of years ago.
It sure seems to me that Thomas Jefferson, and largely the Supreme Court, would disagree with that assertion.
Yes, it is well known that Jefferson coined the term 'separation of church and state.'
Just for drill, if we presuppose that there is indeed a separation of church and state, then the government shouldn't be contributing any money to the Catholic charity that Trump is 'de-funding.'
Yes, it is well known that Jefferson coined the term 'separation of church and state.'
Just for drill, if we presuppose that there is indeed a separation of church and state, then the government shouldn't be contributing any money to the Catholic charity that Trump is 'de-funding.'
Really? Which law does that act establish?
as always, wondering why anyone should care what a bunch of genocidal slaving rapists had to say hundreds of years ago.
You mean, those awful folks who came up with the First Amendment granting all of us the right to say what we want on an online forum?
This is a hard truth for some of us to swallow: Rotten people can also do good things!
You mean, those awful folks who came up with the First Amendment granting all of us the right to say what we want on an online forum?
This is a hard truth for some of us to swallow: Rotten people can also do good things!
good point I guess. on the one had they killed millions of natives for fun and profit and power. and enslaved millions of kidnapped Africans for fun and profit and power. but they left me with the illusion of free speech.
Yes, it is well known that Jefferson coined the term 'separation of church and state.'
Just for drill, if we presuppose that there is indeed a separation of church and state, then the government shouldn't be contributing any money to the Catholic charity that Trump is 'de-funding.'
Lol, I thought you were just trolling with your separation of church and state post; now I see you're just a tardo.
I guess that's what I'm asking you. Does (or should) the First Amendment 'separation of church and state' clause prohibit the federal government from co-funding a Catholic charity?
n.b. single-quoting since that phrase isn't in the amendment.
It's taken to be implied in the wording, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'.
I guess that's what I'm asking you. Does (or should) the First Amendment 'separation of church and state' clause prohibit the federal government from co-funding a Catholic charity?
n.b. single-quoting since that phrase isn't in the amendment.
I think it might have to do with whether the money is nbeing used to establish the catholic religion or being used to help people in need more than anything else.
Well, at least the Separation-of-Church-and-State crowd finally have something to be happy about.
Why is the US govt partnering with one of the largest known pedophile rings in the world to begin with?
Thanks Biden
the us's obsession with religion always worry's me. you guys are a couple decades behind in abandoning that silly hokus pokus stuff probably why you won the pope lottery
You'd think Trump blatantly committing blasphemy would make Lagtit rethink the value of a separation between church and state, but here we are.
[image]wG2iwZW.jpg[/im
..]
Ya, wonder what those silly founders were so upset about and fled to the Americas to form a new country. Probably they just didn't like tea.Just way too many paid propagandists in America now who warp everything to fit whatever today's bs narrative is. They are all on a rope being pulled in the same direction. Want to earn some extra cash guys? Become a podcaster / influencer a
thats definitely Revisionist history most of the founding fathers didn't even want a single central state or country. Thats why the first versions of America that failed were independent states with no central goverment it failed so bad they had to form a centralized state with president. Really they were just upper class opportunists that moved to America because with their influence and wealth they would have more power in America then England which was pretty diluted
good point I guess. on the one had they killed millions of natives for fun and profit and power. and enslaved millions of kidnapped Africans for fun and profit and power. but they left me with the illusion of free speech.
Something like that, I guess.
How's free speech working out in Russia and North Korea??
You'd think Trump blatantly committing blasphemy would make Lagtit rethink the value of a separation between church and state, but here we are.
[image]wG2iwZW.jpg[/im
..]
Have you always been a perv, or is it a relatively recent development?
Back on topic: I don't recall giving an opinion one way or another on the so-called Separation of Church and State.
The same court that ruled that slaves were property of their owners? And even if a slave flees to a free state, he has to be retuned to his owner?
Probably, you should check the dates of such decisions, Sherlock. WTF does that have to do with anything in my post?
Probably, you should check the dates of such decisions, Sherlock. WTF does that have to do with anything in my post?
If SCOTUS makes decisions that are poor (like Dred Scott), the Constitution itself provides a remedy: amending the Constitution. Ratification of the 14th amendment being a good example of overriding a SC decision that was widely condemned as being wrong.
So, separation of church and state is to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and is therefore not an absolute prohibition?
All cases should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Your question makes no sense as it presents a false dichotomy. Both things can be true, and are.
It's a pretty simple evaluation, it seems. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishing of religion" - so look at the action to see if congress is making a law that establishes a religion (which is absolutely prohibited, like you said. Funding a catholic charity that simply feeds the hungry does not appear to be doing that - neither making a law nor establishing a religion. Where's the problem?
Compare this to a case where Oklahoma wants to force every classroom to teach from the bible. This is both passing a law and establishing christianity as the religion of choice. Unconstititional - violates the establishment clause.
Pretty cut and dried from here.
Just asked Gemini if funding the catholic charity violates the establishment clause and it sounds like I'm pretty close to the mark:
Funding Catholic charities generally does not violate the Establishment Clause, provided the funds are used for secular, social services rather than religious activities. Recent Supreme Court rulings indicate that excluding religious organizations from public funding for social services can violate the Free Exercise Clause, as seen in the 2025 case Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, which emphasized neutrality towards religion.
