

Alaska is surrounded by Canada yet it’s still part of the US
Alaska is surrounded by Canada yet it’s still part of the US
It was in response to Trump’s comment about annexing Canada.
Secure? What makes you believe Lemmy is secure?
That’s when you tell them about deflation and the fact that the State will never let it happen.
Get used to it removed, prices aren’t coming down, it would create a spiral of economic chaos!
“all due respect”
Not much respect is due here
We’re having a discussion about the law, not morality, I used that as an example to reverse the situation and put the counter protesters in the other position, but it’s exactly the same as those Nazis saying they hate blacks or Jews or whoever, in the US they have the right to say that, they don’t have the right to say they want to hurt them.
Yea but not really though…
You can say “I hate Nazis” and that’s hate speech (as stupid as that might sound), but it doesn’t mean “I want to hurt/kill Nazis”, the intention behind the message isn’t stated therefore the message is lawful.
Never said it was morally right but what is lawful isn’t necessarily moral and the cops are there to prevent things that are against the law.
I don’t think we want a moral police to become a thing…
But the precedent doesn’t really apply here…
It’s a different thing, I’m talking about hate speech specifically
You can do hate speech as much as you want in the US, if you threaten someone with violence or incite people to be violent with others it’s something else and so is causing a panic by screaming “FIRE!” in a theater when there’s no fire.
Three different things, one of them is legal and is what was done by the Nazis in that article.
Just to be clear here, no arrests were made because they were exercising their first amendment right the Americans are so proud of.
They displayed their message on public ground (the sidewalk) and were otherwise peaceful. Do I hate their message? Hell yeah I do, but unless the US realizes that free speech should have its limits then what they did was lawful.
In opposition, what the other people did was unlawful AND THEY WEREN’T ARRESTED FOR IT! The police actually did a good job here!
Sure, all the people who wanted it to be added were christians but they certainly weren’t thinking about the christian God!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
Inspired by the Gettysburg Address (by a christian), first adopted by the Knights of Columbus (a catholic order), first attempt at amending the pledge by a catholic congressman and finally done by Eisenhower (who came from a family with a strong christian background) after hearing a Presbyterian minister’s sermon calling for the addition… And it all happened during a decade where christian church attendance % was the highest it had ever been and increasing!
https://today.usc.edu/the-1950s-powerful-years-for-religion/
https://religionnews.com/2014/12/11/1940s-america-wasnt-religious-think-rise-fall-american-religion/
In a country where even today only a third of the population doesn’t identify itself to an Abrahamic religions, you really need to be ignoring context to believe that’s not the God being referred to in this context.
How about you find me a source quoting the people that wanted it to be added that says it’s a neutral God and that atheists were taken into consideration when making the change even though they don’t believe in God. I think you’ll have a hard time with that second part considering it was a move against the atheist communists.
“will not be touched”
“will be strengthened”
How do you do the latter without doing the former? 🤔
If you want to move that goalpost that much try not to hurt your back!
It’s 100% clear that “God” in this case is the Abrahamic God and especially the Christian version of God. In the end the problem is still the same, you can’t pretend your country doesn’t have a religious preference and then put God all over the place.
The subtext is clear and not all religions believe in a single God and not believing in God is a religious preference when talking about a state not discriminating against or in favor of a specific religion.
“Our country has no preferential treatment for any religion”
“One nation under God”…
“In God we Trust”…
Eye of God on all 1$ bank notes…
It also includes ISPs not censoring certain websites.
I find it very funny how the Internet switched from “net neutrality at all cost, websites shouldn’t be banned!” to finally realizing that actually yeah, some websites are just bad for social cohesion and should be banned or at least under strict regulation!
Fun fact, oil can be brought in from other countries and when you control all the access to the Pacific ocean you’re the one who controls the negotiations.