1390
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
1390 points (97.7% liked)
Malicious Compliance
20 readers
5 users here now
People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.
======
-
We ENCOURAGE posts about events that happened to you, or someone you know.
-
We ACCEPT (for now) reposts of good malicious compliance stories (from other platforms) which did not happen to you or someone you knew. Please use a [REPOST] tag in such situations.
-
We DO NOT ALLOW fiction, or posts that break site-wide rules.
======
Also check out the following communities:
!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Doesn't that go against separation of church and state, and if this is government pushed, isn't this a first amendment violation?
The way it was worded basically said that it had to be the national motto, thereby not making it a religious text to bypass the concerns you mentioned.
What I don't understand is how the national motto can be a religious one without breaking the first amendment.
It hasn't reached the Supreme Court for a decision, but lower courts have basically said that it's not establing a religion because it's used in a secular and patriotic fashion. (My interpretation of my understanding of the ruling).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aronow_v._United_States
You can blame 1956 Cold War era Congress (red scare) and Eisenhower.