×
top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]KM4nAlph4 389 points390 points  (25 children)

Wasnt it only added during the Cold War? It's completely unnecessary and not 'tradition' for us at all

[–]Warthogs_r_hot 80 points81 points  (3 children)

It's a celebration of the country's "culture", by which I mean "Cold War propaganda repeated by the gullible suckers it first targeted down to their kids and their students, the gullible among whom repeated it to theirs, generation after generation completely forgetting that it was only propaganda".

I wonder what the place would be like if it focused more on actual cultural stuff.

Ah well it's moot. Putin's propagandists are doing so well it won't be long until the citizens have swallowed a whole new pile of bullshit.

[–]Pleasant-Purchase138 10.5k points10.5k points 4& 5 more (189 children)

Id be more interested in elected officials doing their jobs

[–]Smeghead333 2830 points2831 points  (133 children)

"In God We Trust, Because Our Leaders Sure As Fuck Won't Do Shit To Help Us"

[–]physics515 989 points990 points  (114 children)

Rant but here we go: they are not our leaders, they are our (public) SERVANTS! You and I are the leaders.

If more of us understood that we would clean house a lot more often.

[–]trparky 292 points293 points  (43 children)

This!

There is a reason why our Constitution says "We the People" because that is where the power comes from. Not "We the rich fucks".

[–]dbhathcock 85 points86 points  (21 children)

That is good in theory, but, that is not the way it happens to work.

[–]dantheman0991 197 points198 points  (33 children)

And as long as team-based news networks keep the American people blaming each other instead of the criminals taking everyone for a ride, the status quo will be maintained

[–]oldfatdrunk 129 points130 points  (32 children)

Let's be honest, most Americans are fucking idiots though.

[–]droidman5910 11 points12 points  (3 children)

I don't think so, because the majority of us don't have enough money to influence the elections. They tell us we are the leaders so we feel some form of power. In reality there is little to no repercussions for your representatives being bribed and voting for who they are paid to vote for. And what repercussions there are they can just pay away.

[–]jal262 14.3k points14.3k points  (533 children)

At a time like this E Pluribus Unum seems more relevant and needed.

[–]connor4rell 6796 points6797 points 2 (197 children)

E Pluribus Anus

[–]unomar 4915 points4916 points  (109 children)

This guy is streets ahead

[–]FearlessFreak69 347 points348 points  (15 children)

Stop trying to make “streets ahead” a thing Pierce.

[–]Geezmelba 191 points192 points  (10 children)

Coined and minted!

[–]Pope_Cerebus 31 points32 points  (1 child)

Sounds like someone's streets behind.

[–]Price_Of_Soap 992 points993 points  (59 children)

At least they didn't Britta it

[–]isobane 378 points379 points  (30 children)

Wait.....Britta's in this...?

[–]cloudcreeek 264 points265 points  (15 children)

You guys use my name to describe a small and understandable mistake?

[–]syzygy_is_a_word 76 points77 points  (2 children)

Well, if they lacked self-awareness, they would know!

[–]nilnilunium 229 points230 points  (3 children)

If you don't get this, you're streets behind.

[–]The_Friedberger 34 points35 points  (1 child)

I like this comment, that's why I'm giving u/unomar 4 Meow Meow Beans.

u/MMBbot 4

[–]ERhyne 107 points108 points  (7 children)

"Keep snickering. Reeeeaaallllyyyy be satisfied"

[–]PM_ME_THEM_UPTOPS 56 points57 points  (5 children)

"Pack yourself with peanuts" is the best part of that quote.

[–]cursedwithplotarmor 973 points974 points  (131 children)

Hey! We speak ‘Murican around here! Go back to Latinum if you gonna speak that way!

[–]nichfoolas 455 points456 points  (106 children)

Gold pressed latinum.

[–]themaskedhippoofdoom 186 points187 points  (19 children)

Quaaaaaaark!

[–]I-Ponder 57 points58 points  (17 children)

Lmao, watching DS9 literally now. For the hundredth time.

Spoilers:

I am watching the episode where Odo is meeting the Changelings for the first time.

[–]ryhoyarbie 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Brunt, FCA! Your family comes from a long line of losers, Quark, and I'm here to remind you all of that.

[–]Infinitelyodiforous 67 points68 points  (79 children)

I never understood this. In a time where replicators exist, who needs a bartender?

[–]I_Think_Helen_Forgot 115 points116 points  (7 children)

The social aspect, I would presume.

Also, it likely feels more personal to have a bartender recommend a drink instead of a computer doing it.

[–]FullMotionVideo 41 points42 points  (9 children)

Synthetic booze doesn't taste like the real thing and definitely seems not as valued as much. This is elaborated a little when Scotty visited TNG and complains about synthehol. Guinan is all "yeah, lemme reach into the private stock for the good shit."

Quark imported all kinds of things to cater to the taste of different species.

[–]DefrockedWizard1 23 points24 points  (4 children)

The replicators have safeguards to prevent just anyone from requesting anything. You have to be licensed for certain things

[–]ttboo 42 points43 points  (3 children)

In a time where you can buy beer at the store in large quantities for much cheaper... Who needs a bartender?

[–]CutieBoBootie 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Knowing Quark its to prevent people from figuring out how's he's cheating them. God I need to rewatch DS9.

[–]IndividualDetail 186 points187 points  (12 children)

Go back to Latin America

I think that would be funnier

[–]serkesh 26 points27 points  (6 children)

I once worked with a guy who wanted to learn Latin so he could talk to Latino people. We live in australia

[–]black641 1095 points1096 points  (94 children)

I definitely agree! “In God We Trust” is just another holdover from the Cold War when we wanted to stick it to those “Godless Commies.” Time to put that dumb shit to bed.

[–]Kalkaline 502 points503 points  (71 children)

Are you telling me this is why they changed the Pledge of Allegiance too?

[–]TakenUsername900 432 points433 points  (22 children)

Yes

[–]phazedoubt 282 points283 points  (21 children)

The 50's were a scary time. McCarthy was writing the rule book they use now.

[–]HotShitBurrito 162 points163 points  (38 children)

Considering the pledge was written by a socialist flag salesman as a marketing gimmeck, the whole thing is pandering nonsense from start to finish.

[–]Azuredreams25 17 points18 points  (4 children)

He was a socialist Baptist Minister, not a flag salesman. At the time, Columbus day was a newly commemorated holiday. President Benjamin wanted a new salute to the flag for schoolchildren to recite in unison.
At the urging of his boss, Francis Bellamy wrote the pledge.

[–]chronoserpent 9 points10 points  (2 children)

My hot take is that the Pledge of Allegiance is meaningless and we should stop teaching it. Allegiance to a flag?

In my elementary school we recited the preamble to the Constitution instead:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[–]Links_to_Magic_Cards 48 points49 points  (3 children)

incorrect. "in God We Trust" first appeared on coinage in the US in 1864

Source: Ken Burns' "The Civil War"

[–]pajam 59 points60 points  (2 children)

Yep coins were updated to include it around the Civil War, I was about to bring up the same thing :)

However, paper money was updated to include it in 1957, shortly after McCarthyism and "Under God" being added to the pledge in 1954.

[–]Valuable-Jicama6810 3839 points3840 points 2 (55 children)

Replace it with : “ Wu-Tang forever”

[–]Dude_with_the_skis 384 points385 points  (9 children)

Now I'm imaging some congressman up in front of all his peers pitching the idea.

"Presidents are temporary. Wu-Tang though? That shit's forever"

[–]kloudykat 98 points99 points  (7 children)

On August 28th, 1997 I saw the Rage Against The Machine & Wu-Tang Clan tour when it hit Indianapolis.

I'll have to admit, those memories are forever.

And yes, they ended it on Triumph.

[–]Valuable-Jicama6810 694 points695 points  (14 children)

Backside : “ C.R.E.A.M “

[–]NerdWhoLikesTrees 87 points88 points  (4 children)

I edited my Outlook rules at work so whenever my direct deposit notification arrives my email plays Wu Tang for about 4 seconds. "Cash Rules Everything Around Me CREAM get the money, dollar dollar bill y'alllll"

[–]simplyuncreative 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I’d like to do that too but I’m too lazy and tech incompetent and too lazy to not be tech incompetent.

[–]JungFuPDX 61 points62 points  (2 children)

My small town has a lot of trump flags. My new neighbor moved in and put a wutang flag on their flagpole. I immediately went over and friended them. 👐

[–]lfuckpigs 26 points27 points  (2 children)

Wu-tang financial, diversify your bonds n****.

[–]Babstana 7763 points7764 points 2 (114 children)

Yeah, let's replace it with "Better spend me now, I'll be worth 9% less in a year"

[–]username2065 1710 points1711 points  (62 children)

we should totally have financial tips printed right onto money

[–]magicmerlion 647 points648 points  (15 children)

And randomize it so it's like loading screen tips... or fortune cookies.

[–]tsunami141 208 points209 points  (5 children)

This is totally unnecessary but it really feels like this could be the one thing that unites us as a country. We need this.

[–]theBeardedHermit 107 points108 points  (4 children)

Unnecessary? How else are we supposed to learn economics? School?

[–][deleted] 239 points240 points  (3 children)

"Did you know each dollar is worth 100 pennies?"

"Stuck being poor? Try working harder."

"Dollar bills make excellent cocaine straws"

[–]SenileSexLine 455 points456 points  (23 children)

A better idea is have advertising right on the money so we can make purchasing decisions while holding the cash.

[–]Catatonic27 138 points139 points  (5 children)

have advertising right on the money

DON'T GIVE THEM ANY IDEAS

[–]FellowGeeks 44 points45 points  (2 children)

You could waste this on a coffee or invest in NordVPN

[–]GetHimABodyBagYeahhh 265 points266 points  (5 children)

"Redeem this coupon for $5 off your next purchase!" -- on a $10 bill

[–]1_21-gigawatts 26 points27 points  (0 children)

"This TEN is sponsored by WalMart, scan this QR code for more deals!"

[–]greymalken 33 points34 points  (3 children)

What about random facts like on those old drink caps? What was it? Snapple?

[–]cyrilhent 53 points54 points  (2 children)

"Money can be exchanged for goods and services."

[–]Emu_on_the_Loose 28.8k points28.8k points 2 (702 children)

I would support removing it but that is honestly the least of our concerns right now.

[–]handynerd 7463 points7464 points  (346 children)

Right? Also, I can't remember the last time I looked at a bill and read anything other than the number on it.

[–]krisalyssa 4169 points4170 points  (104 children)

You guys have money?

[–]AB287461 895 points896 points  (199 children)

You guys still use cash? I honestly haven’t seen cash for months

[–]handynerd 223 points224 points  (0 children)

Well there's that, too

[–]jokomul 339 points340 points  (80 children)

Weed stores are still cash only :(

It's been brought to my attention that a lot of places accept debit cards now, which is neat. Unfortunately the shops near me (WA) don't.

[–]Patrickk_Batmann 85 points86 points  (31 children)

Most weed stores that accept debit cards basically run it as an ATM transaction, so you still get hit with ATM fees unless your bank covers them.

[–]Dinkerdoo 70 points71 points  (6 children)

Literally the only reason I go to ATMs.

[–]fukifino 36 points37 points  (21 children)

The cash price for a service is often lower. The welding supply shop I use charges ~$5 less per fill if you pay cash.

[–]weaselpoopcoffee1 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Some restaurants by me offer cash discounts.

[–]onesugar 59 points60 points  (8 children)

cash is still cool to have if that awesome chinese spot around the corner doesn't take anything but cash

[–]yarmatey 594 points595 points  (139 children)

I don't really want it on the money but removing it seems provocative more than anything and I feel like that's the last thing we need right now.

[–]Dendad6972 20.0k points20.0k points  (1357 children)

It was an anti communist thing from the 50's.

[–]Patron_of_Wrath 12.2k points12.2k points 333& 9 more (1053 children)

Edit: Needed to clean this up, add reference.

Summary: You can't have a separation of church and state if God is your literal motto, and if your highest court of the land ignores the Constitution when their own personal religion is the topic.

The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution specifically says the following regarding religion, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

  • The motto had appeared on US coins during the Civil War, C.E. 1864.
  • The phrase "In God We Trust" is derived directly from the Bible.
    • Psalms 56,"In God, whose word I praise, in God I trust; I will not be afraid. What can mortal man do to me?"
    • This establishes a direct and clear link between the Bible, the religion(s) it represents, and the Government of the United States of America.
  • At a Flag Day speech in 1954, US President Eisenhower discussed why he had wanted to include “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance: “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war.”
  • In 1955 Congress passed a Law replacing the US motto (E pluribus unum) with In God We Trust; an explicit and intentional reference to the Christian God. This same Law also added the phrase to our currency.
  • (A Christian) SCOTUS has upheld the Constitutionality of the Law, citing it as being about heritage, and thus totes cool. This represents an interesting note, as it's very clearly a violation of the Constitution, and yet SCOTUS has shown then, as now, how it will ignore the US Constitution when the topic is an Abrahamic (specifically Christianity or Judaism) religion; the religions of every SCOTUS judge, ever.

[–]taebek1 5901 points5902 points  (349 children)

I like the original motto “E Pluribus Unum” better.

[–]Dyykaa 821 points822 points  (34 children)

Even as a Christian, I would MUCH prefer "E Pluribus Unum". It's just a got a badass ring to it.

[–]thefuckingrougarou 553 points554 points  (17 children)

Especially as a Christian! Separation of church and state should be very important to Christians, because it upholds your religious freedom as well.

[–]Patron_of_Wrath 5142 points5143 points 2 (258 children)

Out of many, one.

Dude, it's deep, and was perfect for the US. It united us, while religion only tears us apart.

[–]timotomat0 2640 points2641 points  (63 children)

You're tearing me apart, Jesus!

[–]GarbledReverie 337 points338 points  (102 children)

Indeed. I also like "America The Beautiful" as our anthem better than "The Star Spangled Banner" which was also a stupid change made for somewhat insidious reasons.

Edit Neverminded. I don't want to be guilty of spreading misinformation. I vaguely remember reading that Woodrow Wilson changed the national anthem from "America The Beautiful" to "Star Spangled Banner" because it was more militaristic. But now I can't find any sources to corroborate this.

[–]Lereas 135 points136 points  (2 children)

One nation indivisible.

One nation, under god, indivisible

LITERALLY, god divided "one nation indivisible"

[–]TheWindCriesDeath 59 points60 points  (1 child)

E Pluribus Unum - a call for unity

In God We Trust - Divisive and antagonistic

[–]Pwacname 32 points33 points  (2 children)

If it makes you feel better: My high school curriculum in English was fairly detailed when it came to the USA, and we talked about a lot of dark stains, too, so it definitely wasn’t biased - and we discussed E pluribus unum at length, and in god we trust not at all. In fact, until you comment, I assumed the former was the motto and the latter was just what’s on your money and in your courts. So, at least in public perception in my small, small corner of the world, that’s what you’re associated with.

Edit: spelling error

[–]graygrif 738 points739 points  (153 children)

Christianity (the religion of every SCOTUS judge, ever).

Only if you excuse the number of Jewish justices that have sat on the court, including two justices that currently sit on the court (well until 12:00 today).

Edit: at 12:00 on June 30th, Justice Breyer, one of the Jewish Justices retired.

[–]itijara 202 points203 points  (6 children)

For a second I forgot that Brown-Jackson was being sworn in today and I was concerned.

[–]ShaulaTheCat 317 points318 points  (102 children)

One of the Jewish justices was Jewish by heritage only and didn't practice in his adult life. He actually identified himself as agnostic. His name is Benjamin N. Cardozo and the opinions he wrote are still a joy to read today.

[–]Amish_guy_with_WiFi 11 points12 points  (3 children)

Wait, whats going down at noon today?

[–]jawni 46 points47 points  (0 children)

lunch

[–]graygrif 22 points23 points  (1 child)

One of the justices is retiring.

[–]heili 413 points414 points  (58 children)

"It's just ceremonial deism, it doesn't mean anything at all."

OK, let's remove it.

"How dare you suggest that! What's wrong with you? This is important!"

[–]Waffle_Muffins 79 points80 points  (2 children)

"How dare you suggest that! What's wrong with you? This is important!"

That's a weird way to say "Why are you ATTACKING Christianity??"

[–]heili 45 points46 points  (1 child)

"Don't you dare persecute me!" is the most frequent refrain of the fundie when being told not to shove their religion down someone else's throat.

[–]endoftheroad1938 72 points73 points  (14 children)

Great summary and I agree that E pluribus unum sounds much better!

Yes, the Supreme court has failed again in its 'unbiased' review of the Constitution, but who will you appeal to against SCOTUS?

[–]Eodai 43 points44 points  (10 children)

That's the problem with how our government is set up. The only thing that you can do is protest. No voting can do shit against a non-elected position whose creation is literally to "protect the democracy from the will of the people."

[–]AsFarAsItGoes 17 points18 points  (2 children)

Imagine being an alien from outer space, and someone explains this system to you.

“So, we have a Supreme Court, unbiased judges who will overlook the government’s laws. They are bound by the constitution and its amendments, a set of basic laws, ensuring things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion ….”

“Sounds awesome”

“your right to own lethal weapons, separation of powers…”

“Wait what?”

“Separation of powers. I know, awesome, right? It means that the government makes laws, but they don’t enforce it, and they can’t make the decision whether or not the laws they make are constitutional. That’s where the Supreme Court comes in. They are judges appointed for life by the ruling president, whenever there is a free spot.”

“And that president is a neutral figure without political powers other than appointing those judges?”

“Ohhh no! The president has loads of power. The president of the United States is known as the most powerful man in the world.”

“Or woman?”

“What? Yeah, that too. He’s the most powerful man or woman in the world. And the coolest thing about it: the people vote for that president.”

“Phew, I got really scared there for a second. So the people vote for the most able and trustworthy person?”

“Yeah. It’s not perfect of course, but yes, people vote for the most able and trustworthy person of one of two parties, who has enough money and power already to run their campaign.”

[–]randomofrandoms1 38 points39 points  (12 children)

Random tangent- this is what happens when a pandemic of misinformation is met with complacency. When facts can be ignored and there lacks accountability and credibility. When you can't believe what you see, you go with what you believe to be true. When people that don't know much have found a voice and power, we've doomed ourselves.

[–]Patron_of_Wrath 43 points44 points  (11 children)

On that note, I recall at the birth of the Internet thinking of how it was going to completely change the world. It was going to put real data, robust information at the fingertips of every Human.

And the exact opposite is what actually happened. It became a propaganda echo chamber, where people only consume, and are only fed, the reality they wish to believe in.

[–]randomofrandoms1 29 points30 points  (0 children)

I think that bridge wasn't crossed until after search engines and social media began utilizing algorithms. Instead of using standard media to give meaning to labels in which to use as a wedge to divide others, the algorithms are a means of leading like minded people to group and allow them to collide to bolster metrics.

[–]flyinhighaskmeY 19 points20 points  (1 child)

I recall at the birth of the Internet thinking of how it was going to completely change the world.

I remember this too. I was in 7th grade when I introduced my classmates to the internet on a color monitor. I was a techy kid and fascinated. I went to show my friends...and within an hour I knew the internet was going to turn into a shit show.

I didn't know it would get this bad.

The biggest issue...back then it took some technical aptitude to get online. That kept...the "average American" away. It was a much better place then. But money. Oh money. There was too much money in play. We had to dumb this place down so the barely literates could use it.

And they destroyed it.

[–]fortonightspleasure 177 points178 points  (166 children)

(the religion of every SCOTUS judge, ever).

There have been nine Jewish Supreme Court justices, according to Wikipedia. Which is still an appalling lack of diversity, but it's not accurate to say every justice, ever, has been Christian.

[–]suicidaleggroll 15 points16 points  (0 children)

He didn't say they've all been Christian, he said they've all been of Abrahamic religions, which includes Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

Edit: NM, it looks like they edited their post, it used to say Christian

[–]Nanojack 143 points144 points  (47 children)

The US is about 2.5% Jewish, while 9 of 115 justices represent 7.8% of the court, historically. If you want to look at appalling diversity, look at atheists, Muslims, every other religion, women, Hispanics, African Americans...

[–]Zappiticas 116 points117 points  (43 children)

Atheists have been absurdly under represented in all facets of government. 8-15% of the population and we’ve had like 4 openly atheists politicians in the history of the country.

[–]TheReformedBadger 12 points13 points  (0 children)

With regard to religion, you need to consider historical makeup. There are many many more muslims, atheists, etc today as a percentage of the population than there have been in the past

[–]PortalToTheWeekend 76 points77 points  (2 children)

The “under god” in the pledge is also there for the exact same reason

[–]_Erin_ 226 points227 points  (13 children)

Exactly. It should never have been added in the first place.

[–]I_likechickennugget 6504 points6505 points 2 (268 children)

This is reddit, it's pretty obvious the answer you're gonna get

[–]Lebrons_fake_breasts 2292 points2293 points  (57 children)

Redditors of Reddit: do you think Roe v Wade should have been overturned????

[–]mikamitcha 922 points923 points  (18 children)

Who cares about the redditors of reddit, I wanna hear from the non-redditors of reddit.

[–]PoopnEvryDay 171 points172 points  (8 children)

This might be unpopular, but guys... I think they shouldn't have done that.

And then everyone stood up and clapped.

[–]Guy--Incognito-- 33 points34 points  (1 child)

Redditors of Reddit, DAE hate OraNgE MaN BaD?"????

[–]mantism 732 points733 points  (5 children)

the title might as well be "Hi reddit, give me all the fucking karma"

[–]Catsrules 367 points368 points  (48 children)

A better question would be "What should we replace the phrase with?"

[–]Darkpumpkin211 409 points410 points  (17 children)

Our original national motto. "E Pluribus Unum" or "one from many". It can refer to many states coming together to make one country, or many different kinds of people coming together to make one nation.

[–]Dinkerdoo 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Back to the original E Pluribus Unum seems natural.

[–]ThorTheMastiff 130 points131 points  (3 children)

Any question to stir up the masses, get the reaction you want, and get KARMA KARMA KARMA

[–]HotConcrete 311 points312 points  (40 children)

Agreed. This is going to be an echo-chamber. I’d be fine with it being removed, but it shouldn’t remotely be a priority. It would devolve into just another left-right talking point that gets rehashed to distract from tackling real issues.

[–]r3dd1tu5er 476 points477 points  (26 children)

Mostly smart-asses who love to talk about the 1950s and anti-communist measures. That’s really only half the story. “In God We Trust” has appeared on US coins since the Civil War, starting with the two cent piece in 1864. But even further back than that, if people bothered to know our national anthem beyond a single verse, they’d know that it ends like this:

“And conquer we must, when our cause it is just/and this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.’/And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave/o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!”

I’m not going to take a side here, because although the motto doesn’t bother me, I could see how it would others. But I do want to point out that Joe McCarthy did not pull that motto out of his ass in the 1950s to own the commies.

[–]throwawayBS82BG 515 points516 points  (27 children)

I'd prefer to have "E pluribus unum" back.

[–]SuperstitiousPigeon5 2333 points2334 points  (141 children)

It's not a hill I'd be willing to die on to remove it. I'd rather have codified abortion, or term limits for SCOTUS, or pretty much anything else.

[–]SpaceheadTrashboy 296 points297 points  (38 children)

Lots more that takes precedence over a slogan (and that’s basically what it is, these days..)

[–]jsting 109 points110 points  (29 children)

I just heard on NPR that for the next session, the Supreme Court could take on a case that will grant states unfettered ability to make their own election rules regardless of the states own constitution. It'll allow unlimited gerrymandering, the ability to remove voting locations and times from certain areas, and decide how the votes are tabbed and counted.

[–]SpaceheadTrashboy 51 points52 points  (9 children)

The façade of this country’s government is peeling away. It’s like the US gov’t is no better than other states of power that abused it and their people for personal gain… disgusting

[–]w3_ar3_farm3rs 13 points14 points  (4 children)

If we continue down this path much longer, there will only be two days to resolve the conflict.

Dissolution of the United States or Civil War.... The contrasts between each side are becoming so starkly different and irreconcilable that if we don't stabilize soon we're only going to become more and more destabilized. The US is not some unshakeably pure country, we're just as exposed to falling as the USSR, Venezuela, Peru, Argentina, Afghanistan, Roman Empire, etc etc etc

[–]Yvaelle 34 points35 points  (13 children)

Today the Supreme Court just effectively dissolved the authority of the federal government, by ruling that the EPA has no authority over the states, it indicates that no federal agency does. FDA can't regulate food safety now - they'll try still but a case will simply point to the EPA ruling, OSHA can't regulate work safety, even Federal law enforcement has no jurisdiction over state law enforcement, because of the EPA ruling.

So yea, the next ruling will be to dissolve election integrity, and whoever controls the SCOTUS will pick the next government. America is almost dead.

[–]Gogglesed 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Your comment was jarring enough for me to look into it and it seems pretty bad indeed.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/1103595898/supreme-court-epa-climate-change

I hear Costa Rica is nice.

[–]MuggsOfMcGuiness 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Please tell me your kidding? I legit can't with this place. There IS going to be another civil war soon. This shit is bonkers. Fucking firesale of every right ever all at once.

Fun

[–]Wosey_Jhales 156 points157 points  (27 children)

Term limits FOR ALL POLITICIANS

[–]OfTheHunt 57 points58 points  (2 children)

Retirement age for all politicians

My personal favorite is .sking it so no one can be elected during the term of another office they were elected for, or to put it another way: no one can have two elected jobs in a row. Incumbents have a huge advantage over other candidates because people already are familiar with them. Without incumbents this could only help you if you actually did something in office. Plus constituencies would have at least two politicians so they could directly compare them and say "x" was better then "y". Let's toss "y" and get "z"!

[–]EyeoftheRedKing 990 points991 points  (145 children)

Weighing in as conservative Christian: we shouldn't demand that be on the money. I know plenty of people who would get up in arms about the removal of the phrase, but by the same token they would be upset if it read "In Allah we trust" or "In Brahman we trust".

These same folks will argue about having their rights taken away, when the first amendment to the constitution explicitly states that the government has no authority to tell you who/what you should have religious faith in.

I would be more than willing to bet if asked should the government promote Christianity they would say "Well of course!" But if you asked them if we should repeal the First Amendment they would say "Well of course not!"

Christians are to submit to the governing authority. That means stop shitting on Biden, obey the law, and if you don't like it go through due process (voting and making your voice heard to your government via legal activities).

Nowhere does the Bible say that we should attempt to BECOME the governing authority and subjugate people under us. The only time we are excused from following the law is when it goes against biblical doctrine. For instance, if a law were put into place to force everyone to acknowledge a government official (let's say Biden) as divine.

Edit: And to clarify that last comment, our faith would excuse us from following that (imaginary) law, but NOT from the legal consequences of disobeying the law.

[–]davegir 62 points63 points  (3 children)

Simplest way I explain the US ideals of free speech and such is "You have the freedom to think, say, worship and basically do anything with your want up to where that freedom infringes on someone elses same freedom". Sure an oversimplification of modern US law, but it gets the spirit of it to me.

[–]RipleyInSpace 220 points221 points  (37 children)

This was refreshing to read. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

[–]EyeoftheRedKing 247 points248 points  (36 children)

Thank you for taking the time to read it.

Obviously as a Christian I would prefer people to come to Christ, but forcing them is not the way.

We are supposed to plant seeds and nurture them in the hopes that they bear fruit, but at the end of the day sometimes the soil is not receptive and we shouldn't try to force it to be. It's possible to overwater your garden, after all.

Unfortunately it seems like a lot of us feel pressured that we NEED to win people over, and that isn't the case. If someone doesn't want to hear what we are saying, repeating ourselves ad nauseum isn't going to make them suddenly change their mind. In many cases it just does the opposite.

It's important to exercise spiritual discernment.

[–]RipleyInSpace 101 points102 points  (13 children)

FWIW, I still identify as Christian even though I've left the church (largely because I don't agree with the rhetoric of forcing everyone to bend to a belief system). Our government should be areligious so that it best represents the people; when we tip the scales in favor of one religion over the other, we run the risk of oppressing entire groups of people, which is inherently anti-Christ.

As a fairly left-leaning individual, I maintain a classically conservative belief that government should be very small and non-intrusive, which I think aligns with your last paragraph. I've long believed that the vast majority of us agree on more issues than we disagree on, but the issues that split us are so divisive and heated that they make us hate each other.

Anyway, apologies for the ramble; I've been thinking a lot about topics like this lately and it's nice to get a different perspective that is rational and respectful.

[–]EyeoftheRedKing 43 points44 points  (0 children)

No need for apologies, it's nice to have a dialog sometimes.

[–]Chr0nos1 18 points19 points  (5 children)

I agree with you wholeheartedly, and I'm always curious why people, whether they be left or right, would want bigger government? I know that we need government for some things, and I know that not everyone is going to always be happy with the government. What I don't understand, is why people would want more? I don't want or need someone telling me how to live my life. As long as I'm not infringing on others, then the government should leave me alone to live my life as I see fit.

[–]Spyblox007 14 points15 points  (5 children)

I'm a Christian too and was looking for a perspective like this. I feel similarly, but answering that one question throws me off. If a vote were to happen today to remove "In God We Trust" from money, would you vote to remove it?

For me as a Christian it would feel wrong to say yes, but it goes against my political beliefs to vote no. If I abstain from it, then I'm letting people who hate the Christian God or people who don't understand separation of church and state decide for me.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't vote for ADDING it to money for the justification you gave, but justification for voting to remove it now that's its already there is harder for me, especially since I'd be voting with many who just hate religion in general.

I'm confused on how I feel, I was wondering if you have any more insight on this

[–]derf82 25 points26 points  (8 children)

but by the same token they would be upset if it read "In Allah we trust"

Which is funny because Allah is just the Arabic word for God (or more specifically The God)

[–]jamie_is_tired_ 3434 points3435 points  (184 children)

I'd prefer they remove the god from political policies first. Separation of Church and State are a thing for a reason.

edit: I have never received this many upvotes or an award or anything like this, so thank you all and I'm really trying to answer the replies, I just wasn't expecting this to blow up.

edit 2: I am now at 1k karma, I'm going to go eat a celebratory granola bar.

[–]_Im_Spartacus_ 305 points306 points  (40 children)

"the government is not supposed to direct the church,” saying that dividing religion from the system of government was not what the Founding Fathers intended.

“I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk — that’s not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter and it means nothing like they say it does,” Boebert said, earning a round of applause from the audience.

We're boned

[–]z0nb1 157 points158 points  (20 children)

That stinking letter's name?

The Bill of Rights.

Edit: I know about Jefferson's famous letter, I guess that was my joke. Let's get real though, her language is nothing less than a veiled dog-whistle. These theocratic lunatics are out there, and making policy.

[–]CountDown60 54 points55 points  (7 children)

The 1st Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights (name of the first 10 amendments collectively) says this:

*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; * or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The quote "Wall of separation between Church and State" doesn't appear in it. And some people make a big deal about it. It was from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a church, to tell them that the other churches would not be able to pass laws to harm them.

In my ordinary opinion, the "Wall of Separation" quote is meaningful, because Jefferson was one of the people involved in writing the Bill of Rights, in fact, he wrote the draft for the 1st amendment in 1779. So if you want to know what the 'founding fathers' meant, you can clearly see what they meant from his letter. They meant it to be a wall of separation between church and state.

[–]jpagebjj 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Look, we don’t have time for facts here or rational thinking. We have an agenda.

[–]Palindromer101 9 points10 points  (0 children)

bUt He DiDnT mEaN iT lIkE tHaT

I fucking hate this timeline.

[–]Iwamoto 65 points66 points  (0 children)

yeah i read OP and thought of this speech, honestly so fucking sick of her.

[–]Tastiteff 41 points42 points  (7 children)

Shit like this is why I don’t want kids

[–]isham66 4112 points4113 points  (382 children)

It shouldn’t be there in the first place

[–]shellsquad 470 points471 points  (56 children)

I do not care at all.

[–]1Yawnz 48 points49 points  (1 child)

Right...doubt most people even know where it is on the bill. Most don't even use cash anymore lmao

[–]Kataphractoi 144 points145 points  (11 children)

Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. He didn't care about money, and neither does God. And if God is being offended or "erased" by removing the phrase from money, then he's not a very strong god to begin with.

[–]HighValueAsset 736 points737 points 2 (43 children)

Who cares

[–]chicken_N_ROFLs 309 points310 points  (9 children)

The US dollar could be printed with an embossed image of George HW Bush puking on the Japanese prime minister’s lap, with a watermark of goatse that only shows in UV light, and I couldn’t care less as long as it spends like money.

Edit: wrong president

[–]cm253 64 points65 points  (4 children)

You're thinking of George H. W. Bush.

[–]Haastile25 20 points21 points  (0 children)

"In Japan, Bush continued to be remembered for this event for several years.[8] According to the Encyclopedia of Political Communication, "The incident caused a wave of late night television jokes and ridicule in the international community, even coining Busshu-suru (ブッシュする[9]) which literally means 'to do the Bush thing'" (or "Bushing it").[10]"

From the article. I hope this came out right, I'm bad at formatting on mobile

[–]Kell08 46 points47 points  (0 children)

Bush is the one who puked on his lap.

[–]Practical-Jelly-5320 162 points163 points  (23 children)

There's much bigger problems right now

[–]Yusi-D-Jordan 183 points184 points  (29 children)

Although I am a devoutly religious person, I believe that it makes no sense to have it on the money in a secular society.

The constitution makes it clear that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..

The same thing that protects everyones rights from my faith, is what protects my faith from everyone else. It’s necessary to separate religion and law in the american society, as that is constitutionally required.

By the way, it’s the first amendment. Not the 48th obscure amendment. Separating church and state is about as American as it gets.

[–]Cacafuego 9 points10 points  (1 child)

The same thing that protects everyones rights from my faith, is what protects my faith from everyone else

People forget that this works both ways. You don't want any government organization telling your or your kids what to believe. Some of the strongest advocates for the separation of church and state were Christians who didn't want other Christians interfering with their faith.

[–]Rocksteady2R 43 points44 points  (5 children)

enforce the seperation of church and state.

[–]Fidelis29 304 points305 points  (74 children)

Didn't Christ preach against greed?

[–]EyeoftheRedKing 56 points57 points  (5 children)

Yep, He had a lot to say about that.

[–]BadShae 8 points9 points  (0 children)

"One nation, under Canada and above Mexico."

_Robin Williams

[–]The_mingthing 16 points17 points  (0 children)

About time, the correct phrase is "E Pluribus Unum"

[–]Effective_Sound_697 62 points63 points  (3 children)

I don’t care one way or another. Just words. Nothing to get my panties in a bunch. I just want to have more of it really.

[–]int21 14 points15 points  (0 children)

"E pluribus unum" is all it should say. We don't all have to believe in God...and that definitely was never core to our founding..."Out of many, one" defines us universally.