Comment on Hrmmmmm

• abbadon420@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I’m not American, but my uneducated ass believes America is basically a theocracy. The president has to pretend that he does everything in the name of god, you have to swear your official vows on the bible, every hotel has a bible, every child in school has to pray to the god-emperor every morning, your money says “in god we trust”, your churches are payed for by tax-evasion.

  So then, what renains to be the difference between “state run” and “church run” benefits really?

  source

  • yeather@lemmy.ca ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Well let’s break your points down.

    1: The president does not need to pretend everything is done in the name of god. One party does this to appeal to a religious base.

    2: You do not need to swear into office on a bible, many have sworn in on nothing at all or other holy books.

    3: Every hotel is provided a bible (and often a book of mormon) by that company. This is because the company many of these hotels are owned by is a mormon company. Many hotels do not have bibles in them now.

    4: Children are not required to pray in the morning, unless you attend a religious school specifically. If you mean the pledge, that is also optional and not done in many schools.

    5: In God We Trust is an odd case yes. It was added in the 1950’s to “combat socialism.”

    6: Churches are not required to pay taxes because they are also charities that perform good acts for the poor. Other religions claim this benefit as well.

    source

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      1. Actually they all functionally do, just to varying extents. Good luck finding a President who has never mentioned God in any of their speeches.

      2. Technically correct, but those who choose Not A Bible are routinely targetted with bigoted smear campaigns, often death threats, many of them credible, actionable.

      3. I mean you just do admit that this happens, that’s how normalized religion is, the state doesn’t do anything and it just happens.

      4. Clearly you have no idea how widespread and common it is for parents to force their kids to do this, for teachers in more religious states to force the pledge. Actual rules on the book be damned, don’t follow the unwritten ones and you are a pariah.

      5. You again concede this is the case.

      6. Churches can perform charitable acts, but there is no requirement for this, many of them don’t, many of them explicitly endorse particular political candidates, despite that being illegal, because either no one reports the violation and/or nobody bothers to prosecute it.

      See also: The entire megachurch/megapastor phenomenon in the US, which would be described as a massive cult in basically any other country.

      source

      • yeather@lemmy.ca ⁨44⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

        1. Because they are religious? You would be hard pressed to find politicians who do not appeal to a higher authority except in countries where religious freedoms are restricted.

        2. Targeted by smear campaigns from their political opponents who would have smear campaigns running anyways. Credible death threats is a different story and not the norm, politicians recieve death threats from wackos over everything they do.

        3. What would the state do? It’s a first amendment protected right. If you dislike this practice you can stay in hotels without bibles.

        4. Anecdotal evidence at best, maybe in the more religious areas of the country in the south this happens, but they are a minority.

        5. Good job realizing that.

        6. Yes megachurches do provide some charity to maintain their tax exempt status. There is no defined percentage of revenue you must spend to be a charity. This is a larger issue that affects secular charities as well.

        You have really only argued one of your six points.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Fedizen@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Trump is a religion here. They call themselves christian but its clearly distinct in both beliefs and rituals.

      source
  • Objection@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    So then, what renains to be the difference between “state run” and “church run” benefits really?

    What kind of question is that? Churches are funded through donations rather than through taxes and they have no legal obligation to perform charity, so the difference is that they are not as reliable for people in need.

    source
  • johnyreeferseed@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I agree with everything you’re saying. But I just wanted to mention that politicians are not actually required to swear in on a Bible. That’s just what most use because of everything else you said. But every once in a while a politician will choose something different to swear on. Two I can remember of the to of my head was swearing in on Dr seues green eggs and ham and another one that swore in on a Captain America comic. Of course the religious nut jobs always lose it when that happens though

    source
• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  If the food pantries are run by churches, then they are not state run

  What if the state is subsidizing the church through tax credits, grants, and subsidies?

  source

  • yeather@lemmy.ca ⁨39⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

    The state has no control over the food at the pantries beyond basic health standards. The state cannot force me to give out bread when I run a soup kitchen. It can encourage me to continue with charitable acts with tax credits and subsidies, but it cannot force me to.

    source
• Passerby6497@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  TIL “tend to” means “always”

  source

  • yeather@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Even if they tend to be run by churches, then they wouldn’t count as state run. Meaning you do not see state-run bread lines / food pantries.

    source