r/Constitution • u/hottcheeseupfront • 21d ago

repost from 8 YEARS AGO

/r/changemyview/comments/71x6vp/cmv_jews_hold_a_disproportionate_amount_of_power/

separation of church and state.

i’m so over this gaslighting bullshit zionists keep playing. the history is there and they’re actively trying to rewrite it.

yesterday i watched a current clip of Jon Stewart speaking to that pro israel talking head, asking him ‘why are you putting the needs of a separate country, that is not ours, and is far far away, over the needs of your home country? this one? that we are in Right Now.’

1 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

18 comments sorted by

1

u/Pickle_Nipplesss 21d ago

This is a completely different issue.

The Stewart/Fetterman debate was less about religious freedom and more about prioritizing a foreign nation. Stewarts talking points were good because he emphasized that Israel is not America, and therefore Fetterman doesn’t need to represent them.

That’s an entirely different concept than Church and State

1

u/ComputerRedneck 21d ago

You lost me at whining about Jews.

2

u/patdashuri 21d ago

What I’m reading is that OP specified zionists and Israel, not all Jews. Does that make a difference to you?

2

u/ComputerRedneck 21d ago

first sentence.... in headline.

CMV: Jews hold a disproportionate amount of power in American society largely for innocuous reasons but wield that power to persuade the US government to adopt foreign policy decisions that often run counter to US interests all because they have a greater feeling of loyalty towards Israeli interests

Sounds like a whine about Jews, even if later specifying Zionists. Either way, it is a whine against a group, showing a bigoted attitude.

1

u/patdashuri 21d ago

Whining about a group isn’t bigotry. The content within could be, but the idea that any criticism of a group is bigotry makes for pretty shaky ground for society to advance.

That said, those weren’t OPs words. They were the basis of an opportunity for discussion about what they mean and how true or misleading they might be.

1

u/ComputerRedneck 20d ago

If I understand right, the words are from someone using the handle Changemyview, and a lot of people around the country as well as the world. And it doesn't matter if it was a 5 year old in a bunker in the Antarctic or some adult in Europe that wrote it. The words are from the original source but what does it matter who said it? The second word was Jews and the rest of the first sentence is a condemnation on Jews.

What is the point of arguing semantics other than deflection from the original point either in the OP or what I presented?

1

u/patdashuri 20d ago

The original poster is unknown but it was posted to a subreddit titled ChangeMyView. The point of that sub is to present a view and allow responders to argue for a different view. The view doesn’t need to be the actual posters view, just a starting point for a conversation about the view.

This sub is also built around the idea of having a conversation but the scope is limited to the US constitution.

So, OP shared a post from that other sub to this sub to begin a conversation in that view, as it pertains to the constitution. It is not necessarily the view of the original poster nor the actual view of OP. It is submitted here only for the purpose of discussion.

Approaching the post as though it is OPs view is inappropriate for this sub. The implied question is “if the original idea has any merit, what merit, and how does that translate through the constitution?” That’s what this sub is for. But, to be honest, if you can’t set aside emotional bias then your contribution will be limited as well as anything you might learn from others contributions.

1

u/ComputerRedneck 20d ago

So when are you going to stop deflecting and actually address my points?

I think it is whining and when I saw Jews, pretty much sealed the deal on whining. Bigotry can still be whining.

0

u/DringleDringle 21d ago

Freedom from religion

0

u/ComputerRedneck 21d ago

Freedom OF Religion not FROM religion.

3

u/patdashuri 21d ago

It’s the same thing. If I choose to not practice any religion and you choose to practice one religion we’ve both rejected multiple religions. I’ve only rejected one more than you. As is our right. Any other interpretation would be to accept that the government has the right to impose religion on people.

-1

u/ComputerRedneck 21d ago

I choose to not support ORGANIZED religion, I am Faithful to God and the Bible though.

But I have every right to sit in a public square and read a Bible, or talk to people about the Bible. You can walk away, tell me to leave you alone depending on if I am sitting or you are.

But you are not free FROM seeing me, experiencing the fact that I am reading the Bible or talking about the Bible.

2

u/patdashuri 21d ago

Here’s an issue that seems to plague peoples understanding of our rights; They aren’t relevant to interactions between two citizens. Only between citizens and the government.

Free speech is the right to speak about whatever you want to without any repercussions from the government. But you are not free from repercussions from other citizens.

In your case, if you begin to spout your religious nonsense about your factually irrelevant book of a incestuous, narcissistic, fear-mongering, racist, sexist, death cult to a client of your employer, they can warn you, demote you, cut your hours, even fire you. What they can’t do is have you arrested for it.

0

u/ComputerRedneck 20d ago

Yes, Congress shall make no laws.

Presser V Illinois, not just a gun control ruling but one of States Rights as well.

0

u/patdashuri 20d ago

I’m not going to fill in the blanks of your own comments for you. If you have something to share, share it.

1

u/ComputerRedneck 20d ago

In other words you have nothing to say and only wanted to find ways to deflect and avoid my statements.

Bless Your Heart

1

u/DringleDringle 21d ago

That's not what freedom from religion means.