State Dept: Snitch on Anti-Christian Bias

"The department instructions say that examples of anti-Christian bias will be collected to meet the requirements of the executive order but that the department also will collect examples of anti-religious bias of all forms for its internal purposes.

"“Although the E.O. focuses on anti-Christian bias, targeting anyone for their religious beliefs is discriminatory and is contrary to the Constitution” and various federal laws, the notice states."

Sure.
 
Orphia Nay said:
"The department instructions say that examples of anti-Christian bias will be collected to meet the requirements of the executive order but that the department also will collect examples of anti-religious bias of all forms for its internal purposes.

"“Although the E.O. focuses on anti-Christian bias, targeting anyone for their religious beliefs is discriminatory and is contrary to the Constitution” and various federal laws, the notice states."

Sure.
Click to expand...
It's everything they hate about DEI, seen in the mirror and approved. Although the E.O. focuses on Christian Lives Matter, targeting any lives is discriminatory ...
 
They used medicine based upon Evilution rather than prayers. To El Salvador!

Though perhaps for a number of members here it will become: "They posted anti christian thoughts online and mocked my faith, and I think they have DEI immigrants living in their house!"
 
darn, they didn't include the form or the contact methods
 
And the US isn't becoming a christian theocracy/fascist state....
:(
1746218153533.png
Its not a bloody instruction manual....

Parts of a book I actually own- Revolt in 2100 by Robert Heinlein interestingly enough could almost be a number of any current articles coming from the US atm, glad I'm well away from the insanity....
 
Orphia Nay said:
"The department instructions say that examples of anti-Christian bias will be collected to meet the requirements of the executive order but that the department also will collect examples of anti-religious bias of all forms for its internal purposes.

"“Although the E.O. focuses on anti-Christian bias, targeting anyone for their religious beliefs is discriminatory and is contrary to the Constitution” and various federal laws, the notice states."

Sure.
Click to expand...
What about targeting people for their lack of religious beliefs?
 
Ryan O'Dine said:
Are they going to be inquisitive about it? Will they set up some kind of... shall we say... inquisitative type council? You know, to inquisit people?
Click to expand...
We're just asking questions. Surely, there's nothing wrong with just asking questions?

And don't call me Shirley.
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
Are we going to do the routine about which denomination of Christians is the "correct" one?
Click to expand...
That's what gets me. The Establishment Clause wasn't about protecting poor, persecuted Christians from evil atheists and Muslims. It was about attempting to prevent an extension of the centuries of persecution and bloody, sometimes near genocidal war between different groups of Christians that characterized European history.
 
Foster Zygote said:
That's what gets me. The Establishment Clause wasn't about protecting poor, persecuted Christians from evil atheists and Muslims. It was about attempting to prevent an extension of the centuries of persecution and bloody, sometimes near genocidal war between different groups of Christians that characterized European history.
Click to expand...
When you learn the constitution in political science, you are presented with the view that the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause were two opposing forces placed in tension in a way that bracketed how laws could treat religion. You can neither promote nor suppress a religion. The Fundamentalist noise that now dominates American discourse over religion presents the view that the Estabishment Cause and the Free Exercise Clause are two forces acting in the same direction. You cannot burden religion in any way. Guess what interpretation the SCOTUS majority seems to be heading for?
 
dudalb said:
Actually, "Have a BLessed Day" is big amont the Pagan Wiccans.....
Click to expand...

When I posted I was thinking of a webcomic I read (which I would post if I could find it again; the strip's archive is being rebuilt).
A customer at a bar complained to the manager that a member of waitstaff told them to have a nice day when they wanted a blessed day, which they felt was much better. The manager proceeded to loudly and enthusiastically bless the customer in the name of a made up violent nature deity who nourishes the forests with the blood of his sacrifices. When the uncomfortable customer tried to decline, the manager angrily declared that the deity doesn't rescind his blessings.
 
Foster Zygote said:
That's what gets me. The Establishment Clause wasn't about protecting poor, persecuted Christians from evil atheists and Muslims. It was about attempting to prevent an extension of the centuries of persecution and bloody, sometimes near genocidal war between different groups of Christians that characterized European history.
Click to expand...
The Quakers better watch out!
 
In happier times this would be when you'd see them flooded with malicious compliance. "Gary wore clothes of different fabrics today!", "Kari boiled a goat in its mother's milk!", "Greg and Susan are having sex without being married!" Now I'm guessing a lot of people are not in the mood. Or too scared.
 
Foster Zygote said:
That's what gets me. The Establishment Clause wasn't about protecting poor, persecuted Christians from evil atheists and Muslims. It was about attempting to prevent an extension of the centuries of persecution and bloody, sometimes near genocidal war between different groups of Christians that characterized European history.
Click to expand...

JayUtah said:
When you learn the constitution in political science, you are presented with the view that the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause were two opposing forces placed in tension in a way that bracketed how laws could treat religion. You can neither promote nor suppress a religion. The Fundamentalist noise that now dominates American discourse over religion presents the view that the Estabishment Cause and the Free Exercise Clause are two forces acting in the same direction. You cannot burden religion in any way. Guess what interpretation the SCOTUS majority seems to be heading for?S
Click to expand...


I am pretty much resigned that an absolute speratin of Church and State is not going to happen; yuo are not goingt to get rid of things like the Armed forces having CHaiplains. But what can be done is insist that the Government cannot play favorites, what they do for Christians they must d for Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. Problem I have is that it very clear that the FUndies want privilages that other religions..indluding non Fundy Christinas, do not have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Bernard Goldberg's Bias
Replies
3
Views
1K
corplinx
corplinx
S
...but Peter jennings reads Pravda! (and other ways to determine bias)
Replies
10
Views
1K
specious_reasons
S
Kodiak
Need Help Arguing the 1st Amendment with a Christian Cousin
2 3
Replies
89
Views
4K
csense
csense
calladus
Christian Spam
Replies
18
Views
1K
evildave
E
seayakin
The Onion taken Seriously
Replies
4
Views
2K
Iconoclast
I

Back
Top Bottom