r/AmericaBad

I think we can all agree our government sucks ass, that’s just objectively true. But, hating our government is one thing compared to hating someone for being American. It’s bullshit and I seriously hate those fuckwads that blame every single American for Trump, like GTFO with that shit.

Hi,

Your friendly neighborhood Canadian born dude that has lived in the USA for 22+ years here.

I thought you would find this mildly interesting, but Canadian kids are taught a major lie when they are in elementary or middle school (they call that Jr. High School in Canada).

We are taught that in the War of 1812 that Canada “burned down the White House.”

Now was the White House burned down during the War of 1812?

YES. Yes it was.

Was it Canada that did it?

NO. No it was NOT.

See, what the teachers fail to explain the the kids, but they do eventually teach, is that in 1812:

1. There was no “Canada.” Instead was a territory called Upper and Lower Canada. This was loosely controlled by the BRITISH.

2. There were no Canadian militia members involved AT ALL, and no one from Canada marched down from Canada. Instead the British sent veteran solders - most of which had just fought in the Napoleonic wars in Europe over… These solders went from Bermuda to Chesapeake Bay. They landed and went on to attack Washington.

Still, they teach kids in Canada that in the War of 1812 “Canada burned down the White House” and this myth still exists and is parroted back time and time again by people that hold onto this like it is a sign of one countries excellence.

So here are some fun FACTS about Canada “as a country.”

1. Canada began as a labor camp. Basically the British sent low level laborers to Canada AFTER France had already been there to mine resources.

2. Canada did not even EXIST until 1867. This was the “Dominion of Canada” but it was not autonomous. It was four provinces and Great Britain still controlled it until the 1900s.

3. Canada was not fully self governing until 1931… yes 1931! This is when after WW1 where Canada refused to immediately join Britain in fighting, Britain took notice. After the war, they gave autonomy to Canada in 1931.

4. Canada was not “technically” complete until 1949 when Newfoundland and Labrador joined Canada and the country was “complete.”

Does a prosecutor invoking Catholic doctrine in a murder trial raise a legitimate Establishment Clause concern?

I’m Canadian and have been following the Lindsay Clancy murder trial in Massachusetts, and I’m interested in the constitutional perspective on something that happened during the prosecution’s questioning.

While questioning Lindsay Clancy’s former mother-in-law, the prosecutor established that she was an active Catholic and then asked whether she was aware that murder is considered a “mortal sin” in the Catholic Church.

The judge intervened, the defense objected, and the jury was ultimately instructed to disregard the question.

That response from the court is important, but I’m interested in the broader constitutional issue.

The prosecutor wasn’t a private citizen discussing her religious beliefs. She was acting on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in a criminal prosecution.

So where exactly is the constitutional line?

If the prosecution is attempting to establish that a defendant understood that killing was morally wrong, can the government introduce the teachings of a particular religion as evidence of that understanding?

And if Catholic doctrine can legitimately be invoked for that purpose, would the same principle allow a prosecutor to question witnesses about whether an act is forbidden under Islamic law, Jewish law, or another religious code?

I’m not arguing that Massachusetts is somehow “enforcing Catholic law.” It clearly isn’t. I’m asking something narrower:

Is there a constitutional problem when the state itself invokes a specific religion’s doctrine as part of its effort to establish criminal culpability—even if the judge ultimately strikes the question?

From outside the United States, this was striking to watch because the First Amendment’s prohibition on government establishment of religion is one of the features of the American constitutional system that seems particularly clear.

I’d be interested in hearing from constitutional lawyers or others familiar with Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Is this primarily an evidentiary problem, a constitutional problem, prosecutorial misconduct, or simply an improper question that the trial judge adequately cured by striking it?

hi guys,

so i’m visiting the US (oregon) from london for a couple days on a work trip & since ive been here i’ve truly been treated with royalty.

i found a small cafe whilst here & once i found myself a cozy seat i was approached by the waiter & wow she was lovely. firstly before even uttering a word she was so welcoming and once i was ordering she looked at me like a unicorn. she said she’d never met a british person in her life ( WOW ) and once the bill was ready she said it was on the house.

this is just one of the many instances too! i’ve travelled the world & have had great experiences too but nothing like this.

nowhere else in the world would i get a free meal because of my accent that i didn’t work for hahaha.

God Bless America

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

When someone brings up that it's common to find drunk Englanders, she then claims that the UK is not part of Europe despite the fact that it once was. She also has videos criticizing people working while also living in a large house.