I am POed by nonstop rightwing incursion on church/state separation
"It has now been mandated that public schools in Oklahoma must incorporate the Bible into their curricula. The legislatures in Texas and in Florida have passed laws that allow schools to replace school counselors with untrained “chaplains.” These chaplains are not prohibited from proselytizing to students. This agenda is being pushed by extreme right-wing Christian political activists. Imagine this scenario: a child is in crisis and needs a professional and properly trained counselor to help them. Instead, they are directed towards an untrained chaplain, who can use that opportunity to proselytize too or religiously coerce the child — and certainly won’t be able to provide them with the type and level of care that they need. Most parents would likely object to that, viewing religion as a matter for the home."
"There is deep hypocrisy here for those on the right who are always condemning “big government” infringing on their “freedom,” but then seek to make public schools into places where their particular religion is imposed on all students. In Louisiana, the schools, up to the college level, are under pressure to display the 10 Commandments in the classroom. This is an agenda for government-mandated prayer. It’s bad for schools, bad for teachers, bad for parents and bad for children."
"The Constitution has the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from “establishing” a national religion. There is separation of church and state in this country. There are to be no religious tests for public office. The Framers were explicit in this regard. Yet, here we are."
"The white Christian Nationalist agenda is advancing. We are also seeing so many efforts to ban books and to make it illegal to teach the real complicated history of this country — because it may hurt white people’s feelings, or undermine their political worldview. This is an Orwellian Theocratic project."
--------
Is this what Trump is bringing to America in his Faustian bargain with bible thumping hypocrites in exchange for unlimited power? I don't want to be told by the state or phony purveyors of the Christian faith what to believe or not believe. You can rest assured that we on the left will make this issue a thorn in Trump's side during his term.
Those are my thoughts
Your thoughts if any....It is indeed a sad thing when a group of zealots decide their god wants their religion forced onto everyone else. We can only hope that our Constitution, and our legal system, is strong enough to protect us.
To be fair though, is it truly any worse than progressives teaching our children that boys can be girls, that girls can be boys or that all white people are racist and evil? Is it any worse than taking away the police that protect us and then declaring that we cannot have the tools to protect ourselves; that if we DO offer some resistance to crime that we will go behind bars?
The fringe idiots in our country will always push with all they've got to control the rest of us; it is up to us to "just say no".Wilderness, I don't know about all this stuff about schools teaching boys to be girls. I will have to verify for myself where this happening.
I do know that gays and lesbians are a part of our society, I suggest to rightwing parents to keep their perceived attitudes at home and in their churches. After all, it has been hardly more than 60 years, 1962, when Rightwingers ovjected to blacks in schools while kicking God out. So, how much more credible are they today? I don't think that the fundamentals about them ever really change.
I just want Police to be held accountable for their behavior at all times. It is always the extremist left views that you parrot. If I used just the extremist rightwing view, you would have a genocide of all non white people. You have advocates on your side that approach that attitude if not quite there yet.
The Right is prepared to treat the Constitution like so much toilet paper, in the Trump regime, we may not be able to count on such protection."It is always the extremist left views that you parrot."
Just as you only parrot the extreme right views. Or do you really think the average, man in the street, right winger wants religion inserted into our schools and government? I assure you they do not.
Conservatives often champion the principle of limited government, arguing that individuals and local communities are better equipped to make decisions about their lives than a centralized federal authority. This belief stems from a desire to maintain personal freedom and reduce government interference in matters like business, education, and personal choices.
At the same time, many conservatives hold deeply rooted values that include faith and religious traditions, which they see as integral to their communities and identity. For this reason, they tend to resist federal laws or policies that they perceive as restricting their ability to express and practice these values, particularly in local settings like schools.
When it comes to religion in schools, conservatives argue that the First Amendment protects not just freedom from religion (i.e., government establishment of religion) but also freedom of religion—the ability to practice one's faith without interference. For many, this means schools, which are often at the heart of a community, should not be restricted from including religious elements, like prayer or the Bible, as long as it reflects the community's values and is not imposed on others.
This perspective doesn't conflict with their broader desire for limited government because they see the federal government's intervention in this area as overreach, disrupting local control. By advocating for religion in schools, conservatives argue they are defending their rights to self-governance and the free exercise of religion, not imposing their beliefs on others but preserving the right to express their values in public spaces like schools.Sharlee, there is issue of the 1st Amendment, freedom of religion, clarified in 1962 to prohibit "establishment" by a government entity. This has to apply just that much more in an environment that requires compulsory attendance, like a public school.
The will of a state, city or community cannot supercede rights guaranteed to all Americans by the Constitution. The result of that is that bible bangers leave their views within their own homes, family and churches.
I suggest that conservatives keep their deeply rooted values to themselves and let others make their own choices to determine what their values are.
I have no issue with anyone practicing their faith without interference, but won't be compelled to have my children having to give credence to the beliefs of others or be subject to proselytizing by the most hypocritical bunch of people on earth.
The problem, Sharlee, is that in Oklahoma and Louisiana the Rightwingers religion IS being imposed upon others. How do you advocate for religion in public school while respecting the rights of others? The issue here is "establishment" I don't want authority figures in the public schools pushing their religious views on impressionable young kids.
I believe these schools should be prevented from doing these things. Get your own private schools to teach students to adhere to your preferred religious tenets."The problem, Sharlee, is that in Oklahoma and Louisiana the Rightwingers religion IS being imposed upon others. " Cred
I want to point out a contradiction in how beliefs and rights are framed in debates about religion and governance. If someone argues that they don’t want religion imposed upon them, but also seeks to prevent others from practicing or expressing their beliefs, it undermines the principle of mutual respect for individual freedoms. I think your statement suggests that the loudest or most dominant voice should prevail, which can lead to the suppression of others’ rights and perspectives.
In a pluralistic society, the challenge lies in ensuring that no single belief system—religious or secular—is imposed while simultaneously protecting the rights of all individuals to practice their beliefs freely. The issue becomes contentious when public policy, which should ideally serve everyone equally, begins to reflect the preferences of a particular group to the exclusion or detriment of others. This is where we can agree balance and dialogue are critical.
Your critique encourages reflection on the principle of equality: if you don’t want someone else’s beliefs imposed on you, you also have a responsibility not to impose your preferences on others.Sharlee, no one is speaking about preventing others from expressing themselves religion wise. There is a difference between your own expressing and compelling others to follow it. School is about reading,‘writing and arithmetic, I don’t recall religion being included. Secular is best, because through the neutrality no one is using authority figures in the school to promote any particular religious dogma. I don’t see the openest of perspective regarding Judaism or Islam, can they have their tenets presented in a way that involves a captive audience?
“In a pluralistic society, the challenge lies in ensuring that no single belief system—religious or secular—is imposed while simultaneously protecting the rights of all individuals to practice their beliefs freely. The issue becomes contentious when public policy, which should ideally serve everyone equally, begins to reflect the preferences of a particular group to the exclusion or detriment of others”
Why the controversy, this is all that I have ever said? it is possible, you know, we have done it for many years. It is just the conservatives that are determined that we worship their God and splatter the public schools with their paraphernalia. The idea is that no ones preferences should be imposed on anybody and only a secular education system comes close to meeting the requirement of neutrality.I’m neutral on the issue. I believe it’s ultimately up to the parent or parents to decide whether to introduce religion into their child’s life. Once again, it seems to come down to a clash over rights. When deeply held values are at the core of an issue, like religion in schools or abortion, finding a middle ground often feels impossible.
""It has now been mandated that public schools in Oklahoma must incorporate the Bible into their curricula. The legislatures in Texas and in Florida have passed laws that allow schools to replace school counselors with untrained “chaplains.” These chaplains are not prohibited from proselytizing to students."
In my humble opinion, (IMHO), that is whacked out just as much as posting the ten commandments in public schools. It will be tested in the courts I suspect in the future. I am thankful I live in California where individual liberty is respected and the Constitution is followed in regard to the matter at hand with the OP.
I do not see how this type of overreach will stand legal scrutiny.
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or favoring one over another. The Supreme Court has ruled that public schools cannot promote a particular religion or provide religious instruction in a devotional manner.
Our activist Supreme Court has certainly signaled that they are open to hearing challenges regarding just how separate church and state need to be. I imagine that is where it will end up.
I think it's pretty clear though, teaching religion in public schools is unconstitutional. The prevailing religious beliefs of the school administrators or even the community at large should not be forced upon students.This is not so much about teaching the Bible but it's place in history. The left has to understand the Bible is a huge part of the history of the United States and Western Culture. It is important students know it and understand it's impact.
Ryan Walters, Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction said the following “So we will be offering additional guidance to districts that they will have to comply with, which is to ensure the teaching of our standards and the role the Bible played in American history, dating back pre-Constitution, whether it's Mayflower Compact, the pilgrims, all the way up through Martin Luther King Jr. and civil rights movement.”
So, it is not so much teaching religion as the Bible's place in American history
The reason for displaying the ten commandments in Louisiana is “A note on copies of the commandments read: "The secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States."
Why are they teaching about the Bible in Texas? Simple, “Supporters argued the Bible is a core feature of American history and that teaching it will enrich lessons.”
I would rather have students learn about the Bible than be subject to pornographic Material that is permitted in some School Libraries.
Here's just one example of many.
“Diary of a Young Girl,” but an adaptation of that work, a graphic novel called “Anne Frank’s Diary,” that emphasizes and inflates sexual passages in the original diary.
Specifically, the teacher asked her eighth grade students to read aloud and discuss a sexually explicit passage from that adaptation, in which Anne asks her friend if they could “show each other our breasts” and expresses a “terrible desire to kiss her.” So what was billed by the avatar of the American education establishment as a proto-fascist incident was just parents reacting to a teacher’s choice to emphasize sex in the Anne Frank story."
You read something like this that is an abomination of a classic piece of literature that left embraces but struggles with teaching students how the Bible has impacted US history and Western civilization.Yes, but its place in history is to be treated in a clinical way, not in a manner that is proselytizing at its base. The Bible is not a HUGE part of American history. Your explanation is just some clever way for the rightwinger to insert the phony Christian values into the curriculum. For many it is just a book of fables, with no factual base that can ever be proven objectively.
They don’t need to study the Bible with teachers acting as ministers, just be made clinically aware of what contribution to American history can be attributed to it.
The reason for displaying the ten commandments in Louisiana is “A note on copies of the commandments read: "The secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States."
Who says and based upon what evidence or support besides the rightwinger saying so? Texas” explanation is also so much bunk.
All this is a violation of clear and precise Constitutional principles, lets see how far its gets with the mass of litigation planned to challenge it.
Why are they now deciding that drag the hypocritical text front and center? Why can’t they be content to keep their nonsense within their own private circles rather than forcing me to adhere to it?
Remove what is clearly pornography and define specifically what that is and how it is to be defined within school libraries. I don’t trust conservatives, they will find an excuse to remove anything contrary to their belief system or agenda. Next, they will be trying to tell me what to read and what not to read. And, I really don’t care about their insecurities and fears."Who says and based upon what evidence or support besides the rightwinger saying so? Texas” explanation is also so much bunk."
Actually, the Ten Commandments influencing the laws of Western Civilization is not something believed not only by "rightwinger" but by legal scholars around the world.
Here is an excerpt from an article about it published by Cambridge University Press. The entire article is a fascinating read and makes excellent points.
"It is axiomatic that many of the principles contained in the Ten Commandments are fundamental to the Western legal tradition. Prohibitions on murder, theft, and perjury are found in nearly every legal code. Notions of respect for one's parents and admonitions against adultery are also implicit, if not explicit, in the quasi-legal realm of normative rules that order many societies. Few people, if any, would dispute that the Ten Commandments—and its parallels from other ancient cultures—as well as other directives contained in the Pentateuch of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, inform our notions of right and wrong and, as such, have influenced the development of Western law of which the American legal system is part."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals … C10D227F1AWell, Mike, you seem to have a retort for everything, how do you explain this?
The legislatures in Texas and in Florida have passed laws that allow schools to replace school counselors with untrained “chaplains.” These chaplains are not prohibited from proselytizing to students. This agenda is being pushed by extreme right-wing Christian political activists. Imagine this scenario: a child is in crisis and needs a professional and properly trained counselor to help them. Instead, they are directed towards an untrained chaplain, who can use that opportunity to proselytize too or religiously coerce the child —
I abhor theocracies as much as I do oligarchies......In both cases, Texas and Florida, schools have the option to have these untrained chaplains. Many schools in Texas and Florida have rejected this idea and won't participate in the program.
Are you okay with the level of gay indoctrination going on in schools? Classes on gay history, gay clubs, and more. Many schools are being sued for this activity. The focus on the gay agenda in schools is mind boggling. It is the same with the transgender indoctrination taking place.
This wasn't the case when I was going to school. I don't understand it."In both cases, Texas and Florida, schools have the option to have these untrained chaplains. Many schools in Texas and Florida have rejected this idea and won't participate in the program."
They certainly had better as the school is not a church...
I don't know about "gay indoctrination", who is making claim and how credible the source?
Homosexuality and Lesbianism has been with us forever. It does no one a service to not acknowledge that these people exist. Acknowledgement and indoctrination are different, I accept one but question the other.
I am probably older than you and while I was in the public school system such things were never discussed let alone accommodated. But on the other hand over the previous 50-60 years before me, Black folks were dismissed as invisible people, out of sight and out of mind. So, I don't know if the not acknowledging existence thing is really a virtue in the long term. But, I do see your point of deliberately creating a separate identity . But, if they did not, they would remain in forever in "the closet" avoiding revealing the true nature of their lives. Who would want to stay there?
I am not going to say that some of this gender bender stuff has not gotten out of hand. But there are people that exist that do not fit into a comforting model. Must they be forced to hide and conceal themselves, indefinitely? Like I said, the same was true of me and my tribe just 70-80 years ago.
Maybe there are more gay people than people realize and as for Blacks,we had to gather together to protect ourselves as a group and allow those individuals that are outcast to recognize that they have support.
I even remember when teen high school girls who got pregnant were taken out of the public school system, as a bad example to other female students,"Maybe there are more gay people than people realize and as for Blacks, we had to gather together to protect ourselves as a group and allow those individuals that are outcast to recognize that they have support."
You are making a classic mistake in trying to equate being black to being gay. They are two very different things. As a black man, you will always be a black man. You can dig up bones hundreds of years old and determine if skeletal remains are those of an person with African descent.
People regularly leave the gay lifestyle. Then the argument goes to if being gay is a choice, and I believe it is a choice. We have laws on the books to protect people who choose to have sex a certain way. Does that really make sense? So, since it is a choice, indoctrination is important to keep individuals going into that particular lifestyle in order to maintain its numbers or to increase them.
This is an interesting article on the topic.
"Homosexuality is not fixed and unchangeable, as these public figures reveal. Some of them celebrate their sexual fluidity as a good thing; others believe that the only true expression of sexuality is heterosexuality, since it is consistent with our biological design.
But the message is the same from all of them — people can change."
https://www.josephnicolosi.com/articles … lifestyle/You are making a classic mistake in trying to equate being black to being gay. They are two very different things. As a black man, you will always be a black man. You can dig up bones hundreds of years old and determine if skeletal remains are those of an person with African descent.
Understood, but intolerance and its accompanying attitudes has always had a consistent pattern, regardless of how it is applied or justified. Despite the obvious fact that you state in your paragraph, people subjected me and mine to ill treatment beyond what gays experience today. The differences that you point out made no difference in the attitudes of those in the past.
An appropo Quote from a Scientific American Article
---------
https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog … -a-choice/
Just as gay people who are happy as they are should not be forced to change their sexual orientation, gay people who want to be straight should have the right to change if they can – and the correct word is “change” – not “cure”.
In his blog post, Lowder states, “Many critics will argue that appealing to biology is the only way to protect against the attacks of the religious right.”
It might make these critics unhappy to hear this, but that’s not how science works.
Science doesn’t change in order to support political opinions.
Scientific beliefs change as we gain new information, and sometimes science tells us things that we would rather not hear.
Get used to it.
------
Thanks for the link, but it features a few celebrities that have changed for the thousands of people who have not. It is the same as conservatives trotting out Oprah as an example of parity and equal opportunity within the American economic systems, when nothing could be further from the truth. I am not interested in the exceptions as I focus on the rule and the experiences of the vast majority of people over the exceptions of a handful.
It may be a combination of nature verses nurture as to why people are homosexual. I have a guy down our street who at 40 years of age has a mental age of 5 years. There are subtleties regarding human physiology and psychology that are far more complex than what is claimed by the the religious dogmatists. Who is to know what they are, and how do they know? The complexities of the human brain are being studied and I don't think that non-scientific groups have any real grasp of the answers. It could well be that not everybody is up to the struggle to change as it always easier to just comfort yourself, as life is short.
I don't like the media putting so much of this stuff in my face as of late, entertainment, etc. but, my discomfort does not preclude their right to exist with a modicum of dignity."Thanks for the link, but it features a few celebrities that have changed for the thousands of people who have not. "
I would say the numbers are larger than you realize. It is estimated that up to 3 percent of heterosexual people are former members of the gay lifestyle. This numbers equate to hundreds of thousands of people.
I don't care if someone chooses to live the gay lifestyle. I think it is their choice and it is a choice.
I also don't believe that teachers and schools should be indoctrinating children concerning the gay lifestyle. This is something that is up to the parents to teach their children about. It's not the job of the school."Thanks for the link, but it features a few celebrities that have changed for the thousands of people who have not. "
"I would say the numbers are larger than you realize. It is estimated that up to 3 percent of heterosexual people are former members of the gay lifestyle. This numbers equate to hundreds of thousands of people."
But 97 percent that remain is a lot more than 3 percent.
"I don't care if someone chooses to live the gay lifestyle. I think it is their choice and it is a choice."
We disagree with the ideas of it being solely choice as proposed primarily by religionists, who in their overwhelming hypocrisy are hardly in a position to speak credibly about anything.
"I also don't believe that teachers and schools should be indoctrinating children concerning the gay lifestyle. This is something that is up to the parents to teach their children about. It's not the job of the school."
I agree with this, but like I said earlier, indoctrination is to be avoided, but to erase their fact of their existence as a part of society is a fool's errand. Why can religionists agree to the precepts that their preferred religion be left in the hands of parents and churches to indoctrinate? Why is that so different?
"It may be a combination of nature verses nurture as to why people are homosexual."
I don't think it really matters. To me it's like asking why do some people abuse drugs, alcohol, or even willingly participate in pornography. People do what people do and it's not going to stop.
Teaching about the Bible is different than teaching about homosexuality.
When people say they don't like teaching the Bible because that shows support of a specific religion. I always ask, "What religion? Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, Orthodox, Lutherans? There is also Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons as well as Presbyterians and many more. THOSE are religions.
The Bible is simply a 2,000 year old book that has played a major role in forming the beliefs and values of the entire Western Civilization.
It is an important and influential document that has influenced much of our history and the history of the world."I don't think it really matters. To me it's like asking why do some people abuse drugs, alcohol, or even willingly participate in pornography. People do what people do and it's not going to stop."
Contrary to your opinion, I think that it does. You say it is just a choice, I disagree with that.
The Bible regards religions having a judeo-Christian foundation, there are many religions with no such foundation, what about them? The first amendment is not about majority rule, but more of an absolute as to what the state can mandate regarding speech, religion or freedom to assemble.
Many of the various Jude's-Christian religions have very differing interpretations of the Bible, that is why there are so many f actions and sects. Where is the one way this controversial book can be taught?
And until recently, the courts had a good foundation of what "establishment" really meant, and applied it.
I expect more helter skelter over this issue during the upcoming Trump term.
Express its historical significance without delving in to its fables and stories, implicating whose idea of God is God as mandated by states of Louisiana and Oklahoma.Would you support teaching the passages from the Bible that inspired Martin Luther King Jr?
He was a man of deep faith. Many leaders in the black community are people of deep faith.You can teach what the passages said and what they meant to Dr, King and how he applied them without turning the Bible an instructional textbook in a public classroom. That brings to mind a quote from Dr. king that basically said that the most segregated hour in America was on Sunday morning. Can we teach that as well, or would it be considered woke? In the depth of America's continued hostility, some one has to have his back, that is until April 4, 1968.
There are members of the Black community that are shysters as well, the mere fact they are black does not preclude my critical evaluation of them or their faith just as I would with any other man.
Related Discussions
- 69
First Lousiana and now Oklahoma. What/who's next? The Bible?
by Tim Mitchell 12 months ago
Back in June there was fervor of praise and also discontent about requiring all K-12 classrooms displaying the 10 Commandments. Louisiana law requiring the Ten Commandments in classrooms challenged in lawsuit published by PBS News June 24, 2024"BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — Civil liberties groups...
- 121
What ever happened to the NO ESTABLISHMENT of RELIGION?
by Credence2 12 months ago
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ten-commandm … 00530.htmlFocus on Louisiana:The creepy conservatives have found a way to force us all to adhere to their religious values. Is this a precursor to what can be expected if Trump wins another term? Why do they insist on inculcating impressionable...
- 41
Do you think religion not being taught in schools has helped atheism to grow?
by nightwork4 11 years ago
Do you think religion not being taught in schools has helped atheism to grow?my kids rarely talk about god or jesus and I find it kind of strange. the only reason they mention god is because their grandma will bring them to church every few months but they don't really know what it's for. I find it...
- 20
SCOTUS Religious public schools
by IslandBites 5 months ago
Supreme Court to decide whether states can allow religious public schoolsThe Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether the state of Oklahoma may fund a proposed Catholic charter school, a blockbuster case that could redraw the line between church and state by allowing government to establish...
- 74
The Separation Of Church & State - The Law & The Bible
by Ben Bush 7 years ago
There are many who say that, not only is the separation of Church & State not a truly legal concept, but it was never intended by God to be the true state of affairs in the United States.So, what is the separation of Church & State as reflected in law? As reflected in the Bible?Do you know...
- 58
School Choice Is On The Move
by ga anderson 2 years ago
"School choice is a way of giving families with modest incomes the same opportunities that have always existed for rich families (including the families of [. . .] politicians)."By the logic of 'separation' as an argument against school choice, government funding of higher education, in...