Thank God for secularism

[Sherlock Holmes]

It makes perfect sense if you aren't an SJW ideological hack.

Why should pride be taught in public schools if religion can't be?

Why are you so scared of gay stuff anyway?

Religion can be taught (but not promoted) in public schools though, why are magats so poorly informed?

 

[martybegan]

Why are you so scared of gay stuff anyway?

Religion can be taught in public schools though, why are magats so poorly informed?

Why do you feel the need to force acceptance and celebration of it in public schools?

It's about advocacy, not teaching. Again, why is Pride advocated in public schools?

 

[TheGreatSatan]

It makes perfect sense if you aren't an SJW ideological hack.

Why should pride be taught in public schools if religion can't be?

Both are religions

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why do you feel the need to force acceptance and celebration of it in public schools?

What is the opposite of acceptance of other people's differences? I'll tell you, it's xenophobia, now you tell me why xenophobia should be promoted in public schools?

It's about advocacy, not teaching. Again, why is Pride advocated in public schools?

Well you asked "[why] religion can't be [taught]", don't bite my head off.

 

[Robert W]

States can do acts not approved by the constitution.

Not acts that violate the Bill of Rights.

Robert W:
I did not bring that up. Notice that abortion was never contained in the Bill of Rights.

 

[martybegan]

What is the opposite of acceptance of other people's differences? I'll tell you, it's xenophobia, now you tell me why xenophobia should be promoted in public schools?

Well you asked "[why] religion can't be [taught]", don't bite my head off.

What you want to teach is tolerance, not acceptance or forced celebration.

Biting your head off would result in a diet of mostly air.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Not acts that violate the Bill of Rights.

Robert W:
I did not bring that up. Notice that abortion was never contained in the Bill of Rights.

And SCOTUS advised the same in Dobbs.

 

[martybegan]

And SCOTUS advised the same in Dobbs.

After getting in wrong in Roe.

 

[Zincwarrior]

After getting in wrong in Roe.

We somewhat agree actually.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What you want to teach is tolerance, not acceptance or forced celebration.

Well start tolerating the celebrations then you whining old grinch.

Biting your head off would result in a diet of mostly air.

Like what comes out of your mouth most days?

 

[MisterBeale]

Not acts that violate the Bill of Rights.

The establishment clause does not forbid government institutions using religious displays with an historical nature that informed the formation of the U.S. Constitution itself.



". . . With the Lemon test now dead, the reasoning in McCreary County would appear to be so as well. Thus, today’s court is more likely to draw on the other 2005 case, Van Orden v. Perry, in which a majority of the justices, after openly setting aside the Lemon test, allowed a Ten Commandments display at the Texas State Capitol to remain standing precisely because they felt it appropriately acknowledged the Ten Commandments’ historical significance to the United States.

The court, in an opinion by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, acknowledged that “the Ten Commandments are religious—they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. The monument, therefore, has religious significance. … But Moses was a lawgiver as well as a religious leader. And the Ten Commandments have an undeniable historical meaning, as the foregoing examples demonstrate. Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause.”

In his concurring opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools must clear a higher legal bar “given the impressionability of the young,” but said that the establishment clause does not justify a blanket ban on such displays in public spaces.

“To reach a contrary conclusion here, based primarily upon the religious nature of the tablets’ text would, I fear, lead the law to exhibit a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions,” he wrote. . . "

The Ten Commandments return to classrooms: What will the Supreme Court do?​

The Ten Commandments return to classrooms: What will the Supreme Court do?

Texas recently became the third state in two years, following Louisiana and Arkansas, to pass a law requiring Ten Commandments displays in public school classrooms. Soon after — like the […]

www.scotusblog.com

". . . Which brings us to Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. This case involved a public high school’s football coach who had been disciplined for praying on the field after games. On the way to reversing the lower courts’ determination that the establishment clause not only permitted, but required the school district to prevent the coach’s public prayers, the court reported – in a way that seemed to express surprise that everyone was not already aware – that it had, in fact, “long ago abandoned Lemon.” Note that Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, did not use the word “overrule” (although the dissenting justices and many commentators did). This at least raises the question: What remains of the various precedents that at least purported to rely on Lemon and what, going forward, are the tests, doctrines, standards, criteria, indicia, clues, hints, and vibes that courts and lawmakers, scholars and citizens should use to determine what the First Amendment’s rule against religious establishments does, and does not, require? After all, it is certainly not the case that all precedents that invoked, and doctrines that reflect, in one way or another, Lemon’s requirements have evaporated.

And so, the Kennedy decision, and the doubts it stoked about the status of Lemon, explain why some states are now bringing back in-school Ten Commandments displays, 45 years after Stone. Did Stone survive Kennedy, or is it now buried, for good, with the “ghoul” that was Lemon? The legal challenges to the new state laws could provide the justices with a chance to clarify what the Lemon-less law of the establishment clause will be.

This involves several considerations. One can, and should, distinguish between, on the one hand, inserting evangelizing religious material in the curriculum of a state school and, on the other, teaching kids about the role of religious texts and actors, or permitting non-disruptive private religious expression by students and teachers, or allowing religious groups access to meeting spaces. After all, just a few months ago, in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a majority of the justices underscored the potential for ideological curricular materials to burden students’ and parents’ religious liberty. And one can recognize the Lemon test’s unworkability without retreating from the rule that government actors should not make religious decisions or interfere with the appropriate autonomy of religious groups. Indeed, the appropriate differentiation between political and religious authority was always what church-state “separation” was supposed to mean. . . . "

<snip>

". . . . Government action that protects religious freedom relates to religion, and yet it still has a “secular” purpose; in our tradition, legally protected religious liberty is seen as conducive to human flourishing and healthy communities in this world. Government decisions to cooperate with, and to support financially and otherwise, the this-worldly work of religious agencies, schools, and hospitals has a “secular” purpose. Teaching children, even in state schools, what they need to know to intelligently read Augustine and Milton, Lincoln and King, has a “secular” purpose. Does posting the Ten Commandments, in one form or another, on the wall of a state-school classroom? We will find out soon."

The Ten Commandments and a "secular purpose"

Rights and Responsibilities is a recurring series by Richard Garnett on legal education, the role of the courts in our constitutional structure, and the law of religious freedom and free expression. […]

www.scotusblog.com

 

[Zincwarrior]

The establishment clause does not forbid government institutions using religious displays with an historical nature that informed the formation of the U.S. Constitution itself.

Very true. The essential test is if the Court finds these displays to be an endorsement of religion or a permissible reflection of historical and cultural influences.

 

[martybegan]

Well start tolerating the celebrations then you whining old grinch.

Like what comes out of your mouth most days?

being forced to celebrate something isn't tolerance. It's forced agreement that said topic deserves to be celebrated.

Why should that be part of a public education?

 

[Zincwarrior]

being forced to celebrate something isn't tolerance. It's forced agreement that said topic deserves to be celebrated.

Why should that be part of a public education?

Excellent discussion points, but probably better in another thread.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

being forced to celebrate something isn't tolerance. It's forced agreement that said topic deserves to be celebrated.

Why should that be part of a public education?

This is known as a "storm in a teacup", let me ask, are you in the closet?

 

[martybegan]

This is known as a "storm in a teacup", let me ask, are you in the closet?

View attachment 1152393

Again with the dismissal of something others find concerning, because your side thinks it's winning.

Treat it as a religion and get it out of the schools. Then you won't seem like ******* hypocrites bitching about the ten commandments.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Which of the commandments do you disagree with?

The first one for starters.

 

[theHawk]

Yes, he has a lot of authority and he's abusing it by insisting the decision of a jury and court be overturned on his command because he wants it to be.

Threatening people financially for some objective is called unlawful financial pressure, economic duress.

Where is his call for a new trial? a review of the case?

Nope, he is stating publicly that she is innocent, too old to be punished, he wants the JD to secure her release.

None of that is how a person concerned about a mistaken conviction would act if they respected America and respected the office of President, he wants to act like a king and fools like you are super happy to oblige.

You are a complete nutjob.

So it’s perfectly fine for elected Democrats to declare certain people either guilty or not guilty based on their opinion alone, such as Democrats claiming Floyd was murdered long before the trial of the officer. Or declaring President Trump was guilty of crimes he was never convicted of.

More “rules for thee, and not for me” from you commies.

In this case of the Colorado woman, she was persecuted for exposing the Democrats cheating in elections. How is preserving evidence a crime? Well if it exposes corrupt Democrats then it’s a “crime”.

Just like all the sham cases against President Trump, like the $400 million liability case that was just thrown out.

 

[theHawk]

Why are you so scared of gay stuff anyway?

Religion can be taught (but not promoted) in public schools though, why are magats so poorly informed?

“Gay stuff” is degenerate crap being taught to kids in order to groom them. School teachers are more likely to be child molesters than any other profession.

Homosexuality is a mortal sin that sends people to hell for an eternity. It is called an abomination in the Bible, that isn’t a light word to use. Yet leftist degenerates want to teach children it’s a virtue. Teaching the inversion of truth is Satanic in nature.

Almost everything the progressives push nowadays is satanic in nature: abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, adultery, pornography, prostitution, drug use, etc.
Everything the left promotes is to destroy society.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

“Gay stuff” is degenerate crap being taught to kids in order to groom them. School teachers are more likely to be child molesters than any other profession.

I think you're getting confused with people like this Israeli dude who recently escaped US justice:

or was it this guy?

Homosexuality is a mortal sin that sends people to hell for an eternity.

Odd then that the Gospels say nothing about it.

It is called an abomination in the Bible, that isn’t a light word to use. Yet leftist degenerates want to teach children it’s a virtue. Teaching the inversion of truth is Satanic in nature.

All depends on which translation you have.

Almost everything the progressives push nowadays is satanic in nature: abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, adultery, pornography, prostitution, drug use, etc.
Everything the left promotes is to destroy society.

Never seen that, I've seen climate change come up and minimum wage and gun safety and Obama care and stuff, but not that satanic stuff.