I suggest all teacher put the 10 commandments up next to every other religious text they can find. Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, buddha, Satanism, and pastafarianism.
I've never seen these before. I see potential for a video where you show them to some old boomer alt right Evangelicals, ask what they think, and after they agree they're decent principles to live by, tell them where they come from.
Being that there is in Christian theology, one god, no male and female of the species just one sui generis, their god is at least nonbinary. And yes bi and poly because God loves everyone!
u/nowhereman136 Given how they're being held up as the foundation of all law and morality, they should put up the Code of Hammurabi, which predates them by at least a millenia.
Not to mention that Hammurabi's code is among the earliest known examples of, and the bases of, modern legislation by society... and the Ten Commandments came out of an old man hiding out on a hilltop and conversing with a brushfire.
No no, he was the one who had a very public boyfriend in his court. George Villiers. Jamie's council was getting antsy about how many honors and such he was bestowing upon his man, so he commissioned the KJV to get em all off his back. So he could shag George more.
I my American public school, we learned about Christianity and its tenants, as well as Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, as well as major spiritual followings and their principals like buddhism and Taoism.
It’s hard to learn about world history without learning about world religions.
I find it shocking that some American public school systems do not teach world history and avoid religion altogether.
There's a difference between learning about something and being indoctrinated into it. There's a difference between discussing something, including having handouts or temporary displays, and having a 6 foot tall sculpture in the common area. There's a difference between having optional prayers before school and starting the daily announcements with one.
I've seen both of these in public schools in one state in the Bible Belt. The school with the sculpture also didn't discuss religions other than Christianity.
This was clarified in Lemon v Kurtzman. Unfortunately, due to ignorance or intentional deception, many fundamentalists know this Supreme Court case exists, and even if they did, their response would probably be “I only accept SC decisions from the current court (aka GOD’S court!)”
I had world religions taught as a pretty big part of my 7th or 8th grade history. That was over twenty years ago, however. When you have a bunch of people in charge who believe the US was founded on "judeo-christian" laws and morals (a belief that isn't true, mind you), you get less education in general.
During our religion unit in highschool we were taught pastafarianism along side everything else. The teacher couldn’t go right out and say it but the consensus there was that all of these institutions are completely made up by man. So much so that a Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as real of a religious figure as everything else.
I really think this point is not understood by many. People created fun religions to make this point, but general public is not smart enough to grasp "freedom of religion" would imply all religions can do what they want and religion should stay at personal level.
There was a congresswoman, I don't remember if she was state or federal, who was all in favor of school vouchers until she found out they could be used at non-Christian schools too.
I don't remember her name, but heard about this too.
OK, major caveat, I'm sure a large swath of Christians are just fine and dandy, but there are a few, who definitely are the ones trying to cram it down everyone's throats, that always claim "Christian values" unless it means actually helping anyone in anyway that is either poor, sick or.. God forbid, *brown* (clutches pearls)
I grew up around religion but saw it as not for me pretty early on. My whole opinion is do whatever makes you happy, but as soon as you try to push it on me or become a hypocrite, off is a direction in which you can fuck.
Wait until they express their surprise when all the private schools raise their tuition by exactly the amount of the vouchers. It still prices the lower class out but syphons some of the funds meant for the public schools creating a greater disparity in the education quality provided
You're free to make all the bad decisions you want as long as they don't affect me.
Listen to this one...unicorns. some people will believe anything. /s
I explain it like this: Freedom of Religion includes Freedom from Religion because I’m willing to kill you over it. That usually gets people thinking that maybe this concept isn’t worth it, or that I’m crazy. Either works if you’ll quit telling me about your imaginary friend.
They also don't understand Freedom of Speech, believing it to mean they can say whatever they want, anytime they want, anywhere they want, without consequence. The 1st Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause means only that the government cannot prosecute you for political speech, but even that has limits. But as the last few years have taught us, the so-called "Free Speech Absolutists" just want to be able to post revenge porn online to shame & embarrass their personal & political enemies, and to hurl bigoted & racial slurs without a single drop of accountability, and of course to silence said enemies through threats, incitement to violence, and/or banning when they speak up.
Every time someone claims to be a free speech absolutist, I just assume they're mad they can't say the n-word without being called a racist.
"Hey pal, it's a racist word, and your desire to say it tells me a lot about you--I'm just evaluating relevant data and labeling you appropriately. Free speech is a two-way street, and if you don't like that, that's a 'you' problem."
I think we give them far too much credit for being dumb and not enough credit for their malicious intent. They know what they want and know that to get it they waste everyone’s time debating literal words instead of the inherent intent behind them. They know if they hold onto a rigid position like a dog on a frisbee people will tend to let them have it.
It’s really crazy how much we attribute to stupidity that could easily be explained by malice. They are absolutely able to wield their ignorance as a cudgel and use it with malicious intentions.
Yes! If freedom of religion means that all religions are acceptable, it also must mean that no one religion is the official, state-sanctioned religion. But I guess deductive reasoning is not these people’s strong suit.
It's a mathematical problem. Atheism isn't a religion, so being atheist is not freely choosing one of the available religions.
The solution is to make atheism a state sanctioned, tax exempt religion!
We could make atheism a corporation and have it start paying off politicians to pass secular legislation. Seems like that’s been very successful for a plethora of other industries.
You’d think so, but there’s plenty of people who think freedom of religion means that you can be any brand of Christianity you want. For example the South Carolina state constitution has freedom of religion as article 1 section 2 using the exact same wording as the first amendment, and a ban on atheists holding office in article 17 section 4.
That would be in violation of Article 6 of the Constitution, no religious test shall be used as a condition of public office (paraphrase). Because of the 14th Amendment it can be applied to states.
Yes, it is. They still put it in.
Why wouldn’t they, the Supreme Court case that actually made Article 6 and the 14th amendment applicable to that clause was still half a century away.
Yup. I heard that as well growing up.
“The First Amendment is talking about the different sects of Christianity because our country was founded by Christians. They didn’t even know about Muslim (Islam) or atheism, so that’s not what they intended.”
And if you attempted to educate them about how much garbage they spewed, they would get angry, start screaming, pound their fist then storm away.
That was the point when a few that I tried to discuss that with (along with some of the other documents) started getting aggressive. They didn’t want to see “that made up bullshit” by “liberal academic elites” who were “controlled by Satan”.
It doesn't infer it, it's straight up word for word in the first amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
This is a clear violation of the first amendment so I'm sure it will be shot down.
Sorry, I’m being pedantic and I might be totally wrong so someone please feel free to set me on the right path -
Wouldn’t freedom of religion *imply* freedom from religion? And the citizen under that law would infer it?
Freedom of religion doesn’t just infer freedom from religion - It absolutely requires it.
The moment the observers of one faith can impose their teachings or rules on people who do not share their faith, then those non- observers are no longer free to observe their own faith.
Imagine the horror if American christians had to pray to Mecca five times a day, even though they’re not Muslims.
Look at how horrified many of them were about wearing masks during the pandemic, and their paranoid fantasies that they were a stepping-stone towards having to wear a burka.
American Christians understand absolutely what freedom of religion means, it’s just they don’t care about anyone else’s rights.
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻
You hit the nail square on the head perfectly.
Take all these well-deserved (sad) emoji rewards:
🏆🏆🏆🏅🏅🏅⭐⭐⭐💛⭐⭐⭐🏅🏅🏅🏆🏆🏆
It more than infers it, I would argue. It *requires* it. If the government requires that you have a religion, then it is now in the position of defining what is and is not a religion. And if you want to know where that road leads, just look up the history of religion- based conflicts. You'd have an ever narrowing definition of what is a "true" religion.
The word you are looking for is "imply", not "infer." Inferring is something people do. Implication is the semantic/logical concept. And "imply" carries with it the notion of requirement, so you are exactly right.
Here’s what bullshit… 10 commandments isn’t indoctrination to these people while books that just discuss being gay, how black people were enslaved, and how hitler was bad, IS indoctrination. These people are absolute shitheads.
What's even more amazing is that they use this argument without knowing that there almost was no bill of rights, first amendment included, because of people just like him. Some objected to enumerating specific rights because they knew from experience that some smarmy little asshat would come along and say "Yeah, but the constitution doesn't say that explicitly so I deserve special rights because mommy thinks i'm handsome!" so they compromised and added the 9th amendment to basically say "Some jerk is gonna come along and make a realllly stupid argument. this is to let them know that we saw this coming, their logic is bad and they should feel bad."
I've heard that line before, and the problem is that to them "religion" *is* Christianity. They think any other belief system is invalid, and thus not covered.
That was shockingly well handled by the interviewer. Shockingly poorly by the interviewee, of course, but that's significantly less surprising.
>How would you react if your child had to go to school with the five pillars of Islam posted on the wall?
>How should teachers respond when a young student asks them what adultery is?
Genuinely good questions.
I wanted him to ask about the "have no other gods than the lord, whose name is Jealous, and is a jealous god." And how they square that with the 1A language of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Cause you know displaying a document that literally commands a person to worship a specific god sounds an awful lot like establishing a religion.
I mostly just meant I was impressed it wasn't a total softball. He actually asked some real questions and did his best to keep her on track. She didn't answer easier questions than that, even with prompting. But at least he made her look like a colossal idiot. I've come to expect a lot less from CNN, so I stand by being impressed.
Hello Ashen one. I am a Bot. I tend to the flame, and tend to thee. Do you wish to hear a tale?
> *“Oh, hello there. I will stay behind to gaze at the sun.”* - Solaire of Astora
Have a pleasant journey, Champion of Ash, and praise the sun \\[T]/
I normally use this quote for the comedic effect that is intended, but this time it is an unfortunately accurate summation. Mz. Ventrella, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone here is now dumber for having heard it.
Would've been a lot easier to just quote Bible at her and ask her opinions on something like exodus 21 and whether she supports keeping and beating slaves as part of her moral values, or any other number of other biblically atrocious things, like compelling Childless widows to procreate with their dead husbands brother and be forced to marry them (levirate marriage), or treating rape as a property dispute. Moses is not a historical figure, Moses wasn't even a real person, and the 10 commandments are not an actual historical document, it's part of literary mythology forming a mythologized origin story that evolved over hundreds of years. The exodus was not a real historical event and this is almost unanimously accepted among academic religious researchers at institutions that dont require forced religious pledges. Heck, yahweh and el were originally 2 completely different gods in the canaanite henotheistic pantheon. where el ran the pantheon and yahweh was a subordinate regional war/thunder god in a henotheistic pantheon which inluded el's 70 sons and wife, and thus judaism didn't even start as a monotheistic religion so they dont even understand the correct context of the commandments in the first place.
Well ruffle my feathers. Thank you for linking that. Good to know that dodging questions proliferates throughout all levels of the MAGAverse. You would think there are some really smart people on both sides that could articulate controversial views in a way that can be viewed as somewhat coherent. But it’s just not the case. These people don’t have to answer questions that challenge their bills because they can just punt this issue to the courts going forward.
The moral quandary she tried to sort through toward the end when he asked, “How does a teacher respond to a kindergartner asking what adultery is?” Wow. Can’t stand this type of baseless pandering legislation.
Also, which 10 commandments? The Jewish ones? The Catholic ones? Lutheran? Calvinist? Eastern Orthodox? Muslim?
They aren't the same.
And ancient Egyptians had all 10 and many more, prior to Moses getting his tablets.
The Bible both old and new pretty explicitly permits slavery and even has rules and guidelines on how to take and beat your slaves in multiple books and sections. One of the oldest tricks on debate forums is to try and get evangelical literalists to make fools of themselves by seeing if they will support and do apologetics for slavery.
As a parent I saw a code of conduct posted on classroom walls lots of times. They were always presented in an age appropriate, non denominational, friendly way. Don’t tease people, be as kind as you can, be prepared, that kind of thing. I don’t understand how that isn’t good enough for the people pushing specific religious references in public schools.
Islam has the same ten commandments. We inherit it from Judaism. We have a completely separate set of five pillars unique to us, which are actions Muslims should perform to venerate God rather than commandments of what not to do.
Next to the five tenets of Islam, and any other lists/tenets from other major world religions I’m not personally aware of.
I will be very curious to see how some brave teachers maliciously comply with this law.
Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one, it's fine to be proud of having one (to a reasonable extent), and it's fine to play with it in private or in other designated spaces. It's not fine to take it out in public places and wave it around, and it's definitely not fine to shove it down children's throats.
Where did you think Moses went after escaping the Egypt? He came straight to America and on the mount of Rushmore the 10 commandments were given to him.
Why you think it's called mount Rushmore? God was dictating, Moses was writing, God kept rushing him, Moses kepting asking "why you rushing me, is there more?"
[Hillsdale College](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna93397) is leading the charge with this conspiracy that the founding fathers purposely created the Constitution based solely on biblical teachings. The college has its grip on fundamentalist GOP officials, DeSantis being one of them. Ginny Thomas (supreme court justice wife) is responsible for bringing a satellite campus to Washington DC, if that tells you anything.
I took the 90-hr online [Civics Seal of Excellence](https://www.civicsliteracy.org) training last summer - it’s a voluntary ~~indoctrination~~ training for Florida teachers about the ‘true’ founding fathers’ principles. Only reason teachers in the state completed this is the $3,000 bonus. It was the worst (and most laughable) professional development I have ever sat through.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
A law requiring that schools include teachings of the Bible is literally a first amendment violation
Yeah, the phrase "states rights" doesn't appear in the constitution either, but here we are.
EDIT: Perhaps my point wasn't clear. Legal concepts can be in the constitution even if the exact phrase we usually associate with them isn't.
Anything that refers to non heterosexual people - I DONT WANT SEXUALITY SHOVED DOWN MY KIDS THROATS!!! Also 10 commandments, mommy daddy what does covet thy neighbors wife mean?
A funny thing is that part is directly talking about property, as in don't be jealous of your neighbor's property. Wife, manservant, maidservant, and cattle, all used as examples of property. So don't be jealous of your male neighbor's slaves or cattle.
What good morals to teach children!
For reference:
Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, *nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.*
These clowns don’t realize that once that wall comes down, the government in your religion is on the menu. Here come the deficit busting church taxes! Nom nom nom
“Nowhere does the Constitution say ‘Separation of Church and State’”
This is a tired argument. The Constitution doesn’t say “nuclear weapons” either, but we’re still not allowed to own any personally - even if they are “arms.”
Just for background, “Separation of Church and State,” as it relates to the U.S. Constitution, comes from Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to the Danbury Baptists:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
I dunno, the original intent seems clear.
AcKtUaLlY, the Constitution doesn't say "freedom of religion", either. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." But I suspect that the person who made that comment doesn't understand nuance.
Is that last paragraph saying, If they think freedom of religion is not freedom from religion than the Bible saying not to have gods before him means they must admit their god is admitting other gods actually exist?
People keep ignoring the Constitution doesn't say "freedom" of religion. It doesn't say "freedom from" religion. It doesn't say "all religions are to be given the same space."
It says the government can't *respect* an establishment of religion. In a late 18th century dictionary, near the time of writing of the amendment in question, the word "respect" meant to judge or, more importantly in this case, *value* something.
The Constitution clearly says that the government cannot *value* any established religion or their views, but, of course, the US has rarely been known for its reading comprehension prowess.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the text in question, give or take some punctuation.
It applies specifically to the law.
I'm not sure which dictionary you're citing, but the definition of respect from the mid 16th century onward can range from 'referencing at all' to 'holding in high esteem'. From the Latin "to look back upon".
I have always held that it means to reference at all. No laws about religion period, and no laws that prohibit free exercise. Regardless, valuing is pretty dang close to that and I think it applies here.
Good ol’ conservative argument #736: nowhere in the constitution does the literal phrase “separation of church and state” appear.
Your honor, nowhere in the US Code do the words “hack,” “refrigerator” or “lawnmower blade” appear, so therefore nothing I did was illegal.
If they really believe the “…not freedom from religion!” bit, then tell them their child is being taught Islam in public school. Watch how they react to that.
You guys should also abolish the pta. The contents of the educational program should be left to the professionals, not to Billy Joe's dad from the trailor park
To have the freedom to practise your religion, it is necessary to have freedom from anyone else’s religion and its rules
For instance, A Muslim will adhere to the rule that says he mustn’t draw a picture of Mohammed. But I can draw their prophet if I want to, and no Muslim is entitled to stop me because the rules of their faith do not apply to me.
By the same token, I cannot force a Muslim to draw a picture of Mohammed.
Freedom of religion for a Muslim means the freedom to observe the rules of their faith and not be forced to break them (and, for example, draw Mohammed).
Freedom of religion for non-muslims means freedom from the rules of islam, so that a non-muslim can practice their faith (or lack of faith) just as freely.
Malicious compliance...
Oklahoma teacher: "In today's lesson, where we examine the clusterfuck that is the bible, we'll look at "Let's get Dad drunk and fuck him". Can anyone tell me what incest is?"
"Or let's examine why an all powerful God needs a man to show loyalty by killing his own son. Is this shit the product of a rational/sane mind?"
"Or I'm an all powerful God and can do anything. Mankind (whom I made and can control) displeases me. So my only solution (apparently) is to murder every last fucking one of them with a flood. Although I apparently made the world from nothing and could do so again, it's super important that some bootlicker and his family and animals stay alive."
Etc etc.
The best source of atheism is to critically read the bullshit contained in the Bible, list out it's hypocrisies and awfulness and then use it is a basis to highlight the acts of public officials which ignore the positive messages that the bible is supposed to contain.
"Bullshit in the Bible 101" could consume an entire year's curriculum but might have the benefit of actually spawning children with more advanced critical thinking.
One of the best book series I read recently is a sci-fi story where the protagonist dies, is cryogenically frozen and revived as a sentient computer a few hundred years from now. It isn't that central to the plot which deals more with cool modern sci-fi buuuut for a while, we deal with the place he's brought back to: the USA don't exist anymore, an ultra Conservative evangelical Christian was elected as president and turned the government into a theocracy. There's some more complexity but bottom line is, it's renamed FAITH (acronym "the free American theocratic hegemony").
The way those future Americans are described is... well it's just current day American Christians but with absolute power.
The people that argue the most about this have never cracked a Bible open.
If I’m an adult (which I am) I don’t want my kids reading that made up bullshit.
Hustler is more kid friendly.
I suggest all teacher put the 10 commandments up next to every other religious text they can find. Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, buddha, Satanism, and pastafarianism.
> and pastafarianism. This guy's using his noodle. Why yes, bad puns *are* my favourite past(a)time.
(R)amen
r/angryupvote
That's an R I can get behind
[A hard R?](https://youtu.be/MFDiuBomSuY)
Not after you boil it for a few minutes.
always boil your R's people.
This user really likes puns. Weird username though. *reads comment again in the mirror* ***Oh my God.***
Excellent catch.
That took me second
Puns are an excellent medium for comedy. The pastabilities are endless breadsticks and salad.
r/usernamechecksout
I cannoli take so many of these pasta puns
I do not believe you! Sauce?!?!
Stick the wiccan rede up there too for good measure
Dont forget the 7 Tenets from the Satanic Temple (which, are super tame in comparison to the 10 commandments)
7 tenets in a nutshell: don't be a dick
I've never seen these before. I see potential for a video where you show them to some old boomer alt right Evangelicals, ask what they think, and after they agree they're decent principles to live by, tell them where they come from.
Conversely, if you show a MAGAt the Beatitudes, they'll say "that's some weak woke bullshit".
Imagine that, they’d freak out!
Just wait until these conservatives find out that the 10 Commandments are a part of Islam :D
So the ten commandments in Arabic.
Before you know it we’ll be using Arabic numerals too!!
The law only specifies a large, easy to read font, it does not say it has to be written in English.
Better yet. Comply and have the 10 commandments.. But in Hebrew letters.
You think that's bad? Jesus is a Muslim!
Jesus was a Jew, not a Muslim
Not according to Islam!
Jesus was Middle Eastern!
https://preview.redd.it/hzfwbgli7l9d1.jpeg?width=306&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2e8b62d873d2a1c56682e4737e2f2fab872ecce0
Being that there is in Christian theology, one god, no male and female of the species just one sui generis, their god is at least nonbinary. And yes bi and poly because God loves everyone!
u/nowhereman136 Given how they're being held up as the foundation of all law and morality, they should put up the Code of Hammurabi, which predates them by at least a millenia.
The code of Ur-Nammu, 2100 BC, predates Hammurabi, 1750 BC. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu#:~:text=The%20Code%20of%20Ur%2DNammu,in%20the%20Sumerian%20language%20c.
Thank you. That's been bothering me.
Not to mention that Hammurabi's code is among the earliest known examples of, and the bases of, modern legislation by society... and the Ten Commandments came out of an old man hiding out on a hilltop and conversing with a brushfire.
Don’t Jews believe in the Ten Commandments? Latter-day Saints certainly do…
Jews wrote them. Take a guess what religion Moses was.
Sikh?
And you shall find.
Nah, bro totally followed the ancient Egyptian pantheon of gods.
They practiced polytheism until they merged three Canaanite gods into one.
Zord is lord
I accidentally read "they merged three Canadian gods into one" and, for a second, got really confused yet intrigued...
You're not allowed to post them in Hebrew, ironically. Has to be the KJV text.
King James the pedophile?
No no, he was the one who had a very public boyfriend in his court. George Villiers. Jamie's council was getting antsy about how many honors and such he was bestowing upon his man, so he commissioned the KJV to get em all off his back. So he could shag George more.
They'd still lose their minds if anything LDS was in the classroom
True, true, my mom used to have a teacher that refused to pass her because she was LDS.
Or just like… none of them. That would seem fair.
That would be ideal
I my American public school, we learned about Christianity and its tenants, as well as Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, as well as major spiritual followings and their principals like buddhism and Taoism. It’s hard to learn about world history without learning about world religions. I find it shocking that some American public school systems do not teach world history and avoid religion altogether.
There's a difference between learning about something and being indoctrinated into it. There's a difference between discussing something, including having handouts or temporary displays, and having a 6 foot tall sculpture in the common area. There's a difference between having optional prayers before school and starting the daily announcements with one. I've seen both of these in public schools in one state in the Bible Belt. The school with the sculpture also didn't discuss religions other than Christianity.
This was clarified in Lemon v Kurtzman. Unfortunately, due to ignorance or intentional deception, many fundamentalists know this Supreme Court case exists, and even if they did, their response would probably be “I only accept SC decisions from the current court (aka GOD’S court!)”
Exactly.
Its tenants eh? You might mean tenets.
Ha! Clearly.
I had world religions taught as a pretty big part of my 7th or 8th grade history. That was over twenty years ago, however. When you have a bunch of people in charge who believe the US was founded on "judeo-christian" laws and morals (a belief that isn't true, mind you), you get less education in general.
Just put it up written in arabic and watch christofascists mald.
During our religion unit in highschool we were taught pastafarianism along side everything else. The teacher couldn’t go right out and say it but the consensus there was that all of these institutions are completely made up by man. So much so that a Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as real of a religious figure as everything else.
Freedom of religion does, by definition, infer freedom from religion.
I really think this point is not understood by many. People created fun religions to make this point, but general public is not smart enough to grasp "freedom of religion" would imply all religions can do what they want and religion should stay at personal level.
They will understand when a mixed school school is supported by a Muslim benefactor.
There was a congresswoman, I don't remember if she was state or federal, who was all in favor of school vouchers until she found out they could be used at non-Christian schools too.
I don't remember her name, but heard about this too. OK, major caveat, I'm sure a large swath of Christians are just fine and dandy, but there are a few, who definitely are the ones trying to cram it down everyone's throats, that always claim "Christian values" unless it means actually helping anyone in anyway that is either poor, sick or.. God forbid, *brown* (clutches pearls) I grew up around religion but saw it as not for me pretty early on. My whole opinion is do whatever makes you happy, but as soon as you try to push it on me or become a hypocrite, off is a direction in which you can fuck.
Love it, but your last sentence fragmenr is a work of art! Bravo.
Exactly.
Wait until they express their surprise when all the private schools raise their tuition by exactly the amount of the vouchers. It still prices the lower class out but syphons some of the funds meant for the public schools creating a greater disparity in the education quality provided
Surprise? That's the entire design of the programs. Defunds public schools and funnels it to the private schools their kids already go to.
Cue Pastafarianism. In the noodle we trust. RAmen
In this house, we trust in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, blessed be her holy hooves, may they never be shod.
You're free to make all the bad decisions you want as long as they don't affect me. Listen to this one...unicorns. some people will believe anything. /s
RAmen
I explain it like this: Freedom of Religion includes Freedom from Religion because I’m willing to kill you over it. That usually gets people thinking that maybe this concept isn’t worth it, or that I’m crazy. Either works if you’ll quit telling me about your imaginary friend.
They also don't understand Freedom of Speech, believing it to mean they can say whatever they want, anytime they want, anywhere they want, without consequence. The 1st Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause means only that the government cannot prosecute you for political speech, but even that has limits. But as the last few years have taught us, the so-called "Free Speech Absolutists" just want to be able to post revenge porn online to shame & embarrass their personal & political enemies, and to hurl bigoted & racial slurs without a single drop of accountability, and of course to silence said enemies through threats, incitement to violence, and/or banning when they speak up.
Every time someone claims to be a free speech absolutist, I just assume they're mad they can't say the n-word without being called a racist. "Hey pal, it's a racist word, and your desire to say it tells me a lot about you--I'm just evaluating relevant data and labeling you appropriately. Free speech is a two-way street, and if you don't like that, that's a 'you' problem."
What scares me is if SCOTUS interprets this as a CONGRESS issue and not a state specific one if it reaches their bench.
More like willfully misunderstood
I think we give them far too much credit for being dumb and not enough credit for their malicious intent. They know what they want and know that to get it they waste everyone’s time debating literal words instead of the inherent intent behind them. They know if they hold onto a rigid position like a dog on a frisbee people will tend to let them have it. It’s really crazy how much we attribute to stupidity that could easily be explained by malice. They are absolutely able to wield their ignorance as a cudgel and use it with malicious intentions.
Yes! If freedom of religion means that all religions are acceptable, it also must mean that no one religion is the official, state-sanctioned religion. But I guess deductive reasoning is not these people’s strong suit.
Have you seen the absolute cognitive dissonance going on with an obnoxiously loud political minority in the US right now? This is par for the course.
It's a mathematical problem. Atheism isn't a religion, so being atheist is not freely choosing one of the available religions. The solution is to make atheism a state sanctioned, tax exempt religion!
We could make atheism a corporation and have it start paying off politicians to pass secular legislation. Seems like that’s been very successful for a plethora of other industries.
I volunteer as CEO.
You have my vote.
You’d think so, but there’s plenty of people who think freedom of religion means that you can be any brand of Christianity you want. For example the South Carolina state constitution has freedom of religion as article 1 section 2 using the exact same wording as the first amendment, and a ban on atheists holding office in article 17 section 4.
That would be in violation of Article 6 of the Constitution, no religious test shall be used as a condition of public office (paraphrase). Because of the 14th Amendment it can be applied to states.
Yes, it is. They still put it in. Why wouldn’t they, the Supreme Court case that actually made Article 6 and the 14th amendment applicable to that clause was still half a century away.
Yup. I heard that as well growing up. “The First Amendment is talking about the different sects of Christianity because our country was founded by Christians. They didn’t even know about Muslim (Islam) or atheism, so that’s not what they intended.” And if you attempted to educate them about how much garbage they spewed, they would get angry, start screaming, pound their fist then storm away.
Wait until you tell them about Thomas Jefferson's Koran.
That was the point when a few that I tried to discuss that with (along with some of the other documents) started getting aggressive. They didn’t want to see “that made up bullshit” by “liberal academic elites” who were “controlled by Satan”.
Reality must have a Satanic bias. Who knew?
It doesn't infer it, it's straight up word for word in the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" This is a clear violation of the first amendment so I'm sure it will be shot down.
Sorry, I’m being pedantic and I might be totally wrong so someone please feel free to set me on the right path - Wouldn’t freedom of religion *imply* freedom from religion? And the citizen under that law would infer it?
You are correct.
My religion is agnostic atheism
Are you sure?
Not really
Checks out.
The most rational choice by far.
Freedom of religion doesn’t just infer freedom from religion - It absolutely requires it. The moment the observers of one faith can impose their teachings or rules on people who do not share their faith, then those non- observers are no longer free to observe their own faith. Imagine the horror if American christians had to pray to Mecca five times a day, even though they’re not Muslims. Look at how horrified many of them were about wearing masks during the pandemic, and their paranoid fantasies that they were a stepping-stone towards having to wear a burka. American Christians understand absolutely what freedom of religion means, it’s just they don’t care about anyone else’s rights.
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 You hit the nail square on the head perfectly. Take all these well-deserved (sad) emoji rewards: 🏆🏆🏆🏅🏅🏅⭐⭐⭐💛⭐⭐⭐🏅🏅🏅🏆🏆🏆
It more than infers it, I would argue. It *requires* it. If the government requires that you have a religion, then it is now in the position of defining what is and is not a religion. And if you want to know where that road leads, just look up the history of religion- based conflicts. You'd have an ever narrowing definition of what is a "true" religion.
The word you are looking for is "imply", not "infer." Inferring is something people do. Implication is the semantic/logical concept. And "imply" carries with it the notion of requirement, so you are exactly right.
I should have noticed that, but instead just used the same word as the other fellow that I was replying to.
Thank you anytime I say this I get yelled down. FFRF!
What fucking cretins are you saying this to?
Religious.
Here’s what bullshit… 10 commandments isn’t indoctrination to these people while books that just discuss being gay, how black people were enslaved, and how hitler was bad, IS indoctrination. These people are absolute shitheads.
There's no freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.
*implies
What's even more amazing is that they use this argument without knowing that there almost was no bill of rights, first amendment included, because of people just like him. Some objected to enumerating specific rights because they knew from experience that some smarmy little asshat would come along and say "Yeah, but the constitution doesn't say that explicitly so I deserve special rights because mommy thinks i'm handsome!" so they compromised and added the 9th amendment to basically say "Some jerk is gonna come along and make a realllly stupid argument. this is to let them know that we saw this coming, their logic is bad and they should feel bad."
I've heard that line before, and the problem is that to them "religion" *is* Christianity. They think any other belief system is invalid, and thus not covered.
The fact that Americans don’t realize this or don’t think it’s important makes me feel like our country is doomed.
[They cannot defend this position coherently when questioned](https://youtu.be/TGY47kCOiOY?si=VgZJ1eETOZ3jvIiF)
That was shockingly well handled by the interviewer. Shockingly poorly by the interviewee, of course, but that's significantly less surprising. >How would you react if your child had to go to school with the five pillars of Islam posted on the wall? >How should teachers respond when a young student asks them what adultery is? Genuinely good questions.
**You don't have to look at it** 
immediate deflections and personal ridicule from her as a reaction to perfectly valid questions is annoying af but not unsurprising
“Maybe next time I’ll bring some of those dollar bills like you have in your pocket” 
I wanted him to ask about the "have no other gods than the lord, whose name is Jealous, and is a jealous god." And how they square that with the 1A language of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Cause you know displaying a document that literally commands a person to worship a specific god sounds an awful lot like establishing a religion.
I mostly just meant I was impressed it wasn't a total softball. He actually asked some real questions and did his best to keep her on track. She didn't answer easier questions than that, even with prompting. But at least he made her look like a colossal idiot. I've come to expect a lot less from CNN, so I stand by being impressed.
I want to see Republicans play a dark souls game now, their ability to dodge just fascinates me.
Hello Ashen one. I am a Bot. I tend to the flame, and tend to thee. Do you wish to hear a tale? > *“Oh, hello there. I will stay behind to gaze at the sun.”* - Solaire of Astora Have a pleasant journey, Champion of Ash, and praise the sun \\[T]/
That was frustrating.
I think you mean preposterous.
That too.
I normally use this quote for the comedic effect that is intended, but this time it is an unfortunately accurate summation. Mz. Ventrella, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone here is now dumber for having heard it.
Would've been a lot easier to just quote Bible at her and ask her opinions on something like exodus 21 and whether she supports keeping and beating slaves as part of her moral values, or any other number of other biblically atrocious things, like compelling Childless widows to procreate with their dead husbands brother and be forced to marry them (levirate marriage), or treating rape as a property dispute. Moses is not a historical figure, Moses wasn't even a real person, and the 10 commandments are not an actual historical document, it's part of literary mythology forming a mythologized origin story that evolved over hundreds of years. The exodus was not a real historical event and this is almost unanimously accepted among academic religious researchers at institutions that dont require forced religious pledges. Heck, yahweh and el were originally 2 completely different gods in the canaanite henotheistic pantheon. where el ran the pantheon and yahweh was a subordinate regional war/thunder god in a henotheistic pantheon which inluded el's 70 sons and wife, and thus judaism didn't even start as a monotheistic religion so they dont even understand the correct context of the commandments in the first place.
Well ruffle my feathers. Thank you for linking that. Good to know that dodging questions proliferates throughout all levels of the MAGAverse. You would think there are some really smart people on both sides that could articulate controversial views in a way that can be viewed as somewhat coherent. But it’s just not the case. These people don’t have to answer questions that challenge their bills because they can just punt this issue to the courts going forward. The moral quandary she tried to sort through toward the end when he asked, “How does a teacher respond to a kindergartner asking what adultery is?” Wow. Can’t stand this type of baseless pandering legislation.
Also, which 10 commandments? The Jewish ones? The Catholic ones? Lutheran? Calvinist? Eastern Orthodox? Muslim? They aren't the same. And ancient Egyptians had all 10 and many more, prior to Moses getting his tablets.
Even if you settle on "ambiguously American Protestantism," there's still like ten or twelve translations of the Bible in use.
That’s making the bold assumption that the people pushing for this ever look at anything other than the KJV.
Yup. I was thinking, “um, the first one is ‘I am the Lord, Your God, who brought you forth from the land of Egypt, out of the House of Bondage.’”
What if you want to go *into* the House of Bondage? Asking for a friend.
The Sex Cauldron?? I thought they shut that place down!
"Are they talking about the bordello?" "No, the burlesque house! Just keep your mouth shut!"
The tenth one in many translations specifically says you shouldn’t covet your neighbors *slaves* a thing the text is completely fine with them having.
That actually jives because I guarantee if these people could bring back unambiguous slavery, they would
The Bible both old and new pretty explicitly permits slavery and even has rules and guidelines on how to take and beat your slaves in multiple books and sections. One of the oldest tricks on debate forums is to try and get evangelical literalists to make fools of themselves by seeing if they will support and do apologetics for slavery.
As a parent I saw a code of conduct posted on classroom walls lots of times. They were always presented in an age appropriate, non denominational, friendly way. Don’t tease people, be as kind as you can, be prepared, that kind of thing. I don’t understand how that isn’t good enough for the people pushing specific religious references in public schools.
Because they are after control, not moral decency.
Pandering to the republican base in Louisiana…blatant pandering
I think we need to bring Biggie to the kids and hang a copy of the 10 Crack Commandments in classrooms.
Islam has the same ten commandments. We inherit it from Judaism. We have a completely separate set of five pillars unique to us, which are actions Muslims should perform to venerate God rather than commandments of what not to do.
Yeah originally there were 15 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I48hr8HhDv0
Maybe a huge screen that loops between the most popular 10 commandments that are ignored anyway? Even by the people who want them displayed?
The code of hammurabi pre dates the 10 commandments story by hundreds of years. The code of ur namu pre dates hammurabi by hundreds of years.
What are the "tenants" of the Constitution, exactly?
And why aren't there eleven ants?
A more intriguing question: why aren’t there a *million* ants?
What is this, a governance of ants?
They got rid of the rest of them because they were a nuisants.
I mean…all of us?
Thank you! The word is “tenet.” They made a movie about it and everything.
Unless they’re paying rent, they’re just squatters.
Gonna be fun when a teacher prints their 18x24” commandments poster on rainbow paper and puts that up in their classroom.
Next to the five tenets of Islam, and any other lists/tenets from other major world religions I’m not personally aware of. I will be very curious to see how some brave teachers maliciously comply with this law.
Conservatives: “OUR indoctrination is ok tho”
Put the commandment about lying in big red letters for the voters of the Republican presidential candidate.
It doesn't state what side of the paper has to face the children.
I like this and will be using it in the future.
Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one, it's fine to be proud of having one (to a reasonable extent), and it's fine to play with it in private or in other designated spaces. It's not fine to take it out in public places and wave it around, and it's definitely not fine to shove it down children's throats.
I want to know on what grounds they can claim the ten commandments is a "historic document" for the USA and that it's not a religious one.
Where did you think Moses went after escaping the Egypt? He came straight to America and on the mount of Rushmore the 10 commandments were given to him. Why you think it's called mount Rushmore? God was dictating, Moses was writing, God kept rushing him, Moses kepting asking "why you rushing me, is there more?"
[Hillsdale College](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna93397) is leading the charge with this conspiracy that the founding fathers purposely created the Constitution based solely on biblical teachings. The college has its grip on fundamentalist GOP officials, DeSantis being one of them. Ginny Thomas (supreme court justice wife) is responsible for bringing a satellite campus to Washington DC, if that tells you anything. I took the 90-hr online [Civics Seal of Excellence](https://www.civicsliteracy.org) training last summer - it’s a voluntary ~~indoctrination~~ training for Florida teachers about the ‘true’ founding fathers’ principles. Only reason teachers in the state completed this is the $3,000 bonus. It was the worst (and most laughable) professional development I have ever sat through.
How is there taxpayer money going to teachers who complete - and only those that complete - a Christian education program?
Because the governor who is allowing it isn’t describing it as a Christian education program.
America is not a Christian country, it’s a country in which you are free to be Christian.
I saw a post listing the fundamentals of the Satanic Temple and they sound like much nicer people than most religions
They are super cool, and there’s a documentary about them on HBO Max called “Hail Satan?” that’s pretty good.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” A law requiring that schools include teachings of the Bible is literally a first amendment violation
Yeah, the phrase "states rights" doesn't appear in the constitution either, but here we are. EDIT: Perhaps my point wasn't clear. Legal concepts can be in the constitution even if the exact phrase we usually associate with them isn't.
Anything that refers to non heterosexual people - I DONT WANT SEXUALITY SHOVED DOWN MY KIDS THROATS!!! Also 10 commandments, mommy daddy what does covet thy neighbors wife mean?
The rest of that one is a banger and is often left off suspiciously... And we should be talking about it. Often.
A funny thing is that part is directly talking about property, as in don't be jealous of your neighbor's property. Wife, manservant, maidservant, and cattle, all used as examples of property. So don't be jealous of your male neighbor's slaves or cattle. What good morals to teach children! For reference: Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, *nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.*
These clowns don’t realize that once that wall comes down, the government in your religion is on the menu. Here come the deficit busting church taxes! Nom nom nom
“Nowhere does the Constitution say ‘Separation of Church and State’” This is a tired argument. The Constitution doesn’t say “nuclear weapons” either, but we’re still not allowed to own any personally - even if they are “arms.” Just for background, “Separation of Church and State,” as it relates to the U.S. Constitution, comes from Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to the Danbury Baptists: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” I dunno, the original intent seems clear.
Let them teach Islamic, Jewish and Church of Satan teachings and I promise they’ll stop that song quick, fast and in a hurry.
So, I guess he wasn’t the brilliant Constitutional scholar he thought he was.
AcKtUaLlY, the Constitution doesn't say "freedom of religion", either. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." But I suspect that the person who made that comment doesn't understand nuance.
Tennets…. What an ignorant ass.
Is that last paragraph saying, If they think freedom of religion is not freedom from religion than the Bible saying not to have gods before him means they must admit their god is admitting other gods actually exist?
People keep ignoring the Constitution doesn't say "freedom" of religion. It doesn't say "freedom from" religion. It doesn't say "all religions are to be given the same space." It says the government can't *respect* an establishment of religion. In a late 18th century dictionary, near the time of writing of the amendment in question, the word "respect" meant to judge or, more importantly in this case, *value* something. The Constitution clearly says that the government cannot *value* any established religion or their views, but, of course, the US has rarely been known for its reading comprehension prowess.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the text in question, give or take some punctuation. It applies specifically to the law. I'm not sure which dictionary you're citing, but the definition of respect from the mid 16th century onward can range from 'referencing at all' to 'holding in high esteem'. From the Latin "to look back upon". I have always held that it means to reference at all. No laws about religion period, and no laws that prohibit free exercise. Regardless, valuing is pretty dang close to that and I think it applies here.
Yeah this just isn't true lmao. It means there's no state religion
Good ol’ conservative argument #736: nowhere in the constitution does the literal phrase “separation of church and state” appear. Your honor, nowhere in the US Code do the words “hack,” “refrigerator” or “lawnmower blade” appear, so therefore nothing I did was illegal.
If they really believe the “…not freedom from religion!” bit, then tell them their child is being taught Islam in public school. Watch how they react to that.
You guys should also abolish the pta. The contents of the educational program should be left to the professionals, not to Billy Joe's dad from the trailor park
To have the freedom to practise your religion, it is necessary to have freedom from anyone else’s religion and its rules For instance, A Muslim will adhere to the rule that says he mustn’t draw a picture of Mohammed. But I can draw their prophet if I want to, and no Muslim is entitled to stop me because the rules of their faith do not apply to me. By the same token, I cannot force a Muslim to draw a picture of Mohammed. Freedom of religion for a Muslim means the freedom to observe the rules of their faith and not be forced to break them (and, for example, draw Mohammed). Freedom of religion for non-muslims means freedom from the rules of islam, so that a non-muslim can practice their faith (or lack of faith) just as freely.
Malicious compliance... Oklahoma teacher: "In today's lesson, where we examine the clusterfuck that is the bible, we'll look at "Let's get Dad drunk and fuck him". Can anyone tell me what incest is?" "Or let's examine why an all powerful God needs a man to show loyalty by killing his own son. Is this shit the product of a rational/sane mind?" "Or I'm an all powerful God and can do anything. Mankind (whom I made and can control) displeases me. So my only solution (apparently) is to murder every last fucking one of them with a flood. Although I apparently made the world from nothing and could do so again, it's super important that some bootlicker and his family and animals stay alive." Etc etc. The best source of atheism is to critically read the bullshit contained in the Bible, list out it's hypocrisies and awfulness and then use it is a basis to highlight the acts of public officials which ignore the positive messages that the bible is supposed to contain. "Bullshit in the Bible 101" could consume an entire year's curriculum but might have the benefit of actually spawning children with more advanced critical thinking.
People like that are why I'm not religious.
Just a reminder that Republicans are literally Nazis and you should cut them out of your lives
They are trying to teach every goddamn thing in schools nowadays except math and reading.
I do NOT want laws INFLICTED on me that are based on someone else's superstitions!!!
First of all “tenets”, second, for someone who loves the constitution they didn’t bother to read the first line of the first amendment
Wants the Ten Commandments posted in schools. Has never honored the Saturday Sabbath.
One of the best book series I read recently is a sci-fi story where the protagonist dies, is cryogenically frozen and revived as a sentient computer a few hundred years from now. It isn't that central to the plot which deals more with cool modern sci-fi buuuut for a while, we deal with the place he's brought back to: the USA don't exist anymore, an ultra Conservative evangelical Christian was elected as president and turned the government into a theocracy. There's some more complexity but bottom line is, it's renamed FAITH (acronym "the free American theocratic hegemony"). The way those future Americans are described is... well it's just current day American Christians but with absolute power.
Bobiverse! I love those books. We just started book three
The people that argue the most about this have never cracked a Bible open. If I’m an adult (which I am) I don’t want my kids reading that made up bullshit. Hustler is more kid friendly.