Public School Students Sue West Virginia School District for Holding Mandatory 'Christian Revival' Assembly

The students say they were forced to attend an evangelical religious service.

A West Virginia school district is facing a lawsuit from students and parents who claim that an evangelical Christian pastor performed religious services during a mandatory assembly at a public school. 

The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed the lawsuit against Cabell County Schools on behalf of a group of parents and students on February 17. The lawsuit alleges that on February 2, teachers escorted Huntington High School students to an assembly held by Nik Walker, an evangelical preacher with a traveling ministry. Students of non-Christian faith were not allowed to skip the event. A Jewish student asked to leave the event but was made to stay. 

According to the lawsuit, students were instructed to bow their heads in prayer and give their "lives over to Jesus." Failure to do so would result in "eternal torment."

The lawsuit claims that the mandatory event "sought to convert students to evangelical Christianity." The plaintiffs claim that the school violated their First Amendment rights "by permitting, coordinating, and encouraging students to attend an adult-led worship service and revival at their school during the school day." 

The lawsuit states that this is not the first time that these events have happened in Huntington. Plaintiffs say that Walker, of Nik Walker Ministries, has been leading revival services in Huntington schools for weeks. Cabell County Schools told Channel 13 News in Huntington, West Virginia, that it would not comment on pending litigation. 

According to plaintiffs, "Cabell County Schools administrators have given Nik Walker Ministries access to students to preach to them during the school day at several schools this year."

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), these practices are not legal.

"The Supreme Court has long held that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids school-sponsored prayer or religious indoctrination. Over thirty years ago, the Court struck down classroom prayers and scripture readings even where they were voluntary and students had the option of being excused," the ACLU's website reads.

Patrick Elliot, senior litigation counsel for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, believes that this situation speaks to bigger problems. "That is why the Foundation thought this was an especially good case to take," Elliot told Reason in an email. "We have seen teachers, coaches, administrators and outside evangelists across the country try to impose their religion on public school students. We have observed that not just in conservative areas."

The plaintiffs are asking the court to recognize that Walker's "custom, policy, and practice, as alleged above, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment." They also want a permanent injunction preventing the school district from "sponsoring religious assemblies and other religious worship services during the school day." The plaintiffs are also asking for "nominal damages in the amount of $1 to each Plaintiff."

Comments

[A Thinking Mind]

I've become such a cynic. If there's any truth to it then yes, I hate it. I have no connection to West Virginia at all and no reason to doubt that this may a normal practice in small towns in West Virginia.

I don't trust the reporting on this, unfortunately. I don't trust the ACLU either. I'm going to be skeptical until I learn more about it. I hate it but I've been lied to so frequently that I don't trust that simple facts are being accurately reported.

[A Thinking Mind]

https://www.newsandsentinel.com/news/local-news/2022/02/christian-revival-at-huntington-high-school-prompts-student-walkout/

A different source reporting a different set of facts.

More than 1,000 students attend Huntington High. The mini revival took place last week during COMPASS, a daily, “noninstructional” break in the schedule during which students can study for tests, work on college prep or listen to guest speakers, said Cabell County Schools spokesperson Jedd Flowers.

Flowers said the event was voluntary, organized by the school’s chapter of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. He said there was supposed to be a signup sheet for students, but two teachers mistakenly brought their entire class.

“It’s unfortunate that it happened,” Flowers said. “We don’t believe it will ever happen again.”

But in this community of fewer than 50,000 people in southwestern West Virginia, the controversy has ignited a broader conversation about whether religious services — voluntary or not — should be allowed during school hours at all.

That poses a very different question. A few teachers mistakenly assuming it's a mandatory function when it's supposed to be voluntary, okay. There's a violation of rights happening.

The question about whether students should be allowed to organize a voluntary religious event is different. You're not allowed to infringe upon students' freedom to practice their religion, and if they want to organize a prayer group with voluntary membership, I don't think the school is allowed to break it up. The question about whether it's legal to host an event like this on school property is a bit more complicated, though. I think they should be allowed to as long as it's completely voluntary.

[Bluwater]

And just like that, we see Corey Walker is the kind of reporter we thought he was. He writes for snits, not the actual story.

>The question about whether it's legal to host an event like this on school property is a bit more complicated, though. I think they should be allowed to as long as it's completely voluntary."

It's not all that complicated so long as the school makes the facilities available to other clubs as well. It's basically an all-or-nothing proposition, neither siding with or against a club based solely on its purpose.

[A Thinking Mind]

It's not all that complicated so long as the school makes the facilities available to other clubs as well. It's basically an all-or-nothing proposition, neither siding with or against a club based solely on its purpose.

It's a question about public resources can be spent and allocated to religious advocacy because the state isn't allowed to take sides. There's no provision requiring a separation of Church and Chess that prevents them from allocating resources to the Chess Club. If the students independently organized and funded this voluntary event, then fine; though you can still question whether usage of state-owned facilities might qualify as sponsorship.

But Corey uncritically repeated the plaintiffs claim that this was a mandatory school event. We can debate the merits of allocating public funds to private religious events without claiming something was mandatory when it was not. I'm also sympathetic to the students who were told it was mandatory because of some confused (or perhaps religiously-motivated) teachers. I just am in favor of having truth and facts on the table before trying to establish a position.

[Social Justice is neither]

And yet taking a side against is still taking a side. Barring a group for voluntary gatherings because of their viewpoint is the essence of discrimination.

[Mother's Lament]

You guys always forget the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" bit.

[Mother's Lament]

Not you specifically Thinking. I mean in general.

[kevrob]

Free excercise on the believers' own dimes? No problem with that. Using the taxpayers' money? Nope. The "meet around the flagpole" groups, doing so before the school day starts or during recess aren't costing us anything. That's allowed.

The plaintiffs should inform Vince McMahon's WWE that the schools there are running "Generation NXT" religion clubs. Sounds like a trademark violation, to my ears.

Ghod = Kayfabe, in my book.

[Azathoth!!]

Free excercise on the believers' own dimes? No problem with that. Using the taxpayers' money?

The 'believers' money, you mean?

Why would anyone get the idea that the people wanting to use the facilities were not also part of the taxpayer base of that community?

There is this odd belief on the left that 'public' property is only 'public' when it's being used for purposes they agree with--when other parts of the 'public' want to use that same 'public' property it suddenly becomes a misuse of taxpayer funds.

Even though the people who want to use it are taxpayers.

[Netizen_James]

No, there is ZERO authority for any taxpayer funded school to pay for and host any sort of religious indoctrination for students, even if it is supposedly voluntary.

The establishment clause forbids government entities from taking ANY stance to religion other than one of strict neutrality - promoting none, prohibiting none, endorsing none, enjoining none.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland]

or, the teachers disagreed with it and presented it as manditory in order to create outrage

[A Thinking Mind]

I don't know this county. It's possible the teachers were Jesus freaks who wanted to force their students to attend. I'm sympathetic to that possibility.

[Mother's Lament]

Occam's razor says that the teachers didn't even know what the event was about, and were just looking to dump the kids off so that they could tackle some marking.

[Mickey Rat]

If you read the language of the lawsuit quoted above, they do not suggest that attendance was mandatory, whatever the confusion by the two teachers might have been.

[A Thinking Mind]

But I'm reading the actual article, plus the headline, where the author here uses the word mandatory more than once. My issue is the reporting and the amplification of solely the plaintiffs' side without any critical examination.

We can debate whether a school should be allowed to host this sort of thing when it's about students organizing voluntary events. That's an entirely different question than the one the article is about.

[Longtobefree]

Surely you don't expect a social media 'cut and paste poster' to be bothered with things like fact checking?
I mean it would take minutes and minutes to hit the web and see if there is a 'rest of the story'. Surely we can't expect reason staff to act like those people that used to be called journalists.
After all, he/she/it/they/them is just an intern, not a life form.

[Cronut]

Yeah, this is another one that sounded like bullshit to me. Just two minutes of looking found a more comprehensive story with comments from the school system.

This is such a dishonest framing. If Reason wants to argue that voluntary religious assemblies shouldn't be held on school grounds, fine. That's an argument worth having. But this article is a complete fucking lie.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

this article is a complete fucking lie

Yeah, I don't come here for the articles anymore. I come for the un-spinning that happens in the comments.

[Aaauggghhhh]

Me too!

[mad.casual]

I come here to advocate for a return to dueling. There was a time when such a bullshit framing this dishonest was taking your life into your own hands. Rather than broadly ruining everyone else's life with impunity and in perpetuity by lying you can eat a fist, knife, or bullet, your choice.

[Netizen_James]

There is nothing dishonest here.
The kids who were mandated to attend were mandated to attend. That this was a 'mistake' on the part of the teachers is utterly irrelevant to that fact.
The bottom line is that the school had no business hosting a Christian Revival meeting on school grounds under ANY circumstances what-so-fracking-ever.
Religious liberty necessarily includes freedom FROM Government Religion in any way, shape, or form.
As James Madison wrote: "The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs. is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles. The tenets of the Chaplains elected shut the door of worship agst. the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the Majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that [his] religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the veil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the Doctrine th⟨at⟩ religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor." (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/04-01-02-0549)

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

The question about whether it's legal to host an event like this on school property is a bit more complicated, though. I think they should be allowed to as long as it's completely voluntary.

It's really an issue of whether the school administration is endorsing it or not, I think. If it's just one of a passel of events taking place, it really shouldn't be a big deal because it's part of the free practice of religion.

These kids are already being fed with marxist ideologies by their teachers, so it's not like they aren't being indoctrinated in a religious belief system to begin with.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

How many Earth Day events are mandatory? Fucking Paganists get away with espousing religion every damn day.

[JoeB]

Or, the teachers deliberately brought their whole class to sabotage the process, creating grounds for a suit. I'll believe the ACLU when they sue schools for involuntary wokism preaching.

[buybuydandavis]

I'm against all mandatory religious indoctrination.

Not just mandatory Christian indoctrination ( and this instance did not appear to be mandatory), but mandatory Marxist, LGBTQ, CRT, BLM, and Environmental religious indoctrination as well.

[Netizen_James]

What a foolish comment. There's nothing 'religious' about recognizing the humanity and equal rights of gay people. There's nothing 'religious' about teaching the truth about things like the Wilmington Insurrection, or the Tulsa Massacre. There's nothing 'religious' about teaching the reality of anthropogenic global warming, or the history of the Cuyahoga River Fires.

[Netizen_James]

No, there is ZERO authority for any taxpayer funded school to pay for and host any sort of religious indoctrination for students, even if it is supposedly voluntary.

The establishment clause forbids government entities from taking ANY stance to religion other than one of strict neutrality - promoting none, prohibiting none, endorsing none, enjoining none.

[Bluwater]

So far we have the plaintiffs, the ACLU and the Freedom From Religion folks on record about this.... and of course, Corey Walker who can find a victim anywhere he looks. Yeah, if it's what they say, they should get slapped for it but I note that he didn't even mention asking the school or district for a response, which violates one of the most important rules of journalism. Get both sides. Anything else is only worth of supermarket rags. Would it hurt to make a phone call?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland]

That statement is a bold face lie! Cory walker can only find victims on the left. The people to the right of Mao are never victimized

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Duh! Hello, Earth to white privilege.

[mad.casual]

That statement is a bold face lie! Cory walker can only find victims on the left.

I'm dubious of that. It seems for lack of actual victims, he's willing to go along with making a few up.

[Mother's Lament]

"Would it hurt to make a phone call"

What's investigation got to do with 21st century journolismisting?

[Netizen_James]

They tried to get both sides and the school refused to comment on ongoing litigation as usual. There is no 'other side'. There is no authority for public schools to host indoctrination events like this on school property, even if it is supposedly 'voluntary'.

[raspberrydinners]

"A thinking mind" doesn't dismiss an organization outright, especially one with a laudable record.

Fuck off dumbass.

[Salted Nuts]

Was he in any respect inaccurate, or is it just that your feelings are hurt?

[Smack Daddy]

Did you say laughable record?
Did you arrive at your conclusion before or after you took the laudanum?

[Hank Phillips]

"How many fingers, Winston?"

[Longtobefree]

As opposed to preaching trans-gender and climate change?
Or two years of preaching the least vulnerable group in the country must wear masks as a sign of obedience?

(just for the record, there has been prayer in public schools as long as there have been history tests)

[Brandybuck]

Prayers before history tests ain't got nothing on prayers before Latin tests!

[Longtobefree]

Mea Culpa

[Bluwater]

Quite true. History tests usually give options and they are in English, meaning you might recognize something familiar or at least have a 1 in 4 chance of getting it right. It's pretty hard to guess Latin.

[kevrob]

Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum... et cetera. Sr Thomas Aquinas had us recite that one before every Latin class, test or no. It didn't seem to help the grades of the kids at the bottom of the class.

My eldest brother used to complain about Brother #2, with whom he shared a room, conjugating Latin verbs in his sleep. It probably wouldn't keep me awake if he could get the endings right!

[Mickey Rat]

The ACLU is officially against the disestablishment of the woke pseudo-religions.

[raspberrydinners]

More whataboutism bullshit from one of the dumber people here.

[raspberrydinners]

Imagine someone with a username with "Longtobefree" arguing against that entirely.

Fucking idiot.

[Longtobefree]

Just for the record, my IQ is in the 98th percentile.

[Smack Daddy]

Imagine that raspberry say's anything that doesn't come out sounding like. "PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP."

[Ghatanathoah]

>As opposed to preaching trans-gender and climate change?

Yes, those are very different things because neither of those concepts are related to the supernatural in any way. The climate really is changing, and the way human beings relate to the concept of gender really is complicated. Schools are not "preaching" them any more than they are preaching that water is made of out oxygen and hydrogen.

>Or two years of preaching the least vulnerable group in the country must wear masks as a sign of obedience?

I agree that it's idiotic to have schoolchildren wear masks. But it's absurdly paranoid to think that the purpose of doing so is to force them to signal obedience or something like that. Doesn't it make more sense to simply assume that the administration is not rational when it comes to assessing risks? Or that the incentives are misaligned? (probably the administration will get in huge trouble in the unlikely event that one kid dies of COVID, but no trouble at all if they make everyone wear masks)

[Brandybuck]

Had religious assemblies in my high school over forty years ago. Middle of the California Bible Belt (yes, there is one). But they were never mandatory. Sort of skirted the law by having them on school grounds to begin with, but even back then it was establish you can't mandate religion in public schools. Even when the culture sort of expects you to be Christian and attending, the school still can't force you.

This incident deserves its lawsuit, and no it's not an attack on Christianity and it's not persecution. But I expect people to say that.

I'm all in favor of Christian private schools. Don't like it that your public school isn't mandating morning prayer? Time to send your kids to a private school. Problem solved.

p.s. My hometown had a large Chinese and Japanese population, and a huge Catholic population. So excusals not to attend protestant religious assemblies on account of one being a Buddhist or Catholic were common.

[Mother's Lament]

What about CRT, 97 genders and Yoga?

[VULGAR MADMAN]

It’s not a religion if you don’t call it that.

[raspberrydinners]

Not a religion but expect nothing else but bullshit from the lot of you.

I can't imagine what it must be like having a brain full of mush.

[Smack Daddy]

Oh raspberry Knows. Here to preach to the rest of us heathens. Strange, you say it's not a religion, but there are still zealots like you trying to spread your bullshit message.
Definitely a religion.

[kevrob]

CRT is derived from Frankfurt School Critical Theory which is a product of Marxism. Marxism is based on a pseudo-religious superstition - Dialectical Materialism - based on Hegel's teleological view of History. Marx just washed the ghod out of it. Communism can be described as a religion, just as a Buddhism or Taoism that doesn't bother with ghodz can be.

[Don't look at me!]

It’s for their own good.

[swillfredo pareto]

students and parents...claim that an evangelical Christian pastor performed religious services during a mandatory assembly at a public school.

Guarantee you that guy is more useful than any of the grifters pimping Critical Race Theory. At least his sacred text recognizes theft is wrong.

[A Thinking Mind]

If it was a mandatory assembly then I'm on their side-they shouldn't force students to attend this sort of thing. There's a dispute that this was mandatory, since a source for the school claims it was voluntary and was organized by a group of students.

If you want to argue about whether schools are allowed to have any organized religious events at all, even if it's originating from students, that's a different question altogether.

[swillfredo pareto]

If you want to argue about whether schools are allowed to have any organized religious events...that's a different question altogether.

That is my point. CRT and whatever the fashionable term for Anthropogenic Climate Change is today are pure, unadulterated, non-falsifiable religions and have no more business being in public schools than Pastor Nik's traveling ministry.

[Nelson]

CRT isn't taught in K-12 schools and climate change is a data-driven scientific theory ascribed to by an overwhelming majority of people who are professional scientusts.

So there is no similarity between them and religion.

[Muzzled Woodchipper]

CRT isn't taught in K-12 schools[.]

Bull. Fucking. Shit. The entire K-12 curriculum is steeped in it.

[kevrob]

Soave reported in these pages ...

https://reason.com/2021/07/06/critical-race-theory-nea-taught-in-schools/?comments=true&amp

...that the NEA supported teaching CRT - or curricula based on it - in government schools. The entire EduBlob needs to be dismantled.

There is the quandary for libertarians that the faculty at private universities in the social sciences and the education departments have long been staffed by those with progressive and even Marxist assumptions about how the world works. And even those training teachers at University of State at City (formerly SomeCity Normal School) have long been influenced by the Proggy faculty they hire with degrees from the Ivy League or peer institutions , or use textbooks written by same.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_march_through_the_institutions

[Hank Phillips]

Realclimatescience dotcom lists hundreds of mismatched charts, altered data points and failed published predictions by bureaucratically-anointed scientist-impersonators. Tony even lets you download warez that use data going back over a century so the minimally literate plot the graphs directly. As a volunteer in the 1980s I gathered signatures at UT for "The Petition Project" dot org. Political preachers, Econazis and autistic child exploiters never mention the 31,487 scientists whose signatures derailed ratification of the Kyoto capitulation.

[Rise of the Impedance]

According to the lawsuit, students were instructed to bow their heads in prayer and give their "lives over to Jesus." Failure to do so would result in "eternal torment.

That Jesus guy is one mean-ass, unforgiving sonofabitch.

[A Thinking Mind]

At least there's the possibility of forgiveness and redemption. The CRT crowd doesn't believe the sin can ever be cleansed and there's no salvation at all.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Marxism is basically just a Christian heresy anyway.
Maybe they got rid of the inquisition too early.

[raspberrydinners]

"A thinking mind" post absolutely devoid of any kind of reason, yet again.

But hey, you used the latest buzzword bingo of CRT so kudos.

Keep "thinking" you're somehow above it, dumbass.

[Smack Daddy]

Again nothing but" PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP" out of raspberry.

[mad.casual]

Yeah, I don't even think the guy knows how to play bingo.

[JoeB]

The CRT crowd certainly provides access to salvation for you: Hand over your property, your money, your freedom, your kids, and your thinking mind.

[Vernon Depner]

And then die.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Public School Students Sue West Virginia School District for Holding Mandatory "Christian Revival" Assembly

Oh gee, I wonder why suddenly this is a bad idea.

[Nelson]

Religion in school has always been a bad idea.

[Ben_]

Mandatory environmental religious revival A-ok though. Learn to compost for smugness points!!!!

[mad.casual]

Mandatory day out of classes in remembrance of George Floyd's sacrifice for our mortal souls.

[Cronut]

This story is completely dishonest.

The assembly wasn't mandatory, and the school district commented on it. It was a mistake by two teachers.

Can we get some honest articles one of these days?

[A Thinking Mind]

I only come here for the comments.

[Cronut]

I think that's the only reason anyone comes here.

[JasonT20]

The assembly wasn't mandatory, and the school district commented on it. It was a mistake by two teachers.

I see you missed the part where the lawsuit points out that adults preaching at students during school hours has been ruled a violation even when voluntary.

[kevrob]

It was mandatory or those two classes. What consequences for the two teachers who screwed up?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Choose reason. Every time.

Choose reason. Especially over sacred ignorance and dogmatic intolerance.

Choose reason. Every time. Most especially if you are older than 12 or so. By then, childhood indoctrination fades as an excuse for gullibility, superstition, ignorance, backwardness, and bigotry. By adulthood -- this includes ostensible adulthood -- it is no excuse, not even in the most desolate backwater one might find, such as Can't Keep Up, West Virginia.

Choose reason. Every time. And education, modernity, inclusiveness, science, tolerance, progress, and freedom. Avoid ignorance, backwardness, childish superstition, bigotry (racism, gay-bashing, misogyny, xenophobia, etc.), dogma, authoritarianism, and insularity.

Choose reason. Every time. Be an adult.

Or, at least, please try.

Otherwise, you could wind up a half-educated, snake-juggling, right-wing slack-jaw from West Virginia (or Alabama, or Wyoming, or Mississippi, or Kentucky, or Oklahoma, or . . .).

[Hank Phillips]

Let's keep snake-juggling legal, please!

[MollyGodiva]

Let's clarify a few things:

Climate change is not a religion. It is a scientific fact. The details are still under study but human caused climate change is well established.

CRT is not religion. CRT is the study of how overt racism in the past is manifested in US institutions and society now. That is called systemic racism and it is very real. It is a legitimate academic study and a simplified version should be taught in pre-college schools.

Christianity is a religion and along with all the other religions does not belong in public schools at all.

[Nelson]

Don't forget that CRT is taught in exactly ZERO K-12 schools in the US. It isn't taught to kids, period. It is a college-level analysis (and a pretty weak one at that) of history.

But don't let facts get in the way of your culture wars, conservatives. Your latest moral panic is as valid as most of them: not at all.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

CRT isn't 'taught to kids' in k-12. It's being DONE to children in K-12.

[Nelson]

Not even a little bit. You clearly have no idea what CRT is, but you are 100% certain that it is bad.

[NOYB2]

You clearly have no idea what CRT is, Nelson.

[Nelson]

Funny, but wrong. Since I am not the one lumping every aspect of conservative grievance into a single ball of whiney complaints and calling it CRT, I'm obviously not the one misrepresenting it.

And the fact that you think it's being taught in K-12 schools is sad. Predictably false, like most conservative culture war issues, but still disappointing.

[NOYB2]

And the fact that you think it's being taught in K-12 schools is sad.

I don't think that CRT is being taught in K-12 schools at all. I think that CRT is used to indoctrinate students in K-12 schools. There's a big difference.

Since I am not the one lumping every aspect of conservative grievance into a single ball of whiney complaints and calling it CRT

Well, neither am I. I actually know the history of critical theory, its evolution into critical race theory, the way it spread in the legal profession, and the way it is now used for propagandizing Americans and kids. I've seen this development from both sides of the Atlantic. Your statements about it are absurd.

[Nelson]

Which part is absurd?

It seems like you are just saying, "You don't know what you're talking about" to avoid having to acknowledge that CRT isn't bekng taught (or presented or whatever way you want to pretend it exists) in K-12 schools.

Watching the bleating idiots screaming at school board members about CRT (when it isn't even in their schools) would be hilarious if it weren't such a source of threats and intimidation.

Stupid conservatives, fighting the culture war with all the awareness of a rock and feeling justified because "they" are trying to do ... something ... to their kids, are a danger to anyone who doesn't agree with their moral panic and clueless beliefs.

CRT isn't taught in K-12 schools. You literally can't name one school teaches CRT because they don't exist. Hell, most colleges don't teach it. And none of them require it.

I get that cultural conservatives don't have the facts on their side so they need to scream and rage and pound the table in anger over the fact that America has moved beyond their cherished ideas that homosexuality is wrong, religion is inherently good, the nuclear family is the only "right" family, racism doesn't exist, the election was stolen, abortion is wrong, and a plethora of other quaint, outdated, and foolish causes. But that doesn't justify the threats that school boards have had to put up with from angry mobs if idiots.

[NOYB2]

"You don't know what you're talking about" to avoid having to acknowledge that CRT isn't bekng taught (or presented or whatever way you want to pretend it exists) in K-12 schools.

CRT isn't taught in public schools; CRT advocates telling lies to US students about US history.

Watching the bleating idiots screaming at school board members about CRT (when it isn't even in their schools) would be hilarious if it weren't such a source of threats and intimidation.

US schools are failing miserably academically. If you think parental anger at US school boards and teachers isn't justified, you just don't know what's going on.

I get that cultural conservatives don't have the facts on their side so they need to scream and rage and pound the table in anger over the fact that America has moved beyond their cherished ideas that homosexuality is wrong

Let me tell you in no uncertain terms, as a gay immigrant who is very familiar with US history and politics: you are a moron. You have no idea what is going on in your country.

[JasonT20]

CRT isn't taught in public schools; CRT advocates telling lies to US students about US history.

Lies like what? That Africans that had been kidnapped from their homes were brought to American colonies as slave labor? That this occurred for almost 200 years before the importation of slaves was banned in the United States? But that it continued to grow through simple reproduction as the wealthy in slave states couldn't do without the extra profits enabled by not having to pay for the labor of their slaves? That political leaders in slave states were adamant about at least an even number of territories allowing slaves as those that didn't, so that they wouldn't get outvoted when they became states? That several southern states rebelled against the United States because they wanted to keep slavery and assumed that the election of Lincoln would eventually lead to abolition? That Reconstruction failed to maintain even the small progress toward equality the freed slaves could hope for as discrimination and white superiority was implemented through law as well as the "private" actions of the KKK and others? That for all of the successes of the Civil Rights Movement, the legacy of all of that racism didn't just end overnight, with it still having an impact on the lives of Black people today?

Which of these "lies" would you see banned in K-12 teaching?

[Nelson]

"CRT isn't taught in public schools; CRT advocates telling lies to US students about US history."

So they aren't being taught CRT but they are being taught CRT? Google "doublespeak" to see the specific type of nonsense you are using here.

"US schools are failing miserably academically."

They're worse in red states than blue states, so what does that tell you?

"You have no idea what is going on in your country."

Of course you would think that. Since you believe the nonsense that cultural conservatives whine about. Because your issue profile is firmly in the fringe and your awareness of what average Americans actually believe is nonexistent, this is a compliment coming from you.

[JoeB]

You're kidding, right? Is this really OBL? Good one!

[Nelson]

Not at all. CRT isn't taught in K-12 schools. Nowhere in America is CRT taught to children. It is a college-level historical analysis. And, in my mind, not a very good one.

But don't let reality intrude on your fact-free narrative.

[NOYB2]

Nowhere in America is CRT taught to children.

Correct. CRT is instead the basis for indoctrinating children into leftist ideologies.

[Nelson]

Where? Who is doing this? How are they "idoctinating" kids without actually presenting anything to them?

Is it osmosis? Is CRT a vapor that enters their lungs and infects their brains?

What, pray tell, is the means by which this insidious theory is being spread to kids if no one is teaching it to them?

[NOYB2]

Where? Who is doing this? How are they "idoctinating" kids without actually presenting anything to them?

They are teaching false facts about history and economics; they are presenting stories instead of facts; they are engaging in emotional appeals and manipulation; they are failing to teach basic facts about US history.

This is only a small part of a much bigger problem: the US educational system is failing, badly.

Where were you educated? How old are you?

[Nelson]

"They are teaching false facts about history and economics"

So you believe that they are teaching CRT? You really need to make up your mind as to which line of bullshit you are going to present.

I am a retired 51-year-old entrepreneur and executive who went to K-8 in Illinois, high school in New Jersey, and college in New Jersey and Florida.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

CRT is not religion. CRT is the study of how overt racism in the past is manifested in US institutions and society now. That is called systemic racism and it is very real. It is a legitimate academic study and a simplified version should be taught in pre-college schools.

CRT is not based on any fact, but based on a set of non-empirical presuppositions. The creators of CRT even say in their seminal tomes that as a concept, even questioning CRT is an act of overt racism.

"systemic racism" is a meaningless, purposefully broad concept which is like numerology, it can be applied to anything, anywhere and as a system rejects any counter evidence. Learn your Agrippa before going off half-cocked on something you know little to nothing about.

[MollyGodiva]

Systemic racism has a well defined meaning. Here are some examples.

https://curiousrefuge.com/blog/systemic-racism

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Systemic racism is primarily "proved" through the existence of perceived by "disparate impact" without exploring the myriad ways that disparate impact might have come to be. Examples from your own link:

1. 65% of black children live in a single-parent home, compared to 24% of white children - Kids Count Data Center

One of the noted reasons for this was the rise of the welfare state and new urbanism. Black families were making tremendous strides and economic mobility up through the 1950s, during a time of REAL racist policies such as segregation. Yet in the 1960s, this trend reversed suddenly with the dramatic rise of the welfare state and public works which ended up holding black Americans back.

Black preschoolers are 3.6X more likely to be suspended than white preschoolers - US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights

While this is may be true (I will give the study the benefit of the doubt), it makes no attempt to explore why that might be. This could be a second order effect of the high percentage of single-family homes predicated in item #1. Again, a disparate impact exists, therefore, systemic racism.

Black students are 3.2X more likely to be suspended for infractions at school - US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights

Same as #2. Disparate impact exists, therefore systemic racism.

Predominantly black school districts receive far less financial funding than white school districts - ED Build

This is a result of black populations living in generally poorer districts, a result of #1. A disparate impact exists in a statistic, therefore systemic racism.

Black students/children have less access to computers and the internet - National Center for Education Statistics

You're kidding me, right?

I could go through all 64 examples from your link which simply foists a statistic upon us, noting a disparate impact that exists and laughably calls it a "concrete example" of systemic racism.

It's unscientific, simple minded and stupid.

[MollyGodiva]

Disparate impact is an important component of systemic racism. The analysis of how disparate impact is caused by previous racism is part of CRT.

[NOYB2]

The analysis of how disparate impact

You are confusing "disparate impact" (which is a term applied to legislation) with "disparate outcomes".

is caused by previous racism is part of CRT.

Disparate outcomes caused by previous racism are, by definition, not "systemic racism", since they are not caused by "the system".

In any case, as it turns out, CRT's analysis is objectively wrong: CRT is unable to show significant instances of systemic racism, and in addition it is wrong on how historical racism affects current minority populations.

CRT's analysis makes utterly ridiculous claims, such as that slavery is the cause for black Americans being poorer on average or more prone to single parenthood; or that the US is a nation set up for the benefits of white males (when Asians beat whites on pretty much all socio-economic indicators and women have longer life expectancies, more disposable income, and more education than men).

Again, CRT is objectively wrong. It doesn't belong in public schools for the same reason we don't teach witchcraft or eugenics in public schools.

[Nelson]

Lucky for you, it isn't taught in any public schools.

Whichever grievance-peddler has told you differently was lying to you. Probably for their own profit.

[Muzzled Woodchipper]

Lucky for you, it isn't taught in any public schools.

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

[Nelson]

Really? Name one K-12 school that teaches CRT. It's a college-level analysis and isn't taught in public schools anywhere in the US.

[Vernon Depner]

Predominantly black school districts receive far less financial funding than white school districts - ED Build

This is a result of black populations living in generally poorer districts

None of that is true. Predominately Black urban school districts have some of the highest per-pupil expenditures of all districts. That's possible because such districts are in major cities with much higher tax receipts than suburban or rural districts which tend to be predominately white.

[NOYB2]

Those aren't examples of "systemic racism" they are examples of disparate outcomes.

[Smack Daddy]

Caused by democrat policies. But don't let that crush your dreams.

[Nelson]

The way schools are funded in America is a terrible system. Why no one has been able to fix such an inefficient system is incomprehensible to me.

[mad.casual]

And the environmental movement's scientific claims to conceal its religious underpinnings are exceedingly are best described as a fig leaf.

Greenhouses are hot, ergo, how can you deny that Apollo rides his golden chariot East to West along the sky every day? Plastic is the forbidden fruit of the Tree Of Knowledge and will cause us all to be cast out. Science!

[raspberrydinners]

You're wasting time on the idiots here. They've made their mind up they are the victims and will never believe otherwise.

Anything wrong is the fault of the evil antifa or leftists or whatever other bullshit thing they've thought of (or rather been told by their propaganda outlet) and that's it.

[JoeB]

Again no, libertarians are faithfully against forced religious indoctrination. It's just that lately, especially today (Jussie Smollett Day!) there have been so many anti-conservative hoaxes that anyone with half a brain questions this type of story. I'm sure you're fine with it, though.

[JasonT20]

It's just that lately, especially today (Jussie Smollett Day!) there have been so many anti-conservative hoaxes that anyone with half a brain questions this type of story.

Unfortunately, it takes more than half a brain to overcome cognitive biases, particularly confirmation bias. That every instance you hear or read about "anti-conservative hoaxes" stick in your mind more than verified instances of things that cast a negative light on what you want to believe is simply how the human brain works. (Not to mention remaining ignorant of things that would do so because of your choices in news media.)

To be clear, everyone is susceptible to cognitive bias. It is not something that only afflicts people with certain political beliefs. It takes deliberate effort to counter it, and it is quite uncomfortable when we do. As Henry Ford once wrote, "Thinking is the hardest work there is. That is the probable reason why so few engage in it."

[Smack Daddy]

Climate change and CRT still have there zealots. If a group of people believe in something that is not proven, then it is as good as a religion. And please provide the scientific data showing how climate change has been proven through the seven step scientific method, as well as the peer reviewed data. Also please provide the actual historical documentation that backs up CRT and totally demolishes real American history. I'll wait while you can't.

[MollyGodiva]

I could but it would be a waste of my time. I have been down this path before. Any reference I post,, not matter what the source, is quickly dismissed as fake or bias or unreliable. Go google it yourself.

[Smack Daddy]

You can't, that's why you didn't. Your a lying sack of shit. I have looked for this info, It does not exist.

[NOYB2]

It’s not dismissed as fake or unreliable, it’s dismissed as objectively wrong.

CRT is a pseudo scientific ideology, like Marxism and critical theory. CRT’s statements about causes of inequality are objectively wrong.

[MollyGodiva]

Red lining. Explain how there is no harm in the present due to red lining.

[NOYB2]

Housing and financial discrimination is illegal today, so it is not an instance of "systemic racism"; to the contrary, the US system is strongly anti-racism. Furthermore, redlining affected poor people of all races.

Large numbers of people grew up poor and started with nothing. Growing up poor and starting with nothing is not "harm", it is a normal part of every society. And there are far more whites living in poverty than blacks.

I am so grateful that I didn't grow up in a privileged upper middle class American family: people like that, for the most part, only fall down the socioeconomic ladder because they have no idea of how the world works and they promote garbage like CRT and "social justice".

[MollyGodiva]

That is your problem. You look at the laws today, but do not realize that laws of the past, even decades ago, have impacts now. Red lining caused a gigantic gap in family wealth. This means those in those areas do not have the capital to move to the non-red lined areas. The red lined areas have fewer parks, resources, and much more pollution still. This keeps the property values down. If the area gets gentrified, the locals get priced out of the area. This is systemic racism, the fact that racism of the past is still manifested today.

[NOYB2]

You look at the laws today, but do not realize that laws of the past, even decades ago, have impacts now.

Of course they have a statistical impact now. But so what? CRT claims that the US is systemically racist right now, not that it was so in the past.

And they have an individual impact: every person who descended from people in a redlined area is affected by that history. But somehow, CRT focuses only of consequences to people of one skin color in their analysis.

This is systemic racism, the fact that racism of the past is still manifested today.

The claim of "systemic racism" means, literally, that the "system" under which we live right now is "racist", i.e., treats blacks worse than it treats whites by discriminating based on their race. Where is that occurring today?

Furthermore, it is factually wrong to claim that people are automatically disadvantaged based on a history of racism. I went to school with many blacks who came from much wealthier and more privileged backgrounds than I did. Yet somehow CRT insists that they are a victim of "systemic racism" while I am a beneficiary of "white privilege".

Face it, MollyGodiva: you are the racist in this discussion, refusing to view people as individuals and instead treating race as some essential part of their being and status.

[Nelson]

It's a theory of historical analysis, not science. What makes you think it's any kind of science?

It's like the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, but a stronger theory (but only because the Lost Cause is terrible and CRT is just bad).

The idea that CRT is a dominant historical analysis is right-wing fantasy. It is a fringe theory, even in colleges where it is taught. It is not a good theory, but it also isn't being taught to kids.

[NOYB2]

Climate change is a scientific hypothesis with no relevance to K-12.

CRT isn’t a “study”, it is Neo-Marxist ideology.

Proponents of CRT have been unable to identify any significant systemic racism; they are confounding unequal outcomes with systemic racism.

[JasonT20]

From Florida's state science standards:

SC.912.E.6.6 - Analyze past, present, and potential future consequences to the environment resulting from various energy production technologies.

SC.912.E.7.7 - Identify, analyze, and relate the internal (Earth system) and external (astronomical) conditions that contribute to global climate change.

SC.912.E.7.8 - Explain how various atmospheric, oceanic, and hydrologic conditions in Florida have influenced and can influence human behavior, both individually and collectively.

SC.912.E.7.9 - Cite evidence that the ocean has had a significant influence on climate change by absorbing, storing, and moving heat, carbon, and water.

The Republicans that have been in charge of Florida's state government continuously for over 20 years might prefer to keep kids ignorant of these things, but even they couldn't justify keeping it out of the standards for what scientific knowledge public school students are expected to know and understand.

[Nelson]

So what I'm getting from most people here is that religious prosthelizing is conpletely appropriate during the regular school day?

I don't have a problem with after-school or student groups, as long as everyone from Satanists to Mormons to Muslims to Scientologists are also allowed to have clubs. But in the middle of the school day using school facilities to access students? That's a whole lot of red flags.

Church and state need to be completely separate. If they want a preacher to preach to kids, after school works just fine. Most kids will have chosen to leave school, which isn't an option during the day.

[raspberrydinners]

When you remember that most people here are all in on the Republican cult but like to think they're "independent minded libertarians" then it all makes more sense.

[JoeB]

No, we just have better leftist bullshit stink detectors.

[Smack Daddy]

Sorry, you assholes are the cult. You think with one mind and speak with one voice. That's a cult baby.

[NOYB2]

“Church and state need to be completely separate.”

Why? It hasn’t been for most of human history. It hasn’t been for most of US history either.

[markm23]

Mixing church and state resulted in the Thirty Years War, which killed millions, including 1/3 of the population of Germany.

[NOYB2]

That’s an utterly ridiculous view of the 30 years war, in particular since part of the aftermath and resolution involved the adoption of state religion all across the German empire.

[A Thinking Mind]

There was no German Empire at the time. There was the Holy Roman Empire, but that's a relatively weak central state since the vast majority of the fighting was internal to the HRE. The fighting started because nations within the HRE, like Bohemia, were attempting to purge all "heresy." That drew in Protestant states thinking they had to defend fellow Protestants, which drew in Catholic countries to stand up for Catholicism. You also had explicitly church territories scattered throughout Europe at that point, like the Arch-Bishopric of Mainz, the Prince-Bishopric of Metz, etc. The heads of state were Catholic bishops with their own lands and armies.

It's a bit childish to claim the war wasn't fought over the idea that the head of state can enforce adherence to the state-sponsored religion, especially since the war only ended with broad agreements to allow freedom of worship for religious minorities within a state. They did re-affirm the Peace of Augsburg, which allowed the head of state to declare a State Religion, but it was only accepted because of the built-in allowances for religious minorities to be protected. The Augsburg concepts established the idea of official state religions that kicked off the fighting in the first place.

[NOYB2]

There was no German Empire at the time. There was the Holy Roman Empire

Yes, the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation". In short, "the German Empire".

It's a bit childish to claim the war wasn't fought over the idea that the head of state can enforce adherence to the state-sponsored religion, especially since the war only ended with broad agreements to allow freedom of worship for religious minorities within a state.

So, the result was states with state religions that happened not to murder members of other religions. How is that a "separation of church and state".

They did re-affirm the Peace of Augsburg, which allowed the head of state to declare a State Religion, but it was only accepted because of the built-in allowances for religious minorities to be protected.

I.e. no separation of church and state.

he Augsburg concepts established the idea of official state religions that kicked off the fighting in the first place.

Before the Reformation, there was a single state religion across most of Europe: Roman Catholicism. That was about as "official" a state religion as a state religion can be official. That state religion gave legitimacy to all the rulers (investiture controversy) and it was the basis of power relationships between rulers. That state religion had persecuted and eliminated almost all heretics and other religions for a millennium.

I'm sorry, but to cite the 30 Years War as justification for a strict separation of church and state is absurd, given that there was none before and none after. In fact, there has been no separation of church and state in Europe ever.

And there hasn't been legally in the US until the mid-20th century, and we are only now starting to see the effects of that.

[markm23]

Intertwining church and state was the reason for the war. At the start of the war, in most Catholic states it was considered proper to _burn_ people to death because they worshiped God a little differently, or to encourage lynch mobs when the army couldn't be trusted to do the job (St Bartholomew's day in France was the worst but not the only example). In most Protestant states, it was considered proper to hang people for the same reason. The two exceptions that I know of (France and England) had only worked their way to a policy of partial tolerance after masses of religious killing in the previous century.

If your king or neighbors are likely to murder you, doesn't it make sense to murder them first? That logic took root in France during the 16th century, and with a monarchy weakened by child kings the result was the French Wars of Religion. Perhaps only a few 10's of thousands were directly killed, but it disrupted their society and economy so badly that about 3 million died of famine and disease. It ended with a strong and religiously flexible king proclaiming the Edict of Nantes: Catholicism was and would remain the state religion but Protestants would not suffer for their beliefs. Through the reigns of Henry III, "Bloody" Mary, and Elizabeth I, England found its way to a Protestant mirror of this policy: an established Protestant state religion was locked in by religious tests, but Catholics and dissident Protestants were tolerated as long as they stayed out of government.

But neither the Catholic Hapsburgs nor the Lutheran princes in Germany and Sweden had learned that lesson, and they fought a war that killed about a third of Germany. When it was over, they wrote the Peace of Westphalia as if they had learned nothing - but except possibly for the Hapsburgs, they had. After the 30 Years War, intelligent monarchs changed their religion when it differed from the majority of their subjects, rather than expecting their subjects to flip. Those too stupid to do this, like James II of England, were lucky to escape with their heads.

It wasn't full separation of church and state, but it was usually enough to keep the peace. In the USA, the founding fathers knew this history and went a bit further; first, they wrote the Constitution to not give the federal government the power to establish a church, then they added the 1st Amendment as a safeguard. (Yes, this did not apply to the states until the 14th Amendment, and some did let a colonial established church continue for a few more years, but pretty soon they all chose to get government out of religion.)

[Nelson]

And the more we separate them, the more perfect our union becomes. The tighter church and state were intertwined, the worse thibgs were for socuety. There's a reason why the period of religiously-domibated governments and stagnant intellectual progress was called the Dark Ages.

Religion is an excellent system for an individual to use to guide their life. When it is allowed to shape public policy and government, bad things happen.

[Vernon Depner]

Satanists to Mormons to Muslims to Scientologists

Scientology is not a religion. Islam arguably is not.

[Nelson]

Since the Koran contains many stories from both the Old and New Testaments, that's a bold statement.

But just for our edification, what constitutes a "real" religion? Since one of the Big Three apparently doesn't count.

[NOYB2]

Islam is a political ideology that uses elements of religion for its justification.

In any case, the distinction between what is and isn’t a religion is pointless. You are only obsessing about it because you think that the law should treat all religions as interchangeable.

[Nelson]

They are. All systems that incorporate divinity, the supernatural, an absolute and unchallangable moral code, privileged status to the initiated, and an assumption of superiority to other brands of religion are the same. The only difference is what characteristics and tenets each values.

Coke, Pepsi, root beer, cream soda, birch beer, Sprite, 7-Up, Cheerwine, Moxie, and thousands of other drinks are all soda. Some people like one more than the rest, but they're all equally valid versions if soda.

Religion is the same.

[Hank Phillips]

Superstition is a must. You have to believe impossible nonsense for which there is nary a jot or tittle of evidence. The other requirement is money. Mescalero Apaches lacked that so Billy Sherman murdered them wholesale and White Father Coolidge signed a ban on their sacrament. Branch Davidians couldn't even afford to pay a parts tax infringing the Second Amendment. They were gunned down and burned like so many Apaches in the same area. We don't call it The Almighty Dollar for nothing.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

The comments on this whole situation is yet another shining example of how we can easily determine where the right goes to far, but are unable to determine where the left goes too far.

"Hey, quit teaching religion in school."

done. Complete. Easily spotted. Dealt with.

"Hey, let's set up some racial affinity groups in K-12 and teach a module on 'Climate Justice'"

*shrug* I'm good with it.

[mad.casual]

*shrug* I'm good with it.

Should we tell their parents?

"Nah, but we should compile a list of those that complain, so when our experiment doesn't work, we have a list of people to blame."

[JoeB]

Or, the teachers deliberately brought their whole class to sabotage the process, creating grounds for a suit. I'll believe the ACLU when they sue schools for involuntary wokism preaching.

[Agammamon]

The mandatory LGBT and racism training sessions still being perfectly ok, right?

[Agammamon]

Like, I'm a hardcore baby eating atheist that is all on board with the separation of church and state, but - when you are saying all sorts of other non-educational indoctrination is ok, well . . . I just can't get that worked up about mandatory prayer any more.

[Tony]

Are they religions?

[Smack Daddy]

Do they have zealots? Then yes.

[NOYB2]

They are irrational belief systems founded on faith rather than science. So, yes, they are religious in nature.

[Michael Ejercito]

Not all religions have gods.

[mad.casual]

I think you read what was in your head and not what he wrote.

[Tony]

What are irrational belief systems? That gay and black people exist?

[NOYB2]

What are irrational belief systems? That gay and black people exist?

That gay and black people are somehow special and need to be treated differently by the state from others.

[Tony]

Nobody advocates for that.

[NOYB2]

That is precisely what the social justice movement is advocating.

[Tony]

Even the most radical legislative change people are seeking is to require shopowners to treat gays the same as they treat straights, not better than. Even the most radical black civil rights demand is that black people are treated a tiny bit better than they are now. Actual parity with white people is like sci-fi stuff.

[NOYB2]

Even the most radical legislative change people are seeking is to require shopowners to treat gays the same as they treat straights, not better than.

Shopowners can refuse service to people not in protected categories for any reason; if you are in a protected category, they cannot. Special.

Even the most radical black civil rights demand is that black people are treated a tiny bit better than they are now.

The law doesn't protect most people from being treated badly. But a black billionaire receives special protection simply on account of his skin color. Special.

Actual parity with white people is like sci-fi stuff.

It is. Just like communism. Which is why it is none of the government's business to categorize people by race and pass special laws by race.

Blacks, Asians, gays, women, and whites will never reach parity. When you divide a society up into groups like that and measure outcomes, there will always be significant differences. That's a basic economic and sociological fact. And straight white males are not even coming out on top.

[Tony]

Shopowners can refuse service to people not in protected categories for any reason; if you are in a protected category, they cannot. Special.

Sure, and the class people would like to see added to federal law is sexual orientation and gender identity. That means shops can no more discriminate against you for being straight than they can if you're gay. Equality. These laws do not say "you can't discriminate against blacks and gays." They say race and sexual orientation. They protect everyone who has a race or sexual orientation.

[Hank Phillips]

So is it finally OK to kneel on a white guy's throat till he dies and swear THAT was a drug overdose?

[Nelson]

Florida has their "don't say gay" law, so apparently the children of gay parents don't get to talk about or have their families mentioned by a teacher until conservatives determjne it's age appropriate.

Like praying away the gay, ignoring it will also not make it go away.

Is that what you mean by being treated differently?

[NOYB2]

Florida has their "don't say gay" law, so apparently the children of gay parents don't get to talk about or have their families mentioned by a teacher until conservatives determjne it's age appropriate.

Is it that you are simply stupid and haven't read the law, or are you deliberately fabricating lies?

There is no "don't say gay" law at all.

[Nelson]

Wow. Just wow. Apparently you don't pay attention to current events.

[mad.casual]

Is the bill actually titled "don't say gay" or did you hear divine voices inspiring you to call it that?

[Nelson]

It's what the law is nicknamed because, among other things, it bans teachers from talking about homosexuality. But it fits into the book-banning fad that conservatives are so psyched about these days.

[Smack Daddy]

No that would be you, laboring over a straw man belief. People like you tell everyone else to keep their religion to themselves while you try to cram your own beliefs in their face. No one thinks that gay or black people don't exist. you say keep our beliefs to ourselves, then you do the same. Otherwise, what You are engaging in is an attempt to convert others to your own beliefs, like the left is trying to do to children right now in our school system. By the way, conversion is a tenant of religion.

[Nelson]

Nice false equivalence betwee religion and nondiscrimination laws. Completely fallacious, but not surprising from someone who laments the death of the culture of the 1950s.

[Nelson]

Since students don't go to professional training sessions (LGBT, racism, or otherwise), what's your point?

[Nelson]

So everyone is still comfortable with ignoring the separation of church and state? Because the Founding Fathers would like you to know that you're doing a secular state wrong.

[NOYB2]

Your full of it. The establishment clause wasn’t incorporated until 1947. Before that, states could even establish state religions, and several did.

[Nelson]

The Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment. In case you missed that day in frade school, the First Amendment is part of the Constitution. Whi h most befinitrly was NOT written in 1947.

Unless you are trying to split hairs by pretending it wasn't applied to the states, which just makes you look like you will say anything to pretend that the foundation of American ideals and laws aren't laid out in the Constitution.

The Constitution was written by a bunch of Christians who specifically wanted to prevent a theocratic government. It's one of many, many amazing and admirable things about the Founders.

[NOYB2]

Unless you are trying to split hairs by pretending it wasn't applied to the states, which just makes you look like you will say anything to pretend that the foundation of American ideals and laws aren't laid out in the Constitution.

I'm not trying to split hairs or pretending anything. It is a simple fact that the Constitution only applied to the federal government until SCOTUS started "incorporating" the Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time. The Establishment Clause was incorporated in 1947.

New Hampshire had an established church until 1817, Massachusetts until 1830, and Connecticut until 1818. Maryland was first Catholic, then Episcopalian. That's how history tells us that the 1A did not apply to the states. That's just a historical fact. I'm sorry if they didn't cover that in your high school civics class.

Let's continue this discussion when you have read up a bit on US history. Then we can talk about how even the 1A does not mean a strict separation of church and state.

[Nelson]

You once again ignored my central point. Separation of church and state was intentionally included in the Constitution. Split hairs and twist words all you want, the only people who don't think the Establishment Clause explicitly defines a secular government are people who don't want to accept the text.

Also, I noticed you conveniently ignored the source of the phrase "separation if church and state". It was a Founding Father, it was contemporaneous with the early Constitution, and it has always been one of the core ideals of America.

Secularism is a good thing, a Constitutional thing, and a benefit to society. Things are always better for a society when religion isn't making the rules.

[NOYB2]

You once again ignored my central point. Separation of church and state was intentionally included in the Constitution.

That is simply false. The US Constitution simply says that the federation composed of the states shall not impose a single religion on all the states. It says nothing about "separation of church and state" in general.

Also, I noticed you conveniently ignored the source of the phrase "separation if church and state". It was a Founding Father, it was contemporaneous with the early Constitution, and it has always been one of the core ideals of America.

Jefferson referred to the federal government and he talked about churches. None of that implies secular government.

Secularism is a good thing, a Constitutional thing, and a benefit to society. Things are always better for a society when religion isn't making the rules.

Really? Can you cite historical examples supporting that idea? Have you ever actually lived in a state founded on secularism?

[Nelson]

"The US Constitution simply says that the federation composed of the states shall not impose a single religion on all the states. It says nothing about "separation of church and state" in general."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Which means no laws for or against any religion. The only way the government can uphold that standard is to be completely secular. That's not a very difficult logical step, since support for religion over atheism (or the tenets of one religion over others) would violate the principle.

The only way to implement the Establishment Clause is to have a secular government.

[Smack Daddy]

Please show us where the words "separation of church and state are in the constitution. Every time some prog quotes the constitution they seem to be reading some other document.

[markm23]

They just used other words, but some people cannot comprehend big words like "establishment of religion".

If you want it in really simple words, Jesus said "Render onto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render onto God that which is God's".

[NOYB2]

Yes, you seem to have trouble with those big words.

The fact that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from establishing a religion doesn’t mean state governments can, and it doesn’t mean the elimination of religion from government.

[JasonT20]

Explain to me how you can be free to practice your religious beliefs when the government can push other religious beliefs on you. The Establishment Clause is simply the other half of how religious freedom is protected.

[NOYB2]

Explain to me how you can be free to practice your religious beliefs when the government can push other religious beliefs on you.

I suppose that depends on what state religion we are talking about and how it is implemented. The countries with Christian state religions I have lived in did not interfere in the practice of anybody's religious beliefs. What they did generally do is require people to know about Christianity (the same way US schools now require people to know about Islam) and make some version of the Noachian Laws the basis of government. I don't see how either of those would be a problem for anybody, given that Christianity was and is part of their culture and history. They also happen to require you to know their laws, their language, and their other customs.

The Establishment Clause is simply the other half of how religious freedom is protected.

The Establishment Clause originally only applied to the federal government; states were free to adopt state religions. That did not change until 1947, when SCOTUS (not the people, not the legislatures) decided to change that single-handedly.

[JasonT20]

The Establishment Clause originally only applied to the federal government; states were free to adopt state religions.

The Free Exercise Clause, like most of the Bill of Rights, didn't apply to states either until the Supreme Court started recognizing that the 14th Amendment required it to do so. And it wasn't long after the adoption of the Constitution that states that had established religion had disestablished them. (Massachusetts was the last to disestablish its state church in 1833. I think Delaware, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania never had established churches.) Granted, many states still supported Protestantism in other ways for quite some time after that, but it was often not so benign as you suggest it was. Children being made to read the Bible (KJV) and be led by teachers in prayer is not benign if the students and their parents don't want that.

[NOYB2]

So, in other words, I am correct: the US was not founded on separation of church and state.

And I think all children should be made to read the Bible, the same way all of them should be made to read Shakespeare. The Bible is a fundamental part of Western history, culture, literature, and philosophy. If you don't know the Bible inside out, you are an uneducated fool. And I say that as an atheist.

[Nelson]

You wouldn't like the way that the Bible would be taught. Nkt as a source of truth and morality, but a book of stories used as the foundation of one of the three biggest religions in the world.

Also, one with some of the "good guys" doing evil and horrifying things. Unless you think genocide and baby killing is a good thing.

[NOYB2]

You wouldn't like the way that the Bible would be taught.

Most likely not. I don't like the way American teachers teach math or English. American teachers are morons.

Nkt as a source of truth and morality, but a book of stories used as the foundation of one of the three biggest religions in the world.

You know, as an atheist, I am embarrassed by people like you. The average fundamentalist Christian is more open minded, more rational, more tolerant, and more intelligent than you.

[Nelson]

"The average fundamentalist Christian is more open minded, more rational, more tolerant, and more intelligent than you."

You have a screwed up definition of "open minded", "rational", "tolerant", and "intelligent". Just look at the posts of the religious fringe in these comments as proof.

If evangelical Christians were those four things, the culture war would end tomorrow. They're the koes who are desperate to prevent American culture from moving away from the past.

[JasonT20]

What they did generally do is require people to know about Christianity (the same way US schools now require people to know about Islam) and make some version of the Noachian Laws the basis of government. I don't see how either of those would be a problem for anybody, given that Christianity was and is part of their culture and history. They also happen to require you to know their laws, their language, and their other customs.

If it was just about knowing and understanding history, then presenting it (and other religions relevant to U.S. history and culture, which is basically all of them, since you can find people of just about all religions living in the U.S. at various points in history, not to mention the non-believers) in a dispassionate and academic manner that neither endorses nor disparages it would be what happened. But that is clearly not what happened, nor what Christian conservatives want to see happen now. To argue otherwise is simply not credible.

[NOYB2]

But that is clearly not what happened, nor what Christian conservatives want to see happen now.

Neither do gay, atheist immigrants like myself want to see "all religions" presented "in a dispassionate and academic manner" because some of those religions are out to kill me, no matter what fairy tales you may believe.

[NOYB2]

By the way, Noachian Laws basically just say "don't be a psychopath". If you have a problem with that, no functioning society will tolerate you.

[JasonT20]

The "Judeo-Christian" law myth is the kind of historical revisionism that makes the Establishment Clause necessary. I suppose you think that the Golden Rule is uniquely Christian, as well as the Old Testament being the source of all basic morality?

[NOYB2]

I suppose you think that the Golden Rule is uniquely Christian, as well as the Old Testament being the source of all basic morality?

First of all, no religion I know of uses the Golden Rule as the basis of moral behavior; certainly not Christianity.

Second, you got it exactly backwards: I think the rules and truths that Christianity proclaims are found in many other religions and philosophies. I do not believe that the Old Testament is the source of all basic morality. I believe that the Old Testament simply reiterates beliefs, truths, and rules common to pretty much all religions.

That is why establishing moderate Christianity as the state religion, as most Western nations do, doesn't cause any problems in practice: if you are a decent human being of any religious persuasion, you shouldn't have any problems with the rules and laws that Christian nations derive from Christianity.

[Nelson]

"That is why establishing moderate Christianity as the state religion, as most Western nations do, doesn't cause any problems in practice: if you are a decent human being of any religious persuasion, you shouldn't have any problems with the rules and laws that Christian nations derive from Christianity."

Because the Dark Ages were such a great example of restrained Christianity.

[JasonT20]

To expand on what Nelson was saying, it isn't even about the clear history of how Christians have abused government power in the past. One only needs to look at the present to see that it isn't even about morality. We can disagree on the nature and history of moral teachings and beliefs within Christianity, but you only need to examine what gets conservative Christians bent out of shape to see what they really want.

I recall an incident over legislative prayer in Arizona a while back. A Secular Humanist representative had his turn to give the invocation and chose to speak to his beliefs. He appealed to everyone's common humanity rather than asking everyone to bow their head in prayer. Another representative was apoplectic. (Republican, unsurprisingly.) He cried about that wasn't a "real prayer" and that they needed a do over.

Conservative Christians don't want to use government to teach the basic moral principles of their religion that basically all moral and ethical systems in Western civilization and most outside of it share. They want to use government to support and reinforce their place as the dominant religion. This case is another perfect example of that.

[Smack Daddy]

One of those big words you are having trouble with is the very first one in A1, that word is "congress". A1 limits congress and congress only. there is no mention of the rest of the government, only congress shall not.

[markm23]

Read the 14th Amendment. It was written to overturn the Dredd Scott decision, where super-racist justices said that even free blacks could not be citizens or have rights like white men. It says that being born in the USA makes blacks citizens, and that the states are required to respect the rights of everyone - using "privileges and immunities" for rights, to refer to a handy list in the Dredd Scott decision.

Now, the court precedents for the 14th became a horrible mess, due to justices still being racist after the Civil War: any honest interpretation of privileges and immunities would have included the right to keep and bear arms - even for blacks. Rather than allowing this, the late 19th century Supreme Court closed their eyes tight and pretended they didn't see this clause. And so these racists messed up recognizing everyone's rights. The 20th century courts "respected" that racist precedent, only slowly bringing the Bill of Rights to the states one piece at a time.

[JasonT20]

Please show us where the words "separation of church and state are in the constitution. Every time some prog quotes the constitution they seem to be reading some other document.

Where do we find "separation of powers"? Or "checks and balances"? Or "executive privilege"?

[NOYB2]

Where do we find "separation of powers"? Or "checks and balances"? Or "executive privilege"?

I'm glad you realize that those aren't in the Constitution either and that we should therefore question them.

[JasonT20]

Everything should be questioned. My point is that simply saying that something isn't word-for-word in the text of the Constitution, therefore the Constitution doesn't include that idea, is rather obtuse.

[NOYB2]

And I am saying that the Constitution clearly does not contain either the words or the idea of "separation of church and state". You have failed to provide any argument to the contrary.

[JasonT20]

Yes it does. And I did. To make the point again and simply, our freedom to believe as we choose depends on the government being prevented from imposing religion on us as much as it does the government being prevented from restricting what we want to believe. Only a secular government can truly guarantee religious freedom.

[Nelson]

No one said it was in the Constitution, although the Establishment Clause is pretty clearly making the point.

[Nelson]

That specific phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802.

[Hank Phillips]

Superstitious bigots are never comfortable. Hell to them is that haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might be happily leading their own life uncoerced and unmolested.

[Tony]

I hope the Church of Satan is geared up for all the bullshit pro-theocracy rulings coming down the pike from Amy Coney "I'm a denim dress away from being a charismatic hillbilly" Barrett. I just want those beady-eyed robo-judges to say that Christianity beats all other religions because it's true, and to make it case law.

That way we can start strangling kings with the entrails of priests, and I've always wanted to do that!

[NOYB2]

Well, Tony, you keep proving that you are a psychopath.

[Tony]

Do read a book every now and then.

[NOYB2]

Tony, take your own advice: you are obviously completely illiterate and uneducated.

[Hank Phillips]

I'll never forget the Catechisms the penguins made us read. There were ink-drawings of a black sedan and guys (labeled Communists) Tommy-gunning priests and nuns. The tough sledding was convincing the class this propaganda was supposed to inspire kids to root for the team being gunned down.

[Nelson]

Can one of the theocrats explain to me why Christians keep saying the Ten Commandments are the basis of American Judeo-Christian law when the only three that aren't overtly unconstitutional are the prohibitions against bearing false witness, murder, and, theft, all of which predate the Bible by centuries?

[NOYB2]

Can one of the theocrats explain to me why Christians keep saying the Ten Commandments are the basis of American Judeo-Christian law

Can I explain this to you as a life-long atheist? Is that good enough?

when the only three that aren't overtly unconstitutional are the prohibitions against bearing false witness, murder, and, theft, all of which predate the Bible by centuries?

Well, you have several erroneous beliefs here.

First, you erroneously believe that saying that Christianity is the basis of US/European law somehow makes an originality claim. To the contrary, Christianity's basic teachings and morality are little different from most other religions. That is why establishing Christianity as a state religion has little effect.

Second, you erroneously believe that establishing Christianity as a state religion means that every aspect of Christian teaching and rules must be translated into law. That is also incorrect. Christian states generally only translate a minimum of Christian concepts into law. That is different from, say, Islamic states.

Third, you erroneously treat the US as if it had only a single level of government. In fact, the Constitution only prohibits the establishment of religion at the national level; for most of US history, establishment of religion at the state level was perfectly fine.

[Hank Phillips]

The Talmudic version that predates the Wholly Bauble says: "Do not do unto others..." The imaginary corpse-reviving water-strider version starts with: "Do unto others..." Translators assure us the Confucian version half a millennium earlier and now on Amazon ran: "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself." Yet that weak non-aggression principle did not slow China's descent into piracy, robber gangs, prohibition fanaticism, imported mystical cults and decades of bloody revolt and defeats collapsing into communism.

[Cloudbuster]

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has been making war on traditional American society for nearly half a century and it has predecessors that were operating for that. It has played the tolerant for suckers.

[Cloudbuster]

^were operating long before that

[Tony]

"Traditional" is doing all the heavy lifting in that sentence.

[Hank Phillips]

It is definitely standing in for superstitious, torture-prone, illiberal, coercive, girl-bullying, credulous, gullible and programmable.

[Muzzled Woodchipper]

Those fuckers sued my town a few years back.

Our town was founded as a theological seminary 130 years ago. It is still here, as well as a religious university. Because our town is small, the local water tower was put on university property. The university put a cross on top.

So of course TFFRF sued because the town is eStAbLiShInG rElIgIoN.

We’re a small town of less than 4000 in rural Kentucky. And that’s when students are here. Why does TFFRF feel the need to save us?

Fuck that organization, and this is coming from a longtime apathiest.

[JasonT20]

Our town was founded as a theological seminary 130 years ago.

If it had stayed unincorporated within a larger county and not had its own municipal government, with public property and powers to make and enforce local laws and regulations, then that seminary could put crosses on whatever it wanted to. But as soon as there was a government with powers derived from all of the people of the town, then it can no longer pick and choose which religions to support, or even religion over non-belief. If the university didn't own that water tower, but the town did, then the town's government would have had to allow the university to put the cross on it. Would it have allowed a Buddhist temple to paint a Buddha on it? A mosque to attach a loudspeaker to blast the call to prayer in Arabic? Or the Satanic Temple to put a big pentagram on it? Somehow, I doubt it, and that is why it can't allow a cross either.

[Hank Phillips]

So unmasking a bunch of sleazy hucksters frightening the superstitious for cash while urging politicians to have our doors kicked in and dogs shot--is making war on "traditional" society? Crowdbluster needs to read, yes, read some Lysander Spooner and Bastiat, and wash that down with some Bill of Rights.

[Hank Phillips]

If it weren't for the Calgary Herald outside the borders enclosing ku-klux Bryanism, nobody here would see the news article: Mussolini Introduces Bill For Intensive Teaching of Religion to Youth of Italy–ROME, April 30, 1929. (https://tinyurl.com/3ba5ph96)
"Traditional" is how the paper describes that use of the force of law, in the land where Jews and Pagans were tortured and burned at the stake for their own spiritual good. The Duce put the "Credere" in Credere, Obbedire, Combattere long before half of France reverted to Nazi Positive Christianity™

[Piru]

Fair would be for all to agree to suspend their advocacy for all social issues. No more religion, no more CRT, no more sexual grooming disguised as LBGT...... advocacy.

We'd all be better off and our children could actually spend time learning.

[Master Tech]

thx