In prospect, it opens up a vast new world of publicly funded religious schools—using tax money, potentially—to teach kids that dinosaurs walked with humans
[Peter Griffin voice] You think that's baaaad? Remember that time Chris' school told him he could be a girl if he wanted to?
Currently they teach kids they can pick their biological sex, that gay and trans is inherently biological, that hormone therapy is reversible, that genital mutilation is healthy, that there are no inherent differences between sexes, and that sexual relationships are healthy at a young age. How are they not worse than any religion?
Do these people want the Bill of Rights incorporated to the states or not?
At the founding, every state had some sort of official religion, mostly Anglican or Congregationalist, through either explicitly writing it into the constitution or other explicit legal protections. If progressives want their religion to be exclusive within a state, then other states can similarly declare a different official religion. If progressives want no official state religions, then they have to treat all institutions equally, including those that reject the progressive religion.
Obviously, what they really want is to nullify the establishment clause by pretending they don't subscribe to any theology despite their many metaphysical declarations in order to force a federal religion, but that is a bullshit rhetorical trick.
Calling wokism a religion is doing it too much honor. I realize not everyone here is as fond of religion, but it's an indisputable fact that both Europe and America had their apex under the tutelage of the Christian religion. Wokism cannot create something so great, it can only co-opt and wreck the thing. It's a cult, a perversion of the religious instinct.
That's all true, but in terms of autistic legalism they would certainly qualify as a religion. People are also incapable of escaping their confessional heritage, which results in it becoming a grotesque mockery of Christianity. Ideally, they would be ruthlessly repressed by all western nations formally restoring some flavor of proper Christianity while purging the progressive elements that have infiltrated them, such as Vatican II for the Catholics, the ELCA for Lutherans, whatever is going on with the Anglicans, etc.
Thank your for showing some autistic legalism representation. I see relegion as essentially pre-packaged philosophy with an instructional support system of buildings and titles.
I have worked to expand my exposure to differing philosophical teachings as I get older. Surprisingly, after a decade of following the hedonism of Aristippu, I am now properly appreciating the power of Christianity through the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. Certainly a more fulfilling approach to existence.
Physical pleasure is fleeting. Personal development of body and environment is eternal.
A religion has to be established, meaning that it has withstood the test of time. Hence my use of the word cult. A religion need not be noble. Ripping out the hearts of POWs is a religion.
But even that religion was able to withstand the test of time, as awful as it was.
Can wokeness as much survive, let alone build a civilization?
BTW, I wish you'd disagreed about the apex of Western civilization. That would have been an entertaining dialogue.
Just because one religion did a good job, doesn't mean you have to do a good job to qualify as a religion, there's plenty of shitty religions out there.
You just need some blind faith and some rules et voilà.
Do these people want the Bill of Rights incorporated to the states or not?
Depends on who’s running the federal and state governments in question.
Just look at how Trump wanting to stop the Summer of Love crowd was shot down due to states’ rights, but the Capitol Police establishing offices in states in wake of the “insurrection” is just fine.
Lmao, fantastic. The US was never meant to have post-French-Revolution-style laicite, just a lack of a singular established church (that is, a government church akin to Anglicanism), as if the disgust and horror the same Founders who wrote letters discussing the topic had for the French Revolution didn't make it obvious enough. And Engel v. Vitale was the beginning of the progressive offensive against every tradition that kept American society (and indeed any other healthy human society) functioning which got rolling in the 1960s.
Because I'm sure someone else will bring it up, I'd like to point to the fact that yes, the Engel in Engel v. Vitale was a Jew. In fact the plaintiffs were all Jews (including one Jewish atheist who later claimed he was actually religious, in a way that makes him sound like a member of the Reform Synagogue of Satan) with the exception of a Unitarian, one of the original turbocucked fake '''''Christian'''' churches which has since merged into the even more openly hollow and vapid Unitarian Universalists.
The case was brought by a group of families of public school students in New Hyde Park from the Herricks Union Free School District who sued the school board president William J. Vitale, Jr.[7][8] The families argued that the voluntary prayer written by the state board of regents to "Almighty God" contradicted their religious beliefs. Led by Steven I. Engel, a Jewish man,[9] the plaintiffs sought to challenge the constitutionality of the state's prayer in school policy. They were supported by groups opposed to the school prayer including rabbinical organizations, Ethical Culture, and Jewish organizations.
The acting parties were not members of one particular religious persuasion, or all atheists. Their religious identities were legally identified in court paperwork as two Jews, an atheist, a Unitarian church member, and a member of the New York Society for Ethical Culture.[10] However, despite being listed in the court papers as an atheist, plaintiff Lawrence Roth, who was raised Jewish,[10] later denied that he was an atheist and described himself as religious and a participant of prayer.[10] When religious affiliation was discussed during preparations for the case, Roth claimed he was "a very religious person, but not a churchgoer" and that he said prayers but was unsure of what prayer could accomplish.[10] This resulted in the group's lawyer telling him "You're the atheist."[10] Roth later stated "apparently, you have to have an atheist in the crowd, so we started from there."[10]
Well, regardless of what this first wave of progressive shitbags were, whatever chips away at the victory which the devilish Warren Court handed them can only be a good thing. The Roberts Court, in the case of Carson v. Makin and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District astonishingly including Roberts himself, has struck at the very root of the cultural revolution the left have tried to force down America's throat for the past seventy years.
Conservatives despaired. As one conservative Christian wrote in 1965, the end of school prayer meant the end of American Christianity itself. The Schempp decision, he warned, was only the start of “repression, restriction, harassment, and then outright persecution.” From the conservative evangelical Biola University, near Los Angeles, President Samuel Sutherland concluded that the decision and the failure of a constitutional amendment signaled America’s transformation into “an atheistic nation, no whit better than God-denying, God-defying Russia herself.”
Yeah well, look at the state of America today. These oldschool fundies were right on the fucking money, just like the generation immediately after them would be spot-on when they predicted the consequences of the Sexual Revolution and gay marriage only to be mocked & ignored just as Israel & Judah treated the prophets who warned them of where their degeneracy would lead 1500-2000 years ago.
These oldschool fundies were right on the fucking money, just like the generation immediately after them would be spot-on when they predicted the consequences of the Sexual Revolution and gay marriage
I do think that the Founders didn't go far enough to be concerned about the use of the government in regulating society in accordance with one religious faction or another.
The problem is that by harping to an extreme degree against religious indoctrination, we have ended up in a situation where the government is regulating society in accordance with one religious faction that pretends it's not one.
we have ended up in a situation where the government is regulating society in accordance with one religious faction that pretends it's not one.
Absolutely agree. The whole purpose of the cathedral is to function as a secular religion, thus flaunting the separation of church and state, molding public opinion and morality. The consent it manufactures by doing this can then be used as political power, since the republic can be levered by public opinion. Add to that the long march the socialists have been making through the institutions, and you reach the present day.
Perhaps they should have imposed a secular religion from the outset, enshrining the values of the day that would bind the union. (entirely compatible and non-interfering with "real" religions which varied from state to state) It's canon would be the Constitution and letters or important writings from the above figures. It's deities would be the Creator, the founders, and figures later canonized. I haven't figured out who the priest class is yet.
Religious conservatives have been fighting for years to get prayer back into America’s schools, and this year, the Supreme Court gave them what they wanted. In Kennedy v. Bremerton, the six conservative justices affirmed a coach’s right to offer a prayer after a football game.
My counter argument
Published November 3, 2015 1:32am EST
School Apologizes After Students Pray to Allah on Field Trip to Mosque
Parents were told their children would be learning about the architecture of a mosque and they would be allowed to observe a prayer service. But the students wound up being given a lecture on the Prophet Muhammad, and some boys participated in a midday prayer service.
If separation of church and state is 200 years strong then why did this occur with no Supreme Court case? Where was Obama?
But what is really astonishing is that this decision will over time prove to be less monumental than the Court’s other big religion decision this term. In Maine’s Carson v. Makin, the Court ruled 6–3 that a state could not exclude private religious schools from receiving public funding only because of their religion. In prospect, it opens up a vast new world of publicly funded religious schools—using tax money, potentially—to teach kids that dinosaurs walked with humans, that girls primarily come into this world to grow up and bear children, or that only heterosexuals deserve rights. Maine quickly passed a law to keep public money away from avowedly anti-LGBTQ schools, but legislators will only be able to play anti-discrimination whack-a-mole for so long. Carson, not Kennedy, is the decision that could reshape the relationship of Church and school in America—even though prayer in school has long been the symbolic victory conservatives were intent on winning.
You mean like:
Published September 29, 2021 10:39am EDT
California parents request judge block public schools from asking students to pray to Aztec gods
Three California parents are suing to prevent the state's public school system from reciting prayers to Aztec deities that have been worshipped with human sacrifice – arguing that doing so violates the U.S. and state constitutions.
So who is pushing religion in school?
In the name of fighting anti-religious “bigotry” and promoting school “choice,” today’s Supreme Court has ignored this hard-learned lesson. Instead, it has chosen to fan 21st-century “passions and prejudices.” It has chosen, in Kennedy, to see the very public prayers of a very public school figure as somehow a “private religious exercise.” And it has denounced as “discrimination” in Carson the idea that government might try to exclude religious schools only because they taught profoundly, disturbingly controversial ideas—only because they proudly discriminated against LGBTQ students, as well as Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, even most other Protestants, and of course any nonreligious people.
Last I checked Muslims are allowed to pray in schools, why can’t Christians?
because this has nothing to do with religion. leftists hate white people and they hate christianity. they will use any excuse to attack, regardless of how morally bankrupt, inconsistent, and hypocritical it is.
A great legal "scholar" declared that the only reason Christians could practice in public was because it's the religion of old white men. Jk it was a retard that'll supposedly be a lawyer
The Supreme Court has not opened up public funding of religious indoctrination in schools, because the state isn't establishing a religion (or even favoring one) if an employee is explicitly engaging in a private religious activity.
Even as an anti-theist, I know this.
Schools should NOT be scared of a coach praying, in his own time, when the students choose to voluntarily pray with him.
Meanwhile, how soon is it going to be until you Islamo-Leftists decide to do Muslim calls to prayer over the school's loud speakers?
IIRC prayers over the intercom was one of the points of contention in the original SCOTUS decision banning school prayer. Of course it's ok when they do it.
Schools should be scared of a coach praying, in his own time, when the students choose to voluntarily pray with him.
that's exactly what this case was about. the school went back and forth with what he is and is not allowed to do. eventually he was only allowed to pray alone under the bleachers but kids were choosing to join in voluntarily. so then they moved it out into the open for safety, and then banned it entirely. it was all on private time too.
meanwhile, leftists held a field trip to a mosque, intentionally mischaracterized it as an architectural review, and then students were forced to engage in islamic prayer. leftists were perfectly okay with this, because they just hate whites and they hate christianity.
That is a fast way to lose as you struggle for the reigns of power that you will be subverted by.
The point is to burn the reigns so no one gets to use them at all.
It's like having an entirely disarmed society, and claiming you want to seize control over the military. Congratulations, you will end up in the same exact place a few decades later, and everything you accomplished will be for nothing. The point is to end the disarmament.
I want their groomer shit, as an example, erased. It's not enough to just have the freedom to send your kid to a non-groomer schools. I don't want other schools promoting that shit either. We've been doing things your way for decades (the old "who cares what they do in their bedroom" stance). Look where that got us.
I'm also not a fool. I obviously see the utility in blunting the power of institutions like this when our enemies control them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't weaponize them while we have the chance.
Me too, but we can't always get what we want. I think it's a misreading to interpret his comment as "who cares what they do in their bedroom". He's talking about a different form of opinionated governance that enforces distribution of power. People tend to express a more libertine, apathetic attitude when it's all out of their hands anyway. With more power and responsibility in the hands of people locally there would be less of that thinking.
Yes. The states are primarily responsible for education, however sometimes the Feds stick their nose in it such as NCLB. They also take money from local communities that could be spent on schools, route it through the DOE, and occasionally give it back with strings.
[Peter Griffin voice] You think that's baaaad? Remember that time Chris' school told him he could be a girl if he wanted to?
Currently they teach kids they can pick their biological sex, that gay and trans is inherently biological, that hormone therapy is reversible, that genital mutilation is healthy, that there are no inherent differences between sexes, and that sexual relationships are healthy at a young age. How are they not worse than any religion?
No no no, they're right.
Abolish public schooling.
Fun fact: Birds are actually Theropod Dinosaurs, so Creationists actually won that fight. We do indeed walk with dinosaurs.
Even funnier is that Creationists deny that birds are dinosaurs.
Welcome to Jurassic- who gives a shit!
Do these people want the Bill of Rights incorporated to the states or not?
At the founding, every state had some sort of official religion, mostly Anglican or Congregationalist, through either explicitly writing it into the constitution or other explicit legal protections. If progressives want their religion to be exclusive within a state, then other states can similarly declare a different official religion. If progressives want no official state religions, then they have to treat all institutions equally, including those that reject the progressive religion.
Obviously, what they really want is to nullify the establishment clause by pretending they don't subscribe to any theology despite their many metaphysical declarations in order to force a federal religion, but that is a bullshit rhetorical trick.
Calling wokism a religion is doing it too much honor. I realize not everyone here is as fond of religion, but it's an indisputable fact that both Europe and America had their apex under the tutelage of the Christian religion. Wokism cannot create something so great, it can only co-opt and wreck the thing. It's a cult, a perversion of the religious instinct.
That's all true, but in terms of autistic legalism they would certainly qualify as a religion. People are also incapable of escaping their confessional heritage, which results in it becoming a grotesque mockery of Christianity. Ideally, they would be ruthlessly repressed by all western nations formally restoring some flavor of proper Christianity while purging the progressive elements that have infiltrated them, such as Vatican II for the Catholics, the ELCA for Lutherans, whatever is going on with the Anglicans, etc.
I am not a believer, but the theory in Christianity (as well as in Tolkien) is that evil is not a creating force, merely a perverting one.
Thank your for showing some autistic legalism representation. I see relegion as essentially pre-packaged philosophy with an instructional support system of buildings and titles.
I have worked to expand my exposure to differing philosophical teachings as I get older. Surprisingly, after a decade of following the hedonism of Aristippu, I am now properly appreciating the power of Christianity through the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. Certainly a more fulfilling approach to existence.
Physical pleasure is fleeting. Personal development of body and environment is eternal.
It is a religion. A religion of an inconstant, frequently shifting, capricious demon, but a religion nonetheless.
The reason they can't really create the is because the creature they serve cannot create either. Only warp and distort.
A religion has to be established, meaning that it has withstood the test of time. Hence my use of the word cult. A religion need not be noble. Ripping out the hearts of POWs is a religion.
But even that religion was able to withstand the test of time, as awful as it was.
Can wokeness as much survive, let alone build a civilization?
BTW, I wish you'd disagreed about the apex of Western civilization. That would have been an entertaining dialogue.
Based and Aztec-pilled
[death whistle in the distance]
I agree. Wokism involves constantly changing your beliefs. That would be crappy for a religion. Cults do that.
It's a crappy religion.
Just because one religion did a good job, doesn't mean you have to do a good job to qualify as a religion, there's plenty of shitty religions out there.
You just need some blind faith and some rules et voilà.
Depends on who’s running the federal and state governments in question.
Just look at how Trump wanting to stop the Summer of Love crowd was shot down due to states’ rights, but the Capitol Police establishing offices in states in wake of the “insurrection” is just fine.
Lmao, fantastic. The US was never meant to have post-French-Revolution-style laicite, just a lack of a singular established church (that is, a government church akin to Anglicanism), as if the disgust and horror the same Founders who wrote letters discussing the topic had for the French Revolution didn't make it obvious enough. And Engel v. Vitale was the beginning of the progressive offensive against every tradition that kept American society (and indeed any other healthy human society) functioning which got rolling in the 1960s.
Because I'm sure someone else will bring it up, I'd like to point to the fact that yes, the Engel in Engel v. Vitale was a Jew. In fact the plaintiffs were all Jews (including one Jewish atheist who later claimed he was actually religious, in a way that makes him sound like a member of the Reform Synagogue of Satan) with the exception of a Unitarian, one of the original turbocucked fake '''''Christian'''' churches which has since merged into the even more openly hollow and vapid Unitarian Universalists.
Well, regardless of what this first wave of progressive shitbags were, whatever chips away at the victory which the devilish Warren Court handed them can only be a good thing. The Roberts Court, in the case of Carson v. Makin and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District astonishingly including Roberts himself, has struck at the very root of the cultural revolution the left have tried to force down America's throat for the past seventy years.
Yeah well, look at the state of America today. These oldschool fundies were right on the fucking money, just like the generation immediately after them would be spot-on when they predicted the consequences of the Sexual Revolution and gay marriage only to be mocked & ignored just as Israel & Judah treated the prophets who warned them of where their degeneracy would lead 1500-2000 years ago.
In hindsight, their predictions were optimistic.
I do think that the Founders didn't go far enough to be concerned about the use of the government in regulating society in accordance with one religious faction or another.
The problem is that by harping to an extreme degree against religious indoctrination, we have ended up in a situation where the government is regulating society in accordance with one religious faction that pretends it's not one.
Absolutely agree. The whole purpose of the cathedral is to function as a secular religion, thus flaunting the separation of church and state, molding public opinion and morality. The consent it manufactures by doing this can then be used as political power, since the republic can be levered by public opinion. Add to that the long march the socialists have been making through the institutions, and you reach the present day.
Perhaps they should have imposed a secular religion from the outset, enshrining the values of the day that would bind the union. (entirely compatible and non-interfering with "real" religions which varied from state to state) It's canon would be the Constitution and letters or important writings from the above figures. It's deities would be the Creator, the founders, and figures later canonized. I haven't figured out who the priest class is yet.
This kind of reminds me of the mythologizing of America's founding that was kind of poked fun at in Bioshock Infinite:
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/bioshock/images/9/9a/Foundingfatherstrio.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140222022625
Perhaps such a deifying of the founding fathers could have better protected America's ideals in the long run.
So something entirely incompatible with Christianity
You don't say. Yet there are still users who whine and opine the opposite
My counter argument
If separation of church and state is 200 years strong then why did this occur with no Supreme Court case? Where was Obama?
You mean like:
So who is pushing religion in school?
Last I checked Muslims are allowed to pray in schools, why can’t Christians?
because this has nothing to do with religion. leftists hate white people and they hate christianity. they will use any excuse to attack, regardless of how morally bankrupt, inconsistent, and hypocritical it is.
Maybe because Christianity built such white traits as liberty, rationalism, and independence
Yes how dare we admire such white supremacist traits lol
We know the reason.
A great legal "scholar" declared that the only reason Christians could practice in public was because it's the religion of old white men. Jk it was a retard that'll supposedly be a lawyer
The Supreme Court has not opened up public funding of religious indoctrination in schools, because the state isn't establishing a religion (or even favoring one) if an employee is explicitly engaging in a private religious activity.
Even as an anti-theist, I know this.
Schools should NOT be scared of a coach praying, in his own time, when the students choose to voluntarily pray with him.
Meanwhile, how soon is it going to be until you Islamo-Leftists decide to do Muslim calls to prayer over the school's loud speakers?
IIRC prayers over the intercom was one of the points of contention in the original SCOTUS decision banning school prayer. Of course it's ok when they do it.
that's exactly what this case was about. the school went back and forth with what he is and is not allowed to do. eventually he was only allowed to pray alone under the bleachers but kids were choosing to join in voluntarily. so then they moved it out into the open for safety, and then banned it entirely. it was all on private time too.
meanwhile, leftists held a field trip to a mosque, intentionally mischaracterized it as an architectural review, and then students were forced to engage in islamic prayer. leftists were perfectly okay with this, because they just hate whites and they hate christianity.
I forgot to put the word NOT in there. It was kind of important.
hahah fair enough
Denying that
trans peopleChristians exist is a form of violence.The Atlantic = deep US state
Abolishing the Department of Education used to be an old-school conservative position. Bring that back.
I'd rather seize control of it and use it against my enemies.
That is a fast way to lose as you struggle for the reigns of power that you will be subverted by.
The point is to burn the reigns so no one gets to use them at all.
It's like having an entirely disarmed society, and claiming you want to seize control over the military. Congratulations, you will end up in the same exact place a few decades later, and everything you accomplished will be for nothing. The point is to end the disarmament.
I want their groomer shit, as an example, erased. It's not enough to just have the freedom to send your kid to a non-groomer schools. I don't want other schools promoting that shit either. We've been doing things your way for decades (the old "who cares what they do in their bedroom" stance). Look where that got us.
I'm also not a fool. I obviously see the utility in blunting the power of institutions like this when our enemies control them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't weaponize them while we have the chance.
Me too, but we can't always get what we want. I think it's a misreading to interpret his comment as "who cares what they do in their bedroom". He's talking about a different form of opinionated governance that enforces distribution of power. People tend to express a more libertine, apathetic attitude when it's all out of their hands anyway. With more power and responsibility in the hands of people locally there would be less of that thinking.
Thank William F. Buckley for getting rid of that I guess.
We can thank that little priss for most of the cuckery presently afflicting the Republican party today.
Call me a lolbert, but if it's not in the Constitution, I don't think the Federal government should do it. No one wants to be ruled from Washington DC
While you're right, aren't most education policies state level anyway?
Yes. The states are primarily responsible for education, however sometimes the Feds stick their nose in it such as NCLB. They also take money from local communities that could be spent on schools, route it through the DOE, and occasionally give it back with strings.