Looking at recent decisions, it's going to go badly for those of us who believe in the anti-establishment clause.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law, this actually could be interpreted quite literally by the courts that it is perfectly acceptable for a state to not only establish a religion but to criminalize other beliefs.
I think this would be a 5-4 decision with SCOTUS. I think Barrett would be against it, because she is Catholic and would see that her beliefs may not be the ones promoted. Kavanaugh and Roberts could be a toss up.
Kavenaugh has been better than expected (still bad). Actually, all of the Trump appointments have been less-bad than Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. If it weren't for the fact that Kavenaugh replaced Kennedy and Barret RBG it wouldn't be so bad.
The good news is that the next 2 up for replacement are probably Thomas and Alito. If we can hold onto the White House we may be able to unfuck this.
Congress shall make no law, this actually could be interpreted quite literally by the courts that it is perfectly acceptable for a state to not only establish a religion but to criminalize other beliefs.
Reading one piece of the Constitution or the text of any specific statute is kind of useless in our legal system. Other parts of the Constitution, the laws, and the case law that's been established over centuries and decades also have parts to play.
This particular legal situation has been argued before, and it's very settled law (at least for now.) Specifically, the 14th Amendment has been viewed to expand many of the Constitutional provisions that originally only restrained Congress to apply to the state governments as well.
It's most likely to be slapped down in district court, slapped down in the appellate court, and then declined by SCOTUS.
Any of you remember Kitzmiller v. Dover? It was a case that essentially ruled that teaching ID/creationism was a theological doctrine and thus couldn't be included in the biology curriculum of schools across the country. While the issues here at not the same (teaching creationsim vs mandatory bible studies), they have the same ideological underpinnings. Unless we're talking about Sunday school*, schools must remain secular institutions where discussions of religions are from a neutral perspective in regards to the humanities. As to regards to a hypothetical Supreme Court case: considering how ultra-conservative the Supreme Court has become in recent years, I fear that they might side the theocrats.
Short of congress impeaching Supreme Court members (which they can do), it seems the only real answer is to just expand it so that it has so many seats, it is effectively as useless as congress.
I wonder if the thinking is that once the proverbial seal on that lid is broken, the next administration would just Uno-reverse it by adding more of its preferred justices?
And, it's not like (aside from the first two damn years when it should have been done) they had a trifecta; although you could be assured Manchin or Senema(?) would have fucked them over.
Setting aside the fact that this would require a Senate majority, that's not even the worst outcome.
A broader spectrum of conservative judges means they need to triangulate across their generational and niche personal views. There is legit some amount of political space between Gorduch, Roberts, ACB, Judge Likes Beer, Uncle Thomas, and Discount Scalia.
Adding three more of them to match three more liberal judges means even more dissonance.
And who knows? Maybe we even start getting judges who didn't fall directly out of the Harvard pipeline.
I think the reason the Democrats haven't tried to add members is the same reason that they didn't mean to coin to handle the debt ceiling and they didn't bother to either use or destroy the filibuster.
Many entrenched Democrats in Washington are happy to be the second worst party. That's their identity. And it makes sense if you consider their funding source. Big money comes from big companies, and they give it to people who will represent their interests.
Sunday school is not a public institution, which is why it gets a pass. Similarly private schools are free to do this all week long.
I think even this supreme Court would rule the correct way. I wouldn't be surprised if it were even unanimous, but at worst I'd expect the 6/3 split with Thomas, Goraych, and Alito. There's only so far they can go when the Constitution was very blatantly clear on this matter.
And we should let it get a pass. Sunday School is the place to teach kids about the Bible. That's what it's for. That's not what public school should be for. If parents want to indoctrinate their kids into religion, there's no really effective way to stop it. But at least we can tamper it by keeping it out of our schools.
Agreed, and further to point out they even have private schools if they feel so compelled to indoctrinate every day of the week, we let them do that too and even allow them to claim equal credentials to a publicly regulated institution.
Teachers can make this backfire by teaching kids about how Jesus said, among other things:
Rich people don't go to heaven
Jesus's answer to religious people not wanting to see things was for the people complaining to pluck out their eyes.
How Jesus told his followers to sell their shit and give it to the poor.
All things republicans hate because it goes against their ideals. Also they can talk about how in Acts it says Christians lived communally or just read James 5:1-6 verbatim.
But I guarantee the schools will force their teachers only to read parts of the bible that the state demand, because it's not about Christianity, it's about using religion to control people.
You have school "voucher" schemes for religious schools, which do shit like teach kids that Evolution is wrong because of the bible.
You added "In God we Trust" do your money and added "Under God" to the pledge of allegiance in the 1950s (The pledge, with or without it, is in itself a form of state worship).
You have had presidents (Reagan, Bush II) openly promote the idea that America is a Christian state through historical falsehoods.
One of the most powerful factions in your government are American Evangelicals who have used their power to promote religious based laws, especially against women and minorities.
Every President in recent times has had to show themselves to be openly Christian, with "not being christian (enough)" being a common attack strategy.
And that's just Christianity, if I was going to go into how you worship the state...
You have Four Faces of Presidents carved on a literal sacred mountain.
You make your kids pledge allegiance to the state every morning (I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands).
You have two (2) congress funded art pieces that depict George Washington as a God (Washington Enthroned and The Apotheosis of Washington), the latter of which is in the oculus of the Rotunda at Congress for everyone to see.
The Lincoln Memorial is straight up designed like a Greco-Roman Temple.
You have, as a social norm, displaying your flag outside your house.
How is that not going to be interpreted as "religious"?
Now, I know someone is going to be all "lol aren't you from the uk where you worship the royal family" well guess fucking what:
Barely anyone in the UK worships the royals, especially where I'm from (Scotland) and the people who do even in England are considered weird. Our relationship with the Royals as a country is usually one of aggressive irreverence. My family's nicknames for the king includes "The Jug Eared Dwarf", "Chuckie III" and "Tearlach an Chluas".
Despite having two (2) established churches (Church of England and Church of Scotland), non religious people make up the majority and the UK is aggressively secular.
Despite the established religion and having the (in practice) head of state also be the (in practice) head of the Church, none of our politicians try and use religion to justify their bullshit and those who do are considered wankers.
America, in the eyes of most of the world, is aggressively religious, not just in terms of christianity but also in worship of the state.
The funny thing is that a basic understanding of the Bible is actually important for making sense of American history - the people making that history were strongly influenced by the Bible and so unless you know at least the major "plot points", their actions (and a lot of literature) won't make much sense.
With that said, I don't trust Oklahoma to teach about the Bible in a manner appropriate for historical analysis rather than religious dominance.
he people making that history were strongly influenced by the Bible
Depends what era you're talking about and what you mean by influence. I would say that the reason Thomas Paine's Age of Reason was so popular and that Jefferson made his own version of the New Testament, which removed the supernatural, suggest that the Bible was less of an influence in the founding of the nation than would be supposed here. The fact that Muhammad is in as venerated a place on the Supreme Court building as Moses also suggests they didn't think it was the source of all wisdom.
Really, you need to look no further than our legal system though to see how little influence the Bible and Christianity actually have. I don't just mean the First Amendment, I mean the fact that our whole system is basically a gradual evolution from the laws of Ancient Rome. They had trial by jury in Ancient Rome. It was a permanent jury, not a jury of one's peers, but you can see the skeleton of our legal system and how it came from those ancient heathens, not Jesus.
Thank you for that. Incidentally, I have never heard for a big push from Muslims to remove Muhammad from the building, or at least obscure his image. I'm not sure if that's because they aren't aware of it or just because it is too old to do anything about it at this point.
I think you are really glossing over the work of Thomas Aquinas. It's kind of hard to separate the Rome/Greek stuff from the historical Christianity stuff before modern day Evangelical Fundamentalism. Christian thought historically became very linked to Greek philosophy.
In what way was Thomas Aquinas an important influence on the founding of the United States and in what way would that be appropriate to teach elementary school kids?
It's not appropriate for an elementary school kids. Per the article, this applies to grades 5 through 12. So what, 1 year of elementary with the primary focus of impact on junior high and high school?
But if you are getting into questions of "what was more important to our founding fathers, rome or christianity?" I'd say that's pretty difficult to separate because of thinkers like Thomas Aquinas that married Greek Philosophy with Christianity. When you begin with a point that God is the source of reason, and build off of that, I think you can't easily separate that out.
No, I asked in what way Thomas Aquinas contributed to the founding of the U.S. It seems like your reasoning is pretty damn indirect and it's even more indirectly related to the Bible, so this law does not apply.
And it either isn't appropriate for elementary school or it should be taught in the fifth grade (also, sixth grade is still elementary school in many districts). Which is it?
Really, you need to look no further than our legal system though to see how little influence the Bible and Christianity actually have. I don’t just mean the First Amendment, I mean the fact that our whole system is basically a gradual evolution from the laws of Ancient Rome.
this statement says nothing about what should be taught in schools, it's a statement of history. my statement is simply stating it is very difficult to separate out the roman influence from the christian influence because of thomas aquinas linking christian tradition to greek thought. I would say that from a intellectual POV, founding fathers were probably equally or more influenced by greeks than romans, but at the end of the day we can just call it all classical thought. that's pretty apparent in our architecture of state houses. This is a tangential discussion where we are not discussing what should be taught in schools, but just historical thought in the USA. Please re-read your own to catch up on the conversation topic.
The statement was in response to another commenting not talking about the specific policy, but making a general comment that in order to understand US History and thought of early American Settlers you likely need to have some understanding of the bible. That has nothing to do with this specific teaching policy, and the comment you responded to calls out the commenter didn't trust the superintendent:
With that said, I don’t trust Oklahoma to teach about the Bible in a manner appropriate for historical analysis rather than religious dominance.
Well understanding for a 5rh grader is different than high schooler, or graduate student, or historian. But because protestantism is such a critical historical theme in early America it makes sense to understand to some degree what those religious beliefs are. I'm not saying a fifth grader needs to dive into it, but for high schooler and college students, it's a bit more important to have a general understanding of it. But I think that understanding also extends to learning about other religions.
Okay, but we're talking about grade schoolers and, again, it has never been necessary for public schools to teach about the Bible in the past to give kids an education in American history.
So why you're trying to justify Walters' decision I don't know.
Also, you can teach about Christianity without teaching about the Bible beyond generalities and without venerating it as a sacred document that was also primary founding document for the nation. Which it simply wasn't. I'm not sure why the First Amendment alone doesn't make that clear to you.
Not just American history, the Bible is the absolute cornerstone of our entire culture. As the one book that every household owned for much of recorded history, the amount of biblical references and reused stories is ridiculous.
I have absolutely no problem with the Bible being taught in schools as it's an incredibly important document. I find it odd that it isn't, because the separation of church and state shouldn't prohibit the study of old books in any way.
I was talking about this with my wife who came from Taiwan at 16 and was sort of second hand exposed to Western culture. She said everything can't be a bible story can it? I dug out a Bible off the shelf and flipped through, well you know David and Goliath, you know Samson, Jonah and the whale yeah these are classics right?
She says no, so I ask if she knows the story of Pinocchio or why her luggage was made by "Samsonite". And the truck that we saw yesterday with the "G0L1ATH" license plate?
For a long period which roughly coincided with the founding of America, English-speaking people only learned to read using the Bible, and often that was the only book they ever used for anything so it became a sort of de facto dictionary and Guiness Book of World Records and all kinds of things that it was never meant to be, plus a lot of new things it was never meant to be, and of course the things it was always meant to be.
Mandatory firearms training in school would be more Constitutional than teaching the Bible though. For a very important reason. Akin to a "prime directive" if you will. If you want kids to study it as an elective then fine, allow that, but forcing it on kids is wrong, wrong wrong.
Forcing it as a belief system is definitely wrong, but we were forced to study plenty of literature when I was in school, much of it far less relevant. I don't see the difference with the Bible, especially if presented as a historical document and prototypical collection of stories?
I'm not religious and wasn't raised in a religious family, but when I decided to pick up a Bible and read it as a teenager I couldn't believe how much context it gave me on our culture and its origins.
Having to read and study the whole thing would also help rein in overzealous religion IMO. The #1 reason I've heard from evangelicals who left their church was "I decided to read the Bible for myself"
Forcing it as a belief system is definitely wrong, . . . I don't see the difference with the Bible . . .
Make no mistake, that is absolutely the point of these - again, unconstitutional - laws. They’re hoping to parlay this illegitimate fascist court into making it constitutional while the iron is hot.
. . . especially if presented as a historical document and prototypical collection of stories?
It won’t be. They want this in elementary school. How much literature was in grades 1-3? Any inference that it will be treated as a “historical document” is an outright lie. (Edit: the article says teachers must teach it to “students in grades five through 12” but that’s different than Louisiana’s “10 commandments displayed in all classrooms” law. They all serve the same purpose: to promote “Christianity” in school.)
I'm not religious and wasn't raised in a religious family …
Then believe me when I tell you this is what it is for. These legislators are not history buffs. They are evangelical ‘Christian’ nationalists.
I couldn't believe how much context it gave me on our culture and its origins.
Having to read and study the whole thing would also help rein in overzealous religion IMO. The #1 reason I've heard from evangelicals who left their church was "I decided to read the Bible for myself"
Good points and I’m all in favor of unintended positive outcomes. Bible scholarship is interesting as an elective and if that was offered at my school I might have considered it. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.
We’re talking about criminal penalties for not promoting a specific religion. That’s the whole point of the law, and it is 100% wrong.
Thanks for the American context as I'm a Canadian and our systems are different here. I didn't realize the risks involved and the motivation behind it. I think this might be my least popular comment on Lemmy ever😅
The USA as a battleground between religion and atheism changes the context as I would shrug most of this off here in Canada as harmless. Like the 10 commandments? Most of them are good advice, basically just "don't be a piece of shit" and i wouldn't have a problem teaching them to kids... Unless the goal is to teach them actively as the word of God and marginalize non-believers as sinful, in which case this is absolutely criminal. That is church, not school.
We have a more robust separation of church and state to the point where when I read "teaching the Bible in school" I hear "robustly secular, historical and cultural study" which as I stated I believe would be a valuable learning experience. In Quebec there are even rules that public servants can't display any religious symbols at all, even as small as a cross on a bracelet. The leader of our Conservative party recently made a statement that both abortion and gay rights were "a closed issue" and he would not stand for any attacks on them.
So personally my wife and I made the hard decision this year to send our daughter to a Catholic school next year due to the rapidly declining quality of public education. However the Catholic school district here is publicly funded and staffed, with strict regulations that any religious content is optional and that respect must be given equally to those who choose it or do not choose it.
Many of her friends have already made the switch (regular school is quickly emptying out of smart kids and turning into a zoo as parents pull their kids) and stated this is exactly how it works, most of them being non-religious as well but impressed with the discipline and learning outcomes. My wife teaches college and said the difference is night and day with some kids even making it out of public highschool unable to read. Meanwhile my daughter's new school has won awards for the achievements of its graduates and their placement in top schools and in industry.
So you see I'm comfortable enough with our dedication to secularism here in Canada that I am willing to send my daughter to an actual Catholic school with no fear that she will be brainwashed... Obviously a bit of bible study doesn't scare me but in the context of the USA culture war it's clearly a much bigger deal.
Oh! Oh, yes, it’s a whole thing here since the “Moral Majority” group in the 80’s that packaged well-meaning people into hateful ignorant political cheerleaders.
And I appreciate your perspective because it highlights a different aspect of the right-wing agenda: part of their process is to build in a “reasonable interpretation” of laws that they actually have no interest in whatsoever.
As an example, there was a big push in many states to enact “voter i.d.” laws. We used to just walk into the polling station, give our name and address, they’d look it up, put a checkmark next to it to show we’ve been counted, and we’d go vote.
Well the right wing media in concert with the republiQans and propaganda mills, i mean, “think tanks” started complaining this was a system ripe for abuse. “SO MANY people just vote multiple times under different names!”
That absolutely never happened in any even-close-to significant amount. Never. There were individual cases - we still see them once in awhile, and it’s always the republiQans doing it. Anyway, they kept this lie up for years.
While that was going on, republiQan legislators, united by ALEC, passed laws saying everyone had to show a valid government ID to vote. I had several conversations with friends and family about these, and either due to parroting the fox news talking points or genuine well-meaning concern, they said, “but doesn’t it make sense to know someone is who they SAY they are, before they vote?” And it does. It does make sense.
But that’s not why they did it. They did it because people without government ID are largely older minority voters, who mostly vote Democratic. This was just to prevent them from voting. They had all sorts of made up lies about “oh they can just go down to the DMV and get a free ID”, yeah if someone takes them and walks them through it and they brought the right paperwork, yeah. It was a big burden for a lot of people who just stopped voting (mission accomplished).
Secondarily, anyone with outstanding parking tickets or who suspects there’s a warrant out for them (or is in general targeted by the cops, like black men) will see lots of ads and mailers before the election that when they show their ID to vote they’ll be arrested and taken away. They won’t, it’s just scare tactics but it works well and voting went down for a lot of Democratic-leaning voters.
To this day they stand by the now long-discredited idea that people are using false identities to vote - trump even clings to this as one of his Big Lies of how he “mysteriously” didn’t get enough votes in 2020, still. It was always bullshit; it was always designed to keep Democrats from voting, and it worked.
lots of ads and mailers before the election that when they show their ID to vote they’ll be arrested and taken away
I've seen a mailer providing false information that a certain very liberal group (out-of-state college students) wasn't allowed to vote, but I've never seen something like this. Do you have a link to an example of it?
If you go back further though, translation of the text to a language the "people" could understand was illegal. Anyone caught with such texts was imprisoned or worse. Those in charge and using religion to control the masses (it's true intention IMHO) didn't want everyone to be able to read it, they wanted people depending on the "chosen" to teach and judge them (what today we may call a cult).
True, but that was a fair bit before the founding of America. Although to your point I doubt they’ll be forced to teach that history. More likely they’ll be forbidden from teaching that history.
Right, only the modern interpretation of an original text that very few people in the world has even seen, let alone able to read. And then all the MANY offshoots of Christianity because each had something people didn't like, a "leader" made a new "version" for them. Forced indoctrination like this is very similar to starting a cult, as almost all of those start with someone that needs to interpret the text or "God's" word.
I think it would be an interesting exercise for everyone pushing this to have to compare and contrast with say David Koresh, or Joseph Smith, and explain how their version of God's word isn't a cult.
I have a lot of friends who, like me grew, up going to church. Some went to catholic high schools, some went to liberal arts colleges with required religions classes in the core curriculum, or had other exposure. None of us go to church in our adulthood and have no intention starting when we have kids. But we all want our kids to have an understanding of what Christianity is because it's important for understanding American history, origins of non profit institutions, and contemporary political and cultural climate. Also want to ensure there's exposure and understanding of Judaism, Islam, and other predominant religions. Not sure how kids are supposed to get that these days without growing up in a religious house hold.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest I remember in school we studied Native American cultures which included some exposure to myth and religion. I wish there was a way schools could touch on modern religions in a more neutral way, perhaps more similar to how we teach classics/greek mythology.
Not sure how kids are supposed to get that these days without growing up in a religious house hold.
The same way I did in my public middle school in the 90s and the same way my daughter did in her social studies class last year- by teaching comparative religion and attempting to do so without bias. And at no point was I or was she taught that the Bible was one of the important founding documents for our nation, since it wasn't and that's not true.
If we read any passages from the Bible or the Quran during that class, I don't remember them. My daughter's class did not have them. And yet we now both have enough understanding of those religions to be able to put them within a historical framework.
School teachers, complying with letter of the law: "Bible says there was flood. Science shows there wasn't. Bible says diseases appeared as result of sin. Science shows diseases existed long before humans."
Surely this could backfire in so many hilarious ways?
Teach the parts that conservatives don't do, and teach your class to call out injustice everywhere.
Teach the bible in Aramaic or Ancient Hebrew, and give the kids 30 mins of study time to learn whatever they want from it.
Use it as an exercise to teach that many parts were written thousands of years ago, and doesn't have current medical or societal advancements, so that many parts might be up to interpretation.
Compare it to Islam, Judaism, and other sects of Christianity - and teach that they're basically the same thing and that everyone should get along.
Reference that the pope said years ago that even nonbelievers that led a good life would be offered a seat in heaven, so be nice and it'll all be fine.
You forgot "this is what hard-core Christians believe, this is where it contradicts itself, here are the 10 commandments including love thy neighbor and don't worship false idols".
Oh I don't know that I would make the claim that major world religions are all about people getting along. I'd say we can find some parts that are much less friendly than that.
Why don't we go back to Genesis. Lot is an exciting character, and tells us a lot about God's character. And then it gets creepy too.
I'm so fucking tired of the US. Shit just always seems to get worse, and for every little victory, we take another huge leap towards a fascist theocracy.
Reading the Memorandum, it doesn't specify what Bible is to be used. Perhaps malicious compliance uses a "alternative" version?
Also found this from the Satanic Temple (who hopefully is on top of this) -
If a public school permits the distribution of religious materials to the student body, they have opened a limited public forum and are obligated to allow religious materials from other faiths. This principle applies to other forms of school-sponsored religious expression as well.
Also funny how these hypocrites go on and on about indoctrination, and then want to indoctrinate every kid in the state by law.
