Religion in America

[Typical Lax Dad]

Okies: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/us/oklah ... index.html

Man, Moses is really having a comeback.

If it’s good enough for The Taliban, it’s good enough for The Evangelicals.

[youthathletics]

Okies: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/us/oklah ... index.html

Great news.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Okies: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/us/oklah ... index.html

Great news.

Any chance you can explain why this is great news?

[youthathletics]

Okies: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/us/oklah ... index.html

Great news.

Any chance you can explain why this is great news?

Because I believe children need to know there is a God that loves them, more now, than ever.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Okies: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/us/oklah ... index.html

Great news.

Any chance you can explain why this is great news?

Because I believe children need to know there is a God that loves them, more now, than ever.

100%

[Seacoaster(1)]

Okies: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/us/oklah ... index.html

Great news.

Any chance you can explain why this is great news?

Because I believe children need to know there is a God that loves them, more now, than ever.

And their parents, their church or synagogue or temple or mosque can't help them with that? It has to be imposed on children who are atheists? Who are irreligious? Who are not Christian? Schools shouldn't teach us about the legacy of slavery that was, among other things, written into the Constitution and has persisted socioeconomically down the decades. But it's OK for the Government to mandate Christian prayer be exhibited, discussed and made part of the curriculum in all classrooms.

I know that religion is a comfort to many, many people, including many I have loved since I was a boy. But government imposition of "the Bible" and the "Ten Commandments" into curricula is directly contrary to the Framers' construction of our founding document. They did this -- the prohibition on the government "establishment of religion" or preference for one religion over another or preference for religion over irreligion -- to ensure that religion remained a private and personal salvation, and not one over which the government had dramatic and maybe decisive influence. Roger Williams in the pre-constitutional period of our history, believed ardently that an authentic Christian church would be possible only if there was “a wall or hedge of separation” between the “wilderness of the world” and “the garden of the church.” Williams believed that any government involvement in the church would corrupt the church. In a letter to a cleric in Connecticut in 1802, Thomas Jefferson declared that when we ratified the Constitution and adopted the establishment clause they built a “wall of separation between the church and state.” Jefferson and Madison worked arduously to remove the Anglican Church from Virginia politics, and both believed that government support for a particular religion or for any religion was improper.

Religion is only dirtied by politics, and by force-feeding it to children as the castor oil they must swallow to get out of school. It becomes a armament in the hands of the very politicians you claim to distrust and loathe. This isn't just unlawful and contrary to all of our bedrock traditions; it is a recipe for more division, more strife, more discord.

[PizzaSnake]

Okies: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/us/oklah ... index.html

Great news.

Any chance you can explain why this is great news?

Because I believe children need to know there is a God that loves them, more now, than ever.

100%

I teach my children not to confuse faith and fact.

[youthathletics]

Okies: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/us/oklah ... index.html

Great news.

Any chance you can explain why this is great news?

Because I believe children need to know there is a God that loves them, more now, than ever.

And their parents, their church or synagogue or temple or mosque can't help them with that? It has to be imposed on children who are atheists? Who are irreligious? Who are not Christian? Schools shouldn't teach us about the legacy of slavery that was, among other things, written into the Constitution and has persisted socioeconomically down the decades. But it's OK for the Government to mandate Christian prayer be exhibited, discussed and made part of the curriculum in all classrooms.

I know that religion is a comfort to many, many people, including many I have loved since I was a boy. But government imposition of "the Bible" and the "Ten Commandments" into curricula is directly contrary to the Framers' construction of our founding document. They did this -- the prohibition on the government "establishment of religion" or preference for one religion over another or preference for religion over irreligion -- to ensure that religion remained a private and personal salvation, and not one over which the government had dramatic and maybe decisive influence. Roger Williams in the pre-constitutional period of our history, believed ardently that an authentic Christian church would be possible only if there was “a wall or hedge of separation” between the “wilderness of the world” and “the garden of the church.” Williams believed that any government involvement in the church would corrupt the church. In a letter to a cleric in Connecticut in 1802, Thomas Jefferson declared that when we ratified the Constitution and adopted the establishment clause they built a “wall of separation between the church and state.” Jefferson and Madison worked arduously to remove the Anglican Church from Virginia politics, and both believed that government support for a particular religion or for any religion was improper.

Religion is only dirtied by politics, and by force-feeding it to children as the castor oil they must swallow to get out of school. It becomes a armament in the hands of the very politicians you claim to distrust and loathe. This isn't just unlawful and contrary to all of our bedrock traditions; it is a recipe for more division, more strife, more discord.

Thanks.

How do children even know there is a God to love them if their parents do not take them Church, Synagogue, or mosque? So now you think a child's mind is fully developed to discern that there is no God by claiming they are already an atheists?....my goodness. And yet, you expressed zero concern for this same aged child making sex determination, changing their sexual preference in school without notifying their parents. You seem too intrenched in legal pragmatism to discern common sense and reason.

All of a sudden you do not trust teachers....oh, I see now, only ban The Book, that YOU do not like. Got it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

This how it should be.

[PizzaSnake]

So, this the first Bible lesson in Oklahoma?

“32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.”

I thought this was already practiced in a few states, except the fathers were Roofie-ing their daughters?

Going to mix it up and get the daughters to drug their fathers?

This nonsense belongs on the dustheap.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

So, this the first Bible lesson in Oklahoma?

“32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.”

I thought this was already practiced in a few states, except the fathers were Roofie-ing their daughters?

Going to mix it up and get the daughters to drug their fathers?

This nonsense belongs on the dustheap.

Verses 30 and 31 from the 19th chapter of Genesis are key for context:

30 And Lot went up from Zoar, and stayed in the mountains, and his two daughters with him; for he was afraid to stay in Zoar; and he stayed in a cave, he and his two daughters. 31 Then the first-born said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth. 32 “Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father.” 33 So they made their father drink wine that night, and the first-born went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. 34 And it came about on the morrow, that the first-born said to the younger, “Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father.” 35 So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. 36 Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. 37 And the first-born bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. 38 And as for the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the sons of Ammon to this day.

This was a tragic situation after the destruction of all Lot and his family had, and after his wife was also destroyed. There is nothing to condone here as a practice--merely a lost broken family with a deeply ingrained instinct to stay alive and preserve their family. Yet a lesson that could easily be taught from this tragedy is that God can redeem even the most hopeless of situations and bring good from it. Both children of incest went on to become two nations--Ammon and Moab, from whom came Ruth the Moabite, who married into Jewish lineage and became the great grandmother of David the King, and was also in the genealogy of Christ and mentioned specifically in Matthew chapter 1 verses 5 and 6. That's a lesson that can bring hope. That's a lesson worth teaching if a question was asked as to why the two daughters had intercourse, once each, with their father, in order to preserve their family.

[a fan]

Okies: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/us/oklah ... index.html

Great news.

Any chance you can explain why this is great news?

Because I believe children need to know there is a God that loves them, more now, than ever.

And their parents, their church or synagogue or temple or mosque can't help them with that? It has to be imposed on children who are atheists? Who are irreligious? Who are not Christian? Schools shouldn't teach us about the legacy of slavery that was, among other things, written into the Constitution and has persisted socioeconomically down the decades. But it's OK for the Government to mandate Christian prayer be exhibited, discussed and made part of the curriculum in all classrooms.

I know that religion is a comfort to many, many people, including many I have loved since I was a boy. But government imposition of "the Bible" and the "Ten Commandments" into curricula is directly contrary to the Framers' construction of our founding document. They did this -- the prohibition on the government "establishment of religion" or preference for one religion over another or preference for religion over irreligion -- to ensure that religion remained a private and personal salvation, and not one over which the government had dramatic and maybe decisive influence. Roger Williams in the pre-constitutional period of our history, believed ardently that an authentic Christian church would be possible only if there was “a wall or hedge of separation” between the “wilderness of the world” and “the garden of the church.” Williams believed that any government involvement in the church would corrupt the church. In a letter to a cleric in Connecticut in 1802, Thomas Jefferson declared that when we ratified the Constitution and adopted the establishment clause they built a “wall of separation between the church and state.” Jefferson and Madison worked arduously to remove the Anglican Church from Virginia politics, and both believed that government support for a particular religion or for any religion was improper.

Religion is only dirtied by politics, and by force-feeding it to children as the castor oil they must swallow to get out of school. It becomes a armament in the hands of the very politicians you claim to distrust and loathe. This isn't just unlawful and contrary to all of our bedrock traditions; it is a recipe for more division, more strife, more discord.

Thanks.

How do children even know there is a God to love them if their parents do not take them Church, Synagogue, or mosque? So now you think a child's mind is fully developed to discern that there is no God by claiming they are already an atheists?....my goodness. And yet, you expressed zero concern for this same aged child making sex determination, changing their sexual preference in school without notifying their parents. You seem too intrenched in legal pragmatism to discern common sense and reason.

All of a sudden you do not trust teachers....oh, I see now, only ban The Book, that YOU do not like. Got it.

If you truly believe this? Then leave your personal faith out of it.

Teach the Koran, and that's it. Nothing more. Then I'll believe your intent. No Bible. Just the Koran...then we'll know you mean it.

WIll NEVER happen, which is why this isn't a "hey, you have to teach the word of G*, and we don't care which one, or how it's taught" law. Because the crew that wrote this would lose their minds if they thought their money was going toward raising Muslims.

This is why this same crew wants to omit key parts of American history....they want us to forget that we literally left England to get away from this government-sponsored religion stuff, so we could worship as we pleased. Now here we are, trying to break the Guinness Book Record for Irony.

[njbill]

“That's a lesson that can bring hope. That's a lesson worth teaching.”

Incest is a lesson that can bring hope? Incest is a lesson worth teaching?

Wow, Nowhere Man has said a lot of outrageous things on FanLax, but that has to rank as number one.

[jhu72]

Okies: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/us/oklah ... index.html

Great news.

Any chance you can explain why this is great news?

Because I believe children need to know there is a God that loves them, more now, than ever.

And their parents, their church or synagogue or temple or mosque can't help them with that? It has to be imposed on children who are atheists? Who are irreligious? Who are not Christian? Schools shouldn't teach us about the legacy of slavery that was, among other things, written into the Constitution and has persisted socioeconomically down the decades. But it's OK for the Government to mandate Christian prayer be exhibited, discussed and made part of the curriculum in all classrooms.

I know that religion is a comfort to many, many people, including many I have loved since I was a boy. But government imposition of "the Bible" and the "Ten Commandments" into curricula is directly contrary to the Framers' construction of our founding document. They did this -- the prohibition on the government "establishment of religion" or preference for one religion over another or preference for religion over irreligion -- to ensure that religion remained a private and personal salvation, and not one over which the government had dramatic and maybe decisive influence. Roger Williams in the pre-constitutional period of our history, believed ardently that an authentic Christian church would be possible only if there was “a wall or hedge of separation” between the “wilderness of the world” and “the garden of the church.” Williams believed that any government involvement in the church would corrupt the church. In a letter to a cleric in Connecticut in 1802, Thomas Jefferson declared that when we ratified the Constitution and adopted the establishment clause they built a “wall of separation between the church and state.” Jefferson and Madison worked arduously to remove the Anglican Church from Virginia politics, and both believed that government support for a particular religion or for any religion was improper.

Religion is only dirtied by politics, and by force-feeding it to children as the castor oil they must swallow to get out of school. It becomes a armament in the hands of the very politicians you claim to distrust and loathe. This isn't just unlawful and contrary to all of our bedrock traditions; it is a recipe for more division, more strife, more discord.

Thanks.

How do children even know there is a God to love them if their parents do not take them Church, Synagogue, or mosque? So now you think a child's mind is fully developed to discern that there is no God by claiming they are already an atheists?....my goodness. And yet, you expressed zero concern for this same aged child making sex determination, changing their sexual preference in school without notifying their parents. You seem too intrenched in legal pragmatism to discern common sense and reason.

All of a sudden you do not trust teachers....oh, I see now, only ban The Book, that YOU do not like. Got it.

The single largest denomination in the US is the folks who are not religiously affiliated. They have greater numbers than evangelicals; they have greater numbers than Catholics; they have greater numbers than the Muslims; and the Jews; and the Hindus; and the etc.... These people don't want any one of your gods, they have heard and seen the propaganda and voted with their feet!! These adults do not want their children emulating the hypocritical hateful behavior of the self-proclaimed followers of these gods.

The children are better off without being taught your hateful behavior!!

If you want to teach your children the bible and all about your god, go to it, not a problem. If a Muslim or a Jew, or a Hindu wants to teach their child about their god, go to it, not a problem. You start messing around with other peoples children and you will see a war, and I mean a real shooting war!!

The only book banning going on is by hateful MAGA Christians who like you want to dominate the majority of the population. That population is pushing back and will continue too. They are not going to buy the sh*t you are shoveling!

[youthathletics]

Okies: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/us/oklah ... index.html

Great news.

Any chance you can explain why this is great news?

Because I believe children need to know there is a God that loves them, more now, than ever.

And their parents, their church or synagogue or temple or mosque can't help them with that? It has to be imposed on children who are atheists? Who are irreligious? Who are not Christian? Schools shouldn't teach us about the legacy of slavery that was, among other things, written into the Constitution and has persisted socioeconomically down the decades. But it's OK for the Government to mandate Christian prayer be exhibited, discussed and made part of the curriculum in all classrooms.

I know that religion is a comfort to many, many people, including many I have loved since I was a boy. But government imposition of "the Bible" and the "Ten Commandments" into curricula is directly contrary to the Framers' construction of our founding document. They did this -- the prohibition on the government "establishment of religion" or preference for one religion over another or preference for religion over irreligion -- to ensure that religion remained a private and personal salvation, and not one over which the government had dramatic and maybe decisive influence. Roger Williams in the pre-constitutional period of our history, believed ardently that an authentic Christian church would be possible only if there was “a wall or hedge of separation” between the “wilderness of the world” and “the garden of the church.” Williams believed that any government involvement in the church would corrupt the church. In a letter to a cleric in Connecticut in 1802, Thomas Jefferson declared that when we ratified the Constitution and adopted the establishment clause they built a “wall of separation between the church and state.” Jefferson and Madison worked arduously to remove the Anglican Church from Virginia politics, and both believed that government support for a particular religion or for any religion was improper.

Religion is only dirtied by politics, and by force-feeding it to children as the castor oil they must swallow to get out of school. It becomes a armament in the hands of the very politicians you claim to distrust and loathe. This isn't just unlawful and contrary to all of our bedrock traditions; it is a recipe for more division, more strife, more discord.

Thanks.

How do children even know there is a God to love them if their parents do not take them Church, Synagogue, or mosque? So now you think a child's mind is fully developed to discern that there is no God by claiming they are already an atheists?....my goodness. And yet, you expressed zero concern for this same aged child making sex determination, changing their sexual preference in school without notifying their parents. You seem too intrenched in legal pragmatism to discern common sense and reason.

All of a sudden you do not trust teachers....oh, I see now, only ban The Book, that YOU do not like. Got it.

The single largest denomination in the US is the folks who are not religiously affiliated. They have greater numbers than evangelicals; they have greater numbers than Catholics; they have greater numbers than the Muslims; and the Jews; and the Hindus; and the etc.... These people don't want any one of your gods, they have heard and seen the propaganda and voted with their feet!! These adults do not want their children emulating the hypocritical hateful behavior of the claimed followers of these gods.

The children are better off without being taught your hateful behavior!!

If you want to teach your children the bible and all about your god, go to it, not a problem. If a Muslim or a Jew, or a Hindu wants to teach their child about their god, go to it, not a problem. You start messing around with other peoples children and you will see a war, and I mean a real shooting war!!

The only book banning going on is by hateful MAGA Christians who like you want to dominate the majority of the population. That population is pushing back and will continue too. They are not going to buy the sh*t you are shoveling!

thanks for your intolerance.

[jhu72]

Okies: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/us/oklah ... index.html

Great news.

Any chance you can explain why this is great news?

Because I believe children need to know there is a God that loves them, more now, than ever.

And their parents, their church or synagogue or temple or mosque can't help them with that? It has to be imposed on children who are atheists? Who are irreligious? Who are not Christian? Schools shouldn't teach us about the legacy of slavery that was, among other things, written into the Constitution and has persisted socioeconomically down the decades. But it's OK for the Government to mandate Christian prayer be exhibited, discussed and made part of the curriculum in all classrooms.

I know that religion is a comfort to many, many people, including many I have loved since I was a boy. But government imposition of "the Bible" and the "Ten Commandments" into curricula is directly contrary to the Framers' construction of our founding document. They did this -- the prohibition on the government "establishment of religion" or preference for one religion over another or preference for religion over irreligion -- to ensure that religion remained a private and personal salvation, and not one over which the government had dramatic and maybe decisive influence. Roger Williams in the pre-constitutional period of our history, believed ardently that an authentic Christian church would be possible only if there was “a wall or hedge of separation” between the “wilderness of the world” and “the garden of the church.” Williams believed that any government involvement in the church would corrupt the church. In a letter to a cleric in Connecticut in 1802, Thomas Jefferson declared that when we ratified the Constitution and adopted the establishment clause they built a “wall of separation between the church and state.” Jefferson and Madison worked arduously to remove the Anglican Church from Virginia politics, and both believed that government support for a particular religion or for any religion was improper.

Religion is only dirtied by politics, and by force-feeding it to children as the castor oil they must swallow to get out of school. It becomes a armament in the hands of the very politicians you claim to distrust and loathe. This isn't just unlawful and contrary to all of our bedrock traditions; it is a recipe for more division, more strife, more discord.

Thanks.

How do children even know there is a God to love them if their parents do not take them Church, Synagogue, or mosque? So now you think a child's mind is fully developed to discern that there is no God by claiming they are already an atheists?....my goodness. And yet, you expressed zero concern for this same aged child making sex determination, changing their sexual preference in school without notifying their parents. You seem too intrenched in legal pragmatism to discern common sense and reason.

All of a sudden you do not trust teachers....oh, I see now, only ban The Book, that YOU do not like. Got it.

The single largest denomination in the US is the folks who are not religiously affiliated. They have greater numbers than evangelicals; they have greater numbers than Catholics; they have greater numbers than the Muslims; and the Jews; and the Hindus; and the etc.... These people don't want any one of your gods, they have heard and seen the propaganda and voted with their feet!! These adults do not want their children emulating the hypocritical hateful behavior of the claimed followers of these gods.

The children are better off without being taught your hateful behavior!!

If you want to teach your children the bible and all about your god, go to it, not a problem. If a Muslim or a Jew, or a Hindu wants to teach their child about their god, go to it, not a problem. You start messing around with other peoples children and you will see a war, and I mean a real shooting war!!

The only book banning going on is by hateful MAGA Christians who like you want to dominate the majority of the population. That population is pushing back and will continue too. They are not going to buy the sh*t you are shoveling!

thanks for your intolerance.

... right back at you!

[PizzaSnake]

So, this the first Bible lesson in Oklahoma?

“32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.”

I thought this was already practiced in a few states, except the fathers were Roofie-ing their daughters?

Going to mix it up and get the daughters to drug their fathers?

This nonsense belongs on the dustheap.

Verses 30 and 31 from the 19th chapter of Genesis are key for context:

30 And Lot went up from Zoar, and stayed in the mountains, and his two daughters with him; for he was afraid to stay in Zoar; and he stayed in a cave, he and his two daughters. 31 Then the first-born said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth. 32 “Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father.” 33 So they made their father drink wine that night, and the first-born went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. 34 And it came about on the morrow, that the first-born said to the younger, “Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father.” 35 So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. 36 Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. 37 And the first-born bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. 38 And as for the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the sons of Ammon to this day.

This was a tragic situation after the destruction of all Lot and his family had, and after his wife was also destroyed. There is nothing to condone here as a practice--merely a lost broken family with a deeply ingrained instinct to stay alive and preserve their family. Yet a lesson that could easily be taught from this tragedy is that God can redeem even the most hopeless of situations and bring good from it. Both children of incest went on to become two nations--Ammon and Moab, from whom came Ruth the Moabite, who married into Jewish lineage and became the great grandmother of David the King, and was also in the genealogy of Christ and mentioned specifically in Matthew chapter 1 verses 5 and 6. That's a lesson that can bring hope. That's a lesson worth teaching if a question was asked as to why the two daughters had intercourse, once each, with their father, in order to preserve their family.

Uh huh. That's some class "A" sophistry there.

Whatever value there might be in the "good book" is in the New Testament. Too bad most Christians seem completely ignorant of the teachings of the figure they claim to "love."

[jhu72]

We need to make clear that there is a difference between the socially conservative Christians and the socially liberal Christians. It is the difference between the old testament and the new testament, which is given primacy. It is clear there is a big difference. Unfortunately there are more socially conservative Christians, although that seems to be changing as people leave the churches either to join the unaffiliated or find a congregation that is a better match to the individual's view.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Okies: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/us/oklah ... index.html

Great news.

Any chance you can explain why this is great news?

Because I believe children need to know there is a God that loves them, more now, than ever.

And their parents, their church or synagogue or temple or mosque can't help them with that? It has to be imposed on children who are atheists? Who are irreligious? Who are not Christian? Schools shouldn't teach us about the legacy of slavery that was, among other things, written into the Constitution and has persisted socioeconomically down the decades. But it's OK for the Government to mandate Christian prayer be exhibited, discussed and made part of the curriculum in all classrooms.

I know that religion is a comfort to many, many people, including many I have loved since I was a boy. But government imposition of "the Bible" and the "Ten Commandments" into curricula is directly contrary to the Framers' construction of our founding document. They did this -- the prohibition on the government "establishment of religion" or preference for one religion over another or preference for religion over irreligion -- to ensure that religion remained a private and personal salvation, and not one over which the government had dramatic and maybe decisive influence. Roger Williams in the pre-constitutional period of our history, believed ardently that an authentic Christian church would be possible only if there was “a wall or hedge of separation” between the “wilderness of the world” and “the garden of the church.” Williams believed that any government involvement in the church would corrupt the church. In a letter to a cleric in Connecticut in 1802, Thomas Jefferson declared that when we ratified the Constitution and adopted the establishment clause they built a “wall of separation between the church and state.” Jefferson and Madison worked arduously to remove the Anglican Church from Virginia politics, and both believed that government support for a particular religion or for any religion was improper.

Religion is only dirtied by politics, and by force-feeding it to children as the castor oil they must swallow to get out of school. It becomes a armament in the hands of the very politicians you claim to distrust and loathe. This isn't just unlawful and contrary to all of our bedrock traditions; it is a recipe for more division, more strife, more discord.

Thanks.

How do children even know there is a God to love them if their parents do not take them Church, Synagogue, or mosque? So now you think a child's mind is fully developed to discern that there is no God by claiming they are already an atheists?....my goodness. And yet, you expressed zero concern for this same aged child making sex determination, changing their sexual preference in school without notifying their parents. You seem too intrenched in legal pragmatism to discern common sense and reason.

All of a sudden you do not trust teachers....oh, I see now, only ban The Book, that YOU do not like. Got it.

I think, respectfully, you have -- maybe deliberately -- missed my point.

Children know that there is a God who loves them if their parents decide in the first instance that this will be part of their upbringing. If teaching a curriculum based on the Bible and the Ten Commandments collides with the parents' thinking and preferences, as it likely would with the large number of non-sectarian families in this country, then this sets in place the likelihood of conflict in the home over basic organizing principles. So, parents get to decide things except for the existence of a unitary, powerful, benevolent God and the efficacy of the "laws" He directly provided to Moses? This is a recipe for disaster within families and schools and churches. Why is it not enough for people to imbue religiosity in their children privately, at home and, as necessary, at a community of like believers? Why must it be at public school?

I don't think I said, or have said, anything about sexuality/sexual identity or gender changing in this exchange or on these pages. You are superimposing that on me to create a false "inconsistency" of some sort on my part. I am only talking about government mandating religious education in public schools. I am only talking about children coming home from school and, functionally, asking their parents why they don't believe in God, why they risk limbo or hell for eternity -- after hearing from government sponsored leaders that a-theism is somehow or possibly wrong? Roger Williams and Jefferson knew that this was a really bad idea in multiple ways.

We raised our kids in a Unitarian Universalist community, which I regarded as a social justice program of sorts, and without the imposition on them the idea of a "God" of any sort, without any stories of Adam and Eve or creation, or being cast into the wilderness for defiance of their maker's mandate. My kids are what would be described as non-believers, but they are kind, decent, self-sufficient and loving. That was the choice we made as parents. Why do you and the taxpayer-funded, government-operated school system insist upon telling us we are wrong?

[youthathletics]

Okies: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/us/oklah ... index.html

Great news.

Any chance you can explain why this is great news?

Because I believe children need to know there is a God that loves them, more now, than ever.

And their parents, their church or synagogue or temple or mosque can't help them with that? It has to be imposed on children who are atheists? Who are irreligious? Who are not Christian? Schools shouldn't teach us about the legacy of slavery that was, among other things, written into the Constitution and has persisted socioeconomically down the decades. But it's OK for the Government to mandate Christian prayer be exhibited, discussed and made part of the curriculum in all classrooms.

I know that religion is a comfort to many, many people, including many I have loved since I was a boy. But government imposition of "the Bible" and the "Ten Commandments" into curricula is directly contrary to the Framers' construction of our founding document. They did this -- the prohibition on the government "establishment of religion" or preference for one religion over another or preference for religion over irreligion -- to ensure that religion remained a private and personal salvation, and not one over which the government had dramatic and maybe decisive influence. Roger Williams in the pre-constitutional period of our history, believed ardently that an authentic Christian church would be possible only if there was “a wall or hedge of separation” between the “wilderness of the world” and “the garden of the church.” Williams believed that any government involvement in the church would corrupt the church. In a letter to a cleric in Connecticut in 1802, Thomas Jefferson declared that when we ratified the Constitution and adopted the establishment clause they built a “wall of separation between the church and state.” Jefferson and Madison worked arduously to remove the Anglican Church from Virginia politics, and both believed that government support for a particular religion or for any religion was improper.

Religion is only dirtied by politics, and by force-feeding it to children as the castor oil they must swallow to get out of school. It becomes a armament in the hands of the very politicians you claim to distrust and loathe. This isn't just unlawful and contrary to all of our bedrock traditions; it is a recipe for more division, more strife, more discord.

Thanks.

How do children even know there is a God to love them if their parents do not take them Church, Synagogue, or mosque? So now you think a child's mind is fully developed to discern that there is no God by claiming they are already an atheists?....my goodness. And yet, you expressed zero concern for this same aged child making sex determination, changing their sexual preference in school without notifying their parents. You seem too intrenched in legal pragmatism to discern common sense and reason.

All of a sudden you do not trust teachers....oh, I see now, only ban The Book, that YOU do not like. Got it.

I think, respectfully, you have -- maybe deliberately -- missed my point.

Children know that there is a God who loves them if their parents decide in the first instance that this will be part of their upbringing. If teaching a curriculum based on the Bible and the Ten Commandments collides with the parents' thinking and preferences, as it likely would with the large number of non-sectarian families in this country, then this sets in place the likelihood of conflict in the home over basic organizing principles. So, parents get to decide things except for the existence of a unitary, powerful, benevolent God and the efficacy of the "laws" He directly provided to Moses? This is a recipe for disaster within families and schools and churches. Why is it not enough for people to imbue religiosity in their children privately, at home and, as necessary, at a community of like believers? Why must it be at public school?

I don't think I said, or have said, anything about sexuality/sexual identity or gender changing in this exchange or on these pages. You are superimposing that on me to create a false "inconsistency" of some sort on my part. I am only talking about government mandating religious education in public schools. I am only talking about children coming home from school and, functionally, asking their parents why they don't believe in God, why they risk limbo or hell for eternity -- after hearing from government sponsored leaders that a-theism is somehow or possibly wrong? Roger Williams and Jefferson knew that this was a really bad idea in multiple ways.

We raised our kids in a Unitarian Universalist community, which I regarded as a social justice program of sorts, and without the imposition on them the idea of a "God" of any sort, without any stories of Adam and Eve or creation, or being cast into the wilderness for defiance of their maker's mandate. My kids are what would be described as non-believers, but they are kind, decent, self-sufficient and loving. That was the choice we made as parents. Why do you and the taxpayer-funded, government-operated school system insist upon telling us we are wrong?

I did not intend to miss your point, I believe I addressed it head on. My comment about "legal pragmatism" on your part, seems to make clear I understand you fully. And my counter is really simple....you all act like this is some indoctrination and have taken it to the nth-degree.

If teaching the Bible and Ten Commandments as part of an ethics and history curriculum to Fifth and higher aged kids really scares you, I suppose there is no middle ground.

You have every reason to be proud of your children and how you raised them "as a family", many children are not afforded that opportunity. Ours were raised in the Lutheran Church...and equally turned out well; and I'll have now did not end up as a skin head of marching in on January 6th, so you can stop clinching your teeth in fear.

No one is telling you that you are wrong, again, I think you are taking to the nth degree....as noted earlier and by the Superintendent, the intent is for "historical, ethical, and comparative religion" education.