Interesting read on the decline of religious faith in children.

[Maggot]

we are not limited to modern religions when debating claims that "successful societies began and thrived in the absence of religion".
my assertion is that these ideas of a creator, or something that governs over us, came with the ability for any member of a species to kill the alpha of the group and take what is his/hers.
in the absence of this control, each collective would lose the alphas (the best of the group) and ultimately die out from lack of competent leadership.
an argument can be made that we see this in washington dc right now.

what we ended up with is that virtually every culture or society that survived long enough to be represented in history had some form of religion.

The earliest 'religions' were goddes worshipers. Again, Id recommend to anyone who thinks they are knowledgeable on religion to read the book

When God was a Woman


When God Was a Woman - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › When_God_Was_a_Woman
When God Was a Woman is the U.S. title of a 1976 book by sculptor and art historian Merlin Stone. It was published earlier in the United Kingdom as The Paradise Papers: The Suppression of Women's Rites.

• Author: Merlin Stone
• Original title: The Paradise Papers: The Suppression of Women's Rites
• Publish Year: 1976
• Publication date: 1976

 

[Aries256]

I’ll fight for your right to believe in science.
Will you fight for my freedom of religion?

Yes, until that “religion” bleeds into others lives, seeks to block others from their freedoms, tries to impose their rules on others through laws, or forces said religion on myself or others.

 

[Blutroop]

No, no there isnt. You just believe in one out of thousands that mankind has concocted up. You just so happened to be raised in a christian dominated segment of society. If you had been raised in oh say, Pakistan, you’d be saying allah, not god.

I can see how you think that. What we think doesn’t change the fact that only one of us is right. Do you capitalize Santa Claus when you write? Because you keep Writing God in lowercase? Or are you lashing out at God the same way I will spell biden with lowercase and have to click again to keep it lower case?

 

[theLBC]

The earliest 'religions' were goddes worshipers. Again, Id recommend to anyone who thinks they are knowledgeable on religion to read the book

When God was a Woman


When God Was a Woman - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › When_God_Was_a_Woman
When God Was a Woman is the U.S. title of a 1976 book by sculptor and art historian Merlin Stone. It was published earlier in the United Kingdom as The Paradise Papers: The Suppression of Women's Rites.

• Author: Merlin Stone
• Original title: The Paradise Papers: The Suppression of Women's Rites
• Publish Year: 1976
• Publication date: 1976

i have no problem with this, and have referred to god in this thread as he/she somewhere.

i would add that in all probability, it was the alphas themselves that formalized these beliefs, to protect themselves and their power.

 

[Aries256]

I can see how you think that. What we think doesn’t change the fact that only one of us is right. Do you capitalize Santa Claus when you write? Because you keep Writing God in lowercase? Or are you lashing out at God the same way I will spell biden with lowercase and have to click again to keep it lower case?

Bidoof isnt worth capitalization.

 

[chrome]

I found it amusing last night how y’all appeared more likely to believe a mortal being with a title over a book that’s been around for a while and has yet to be disproved.

We were just pointing out, and giving credit to the appropriate author, a concept that often comes up in religious conversations. Pascal's wager is put simply: you are better in believing in god than not, due to the potential risk vs. reward. He just so happened to be a christian theologian and mathematician.

And I think making the claim that the "bible has yet to be disproved" requires more clarification. Do you believe the bible, front to back, is 100% accurate and true?

 

[Supersubes]

lol yes, but these cultures or collectives of humans existed well before 2600 years ago, which i consider relatively recent in our existence.

Regarding your earlier question about atheistic societies, it wasn’t so long ago that literally everything that couldn’t be readily explained was due to the gods or a god. Science is responsible for shining light on that. The prominence of athieism in modern times is growing exponentially these days. I read a recent stat that said it has doubled in the last two decades. I don’t know how old you are, but if you’re young enough you may get to see the answer to your question unfold in front of your eyes.



On another note(not aimed at you LBC), the science hating by the religious folks is funny as hell. Literally everything you do day to day is made possible by science. Curing/repairing/healing the trivial injuries or illnesses that may have killed some of you as children a few decades ago, to the fancy propellants we load into our cartridges. Feel free to point out misconduct in the scientific world all you want, but taking a “science is bad” stance just ridiculous.

 

[theLBC]

I can see how you think that. What we think doesn’t change the fact that only one of us is right. Do you capitalize Santa Claus when you write? Because you keep Writing God in lowercase? Or are you lashing out at God the same way I will spell biden with lowercase and have to click again to keep it lower case?

i do the same thing. if am referring to the "almighty", i would use God, but if referring to the concept or idea of a deity, i use lower case.
but then i rarely bother with caps anyway.

 

[theLBC]

Regarding your earlier question about atheistic societies, it wasn’t so long ago that literally everything that couldn’t be readily explained was due to the gods or a god. Science is responsible for shining light on that. The prominence of athieism in modern times is growing exponentially these days. I read a recent stat that said it has double in the last two decades. I don’t know how old you are, but if you’re young enough you may get to see the answer to your question unfold in front of your eyes.



On another note(not aimed at you LBC), the science hating by the religious folks is funny as hell. Literally everything you do day to day is made possible by science. Curing/repairing/healing the trivial injuries or illnesses that may have killed some of you as children a few decades ago, to the fancy propellants we load into our cartridges. Feel free to point out misconduct in the scientific world all you want, but taking a “science is bad” stance just ridiculous.

in some ways, with governments, police and such, secular control has replaced spiritual restraint, and i would agree that it is less crucial to the survival of the species now, but we are discussing our roots at the moment.
whether or not the "death of religion" could be a good thing is another argument or topic.

 

[Blutroop]

Regarding your earlier question about atheistic societies, it wasn’t so long ago that literally everything that couldn’t be readily explained was due to the gods or a god. Science is responsible for shining light on that. The prominence of athieism in modern times is growing exponentially these days. I read a recent stat that said it has doubled in the last two decades. I don’t know how old you are, but if you’re young enough you may get to see the answer to your question unfold in front of your eyes.



On another note(not aimed at you LBC), the science hating by the religious folks is funny as hell. Literally everything you do day to day is made possible by science. Curing/repairing/healing the trivial injuries or illnesses that may have killed some of you as children a few decades ago, to the fancy propellants we load into our cartridges. Feel free to point out misconduct in the scientific world all you want, but taking a “science is bad” stance just ridiculous.

I embrace science. I’m not Amish, when I cut my wood by hand it’s cause my chainsaws outa gas. My issue is with the people that think science is the only answer or when gov or court want to require it or allow it to be treated as fact when it’s not. When science gives us facts that could be useful like when a child has a heartbeat or Covid has a better than 98% chance survival rate then no one wants to hear from science. When science proves global warming is a scam then science gets buried.
Science doesn’t have the right to walk on my rights.

 

[Supersubes]

I was learned up through experience so tend to distance myself from others schools of thoughts. I strive to have original ideas. I’ll wait for y’all to stop laughing now... Pascal sounds like your typical thing lectured by a professor amongst young kids eager to hear something smart from someone who is not dad. Especially if it contradicts what dad taught by example.
I was wrong once before so I suppose it could happen again. I found it amusing last night how y’all appeared more likely to believe a mortal being with a title over a book that’s been around for a while and has yet to be disproved.

We don’t believe Pascal. He’s a dude who was a prominent mathematician, and a thiest. He wrote a book and was speaking to atheists in particular. One of his reasonings is now known as Pascal’s wager.

I’ve asked this a few times and you haven’t answered. Do you recall where you heard that? Again, the dude is on your side of this issue.

 

[Supersubes]

in some ways, with governments, police and such, secular control has replaced spiritual restraint, and i would agree that it is less crucial to the survival of the species now, but we are discussing our roots at the moment.
whether or not the "death of religion" could be a good thing is another argument or topic.

My point was our roots are distinctly religious, and it’s no surprise there aren’t many secular examples to choose from.

 

[Aussiedan]

I embrace science. I’m not Amish, when I cut my wood by hand it’s cause my chainsaws outa gas. My issue is with the people that think science is the only answer or when gov or court want to require it or allow it to be treated as fact when it’s not. When science gives us facts that could be useful like when a child has a heartbeat or Covid has a better than 98% chance survival rate then no one wants to hear from science. When science proves global warming is a scam then science gets buried.
Science doesn’t have the right to walk on my rights.

This i very much agree with.

Sadly science and skewed data are for sale to the highest bidder.

Much the same way as forgiveness, godly blessings and intervention are "for sale" by way of larger donations to ones church of choice.

 

[Supersubes]

I embrace science. I’m not Amish, when I cut my wood by hand it’s cause my chainsaws outa gas. My issue is with the people that think science is the only answer or when gov or court want to require it or allow it to be treated as fact when it’s not. When science gives us facts that could be useful like when a child has a heartbeat or Covid has a better than 98% chance survival rate then no one wants to hear from science. When science proves global warming is a scam then science gets buried.
Science doesn’t have the right to walk on my rights.

Nobody was making the case that science has the right to walk on your rights. The case is being made that when your house washes away in a giant flood, it’s not the lord working in mysterious ways, it’s just a lot of rain.

 

[theLBC]

My point was our roots are distinctly religious, and it’s no surprise there aren’t many secular examples to choose from.

and thank God for that!

 

[theLBC]

Nobody was making the case that science has the right to walk on your rights. The case is being made that when your house washes away in a giant flood, it’s not the lord working in mysterious ways, it’s just a lot of precipitation.

God doesn't wash away your home, but faith can give you the strength to rebuild.

 

[Supersubes]

and thank God for that!

Haha, won’t be long and you’ll have your answer.

 

[Supersubes]

God doesn't wash away your home, but faith can give you the strength to rebuild.

I seem to recall a story about god washing away one or two homes.

 

[theLBC]

Haha, won’t be long and you’ll have your answer.

perhaps. what percentage of antifa assholes do you think are atheist, vs religious?
careful what you wish for.

 

[theLBC]

I seem to recall a story about god washing away one or two homes.

i remember pillars of salt and other lessons as well. good lessons regardless if they are based on real life events.

 

[Supersubes]

perhaps. what percentage of antifa assholes do you think are atheist, vs religious?

No idea. My guess would be a lot of them. That’s like asking how many terrorists are muslims though. Assholes on both sides.

 

[Supersubes]

i remember pillars of salt and other lessons as well. good lessons regardless if they are based on real life events.

Those are claimed to be actual events though, and therein lies the rub.

 

[theLBC]

Those are claimed to be actual events though, and therein lies the rub.

some people believe this, to be sure.
some people believe in man made global warming.

 

[Supersubes]

some people believe this, to be sure.
some people believe in man made global warming.

The politicization of climate science is a shame.

 

[theLBC]

The politicization of climate science is a shame.

it isn't political, it is a hoax.
shutting down factories in the US and giving billions to india and china to pollute freely and make all our shit is not political, it's ludicrous.
this is part of the nwo plan for wealth redistribution and that is all.

i am not claiming that climate doesn't change, i am just saying that shutting down our factories won't do shit to stop it.

 

[Supersubes]

it isn't political, it is a hoax.
shutting down factories in the US and giving billions to india and china to pollute freely and make all our shit is not political, it's ludicrous.
this is part of the nwo plan for wealth redistribution and that is all.

i am not claiming that climate doesn't change, i am just saying that shutting down factories won't do shit to stop it.

Right, it’s being wielded by those is power as a weapon.

 

[theLBC]

 

[ManUtdManiac]

I would die, kill, steal, work, endure, eat shit and grin for my kids.
I would do the same for the Constitution and wish I'd have become an American early enough in life to have enlisted and served.

But I also recognize that believing in the Constitution is just the same as believing in a deity in many many regards. Without others, joining me, and for me to join, the Constitution would be nothing. Anything lacking the numbers, will and tools to be defended will die because just like time, age and decay on a human body, noble ideas are under the constant pressure of greed, idiocy, cowardice and self-interest.

I watched while many here, on this forum, applauded the blatantly anti-Constitutional proposals of this, thankfully dying, administration. Some here were happy that Kris Kobach wanted to create a muslim registery of all those who were, are or could be muslims or from muslim countries. I fall into that catagory, so do my kids. I will leave dead bodies, including my own I"m sure, before some cunt with a clip board comes and tells me i need to register myself and my kids on a list 'just in case' we need to be housed somewhere else'. Perhaps this also answers the question of what I think of the situation of police coming to seperate kids from parents. Why not just arrest the parents and escort them, with their kids to the Dr.s to get the kids seen to and then deal with them. Religious freedom is essential, but religious freedom does not extend to endangering the lives of children who are not able to make decisions for themselves on these matters.

What I know is this, faith is precarious and without numbers, it's a fools folly. Men, and at least a critical mass of them, make faith real. I wonder how many here, with their professed love of freedom would look aside, or pretend to not hear, if Kobach's goons came for me and mine. It's probably the same percentage of men who would actually live up to their christian, muslim, jewish ideals when their respective pushes come to shoves I'm sure.

as I said earlier, rather flippantly, I have faith in my long rifles, my dope, my sidearm and drills. The rest is a crapshoot as best as I can tell.

 

[theLBC]

my grandfather had no rifle or sidearm when our government came to take his family to the camps.
i will not make that mistake.

 

[Blutroop]

I would die, kill, steal, work, endure, eat shit and grin for my kids.
I would do the same for the Constitution and wish I'd have become an American early enough in life to have enlisted and served.

But I also recognize that believing in the Constitution is just the same as believing in a deity in many many regards. Without others, joining me, and for me to join, the Constitution would be nothing. Anything lacking the numbers, will and tools to be defended will die because just like time, age and decay on a human body, noble ideas are under the constant pressure of greed, idiocy, cowardice and self-interest.

I watched while many here, on this forum, applauded the blatantly anti-Constitutional proposals of this, thankfully dying, administration. Some here were happy that Kris Kobach wanted to create a muslim registery of all those who were, are or could be muslims or from muslim countries. I fall into that catagory, so do my kids. I will leave dead bodies, including my own I"m sure, before some cunt with a clip board comes and tells me i need to register myself and my kids on a list 'just in case' we need to be housed somewhere else'. Perhaps this also answers the question of what I think of the situation of police coming to seperate kids from parents. Why not just arrest the parents and escort them, with their kids to the Dr.s to get the kids seen to and then deal with them. Religious freedom is essential, but religious freedom does not extend to endangering the lives of children who are not able to make decisions for themselves on these matters.

What I know is this, faith is precarious and without numbers, it's a fools folly. Men, and at least a critical mass of them, make faith real. I wonder how many here, with their professed love of freedom would look aside, or pretend to not hear, if Kobach's goons came for me and mine. It's probably the same percentage of men who would actually live up to their christian, muslim, jewish ideals when their respective pushes come to shoves I'm sure.

as I said earlier, rather flippantly, I have faith in my long rifles, my dope, my sidearm and drills. The rest is a crapshoot as best as I can tell.

You’ll get your chance to fight for the constitution. Don’t worry about that. This mess is getting too big to leave for my sons.

 

[obk]

That video is interesting for reasons you might not intend.

One of the features of scientific observation is the ability to observe the influence of previously unaccounted for variables in a repeatable way. This results in individual observations being comparatively inaccurate while actually honing in on reality. In the parlance of this forum, precision and accuracy. Buried in the structural rhetoric (seriously, scientists need to take some history courses) there's an assumption that previous science must be correct because it's science without any consideration for the factors that influenced whatever reconsideration of data. This betrays the bedrock principle of science that observation is fallible and must be repeated to have validity as a predictive measure. I'd say the idea of personal fallibility has been an unintended theme of this thread.

And of course this doesn't go into the practical considerations - Is climate change influencing human behavior and potential in a way that might be guided or mitigated according to whatever belief structure is used? Of course. Thankfully our military leaders understand this, even if they need to pretend otherwise.

 

[theLBC]

That video is interesting for reasons you might not intend.

One of the features of scientific observation is the ability to observe the influence of previously unaccounted for variables in a repeatable way. This results in individual observations being comparatively inaccurate while actually honing in on reality. In the parlance of this forum, precision and accuracy. Buried in the structural rhetoric (seriously, scientists need to take some history courses) there's an assumption that previous science must be correct because it's science without any consideration for the factors that influenced whatever reconsideration of data. This betrays the bedrock principle of science that observation is fallible and must be repeated to have validity as a predictive measure. I'd say the idea of personal fallibility has been an unintended theme of this thread.

And of course this doesn't go into the practical considerations - Is climate change influencing human behavior and potential in a way that might be guided or mitigated according to whatever belief structure is used? Of course. Thankfully our military leaders understand this, even if they need to pretend otherwise.

yup.
there should be allowances for corrections of statistical data when warranted.
for example, if we dug up the thermometers used back in the 40's - 70's and found the entire batch from the manufacturer were marked incorrectly, this would be a great reason to correct the data. or is it they just forgot how to read thermometers for 30 years, so we fixed it?
the problem and suspicion of shenanigans arises when there is no reasonable explanation or even effort to explain that you did it.
for example, historically reporting from 600 sites for a data point, and changing this to 150 sites (not for budgetary or any logical reason) is instantly suspect when the data it provides changes drastically, and yet the change in the way the data is gathered is not advertised.
one instance of something like this could be incompetence.
the repeating of such data manipulation smells like fraud.
and of course, they were caught on an email.

 

[chrome]

I think it is important to (re)emphasize the idea that "science" shouldn't be referred to as a noun, it is a verb. It is a method for investigating our world and reality. Science isn't about proving what is true, it is about eliminating as many false answers as possible and leaving us with what is most likely to be true. To date, the scientific method continues to yield the most reliable and repeatable results helping us determine what is false and most likely to be true. Very few ideas in science make their way to laws and theories, and even those continue to be scrutinized (as they should be).

You should instantly call into question anyone who introduces themselves, or gives the perception that they are a "scientific authority" (cough Fauci, cough Birx). There are no authorities in science. There are just specialists in their respective fields who are ALWAYS open to being questioned about their methods and conclusions.

One study on a certain subject doesn't make it true. Repeating the same study across different countries, labs, environments dramatically increases the likelihood that study's conclusions are more than likely true. The strongest label in science is "scientific consensus", often referred to as the "body of science" on a particular subject. But consensus is the idea that an experiment has generally been agreed upon to be valid, reliable, and its conclusions demonstrating what is most likely true across numerous different environments.

But even in science, there is room for revision, as there should be, to allow for new learning and future understanding.

 

[CoolJJ]

Wowzers, the discussion derailed from the article pretty quickly. That was a long slog reading through the comments.

I also read the article and the actual study it linked to. If you can't read through the whole study, at least read the executive summary and conclusion section.

The article pretty accurately reflected the study, but went off the rails with its own conspiritorial editorializing. Take for instance this statement, "By excluding religious instruction from public schools, the government-run education system tacitly teaches students that religious commitments are not a first-order priority in life." Or the following statement, "Christ and Moses are treated by teachers and administrators like weapons or drugs — confiscated upon discovery."

This is delusional. Children are allowed their own bibles, student led bible studies, and student led prayers. There is no confiscation. Students can pray before thier own meals and studies. They are free to practice their own religion. The first amendment forbids an establishment of religion, and as a publicly funded education, it is neutral towards religion. If a parent wants religion to be considered a first-order priority, that is their responsibility, not public education's.

What the author states next is so bizarre I don't know what to make of it. This must sound profound to thier regular readers, "What used to be the state-imposed orthodoxy of benign agnosticism is being replaced by a full-blown intersectional pseudo-religion with its own priests, prophets, saints, and martyrs." Sadly, he doesn't go on to explain himself, but assumes the reader understands this sort of crazy talk and is In mutual agreement.

At least the author correctly concluded that, "the only real road to religious revival is the one that begins with each parent’s first step out of the public school’s doors." As it should be. If you want a religious education for your child, that is your own responsibility. Either instruct them yourselves, or enroll them in your preferred private religious school. I will certainly oppose any attempt by the religious to weasel thier religion into public school to proselytize other people's children.

 

[theLBC]

This is delusional. Children are allowed their own bibles, student led bible studies, and student led prayers. There is no confiscation. Students can pray before thier own meals and studies. They are free to practice their own religion. The first amendment forbids an establishment of religion, and as a publicly funded education, it is neutral towards religion. If a parent wants religion to be considered a first-order priority, that is their responsibility, not public education's.

i think you have no idea what happens in classrooms and schools across the country.

Now a school bans 13-year-old from wearing crucifix

A school has provoked fury by ordering a devout Catholic schoolgirl to remove her crucifix necklace because it posed a health and safety risk. Teachers demanded Samantha Devine remove her chain despite allowing Muslim and Sikh pupils to wear symbols of their religion

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[CoolJJ]

i think you have no idea what happens in classrooms and schools across the country.

Now a school bans 13-year-old from wearing crucifix

A school has provoked fury by ordering a devout Catholic schoolgirl to remove her crucifix necklace because it posed a health and safety risk. Teachers demanded Samantha Devine remove her chain despite allowing Muslim and Sikh pupils to wear symbols of their religion

www.dailymail.co.uk

This is poor reasoning. One instance, from 2007, in Great Britain... from which we don't have the complete story or resolution... therefore in the USA, kids are banned from practicing thier religion? I'm sure you could find some instances in the USA of bad teachers or administrators behaving poorly towards religious and non religious students alike, but this doesn't make the rule.

Edit: After additional research, I get the impression the jewelry policy of the school may have been applied inconsistently, and the student's family took it as persecution of her faith. Whatever the intent was, it was resolved by allowing the student to wear a cross lapel pin instead of a necklace so she could still display her commitment of faith.

 

[theLBC]

This is poor reasoning. One instance, from 2007, in Great Britain... from which we don't have the complete story or resolution... therefore in the USA, kids are banned from practicing thier religion? I'm sure you could find some instances in the USA of bad teachers or administrators behaving poorly towards religious and non religious students alike, but this doesn't make the rule.

i am not claiming every school is that way, it is just an example. while i can give you more examples from across the country, it doesn't touch the extent of the problem and 99.999% of this we would never know about.
my daughter recently got her masters, so i can tell you anecdotally about public education in california for the last 17 years.

Student asked to remove her cross may leave SSU

The SSU student who was asked by to remove her cross to avoid offending non-Christians says she's not sure she will ever return to the school, but she said the school seems to be taking the matter seriously.

www.pressdemocrat.com

Texas City student banned from wearing cross necklace

A texas city middle school student and his mother are crying foul over a dress code that prohibits a necklace that looks like rosary beads and a cross. School officials say it looks like gang paraphernalia. The boy wears it to honor a fallen soldier

www.khou.com

Florida teacher reportedly banned students from wearing crosses, now threatened with legal action | Blaze Media

A Tampa, Florida, high school teacher has prohibited several students from wearing cross necklaces in her classroom, and the school district is now opening an investigation into the matter. According to a letter sent on Thursday to Hillsborough County Public Schools from Liberty Counsel, a...

www.theblaze.com

why are muslims allowed to demonstrate their faith in school (or else) but christians are not similarly protected?
why is it ok to hate christians?

 

[CoolJJ]

i am not claiming every school is that way, it is just an example. while i can give you more examples from across the country, it doesn't touch the extent of the problem and 99.999% of this we would never know about.
my daughter recently got her masters, so i can tell you anecdotally about public education in california for the last 17 years.

Student asked to remove her cross may leave SSU

The SSU student who was asked by to remove her cross to avoid offending non-Christians says she's not sure she will ever return to the school, but she said the school seems to be taking the matter seriously.

www.pressdemocrat.com

Texas City student banned from wearing cross necklace

A texas city middle school student and his mother are crying foul over a dress code that prohibits a necklace that looks like rosary beads and a cross. School officials say it looks like gang paraphernalia. The boy wears it to honor a fallen soldier

www.khou.com

Florida teacher reportedly banned students from wearing crosses, now threatened with legal action | Blaze Media

A Tampa, Florida, high school teacher has prohibited several students from wearing cross necklaces in her classroom, and the school district is now opening an investigation into the matter. According to a letter sent on Thursday to Hillsborough County Public Schools from Liberty Counsel, a...

www.theblaze.com

why are muslims allowed to demonstrate their faith in school (or else) but christians are not similarly protected?
why is it ok to hate christians?

Are you even reading these articles or are you just googling?

The SSU case was not a school policy and was treated as a title IX violation by the supervisor. Dealt with.

The next two cases are related to gang activity and symbols, and an overzealous libtard teacher. Rules like these and inconsistent application opens possibilities of misunderstanding. But it isn't systematic persecution.

As I stated, you could find a few cases of teachers or administrators discriminating both ways; religious against non-religious and non-religious against religious, but this isn't the rule or systematic. There are over 24k public and private high schools in the US and you would be hard pressed to find more than a couple dozen of these cases out of all of them. Like libtard snowflakes looking for every microaggression they can invent, this reeks of the same, and then concluding there is a systematic problem to persecute christians. These articles by conservative publications and statements by liberty councel reek of interpreting events in the worst possible way and bigger than they really are to feed a persecution complex. The deeper you look into these cases, you find misunderstandings and actual cases that were resolved correctly, but they are few and far between.

The conspiritorial editorializing in the article and persecution complexes just look silly.

 

[theLBC]

Are you even reading these articles or are you just googling?

The SSU case was not a school policy and was treated as a title IX violation by the supervisor. Dealt with.

The next two cases are related to gang activity and symbols, and an overzealous libtard teacher. Rules like these and inconsistent application opens possibilities of misunderstanding. But it isn't systematic persecution.

As I stated, you could find a few cases of teachers or administrators discriminating both ways; religious against non-religious and non-religious against religious, but this isn't the rule or systematic. There are over 24k public and private high schools in the US and you would be hard pressed to find more than a couple dozen of these cases out of all of them. Like libtard snowflakes looking for every microaggression they can invent, this reeks of the same, and then concluding there is a systematic problem to persecute christians. These articles by conservative publications and statements by liberty councel reek of interpreting events in the worst possible way and bigger than they really are to feed a persecution complex. The deeper you look into these cases, you find misunderstandings and actual cases that were resolved correctly, but they are few and far between.

The conspiritorial editorializing in the article and persecution complexes just look silly.

did i say it was school policy?
i said i think you have no idea what happen in classrooms or schools.

and that is still true.
how often do you think a student will report abuse or discrimination?
you think liberal news is going to report on every liberal bullshit hypocrisy, even if it is reported?

 

[W54/XM-388]

why are muslims allowed to demonstrate their faith in school (or else) but christians are not similarly protected?
why is it ok to hate christians?

Because "Christians" have grown weak and soft and all meek and mild and spineless for the greatest extent.

Muslims on the other hand will be happy to cut your head off, blow you up, toss you off a building and wipe your family out if you so much as draw a cartoon they don't like...

 

[Supersubes]

Because "Christians" have grown weak and soft and all meek and mild and spineless for the greatest extent.

Muslims on the other hand will be happy to cut your head off, blow you up, toss you off a building and wipe your family out if you so much as draw a cartoon they don't like...

And still get support from the libtards.

 

[chrome]

Are you even reading these articles or are you just googling?

The SSU case was not a school policy and was treated as a title IX violation by the supervisor. Dealt with.

The next two cases are related to gang activity and symbols, and an overzealous libtard teacher. Rules like these and inconsistent application opens possibilities of misunderstanding. But it isn't systematic persecution.

As I stated, you could find a few cases of teachers or administrators discriminating both ways; religious against non-religious and non-religious against religious, but this isn't the rule or systematic. There are over 24k public and private high schools in the US and you would be hard pressed to find more than a couple dozen of these cases out of all of them. Like libtard snowflakes looking for every microaggression they can invent, this reeks of the same, and then concluding there is a systematic problem to persecute christians. These articles by conservative publications and statements by liberty counsel reek of interpreting events in the worst possible way and bigger than they really are to feed a persecution complex. The deeper you look into these cases, you find misunderstandings and actual cases that were resolved correctly, but they are few and far between.

The conspiratorial editorializing in the article and persecution complexes just look silly.

Well stated, and love the phrase "persecution complex". Perfect label to the above.

And while I do not want to start an "oppression olympics, victimhood" type discussion as that is more of a leftist approach, to add perspective to the conversation, I think it is important to note there are still technically eight states in the United States whose constitutions require you to have some type of belief in a god to run for public office (i.e., not be an atheist).

But let me close with the obvious declaration telling a child they can't wear a crucifix, and/or treating them differently than others, is simply unacceptable, or not letting them privately pray at school, etc, is unlawful. All of this should be protected under the 1A. But equally, if not moreso, memorializing officially in one's own constitution via requiring a belief in a supreme being to hold office, is a violation of the COTUS as well.

Both approaches are simply unamerican.

 

[Blutroop]

Well stated, and love the phrase "persecution complex". Perfect label to the above.

And while I do not want to start an "oppression olympics, victimhood" type discussion as that is more of a leftist approach, to add perspective to the conversation, I think it is important to note there are still technically eight states in the United States whose constitutions require you to have some type of belief in a god to run for public office (i.e., not be an atheist).

But let me close with the obvious declaration telling a child they can't wear a crucifix, and/or treating them differently than others, is simply unacceptable, or not letting them privately pray at school, etc, is unlawful. All of this should be protected under the 1A. But equally, if not moreso, memorializing officially in one's own constitution via requiring a belief in a supreme being to hold office, is a violation of the COTUS as well.

Both approaches are simply unamerican.

By that logic my 5 year old son should be able to run for president. Constitution doesn’t give you a right to play politics.

 

[chrome]

By that logic my 5 year old son should be able to run for president. Constitution doesn’t give you a right to play politics.

Don't take this as an insult, but I have no idea what you mean by the above.

To rephrase my statement for clarity's sake: I fully support the rights of children, and others in society, to hold and express their religious beliefs (so long as it doesn't use public tax payer money/resources, and/or infringe upon anyone else's rights). But I also equally support that idea that state's discriminating against those who are non-believers and preventing them from holding public office solely based on their religious beliefs, is against the COTUS and unamerican.

Which one of those premises do you disagree with?

 

[Blutroop]

Don't take this as an insult, but I have no idea what you mean by the above.

To rephrase my statement for clarity's sake: I fully support the rights of children, and others in society, to hold and express their religious beliefs (so long as it doesn't use public tax payer money/resources, and/or infringe upon anyone else's rights). But I also equally support that idea that state's discriminating against those who are non-believers and preventing them from holding public office solely based on their religious beliefs, is against the COTUS and unamerican.

Which one of those premises do you disagree with?

I’m not sure that it’s violating the constitution for a state constitution to adresss qualifications for politicians. Constitution doesn’t guarantee you the right to run for office. We have age restrictions and citizenship restrictions for the president and we don’t let felons be police officers. I’m not set in stone on this and am curious to hear back

 

[chrome]

I’m not sure that it’s violating the constitution for a state constitution to adresss qualifications for politicians. Constitution doesn’t guarantee you the right to run for office. We have age restrictions and citizenship restrictions for the president and we don’t let felons be police officers. I’m not set in stone on this and am curious to hear back

Ah, ok, that helps, thanks. I am referring to COTUS Article VI, Clause 3:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

 

[Blutroop]

Ah, ok, that helps, thanks. I am referring to COTUS Article VI, Clause 3:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Well there you have it! I stand schooled. I retract my previous statement as I support the constitution 100%

 

[chrome]

Well there you have it! I stand schooled. I retract my previous statement as I support the constitution 100%

I appreciate (truly) our discussion, and happy we found common ground. Finding common ground in conversations like these are always one of my personal goals.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Blutroop]

Conversations might go better if we as people started establishing common ground before discussing the divide.
Merry Christmas.

 

[CoolJJ]

did i say it was school policy?

No, I summarized what the article you linked stated, which leads me to ask again if you even read the articles, or you're just googling. It seems you started with a conclusion and then tried to backfill a justification by lazily googling.

i said i think you have no idea what happen in classrooms or schools.
and that is still true.

I've been to school, I have kids in school, I have friends and family who are religious with kids in school. I've heard of no problems, especially from the devout who are not the type to back down from a challenge. I've searched my city for news reports. I've searched the state for news reports and could only find one instance in the past year which is a stretch to call religious discrimination because the religious student was violating the student code of conduct by harassing other students.

how often do you think a student will report abuse or discrimination?

You are certain your conclusion is true, so not only do you google for weak evidence to backfill a justification that it's a prevalent problem, you have to imagine cases too where students are suffering in silence of unreported discrimination.