Book Bans

[Ban Basketball]

47 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

You can look it up. It is really easy to find. Its under Moore County Schools Parents Bill of Rights. I believe its more about allowing parents to do the parenting and the educators to teach reading, writing and arithmetic along with other subjects.

We've talked about it before.  I don't dispute that it exists,  I'd just be afraid that untrained people are determining curricula and content. 

[Ban Basketball]

29 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Define untrained educator. 

Someone with no training in education,  including no certificates,  educational degrees,  and licensure.

Just like it is defined everywhere. 

I'd also add trained in the specific area of education that is at hand. 

 

Edited October 25, 2023 by Ban Basketball

[Offthemat]

39 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

So, you're assuming a lot in order to maintain your bias. You have not mentioned anything about grooming. You have offered no examples but seem to imply that THAT is an obvious reason. It isn't. 

No constitutional restriction? Really? Are you that dense? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  By giving money to one religion or religious entity they give preference to that religion or religious entity. That is a no no. There is no end to the amount of religions or religious entities they must support equally so as to not respect or prohibit a religion. So the easiest way to do that is to give them nothing. Also the tax exempt status. This reasoning is tired and you are dishonest and AND ignorant that you are positing it. To have freedom OF religion the government must be free FROM religion. Not religious people but of religious motivations and support. 

All the data you can attribute to charter schools is possible to achieve at adequately funded public schools. But they have been bled dry for decades. Give more money to education then to DOD. 

I can’t do much about your ignorance of history.  But your stating that we must maintain freedom from religion is demonstrably wrong.  Somewhat recent Supreme Court ruling to that effect.  You may not know it,  but religious schools, charities, adoption services, etc get funding currently.  George W had a hand in returning to this practice.  It’s not an establishment of anything, it’s recognizing that aiding a program that is already in place is more efficient than creating a whole new one. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

17 hours ago, Offthemat said:

I can’t do much about your ignorance of history.  But your stating that we must maintain freedom from religion is demonstrably wrong.  Somewhat recent Supreme Court ruling to that effect.  You may not know it,  but religious schools, charities, adoption services, etc get funding currently.  George W had a hand in returning to this practice.  It’s not an establishment of anything, it’s recognizing that aiding a program that is already in place is more efficient than creating a whole new one. 

And there is no chance the SCOTUS is wrong? 

How is my logic faulty? If we give aid to one religion or religious group and not others. How is that not favoritism or 'Respecting' a religion or government discrimination to those that are left out? 

I'm sorry you can't see past your bias. Some of the justices, during their confirmations outright lied to the senate about respecting precedent. That doesn't seem to bother you because it landed in your favor(I would argue that even now, it isn't in your favor). I am of the idea that winning dishonestly isn't worth it. If you'd rather do it that way, that says a lot about you. 

If they start paying taxes and open their books for public scrutiny, I would consider allowing them to take tax money. 

Since that subject came up, how do you feel that churches are given money from taxes they did not contribute to? Do you feel that's fair to other secular organizations that do/try similar things? Or is it government picking winners and losers?  

[ThreePointTakedown]

17 hours ago, Offthemat said:

I can’t do much about your ignorance of history.  But your stating that we must maintain freedom from religion is demonstrably wrong.  Somewhat recent Supreme Court ruling to that effect.  You may not know it,  but religious schools, charities, adoption services, etc get funding currently.  George W had a hand in returning to this practice.  It’s not an establishment of anything, it’s recognizing that aiding a program that is already in place is more efficient than creating a whole new one. 

How do you interpret the first amendment with regards to religion? 

Are you a judeo-christian-values person? 

[Offthemat]

30 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

And there is no chance the SCOTUS is wrong? 

How is my logic faulty? If we give aid to one religion or religious group and not others. How is that not favoritism or 'Respecting' a religion or government discrimination to those that are left out? 

I'm sorry you can't see past your bias. Some of the justices, during their confirmations outright lied to the senate about respecting precedent. That doesn't seem to bother you because it landed in your favor(I would argue that even now, it isn't in your favor). I am of the idea that winning dishonestly isn't worth it. If you'd rather do it that way, that says a lot about you. 

If they start paying taxes and open their books for public scrutiny, I would consider allowing them to take tax money. 

Since that subject came up, how do you feel that churches are given money from taxes they did not contribute to? Do you feel that's fair to other secular organizations that do/try similar things? Or is it government picking winners and losers?  

That’s certain to be one of your fallacies, changing the emphasis and meaning of the term ‘respecting.’  You’ll have to look up which one.
 

 It’s well known that the Court has been wrong in numerous of its rulings.  But historically, from the beginning of this country, the government has contributed to religious establishments without establishing a State Religion.  And the Court has rarely found it to be in violation of the Constitution.  The one that allows freedom of religion, not seclusion from religion.  By your implications, NGOs and non-profits (that don’t pay taxes) would be excluded for the off chance they would benefit a particular group, when that is often the goal.  The situation has simply never been as you describe.  

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

That’s certain to be one of your fallacies, changing the emphasis and meaning of the term ‘respecting.’  You’ll have to look up which one.
 

 It’s well known that the Court has been wrong in numerous of its rulings.  But historically, from the beginning of this country, the government has contributed to religious establishments without establishing a State Religion.  And the Court has rarely found it to be in violation of the Constitution.  The one that allows freedom of religion, not seclusion from religion.  By your implications, NGOs and non-profits (that don’t pay taxes) would be excluded for the off chance they would benefit a particular group, when that is often the goal.  The situation has simply never been as you describe.  

Examples?

And because it has happened, doesn't mean it was ever constitutional, just that it was never stopped for that reason. 45 took emoluments for his entire term but was never brought up because its an amorphous rule that no one had been as slimy as to be in violation of in such a blatant way. 

'Rarely found that it was in violation'. You aren't wrong. But you're not right either. That they keep chipping away at it doesn't mean its correct. Just that this is a far as they want to push the line while trying to maintain relevance. Case in point. The 6-3 court now, can do all the things they and conservatives want without any repercussions, for the most part. Why haven't they? Illegitimacy. Making huge swings away from precedent while lead to the court losing the heft that it has in being a neutral arbiter of the rule of law. They have no way of enforcing their decisions except for the perceived legitimacy of how they came about the decisions. That SCOTUS makes a decision doesn't mean that is correct or fair. 

Brings me to my next question which was a question before: are you ok with churches taking and sometimes suing for tax money that they did not contribute to? 

Why should churches be able to operate in secret? Is that a good thing? Hiding criminals? Hiding investments? And still beg for tax money?

That you can't see the hypocrisy of wanting it both/all the ways, is an example of your bias and 'ends justify the means' attitude that is dangerous for all sides.  

[Offthemat]

6 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Examples?

And because it has happened, doesn't mean it was ever constitutional, just that it was never stopped for that reason. 45 took emoluments for his entire term but was never brought up because its an amorphous rule that no one had been as slimy as to be in violation of in such a blatant way. 

'Rarely found that it was in violation'. You aren't wrong. But you're not right either. That they keep chipping away at it doesn't mean its correct. Just that this is a far as they want to push the line while trying to maintain relevance. Case in point. The 6-3 court now, can do all the things they and conservatives want without any repercussions, for the most part. Why haven't they? Illegitimacy. Making huge swings away from precedent while lead to the court losing the heft that it has in being a neutral arbiter of the rule of law. They have no way of enforcing their decisions except for the perceived legitimacy of how they came about the decisions. That SCOTUS makes a decision doesn't mean that is correct or fair. 

Brings me to my next question which was a question before: are you ok with churches taking and sometimes suing for tax money that they did not contribute to? 

Why should churches be able to operate in secret? Is that a good thing? Hiding criminals? Hiding investments? And still beg for tax money?

That you can't see the hypocrisy of wanting it both/all the ways, is an example of your bias and 'ends justify the means' attitude that is dangerous for all sides.  

Just some recent examples:
 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-takes-broad-view-religious-rights-key-cases-2022-06-21/

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 10/26/2023 at 2:32 PM, Offthemat said:

Just some recent examples:
 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-takes-broad-view-religious-rights-key-cases-2022-06-21/

You offer up examples and no follow up to how they fit your point(some of them don't, btw). 

Then ignore the rest of the post, not answering any of the other questions. Makes you seem dishonest. 

[Offthemat]

After realizing that your “freedom from religion” and complete separation of church and state arguments are false, you should recognize that the questions you ask are irrelevant. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

After realizing that your “freedom from religion” and complete separation of church and state arguments are false, you should recognize that the questions you ask are irrelevant. 

How is there freedom with government supporting religion? 

 

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

After realizing that your “freedom from religion” and complete separation of church and state arguments are false, you should recognize that the questions you ask are irrelevant. 

Which country(ies) would you most want the USA to reflect with regards to religion and government? 

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

How is there freedom with government supporting religion? 

 

Are you being prevented from practicing your religion?

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Which country(ies) would you most want the USA to reflect with regards to religion and government? 

I don’t necessarily want us to reflect anybody.  Let me guess your’s.  North Korea has no religion.  Am I right?

[mspart]

Amendment I           (1791)

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.

mspart

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

Are you being prevented from practicing your religion?

If you are just going to avoid answering the question, fine. Nothing I can do about that. 

But practicing isn't the question, its how expression is chilled by the support or lack of support from the government. An entity that can imprison you, or worse, if it so chooses. 

When government supports a religion or several religions, but not all, that is discrimination. You see that when governments want to put a religious image or icon on public property. When other religions or organizations sue to have theirs included, they either have to include something from every organization with the resources to raise a fuss(not all of them, mind you) or discontinue support of that original project. Either way it chills speech/expression because government support does that and is a violation of the rights of every citizen. Not just the supporters of that religion. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

21 hours ago, Offthemat said:

I don’t necessarily want us to reflect anybody.  Let me guess your’s.  North Korea has no religion.  Am I right?

Doesn't seem like we are having the same conversation. Of course you'd guess, rather then asking. But I'll bet in a country with a population that size I'll bet there are plenty of people that practice a religion. But if you're saying that N. Korea is like us in that there is no official religion, you might be right.  Do you disagree that we have an official religion? 

Are you familiar with the goings on in N. Korea? Doesn't seem so.

 

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 10/30/2023 at 8:41 AM, Offthemat said:

After realizing that your “freedom from religion” and complete separation of church and state arguments are false, you should recognize that the questions you ask are irrelevant. 

What are false about those things? If its just your opinion, it can't be true or false. I can just say 'nu uh' like you've been doing this whole time.

[jross]

On 10/25/2023 at 1:12 PM, ThreePointTakedown said:

But reading something in the privacy of your own head should not be banned EVER!

Nuance.

... privacy (HIPAA), security (confidential docs), IP (copyrighted material), protecting children (xxx), materials calling for imminent lawless action  ...

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/19990531/33480-paladin-press-pays-millions-to-settle-hit-man-case.html

[Ohio Elite]