It is probably smart that muslims bring the lawsuit. It would be much easier for the court to rule against Christian's. Now they may actually have to look at the case.
Together, these two cases could give religious groups and individuals immense new powers of control over public education in America, bulldozing what remains of the separation of church and state in the process.
Oh, get, bent. “Individuals will have immense new powers of control over public education”, YOU MEAN, THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE A SAY AGAIN?!
I think home school is ALWAYS an option. Change your standard of living. You don't need a nice house, we live in a small house I HATE but it's a place to live. I don't have to have a newer, nice, perfect house. I have a house built in the 1920's, added on in 1945, then 1947, then 1980, It's a building mess. The floors are slanted, we used to play with the kids putting the marble in one place and laughing as it went to another part of the house. But it is solid now that my husband has dug under it and created a mock foundation (it was built originally on tree stumps and a car jack). Don't have new cars, the new phone when it comes out, all the shiny new things... live modestly. Use coupons. Downscale holidays. Buy used than thrift... take advantage of people spending their money then donating or selling, then get the deal on the nice stuff. Our vacations are going with my husband when he's on a business trip, or doing home repairs on his vacation days. It sucks, yeah.. but it's for the ability to homeschool my kids.
They are learning how to invest, how to save, how to cook... how to live without so they can live with a bigger reward!!!!
You know that's the way to be. You sounded almost like many of the first generation Americans. They do without the shiny new gadgets so their kids can learn earn good marks in school.
I am always respectful of those people instead of living on credit with new shiny things.
Depending on how you want to live. There are people I know who have 4 kids and on one income. Husband isn't a Silicon CEO nor some high income wage earner either. He's a truck driver for a company.
I’m hoping that will change with the upcoming new economy. Also working at home is becoming more of an option. Of course homeschooling and remote work are not necessarily compatible but some part-timer workers can make it happen. I worked at home in the ‘90s when I had babies— but really had to twist arms to carve out this option for myself.
Also working at home is becoming more of an option.
In Commonsense Land, it would be.
Unfortunately, we live in Clown World, where the exact opposite is taking place: forcing remote workers back into the mind-numbing hellish existence of:
a. commute among other lemmings in heavy traffic inside shiny box to office-politics cell
b. perform work behaviors within office-politics cell until finally released
c. commute home among other lemmings from office-politics cell in heavy traffic inside shiny box
The majority of workers lead lives of quiet desperation because they have to arise at an hour they don't want to arise at, leave a home they don't want to leave, and get in traffic they don't want to be in, to get to an office they don't want to go to, at an hour they don't want to be there, and do work they don't want to do, with people they can't stand, for a boss or company that doesn't appreciate or respect them, for money they find inadequate...and they get to do that five days a week for three to four decades. This they call "living life."
The board cautions that accepting the parents’ argument that the lack of an opt-out option imposes a burden on their religious beliefs would “leave public education in shreds” “by entitling parents to pick and choose which aspects of the curriculum will be taught to their children.”
Sorry, parents should 100% be in charge of what their children learn, not the schools.
This is why the Department of Indoctrination needs to be shut down once and for all. They truly believe they own and control our children.
I fail to see how parents having the option to opt out of these Leftist materials, destroying the separation of church and state.
As phrase that doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution, BTW.
Giving parents control over what their children consume in school shouldn't be a controversial thing, unless you're trying to subvert the will of the parents, of course.
How about parents in general have a say. After all that's the way it's supposed to work. Obviously we who believe in God will choose differently from the rank unbeliever. Shouldn't need a court to say it.
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE? HOW SO? "The government shall be upon Christ's shoulder"
" Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with Justice from henceforth even forever: the zeal of the Lord of host will perform it" (Isaiah 9:6-7)
Jefferson immortalized the phrase in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Concerned about their status as a religious minority, the Baptist community penned a letter to the president expressing fear about religious persecution. Jefferson responded, emphasizing that the First Amendment's free exercise and establishment clauses together built "a wall of separation between church and state."
It's pretty well described in the letter linked in the article (https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html), as well as in the 1st Amendment ("...make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof").
But that specific phrase is not codified into law, period.
And there is a law outlawing Islam in the US, so where does that fit in?
If that were to be codified in law you'd have to leave off the word Satanic.
And that is what I'm talking about, codifying bad religion and good religion into law. The context of the phrase "separation of church and state" was to prevent one Christian sect from dominating the religious landscape in the fledgling USA over any other.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~ John Adams
We have seen that none of the faiths of India qualify for that. Nor of Somalia. Certainly not Satanism, nor Scientology definitely do not meet those criteria, and absolutely not Talmudic Judaism.
You can't even say "Any religion who's law supersedes the Constitution is illegal" because the laws of God do supersede every man made law.
The Constitution not only does not specify separation of church and state...the first protection guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights is for the "free exercise" of religion. You cannot make this up.
The Constitution prescribes the EXACT POLAR OPPOSITE of what we have now, where people have NO right to free exercise of their religious beliefs and are subject to punishment including fines and imprisonment. This can be for, e.g., conducting services in a church parking lot for attendees inside their vehicles, silently praying on a public sidewalk, or praying while assembling to speak freely in petitioning the govt for redress of grievances, say, amid an insurrectionist coup led by the party that openly stole a presidential election after losing it in a historic landslide.
This sounds interesting, it will be, possibly, difficult to see how the Supreme Court rules on this. I hope they rule constitutionally and not politically.
Which side would the left root for? They'll be torn.
Oh. You are correct. LOL
I'm confused as to which side to root for myself as a Christian.
I'll just take delight in seeing them fight each other.
Edit: read the article up to the paywall and I think I gotta root for the Muslims here actually.
It is probably smart that muslims bring the lawsuit. It would be much easier for the court to rule against Christian's. Now they may actually have to look at the case.
Sad but true.
Halal-lujah.
Amen.
https://archive.is/S83Hg
Slate article (bypassing paywall).
Thanks.
Thank you.
Oh, get, bent. “Individuals will have immense new powers of control over public education”, YOU MEAN, THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE A SAY AGAIN?!
“And this is why that’s a bad thing.”
The author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Joseph_Stern
Home school people.
I think home school is ALWAYS an option. Change your standard of living. You don't need a nice house, we live in a small house I HATE but it's a place to live. I don't have to have a newer, nice, perfect house. I have a house built in the 1920's, added on in 1945, then 1947, then 1980, It's a building mess. The floors are slanted, we used to play with the kids putting the marble in one place and laughing as it went to another part of the house. But it is solid now that my husband has dug under it and created a mock foundation (it was built originally on tree stumps and a car jack). Don't have new cars, the new phone when it comes out, all the shiny new things... live modestly. Use coupons. Downscale holidays. Buy used than thrift... take advantage of people spending their money then donating or selling, then get the deal on the nice stuff. Our vacations are going with my husband when he's on a business trip, or doing home repairs on his vacation days. It sucks, yeah.. but it's for the ability to homeschool my kids.
They are learning how to invest, how to save, how to cook... how to live without so they can live with a bigger reward!!!!
You know that's the way to be. You sounded almost like many of the first generation Americans. They do without the shiny new gadgets so their kids can learn earn good marks in school.
I am always respectful of those people instead of living on credit with new shiny things.
Good for you… you value family and sound creative and fun.
Most families require two incomes due to all the 'free trade' the rats been pushing for 40 years. Home school isnt an option for most.
Depending on how you want to live. There are people I know who have 4 kids and on one income. Husband isn't a Silicon CEO nor some high income wage earner either. He's a truck driver for a company.
I’m hoping that will change with the upcoming new economy. Also working at home is becoming more of an option. Of course homeschooling and remote work are not necessarily compatible but some part-timer workers can make it happen. I worked at home in the ‘90s when I had babies— but really had to twist arms to carve out this option for myself.
In Commonsense Land, it would be.
Unfortunately, we live in Clown World, where the exact opposite is taking place: forcing remote workers back into the mind-numbing hellish existence of:
a. commute among other lemmings in heavy traffic inside shiny box to office-politics cell
b. perform work behaviors within office-politics cell until finally released
c. commute home among other lemmings from office-politics cell in heavy traffic inside shiny box
The majority of workers lead lives of quiet desperation because they have to arise at an hour they don't want to arise at, leave a home they don't want to leave, and get in traffic they don't want to be in, to get to an office they don't want to go to, at an hour they don't want to be there, and do work they don't want to do, with people they can't stand, for a boss or company that doesn't appreciate or respect them, for money they find inadequate...and they get to do that five days a week for three to four decades. This they call "living life."
I didn't even have to look at the early life section of his wiki page to know that he is Jewish and gay.
Agreed!
Here is another angle.
Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes
Sorry, parents should 100% be in charge of what their children learn, not the schools.
This is why the Department of Indoctrination needs to be shut down once and for all. They truly believe they own and control our children.
Well said. No freedom for us! For our own good health and safety!
I fail to see how parents having the option to opt out of these Leftist materials, destroying the separation of church and state.
As phrase that doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution, BTW.
Giving parents control over what their children consume in school shouldn't be a controversial thing, unless you're trying to subvert the will of the parents, of course.
I would suggest homeschool any way.
Let’s hope all the trannies show up with “Allah Loves Queers” signs 😂🍿🍿
Is it gonna be on Pay-per-view?
Take My Money!!! 💰💰💰
Wouldn't that be funny.
Better the Devil you know than the devil you don’t? 😬
Exactly
How about parents in general have a say. After all that's the way it's supposed to work. Obviously we who believe in God will choose differently from the rank unbeliever. Shouldn't need a court to say it.
Homeschool is the way to go. Religious school is my second choice.
AFUERA!! To BOTH of those leftist ideologies.
LOL
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE? HOW SO? "The government shall be upon Christ's shoulder" " Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with Justice from henceforth even forever: the zeal of the Lord of host will perform it" (Isaiah 9:6-7)
I would like to see homeschool, private school, and very small amount of public school.
Public schools should be competing just like when I was in Portland OR
Jefferson immortalized the phrase in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Concerned about their status as a religious minority, the Baptist community penned a letter to the president expressing fear about religious persecution. Jefferson responded, emphasizing that the First Amendment's free exercise and establishment clauses together built "a wall of separation between church and state."
Source (aka Do you want to know more?) - https://www.freedomforum.org/separation-of-church-and-state/
As previously stated in this thread, that phrase appears no where in the US Constitution nor, I believe, in any other US law.
"A wall of separation between church and state" What does that mean in your understanding.
It's pretty well described in the letter linked in the article (https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html), as well as in the 1st Amendment ("...make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof").
But that specific phrase is not codified into law, period.
And there is a law outlawing Islam in the US, so where does that fit in?
islam is not a religion. It is a political ideology of hate, murder and slavery.
I normally say it's an organized plan for world domination, much like Scientology.
But the question remains "Where and how do you differentiate between 'religions' like Islam and Scientology, and actual faiths?"
Actual good faiths don't plan to take over the world in satanic dominion.
If that were to be codified in law you'd have to leave off the word Satanic.
And that is what I'm talking about, codifying bad religion and good religion into law. The context of the phrase "separation of church and state" was to prevent one Christian sect from dominating the religious landscape in the fledgling USA over any other.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~ John Adams
We have seen that none of the faiths of India qualify for that. Nor of Somalia. Certainly not Satanism, nor Scientology definitely do not meet those criteria, and absolutely not Talmudic Judaism.
You can't even say "Any religion who's law supersedes the Constitution is illegal" because the laws of God do supersede every man made law.
Your Daily Reminder
The Constitution not only does not specify separation of church and state...the first protection guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights is for the "free exercise" of religion. You cannot make this up.
The Constitution prescribes the EXACT POLAR OPPOSITE of what we have now, where people have NO right to free exercise of their religious beliefs and are subject to punishment including fines and imprisonment. This can be for, e.g., conducting services in a church parking lot for attendees inside their vehicles, silently praying on a public sidewalk, or praying while assembling to speak freely in petitioning the govt for redress of grievances, say, amid an insurrectionist coup led by the party that openly stole a presidential election after losing it in a historic landslide.
Oh yes thank you. It's good to remember.
Good thing the case was brought by Muslims. Christians would not stand a chance.
LOL. True.
This sounds interesting, it will be, possibly, difficult to see how the Supreme Court rules on this. I hope they rule constitutionally and not politically.
I don't hold a lot of hope
https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1914526792561418368