Religion = denial of reality.
It should be illegal for religious people to indoctrinate children with their religious beliefs.
But in USA they have turned it on its head, and made it illegal to teach the truth because of religious superstition!
In Texas, voters just passed a constitutional amendment giving parents the right "to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing" specifically for cases like this. Almost everyone I spoke to was in full support of it and kept saying "obviously a parent should decide what's best for their child". But as someone who grew up in a toxic religious family, it makes me so sad to see that there's no protection for kids in these situations. Parents can ensure they're doomed to a life of ignorance and bigotry before they even have a chance. :(
Legalized child abuse.
I see this as a complete parenting fail. It is not your job as a parent to 'protect' your child from the world, it is your job to prepare them for it.
That poor kid is gonna need a lot of therapy later in life after he/she moves out on their own.
Dad in the future: “Son, you never call or visit. You’re always so busy.”
Parents like this ultimately hope the child never moves out. It is a cult.
Parents like this hope the child moves out when they graduate high school and get rich so their kid can care for them when they're old.
You realize they don't really care? They just do it to exert control over public institutions. It's a way of threatening and eventually firing progressive teachers. Majority of those court cases are manufactured by right-wing think tanks and the parents are just some random people. In many cases the "victims" suing were not even real. It doesn't matter. The Supreme Court will eventually take the case and give Christians another win.
Doesn’t this open the way for a parent to sue the school over Christian symbolism? A parent could should take that school to court over a Christmas tree.
It's Heads-I-Win and Tails-You-Lose in the Trump-stacked court system.
You're looking at the judiciary as some kind of impartial machine, but you need to see it as a Vegas Casino, where you can maybe win a hand or two here or there but the game is stacked against you by design.
There is no world in which a conservative court bans Christmas Trees or Crosses or any other Christian iconography, because these courts are run by evangelical Christians for the benefit of evangelical Christians. You might as well ask a Chinese court to remove images of Mao from the classroom or an Iranian court to outlaw the Koran.
I mean yes but also You're out of touch if you think the judges value internal consistency like that.
Christianity has harmed more people that LGBTQ people have. Many types of Christians have to try and save you by converting you. LGBTQ folks aren't trying to convert you.
Compare the number of Christians convicted of child sex crimes vs the number of LGBTQ+ who have and it paints a pretty one sided picture.
Many types of Christians have to try and save you by converting you. LGBTQ folks aren't trying to convert you.
That's one motivation behind their behavior. Since they are constantly trying to manipulate people to join them, they assume the gays are recruiting, too.
Ok, no more Bible. After all eve came from Adam's rib right?
Now all I can think of is Eve pleasuring herself with a human rib.
New kink unlocked.
Some Athiest should sue to get all religious texts banned in that district, using this ruling as direct precedent.
The bible confirms God has male and female sexual organs
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:27
Gen 1:26 weirdly
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground”
Monotheism came later.
I don't believe in Christians
Amazing they enroll someone in school to not learn things. Devout ignorance.
Kid is going to have a rude awakening when he runs a web query on his dad and everything that comes up has “gay” in the title.
Ban books that show people wearing clothes with mixed fabrics! Its against mah religion!
Why do fundamentalist Christians choose homosexuality specifically as their hill to die on?
Leviticus 19:19
“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.”
Deuteronomy 22:11
“You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together.”
Why do fundamentalist Christians choose homosexuality specifically as their hill to die on?
It's an easy out-group to identify and target.
As a Christian, I object to books featuring rich people, people who don't help poor people, people who don't heal the sick, and people who are mean to foreigners. Unless the perpetrators of those unChristian acts get their comeuppance, of course. Can I now demand from schools that my kid doesn't get exposed to those kinds of books?
That is when you know you are losing when you have to hide the truth from your kid.
Bigotry ftw
As the Boston Herald reported, the father, identified in court documents as Alan L., is described as a “devout Christian” who objects to the inclusion of certain children’s books featuring LGBTQ+ characters in the kindergarten curriculum of Joseph Estabrook Elementary School, where his son, identified as J.L., is enrolled.
Seems like an ideal candidate for home-schooling, though that's a shitty thing to do to a kid.
I didn't even find out what gay people were until like 5th grade. This is all completely unnecessary to achieve their bigotry.
The case isn't finished yet, I see, so maybe sanity can yet prevail. So far it's just a preliminary injunction.
“The question presented here is not whether the viewpoints of plaintiff, or those of the school officials, are ‘correct’ as a matter of religious faith or political or social belief. Nor is it whether the materials should be part of the kindergarten curriculum for other students,” Saylor, a George W. Bush appointee, explained. “Instead, this case presents a narrow question: whether these specific defendants have provided the required notice and opportunity to review materials that this specific plaintiff may find objectionable, so that he may opt his child out of classroom instruction that violates his religious beliefs.”
In granting Alan L.’s request for a preliminary injunction, which will remain in place while the case proceeds, Saylor ordered the school and district to “make reasonable efforts to ensure that J.L. is not taught or otherwise exposed to the content of the Identified Books, whether in the classroom or any other school setting” and to ensure J.L. receives “reasonable age-appropriate alternative instruction.”
Lawyers for Lexington Public Schools, however, said the district looks forward to “aggressively defending against these claims.” In a statement, attorneys Douglas I. Louison and Alexandra M. Gill noted the district’s existing religious-based opt-out program and that the Supreme Court’s Mahmoud decision “made it clear that depicting the mere existence of potentially-offensive values or lifestyles is not enough to warrant an opt-out, and that it is the messaging associated with those potentially-offensive materials that determines whether an opt-out is warranted.”
“In this case, the materials are not associated with any LGBTQ+-focused curriculum or paired instruction, nor was the student even exposed to the two books at issue,” Louison and Gill added, according to the Herald.
Louison and Gill also noted the burden opt-out demands like Alan L.’s place on schools.
“This is not like a student with a peanut allergy, where the implementation of an accommodation to protect the student is reasonably clear,” they wrote. “Schools are burdened enough without having to scour the pages of a storybook for potentially gay-appearing characters. At what point, for instance, is a character’s haircut too short to presume they are a woman? Are two men sitting together at a restaurant presumed to be gay, or might they just be friends? There are innumerable scenarios like these, and schools are now being forced to make near-impossible judgments.”
If there's a gilod, this guy's kid will be gay, and not shy about it.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.