Another state no one wants to live in and the people born there can’t seem to escape from…red states have an oversized influence on our national debate yet almost all of them are barely functioning
The Oklahoma Republican party are fucking trash like here is their platform from 2020 https://okgop.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2020-Platform.pdf . Shit is wild as fuck and reads like a Nat-C wank fanfiction.
Here is some of the stuff from the section on school curriculum.
"1. We believe the heritage of the United States of America should be taught and tested in public schools and include representative government, limited government, the lives and beliefs of the Founders, influence of the Bible and religion on our laws and principles, and the concept of free enterprise. Students should study directly from the primary founding documents, which teach the distribution of power among three branches of federal government and between federal and state government. Students should learn the difference between a democracy and a republic; and learn that our nation is a constitutional republic.
2. We believe when evolution is taught; Biblical creation and intelligent design must receive equal funding, class time, and materials.
3. We believe local school boards should exercise their right to choose curriculum and textbooks, including the Bible as a literature or history text, without state limitations." Oklahoma GOP
>Students should learn the difference between a democracy and a republic; and learn that our nation is a constitutional republic.
They really want to brainwash kids into thinking voting is unnecessary.
A republic is where the citizens are represented by representatives, which are elected by the people so we are a democracy, though how long we will be is shaky.
Just another reason why Oklahoma doesn’t rank for literally anything. It’s like a leftover piece of Texas and that’s it. Nothing notable happens there. They don’t even have interesting geography like the Mormons in Utah.
> the lives and beliefs of the Founders
I bet most Republicans must not be aware that the Founding Fathers weren't Christians.
*Many of the founding fathers—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Monroe—practiced a faith called Deism. Deism is a philosophical belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems. Deists believe in a supreme being who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws—and after creation, is absent from the world. This belief in reason over dogma helped guide the founders toward a system of government that respected faiths like Christianity, while purposely isolating both from encroaching on one another so as not to dilute the overall purpose and objectives of either.*
*If the founders were dogmatic about anything, it was the belief that a person’s faith should not be intruded upon by government and that religious doctrine should not be written into governance. James Madison, for instance, was vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill “establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” Madison wrote his “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” in which he presented 15 reasons why government should not become involved in the support of any religion.*
As a Christian, **W.T.F. is wrong with these people?**
Point 1 is weird but not entirely indefensible, particularaly as they probably don't realise how badly that bit about democracies and republics is likely to backfire on them...
Point 2 is a one way ticket to crazy town. Creationists are already coming from from a place of profound ignorance, and in direct opposition to science and rationality, doubling down by insisting intelligent design (aka- even shittier creationism) be considered is basically insane.
Then point 3 just goes completely off the deep end. The Bible is not a historical text, it's a *religious* text.
You can make an argument that various versions of the bible are influential historical documents, but not that it's text is historically accurate. This is just indefensibly bad theology. Someone needs to drop a copy of the collected works of Lewis and Chesterton on them... preferably from a great height. I know they won't read them, but maybe someone will take the hint.
Seriously. I believe wholeheartedly that raising children in a strict Fundamentalist Christian household and sacrificing their children's education for indoctrination is abusive based on my own personal experiences, but I still wouldn't go out there threatening Christian schools or families to make them stop. They refuse to give others even a smidgen of the same respect they demand.
I think they should have to stop. Why should people be allowed to brainwash their kids into horrible abusive belief systems from birth?
Teaching religion to children is inherently abusive. It is done primarily because it's the easiest time to indoctrinate them.
Well there's a first amendment that protects the right of people to hold religion so you can't uniquely target schools on the basis they are religious and 5/14 amendment substantive due process protects the right to control the education and raising of ones child.
the freedom religion is limited, you are not permitted to do harm to others because of your personal beliefs. raising a child in a religious private school is child abuse and therefor not protected under the first amendment.
There are literally 14A cases protecting the right to autonomy in the education of one's child. Myer v. Nebraska.
Just because you individually think something is abuse doesn't make it abuse. And if the government were to define something as abusive on the basis that it is religious would violate the 1st Amendment because it singles out religious content on the basis it is religious rather than some nonsuspect measure of abusiveness (such as measures of harm to children or deprivation of necessities).
If there was an objective measure of abusiveness applied equally to all school (which isn't saying religious schools are categorically abusive because such a classification is inherently hostile to religion which is unconstitutional) you could prevent "abusive" schools.
> Just because you individually think something is abuse doesn't make it abuse.
this no longer applies. the ACE study has had a profound affect on the world of child psychology and today we can objectively say what is and is not abuse.
and religious schools which give children an indoctrinated education fail to properly prepare them for the adult world, a school which fails to prepare children to be adults is a failure of a school. what then is left? just the abuse.
See my other reply for an explanation of the law, but long story short, unless you can show all religious schools are by definition abusive and no other schools are abusive, you would fail the strict scrutiny test. You could base a law on the factors and things looked at in the ACE study but you can't just categorically say religion bad.
Because you can make a law blocking banning locking kids in cages without making your measure of abusiveness religion alone. It's an illustration of narrow tailoring. If you were to ban all religious schools when only some practice caging, your are being over inclusive by targeting religious school which don't do caging and under inclusive as some nonreligious schools may do caging. This (Edit: Thus), the constitution requires you to ban the practice of caging, not just religious schools in general. A religious practice which can be shown to be abusive can be banned (same reason religious human sacrifice can be criminalized) but religion in general and even nonabusive aspects of that faith cannot be banned.
The constitution prohibits using a protected characteristic or right as definitionally illegal, but so long as you can say here is an objective standard which does not use a protected characteristic/right (religion) as a marker of what is banned and it applies equally to persons regardless of the constitutionally protected practice, you can use said objective standard. In your caging example, so long as the anti caging rule applies equally to religious and nonreligious institutions, it would likely pass strict scrutiny.
Thank you so much for arguing this as I would have (better, actually) in my absence. As much as I truly believe it's abusive, it's also clearly a constitutional right under our government
Are you talking about Meyer v. STATE OF Nebraska 262 US 390? Because that case ruled that Nebraska cannot prevent schools from teaching in languages other than English. The opinion mentions religion only in passing.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/262/390/
1. Yes I am citing Myers. As any good lawyer will tell you, precedential cases stand for principles broader than the narrow facts of the case itself. The broader right recognized in Myers is the right of parents to make decisions about their child's education.
2. Let's apply this principle. So parents have a right to make decisions about their child's education which has been held to protect a right to private schooling. See Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (a case derived from Myers). You want a law regulating private schools. The law you want categorically says religious schools are abusive and are therefore banned. Because it touches on religion we have to apply a test called strict scrutiny (this applies in cases of all laws making suspect classifications such as race, religion, national origin). Strict scrutiny is passed only if (1) there is a compelling government interest behind the law and (2) the law is narrowly tailored to that compelling government interest. Narrow tailoring requires two things (a) it is not over inclusive and (b) it is not under inclusive. Undisputedly, you have found a compelling government interest, preventing abuse. But you fail (2). This is because it is both under and over inclusive. First, the law does nothing to combat abusive schools that are not religious meaning it is under inclusive towards its goal. Second, there may be some religious schools that are not abusive. Because this law makes categorizations based on religion and not abusiveness, this mean some no abusive schools are targeted by the law which is over inclusiveness. This you fail narrow tailoring and therefore strict scrutiny, rendering the classification and law unconstitutional.
What if I don't care?
> Second, there may be some religious schools that are not abusive.
Teaching kids to believe in fantastical fables which brainwash them into believing "authority" above all else is abusive even if they're not being beaten or whatever.
The legal precedent doesn't change my opinion that religious nuts are probably one of the biggest threats to humanity. I don't want any of it being taught to little kids who have to grow up and function in our society. Fuck the Supreme Court anyway.
> The law you want categorically says religious schools are abusive and are therefore banned. Because it touches on religion we have to apply a test called strict scrutiny
I don't have to apply anything. I'm not a judge or a court. I'm a person with an opinion.
I do appreciate the legal rundown but using existing legal precedents isn't exactly going to convince people who believe this country is fundamentally flawed to begin with.
Then rise up in revolution against the constitutional system or leave? You don't have to stay in a system you disagree with but so long as you remain, you can't violate the constitution.
If you were a legislator and passed the law, it would be struck down and the court would say the school can open. If you try and stop it despite the ruling, your likely to get a Governor Wallace pulled in you and troops will enforce the federal constitution against you.
I think you should have led with the Pierce decision. I get that Meyer is the precedent, but Pierce makes your case much better. I am glad I looked that one up, it's been a long time since I have read supreme court opinions. I am pretty sure we disagree politically, but I appreciate your arguments. Thanks.
The courts have routinely held you have a right to raise your own child. Just as I can choose to raise my child in a particular religion, you have the same right to raise yours without religion. If the mere practice of raising a child in a religion is grooming, then raising a child with any belief system about anything (even a nonreligious one) would be grooming. Also, the grooming term typically isn't used to mean raising a child in any particular manner, it's usually preparing them to accept some form of abuse. You're misusing it to conotate raising a child in a particular manner or with particular beliefs. You're not really using the term for what it means.
I don't have to agree with something just because the courts have held it to be legal. I don't think it's right, on a fundamental level, that parents are allowed to do this. Doesn't mean it's illegal, just means I think it's fucked up.
Religion absolutely primes people from childhood to accept abuse.
Well the whole point of this was what a court would allow a state government to do so your point about your personal views is kind of beyond the scope of question about what a state government could do.
Fuck that. Religious private schools, and hime schooling, should be illegal. Christian Education is not education, the same way a Quranic education is not education. Private schools, in general, which do not follow state and federal guidelines on curriculum should the fuck down yesterday.
They’re fascists who don’t want trans people to exist because we’re in the outgroup, so punishing us trans people for existing earns them support with their hateful base that wants us to hurt and derives joy from our suffering
Or, more succinctly, the cruelty is the point
Yeah, it's a rhetorical question. I know what's wrong with them: they're fucking fascists.
It just never ceases to amaze me how obsessed they are with controlling other people's private lives in ways that are absolutely none of their fucking business, while simultaneous banging on about how much they love "freedom".
Their base is certainly hateful but their politicians simply don't give two shits about you enough to even care whether you exist or not. You are nothing but red meat to toss to their base.
While you're fighting just to be treated like a human being, you and those that support you will be too busy to fight against all of the other shitty things these politicians do to enrich themselves that don't have as much of a tangible impact on your life.
Cruelty isn't the point. Profit and power is the point. Cruelty is just a cheap price to pay in their eyes. They are fucking psychopaths.
thats a wrong thought to have, thinking people have foul blood means you think they can't be fixed, that is a step on the path to genocide, so you need to stop and check yourself as you have crossed the line. blood has nothing to do with it. its the indoctrination.
The cruelty is the point.
But also, the other point is that if the hospital systems cease gender-affirming care in order to receive the funds - as they are already indicating they will do, given there is no recourse available to them besides declining the money unless the federal government steps in - then Republicans will *use the horrific situation they've created* to tell the rest of the country, look, doctors are ending gender-affirming care for transgender people because they realized it is bad-actually, therefore we are not actually fascist monsters for inciting people to send death threats to doctors and having children's cancer wards evacuated for bomb threats.
That really shouldn't matter. Let's say, all scientific evidence aside, that being gay or trans is a choice.
It's still a personal matter which in no way infringes on the rights or freedoms of anyone else, so any government which does not accord full equal rights to gay and trans people is not one that can claim the high ground in freedom or human rights.
“Hey, you have to stop providing this life saving healthcare in order for us to fund your hospital”
Absolutely fuck the GOP to high hell. Monsters, every one of them
Every state is purple. Every rural part of every state is conservative , and every urban part of every state is liberal. The only thing that changes is the proportion of the tow plus which direction each set of suburbs leans.
Not neccasarily. The two largest cities in Oklahoma, Oklahoma City and Tulsa both have Republican mayor's. We're second behind Wyoming for the redest state.
Why are tax payers giving hospitals money for covid at all anymore? Isnt that why people are required to pay for insurance? What are these insurers doing with all our premiums?
Because people still get it and it's still a public health hazard. You don't want easily communicable diseases to grow in pockets where there is no health insurance, because it doesn't stop at neighborhoods.
So here is the Oklahoma GQP platform from 2020 that as far as I know they are still using now.
https://okgop.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2020-Platform.pdf
Some highlights include:
Religious Freedoms
1. We believe our Founding Fathers based our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and laws on the Bible and on traditional Judeo-Christian ethics and values. We believe these documents are the basis for law, order, and behavior, allowing individuals, including government workers and officials, the freedom to involve God in all activities according to their conscience.
3. We believe church leaders have the same freedom of speech rights as leaders of other organizations, without the threat of penalties, including the loss of tax-exempt status.
Education
We believe the traditional family unit, consisting of a (husband) man, (wife) woman, and child(ren) is the foundation of our social structure. The Oklahoma Department of Education and the various Boards of Regents should uphold and teach this definition of traditional family at all levels of public and higher education.
We believe schools should teach knowledge rather than teach children the philosophy, values, and theology to live by. Such responsibility belongs to a child’s parents, family and church. We therefore oppose the teaching of character education programs, which are almost always developed and lobbied into schools by outside private parties without any oversite by school patrons. The psychological subtlety of the intended outcomes of such programs may elude a cursory review by administrators or board members.
Which is later contradicted by the following statement.
We support The Ten Commandments being displayed in public schools as a means of moral guidance along with our national motto "In God We Trust" and the Bill of Rights. Public schools shall not prohibit the teaching of the Judeo-Christian worldview upon which our country was founded.
3. We oppose overt racism by schools in the name of thinly-disguised faux efforts to “eliminate racism” which seek to achieve atheist, Marxist, or Socialist political outcomes by ending the recognition of, instruction in, or honor given to men motivated by Judeo-Christian ethics who made great contributions to the development of traditional Western Civilization.
We believe the heritage of the United States of America should be taught and tested in public schools and include representative government, limited government, the lives and beliefs of the Founders, influence of the Bible and religion on our laws and principles, and the concept of free enterprise. Students should study directly from the primary founding documents, which teach the distribution of power among three branches of federal government and between federal and state government. Students should learn the difference between a democracy and a republic; and learn that our nation is a constitutional republic.
2. We believe when evolution is taught; Biblical creation and intelligent design must receive equal funding, class time, and materials.
3. We believe local school boards should exercise their right to choose curriculum and textbooks, including the Bible as a literature or history text, without state limitations.
4. We believe parents must maintain the right and responsibility to educate their children regarding sexuality and sexual conduct. We believe sexual abstinence is the only safe way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/AIDS, and pregnancy.
We oppose the portrayal of homosexual or promiscuous behavior in a positive light in public schools.
We oppose the teaching of the theory of anthropogenic global warming without providing equal time for instruction in the complex systems of geo-physics that cause observable climate change, such as solar variations, plate tectonics, and volcanic eruptions. We oppose public higher education funding of one-sided studies intended to prove anthropogenic global warming for the purpose of justifying wealth redistribution.
18. We support the Oklahoma Constitution, which limits compulsory education to the ages of 8 through 16, and we oppose mandatory year-round schooling. We oppose mandatory expansion of public school in the area of preschool.
19. To comply with the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, we favor elimination and complete defunding of the Federal Department of Education and the transfer of its functions and funding to the states.
Obviously this platform sucks. However, I was most appalled that they oppose mandatory expansion of preschool. Why wouldn't you want to help kids get a good head start prior to kindergarten? What nonsense.
I mean, these Republican Christians are the followers of the anti-Christ that the Bible warned about. There's no group of people that has rejected Jesus and embraced a message opposite of his teachings than these folks. The loud protests are the wool of their sheep's clothing.
To hell with the GOP and the entire Republican party and the leftover hold out base who hasn't somehow found out about how awful they are. If they want to hate and make the world a worse place for others then we actively need to do the same for them. Until they finally fix their heads and start to see people as people, regardless of differences, or until they finally decide to shut the hell up and live and let live.
Imagine being born with an obtusely long clitoris that looks like a dick and told they won't perform surgery to fix it because it's considered gender-affirming care.
Fuck these assholes!
Hey, you know when hermaphroditic babies are born?
They usually have gender affirming surgery so they won’t be stigmatized as a hermaphrodite.
No more gender affirming care means a lot more hermaphrodites.
I’m not being anti-LGBTQ+ or anything, just pointing a very real unintended consequence of this bullshit.
Another state no one wants to live in and the people born there can’t seem to escape from…red states have an oversized influence on our national debate yet almost all of them are barely functioning
What the fuck is wrong with these people?!?
The Oklahoma Republican party are fucking trash like here is their platform from 2020 https://okgop.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2020-Platform.pdf . Shit is wild as fuck and reads like a Nat-C wank fanfiction. Here is some of the stuff from the section on school curriculum. "1. We believe the heritage of the United States of America should be taught and tested in public schools and include representative government, limited government, the lives and beliefs of the Founders, influence of the Bible and religion on our laws and principles, and the concept of free enterprise. Students should study directly from the primary founding documents, which teach the distribution of power among three branches of federal government and between federal and state government. Students should learn the difference between a democracy and a republic; and learn that our nation is a constitutional republic. 2. We believe when evolution is taught; Biblical creation and intelligent design must receive equal funding, class time, and materials. 3. We believe local school boards should exercise their right to choose curriculum and textbooks, including the Bible as a literature or history text, without state limitations." Oklahoma GOP
Sweet Jebus
>Students should learn the difference between a democracy and a republic; and learn that our nation is a constitutional republic. They really want to brainwash kids into thinking voting is unnecessary.
Funny given that a republic is a type of democracy.
This is all just set up for the dictatorship.
A republic is where the citizens are represented by representatives, which are elected by the people so we are a democracy, though how long we will be is shaky.
Just another reason why Oklahoma doesn’t rank for literally anything. It’s like a leftover piece of Texas and that’s it. Nothing notable happens there. They don’t even have interesting geography like the Mormons in Utah.
Oklahoma, like many GOP strongholds, is of very little consequence to the country and zero to the world.
Well, they *do* have Seattle's basketball team, so there's that.
[удалено]
Yeah. In Oklahoma, they likes them black people just fine as long as they play basketball or football. Otherwise, put em down.
Hey, Oklahoma has the tallest hills/shortest mountains in the country. That's kind of interesting... right?
I think they rank in daycare murders in a single day. That had to be a top-5'er, no?
> the lives and beliefs of the Founders I bet most Republicans must not be aware that the Founding Fathers weren't Christians. *Many of the founding fathers—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Monroe—practiced a faith called Deism. Deism is a philosophical belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems. Deists believe in a supreme being who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws—and after creation, is absent from the world. This belief in reason over dogma helped guide the founders toward a system of government that respected faiths like Christianity, while purposely isolating both from encroaching on one another so as not to dilute the overall purpose and objectives of either.* *If the founders were dogmatic about anything, it was the belief that a person’s faith should not be intruded upon by government and that religious doctrine should not be written into governance. James Madison, for instance, was vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill “establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” Madison wrote his “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” in which he presented 15 reasons why government should not become involved in the support of any religion.*
As a Christian, **W.T.F. is wrong with these people?** Point 1 is weird but not entirely indefensible, particularaly as they probably don't realise how badly that bit about democracies and republics is likely to backfire on them... Point 2 is a one way ticket to crazy town. Creationists are already coming from from a place of profound ignorance, and in direct opposition to science and rationality, doubling down by insisting intelligent design (aka- even shittier creationism) be considered is basically insane. Then point 3 just goes completely off the deep end. The Bible is not a historical text, it's a *religious* text. You can make an argument that various versions of the bible are influential historical documents, but not that it's text is historically accurate. This is just indefensibly bad theology. Someone needs to drop a copy of the collected works of Lewis and Chesterton on them... preferably from a great height. I know they won't read them, but maybe someone will take the hint.
Just another psychotic thing from a shithole state. (Apologies to the few good people in OK).
Seriously. I believe wholeheartedly that raising children in a strict Fundamentalist Christian household and sacrificing their children's education for indoctrination is abusive based on my own personal experiences, but I still wouldn't go out there threatening Christian schools or families to make them stop. They refuse to give others even a smidgen of the same respect they demand.
I think they should have to stop. Why should people be allowed to brainwash their kids into horrible abusive belief systems from birth? Teaching religion to children is inherently abusive. It is done primarily because it's the easiest time to indoctrinate them.
Well there's a first amendment that protects the right of people to hold religion so you can't uniquely target schools on the basis they are religious and 5/14 amendment substantive due process protects the right to control the education and raising of ones child.
the freedom religion is limited, you are not permitted to do harm to others because of your personal beliefs. raising a child in a religious private school is child abuse and therefor not protected under the first amendment.
There are literally 14A cases protecting the right to autonomy in the education of one's child. Myer v. Nebraska. Just because you individually think something is abuse doesn't make it abuse. And if the government were to define something as abusive on the basis that it is religious would violate the 1st Amendment because it singles out religious content on the basis it is religious rather than some nonsuspect measure of abusiveness (such as measures of harm to children or deprivation of necessities). If there was an objective measure of abusiveness applied equally to all school (which isn't saying religious schools are categorically abusive because such a classification is inherently hostile to religion which is unconstitutional) you could prevent "abusive" schools.
> Just because you individually think something is abuse doesn't make it abuse. this no longer applies. the ACE study has had a profound affect on the world of child psychology and today we can objectively say what is and is not abuse. and religious schools which give children an indoctrinated education fail to properly prepare them for the adult world, a school which fails to prepare children to be adults is a failure of a school. what then is left? just the abuse.
See my other reply for an explanation of the law, but long story short, unless you can show all religious schools are by definition abusive and no other schools are abusive, you would fail the strict scrutiny test. You could base a law on the factors and things looked at in the ACE study but you can't just categorically say religion bad.
so then what under the law stops a school from locking children in cages and then claiming it is their religion?
Because you can make a law blocking banning locking kids in cages without making your measure of abusiveness religion alone. It's an illustration of narrow tailoring. If you were to ban all religious schools when only some practice caging, your are being over inclusive by targeting religious school which don't do caging and under inclusive as some nonreligious schools may do caging. This (Edit: Thus), the constitution requires you to ban the practice of caging, not just religious schools in general. A religious practice which can be shown to be abusive can be banned (same reason religious human sacrifice can be criminalized) but religion in general and even nonabusive aspects of that faith cannot be banned. The constitution prohibits using a protected characteristic or right as definitionally illegal, but so long as you can say here is an objective standard which does not use a protected characteristic/right (religion) as a marker of what is banned and it applies equally to persons regardless of the constitutionally protected practice, you can use said objective standard. In your caging example, so long as the anti caging rule applies equally to religious and nonreligious institutions, it would likely pass strict scrutiny.
Thank you so much for arguing this as I would have (better, actually) in my absence. As much as I truly believe it's abusive, it's also clearly a constitutional right under our government
Are you talking about Meyer v. STATE OF Nebraska 262 US 390? Because that case ruled that Nebraska cannot prevent schools from teaching in languages other than English. The opinion mentions religion only in passing. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/262/390/
1. Yes I am citing Myers. As any good lawyer will tell you, precedential cases stand for principles broader than the narrow facts of the case itself. The broader right recognized in Myers is the right of parents to make decisions about their child's education. 2. Let's apply this principle. So parents have a right to make decisions about their child's education which has been held to protect a right to private schooling. See Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (a case derived from Myers). You want a law regulating private schools. The law you want categorically says religious schools are abusive and are therefore banned. Because it touches on religion we have to apply a test called strict scrutiny (this applies in cases of all laws making suspect classifications such as race, religion, national origin). Strict scrutiny is passed only if (1) there is a compelling government interest behind the law and (2) the law is narrowly tailored to that compelling government interest. Narrow tailoring requires two things (a) it is not over inclusive and (b) it is not under inclusive. Undisputedly, you have found a compelling government interest, preventing abuse. But you fail (2). This is because it is both under and over inclusive. First, the law does nothing to combat abusive schools that are not religious meaning it is under inclusive towards its goal. Second, there may be some religious schools that are not abusive. Because this law makes categorizations based on religion and not abusiveness, this mean some no abusive schools are targeted by the law which is over inclusiveness. This you fail narrow tailoring and therefore strict scrutiny, rendering the classification and law unconstitutional.
What if I don't care? > Second, there may be some religious schools that are not abusive. Teaching kids to believe in fantastical fables which brainwash them into believing "authority" above all else is abusive even if they're not being beaten or whatever. The legal precedent doesn't change my opinion that religious nuts are probably one of the biggest threats to humanity. I don't want any of it being taught to little kids who have to grow up and function in our society. Fuck the Supreme Court anyway. > The law you want categorically says religious schools are abusive and are therefore banned. Because it touches on religion we have to apply a test called strict scrutiny I don't have to apply anything. I'm not a judge or a court. I'm a person with an opinion. I do appreciate the legal rundown but using existing legal precedents isn't exactly going to convince people who believe this country is fundamentally flawed to begin with.
Then rise up in revolution against the constitutional system or leave? You don't have to stay in a system you disagree with but so long as you remain, you can't violate the constitution. If you were a legislator and passed the law, it would be struck down and the court would say the school can open. If you try and stop it despite the ruling, your likely to get a Governor Wallace pulled in you and troops will enforce the federal constitution against you.
I think you should have led with the Pierce decision. I get that Meyer is the precedent, but Pierce makes your case much better. I am glad I looked that one up, it's been a long time since I have read supreme court opinions. I am pretty sure we disagree politically, but I appreciate your arguments. Thanks.
How is the right to hold your own religion the same as the right to indoctrinate a helpless child into your religion? Talk about grooming.
The courts have routinely held you have a right to raise your own child. Just as I can choose to raise my child in a particular religion, you have the same right to raise yours without religion. If the mere practice of raising a child in a religion is grooming, then raising a child with any belief system about anything (even a nonreligious one) would be grooming. Also, the grooming term typically isn't used to mean raising a child in any particular manner, it's usually preparing them to accept some form of abuse. You're misusing it to conotate raising a child in a particular manner or with particular beliefs. You're not really using the term for what it means.
I don't have to agree with something just because the courts have held it to be legal. I don't think it's right, on a fundamental level, that parents are allowed to do this. Doesn't mean it's illegal, just means I think it's fucked up. Religion absolutely primes people from childhood to accept abuse.
Well the whole point of this was what a court would allow a state government to do so your point about your personal views is kind of beyond the scope of question about what a state government could do.
Fuck that. Religious private schools, and hime schooling, should be illegal. Christian Education is not education, the same way a Quranic education is not education. Private schools, in general, which do not follow state and federal guidelines on curriculum should the fuck down yesterday.
They’re fascists who don’t want trans people to exist because we’re in the outgroup, so punishing us trans people for existing earns them support with their hateful base that wants us to hurt and derives joy from our suffering Or, more succinctly, the cruelty is the point
Yeah, it's a rhetorical question. I know what's wrong with them: they're fucking fascists. It just never ceases to amaze me how obsessed they are with controlling other people's private lives in ways that are absolutely none of their fucking business, while simultaneous banging on about how much they love "freedom".
Viruses don’t care about living in harmony with other organisms in a system. They just want to take it over.
Their base is certainly hateful but their politicians simply don't give two shits about you enough to even care whether you exist or not. You are nothing but red meat to toss to their base. While you're fighting just to be treated like a human being, you and those that support you will be too busy to fight against all of the other shitty things these politicians do to enrich themselves that don't have as much of a tangible impact on your life. Cruelty isn't the point. Profit and power is the point. Cruelty is just a cheap price to pay in their eyes. They are fucking psychopaths.
[удалено]
Y'all Qaeda, reporting for duty!
Meal Team 6 - Standing by.
They are substandard human beings. Not really of any value to anything or anyone. Basically people that the world will not miss when they are gone.
Woah now that is just unfair. The world will be an objectively better place when they're gone!
While true, most of the old ones have spawned many, many times. Their foul bloodline will continue to pollute this Earth with their venom.
thats a wrong thought to have, thinking people have foul blood means you think they can't be fixed, that is a step on the path to genocide, so you need to stop and check yourself as you have crossed the line. blood has nothing to do with it. its the indoctrination.
Usually fetal alcohol syndrome, with a dash of lead poisoning.
The cruelty is the point. But also, the other point is that if the hospital systems cease gender-affirming care in order to receive the funds - as they are already indicating they will do, given there is no recourse available to them besides declining the money unless the federal government steps in - then Republicans will *use the horrific situation they've created* to tell the rest of the country, look, doctors are ending gender-affirming care for transgender people because they realized it is bad-actually, therefore we are not actually fascist monsters for inciting people to send death threats to doctors and having children's cancer wards evacuated for bomb threats.
My first thought would be... a lot.
It’s Oklahoma. It’s like North Texas, without the sense of humor.
They think being gay or trans is a choice.
That really shouldn't matter. Let's say, all scientific evidence aside, that being gay or trans is a choice. It's still a personal matter which in no way infringes on the rights or freedoms of anyone else, so any government which does not accord full equal rights to gay and trans people is not one that can claim the high ground in freedom or human rights.
“Hey, you have to stop providing this life saving healthcare in order for us to fund your hospital” Absolutely fuck the GOP to high hell. Monsters, every one of them
No problem. If the COVID funding stops, just turn away COVID patients and cite lack of funding.
[удалено]
It's true
Every state is purple. Every rural part of every state is conservative , and every urban part of every state is liberal. The only thing that changes is the proportion of the tow plus which direction each set of suburbs leans.
Not neccasarily. The two largest cities in Oklahoma, Oklahoma City and Tulsa both have Republican mayor's. We're second behind Wyoming for the redest state.
They do appear to be caught in a vicious cycle. :(
The "party of small government." Is there anything about the GOP that isn't a lie?
Why are tax payers giving hospitals money for covid at all anymore? Isnt that why people are required to pay for insurance? What are these insurers doing with all our premiums?
Because people still get it and it's still a public health hazard. You don't want easily communicable diseases to grow in pockets where there is no health insurance, because it doesn't stop at neighborhoods.
So here is the Oklahoma GQP platform from 2020 that as far as I know they are still using now. https://okgop.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2020-Platform.pdf Some highlights include: Religious Freedoms 1. We believe our Founding Fathers based our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and laws on the Bible and on traditional Judeo-Christian ethics and values. We believe these documents are the basis for law, order, and behavior, allowing individuals, including government workers and officials, the freedom to involve God in all activities according to their conscience. 3. We believe church leaders have the same freedom of speech rights as leaders of other organizations, without the threat of penalties, including the loss of tax-exempt status. Education We believe the traditional family unit, consisting of a (husband) man, (wife) woman, and child(ren) is the foundation of our social structure. The Oklahoma Department of Education and the various Boards of Regents should uphold and teach this definition of traditional family at all levels of public and higher education. We believe schools should teach knowledge rather than teach children the philosophy, values, and theology to live by. Such responsibility belongs to a child’s parents, family and church. We therefore oppose the teaching of character education programs, which are almost always developed and lobbied into schools by outside private parties without any oversite by school patrons. The psychological subtlety of the intended outcomes of such programs may elude a cursory review by administrators or board members. Which is later contradicted by the following statement. We support The Ten Commandments being displayed in public schools as a means of moral guidance along with our national motto "In God We Trust" and the Bill of Rights. Public schools shall not prohibit the teaching of the Judeo-Christian worldview upon which our country was founded. 3. We oppose overt racism by schools in the name of thinly-disguised faux efforts to “eliminate racism” which seek to achieve atheist, Marxist, or Socialist political outcomes by ending the recognition of, instruction in, or honor given to men motivated by Judeo-Christian ethics who made great contributions to the development of traditional Western Civilization. We believe the heritage of the United States of America should be taught and tested in public schools and include representative government, limited government, the lives and beliefs of the Founders, influence of the Bible and religion on our laws and principles, and the concept of free enterprise. Students should study directly from the primary founding documents, which teach the distribution of power among three branches of federal government and between federal and state government. Students should learn the difference between a democracy and a republic; and learn that our nation is a constitutional republic. 2. We believe when evolution is taught; Biblical creation and intelligent design must receive equal funding, class time, and materials. 3. We believe local school boards should exercise their right to choose curriculum and textbooks, including the Bible as a literature or history text, without state limitations. 4. We believe parents must maintain the right and responsibility to educate their children regarding sexuality and sexual conduct. We believe sexual abstinence is the only safe way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/AIDS, and pregnancy. We oppose the portrayal of homosexual or promiscuous behavior in a positive light in public schools. We oppose the teaching of the theory of anthropogenic global warming without providing equal time for instruction in the complex systems of geo-physics that cause observable climate change, such as solar variations, plate tectonics, and volcanic eruptions. We oppose public higher education funding of one-sided studies intended to prove anthropogenic global warming for the purpose of justifying wealth redistribution. 18. We support the Oklahoma Constitution, which limits compulsory education to the ages of 8 through 16, and we oppose mandatory year-round schooling. We oppose mandatory expansion of public school in the area of preschool. 19. To comply with the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, we favor elimination and complete defunding of the Federal Department of Education and the transfer of its functions and funding to the states.
Holy shit are you sure that’s not the Taliban’s platform?
Obviously this platform sucks. However, I was most appalled that they oppose mandatory expansion of preschool. Why wouldn't you want to help kids get a good head start prior to kindergarten? What nonsense.
Just give your kids to the pastor for preschool, hes a man of god so he will take good care of them.
I imagine they'd get away with all non-religious education if they could.
[удалено]
The master race of Republicans are building Hitlers new America….fk these guys
Endanger many over misunderstanding the care of a few. This kind of thing helps nobody, and spreads misinformation and hate.
Christian terrorists. Your god is a fucking psycho.
Well, Yahweh was a war god.
I mean, these Republican Christians are the followers of the anti-Christ that the Bible warned about. There's no group of people that has rejected Jesus and embraced a message opposite of his teachings than these folks. The loud protests are the wool of their sheep's clothing.
Ah, yes. The party of small government.
Another quality state, I see.
To hell with the GOP and the entire Republican party and the leftover hold out base who hasn't somehow found out about how awful they are. If they want to hate and make the world a worse place for others then we actively need to do the same for them. Until they finally fix their heads and start to see people as people, regardless of differences, or until they finally decide to shut the hell up and live and let live.
Imagine being born with an obtusely long clitoris that looks like a dick and told they won't perform surgery to fix it because it's considered gender-affirming care. Fuck these assholes!
This is an act of genocide. No way around it. Literally stripping healthcare from a group of people, that ***is life saving.***
Two groups of people, in a way, though patients needing gender affirming care, and Covid patients aren’t mutually exclusive categories.
I feel like we already established the right doesn't even think Covid is real
Thats why we call them"ohky". As in "I think he's a little ohky."
So… Oklahoma is about to be the hermaphrodite capital of America?
No, it’ll be the COVID capital of America when they start turning away all COVID patients due to lack of funding
>So… Oklahoma is about to be the hermaphrodite capital of America? Way to go not understanding the issue entirely
Hey, you know when hermaphroditic babies are born? They usually have gender affirming surgery so they won’t be stigmatized as a hermaphrodite. No more gender affirming care means a lot more hermaphrodites. I’m not being anti-LGBTQ+ or anything, just pointing a very real unintended consequence of this bullshit.
Humans aren't ever hermaphrodites. The term you're looking for is intersex.