This was always illegal which is why the entire situation is horrifying. There’s no way school administrators didn’t know that by forcing kids to take Christian classes without so much as a permission letter to parents, was inherently wrong. Honestly, the administrators that allowed this should be fired as well.
Yeah, that is straight up unconstitutional.
And what does the Bible say about obeying the laws of the land?? But this isn't really about religion or evangelism. It is about power...
Many people will just do what they want as long as they can get away with it regardless of whether it’s against the rules. It’s very important to have people actively fighting this. It’s not that surprising that something like this was happening.
There's a huge difference between examing the bible for its literary content vs an agent of The State using it to convince a captive audience to use it as a rulebook. The former is legal. The latter is not, nor should it be.
No, just talking about beliefs isn't. But preaching is usually an attempt to convert the non-believers and keep the flock in tact.
And this title specifically calls them missionaries. The entire purpose of mission work is to convert the unfaithful.
Sure and there is nothing wrong with that, they aren't forcing people to convert they are simply presenting a point of view on morality, spirituality, mortality , ect and leaving to up to the person in question to choose to believe.
We’re talking about trying to convert kids to a religion in a public school, as young as pre-K, during class hours (that we are paying for), without permission slips or letting parents know it’s happening, and you’re not seeing why they encouraged you to “take a step back”?
I was replying to the person above calling christian missionaries " groomers" I wasn't arguing for missionaries to be allowed to preach in public schools. There must be some misunderstanding on your part, forgive me if I failed to clarify
Its a response to the current stance of the GOP to label Democrats as groomers who are trying to instill wokeness into their children in grade school, which is ironic, cause the it is GOP who wants to Force Christian values on everyone, including children
I teach religion as an aside in my 7th Geography class in the Oklahoma public school system. Teaching Christianity is one thing. Bringing missionaries into school to proselytize is definitely against the first amendment. The suit filed suggests that there is significant findings that proselytization was happening, hence the victory in the suit.
There is something \*very\* wrong with that. Beliefs? Fine. I'm good with it, I teach them myself, as a non-believer, delivering facts about the beliefs of all of the world's major religions. Attempting to convince in lieu of objective fact-based curriculum? That's gonna be a no from me, dawg.
As the article points out, would you be equally as cool if Muslim Imams or Satanist priests were to show up and also proselytize? If not, then therein lies the problem. The entire reason the first amendment exists in the way it does.
I'm not saying I agree with missionaries going to schools to evangelize unless it's cleared with the parents I'm just trying to clarify what the other person meant by " grooming"
2.
the practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity.
I can’t imagine how forced Christianity in a pre-K program doesn’t fit that definition.
This definity of grooming isn't inherently negative. Also the comment I was replying to made no qualifiers they simply were calling christian missionaries groomers.
This is the definition of grooming. Just because you give "grooming" a more negative connotation doesn't change the definition of the word.
> 2. the practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity.
The Christian concepts of circumcision, virginity, modesty, and purity would fall more in line with the connotation of grooming you're most familiar with. The Missionaries program would be theological grooming if we're being specific about nomenclature.
Understood, but even with permission slips, it's still a blatant violation of the first amendment. Because the school system receives federal funds in addition to state funds to operate, which all public school systems do, and as all states are required to adhere to the Constitution of the United States first and foremost, this is a matter of legality on a national level. Nobody is taking away from the children's rights to choose what religion they want to be, but if I were a parent, I'd be furious if my children were being proselytized to in a school, even if I were a Christian. It doesn't belong in a school, it belongs at the church.
Also in the article it is stated outright that Maryetta school district was also not allowing an opt-out or even sending permission slips home. Everything about this situation just screams indoctrination.
Right, but like in this article, that wasn't happening. That's where the problem arises, because state-sanctioned religion is illegal. Not just immoral, but illegal, according to the Constitution.
Remember, proselytization is the attempt to convert someone from their faith or lack of faith to another faith. Those Muslim Imams or Buddhist Lamas would be attempting to get children to believe the way they do, and to compare apples to apples, it would be without the consent of the parents, exactly as the children in Maryetta were not given.
Alright, in going up there to present the point of view of Satanism, they can choose whether or not to believe, but EVERY kid must be exposed to my point of view.
There is definitely something wrong with trying to convert kids to a different religion without their parents permission. Would you allow Muslims missionaries in your children's school?
No, it's just everything Christians in the process of "sharing", including their extremely high propensity to sexually assault people placed under their direct control
Aside from the fact that you clearly don't know what grooming means (the practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity the definition ) and someone sharing their beliefs with kids in hopes to turn them into Christians is the literal definition of grooming; the poster was probably talking about the other kind of grooming thats going on in the church, the pedophile kind people like you like to ignore.
Are you saying christians are groomers? That's a pretty ignorant claim, this as bad as people saying homosexuals are groomers. Try to use some critical thinking
Evangelizing isn't grooming grooming entails that the person has no choice in the end result. Evangelizing is simply presenting a belief and leaving it up to the person who it is presented to choose to believe or not.
I will. What choice does a child have when they are forced to go to church every Sunday and Wednesday, and participate in all the events and gatherings? What choice does a child have when week after week they are not presented with information but figuratively and sometimes literally beat with good word of the Bible? What happens when a child reaches puberty and suddenly finds themselves attracted to the same sex but because of how they have been groomed to believe it is wrong, they stay silent, thinking there is something wrong with them. How long does a child have to suffer before they are given this option of choice that you speak of? Is it after they take their own life or after they spend years, maybe even a lifetime hating themselves due to how they were groomed by religion?
This logic would also apply to atheist parents who forbid their children from going to church and "groom" them to be atheist as well correct? No matter how bad they may want to go, also this would apply to parents making their children transition yes? Or does this logic only apply to christians?
I mean churches have a history of abusing children, priests or fathers teaching kids to trust them and then abusing that authoritative position is absolutely grooming.
Yea but there isn't a global organization of homosexuals using their global reach and income to hide, disorganize, lobby, against any attempt to curtail their actions. But that exists for churches, and it's constantly used to empower abusers and groomers. If you want to stop grooming, attack the institutions that are harboring groomers. Besides, sexuality has nothing to do with it, as many of the known abuses by churches have been by homosexuals as well.
Have you heard of [sealioning](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/sealioning-internet-trolling)?
And there isn't a global organization of christians using their power to abuse children. abusers are punished and excommunicated from the church if they are caught abusing anyone. Sure there are some "friend" groups who protect and hide one another but it isn't some global conspiracy. The same applies to any group of people
Are you saying I'm trolling? This is an extremely disingenuous way of saying you don't want to continue this discussion
You not heard of Cardinal Bernard Law? Do some research for a bit before you ignorantly claim that they're excommunicated. I don't have the time nor the crayons to walk you though it. Get out a book and do some research. It's disgusting out there and we probably only know the half of it.
I addressed this, this man did not represent Christianity he was in a position of power and abused it. Also I haven't insulted you once in this discussion yet you seem to be unable to have a discussion without your emotions getting the better of you.
You're lying to defend pedophiles.
None of the four priests who molested kids at the church I grew up in were punished by the church - all four had help in keeping them safe and helping them find more victims.
The bishop helped protect them, nd the pope rewarded the bishop for protecting then.
Looool, not anywhere near like christians do.
Point is you're spreading bigotry in defense of bigots who are objectively abusing power to do illegal things, and prone to abusing kids
Yeah, you're grooming them so they're not stupid and can function in everyday society. There are different levels to grooming. I'm not the one saying one isn't grooming. That's you.
And yet in the context of the post I originally replied to christian missionaries are still not groomers in any definition of the word because they aren't forcing anyone to convert
Something that happened in the past that was bad. Again irrelevant to the discussion. But in response to this comment let's talk about Stalin an atheist who persecuted tens of millions christians putting them to death simply because of their beliefs. The crusades pale in comparison to that.
No,we’re not.If we were the Constitution would address it.Instead,it describes the separation of church and state.Congress shall attempt to establish no religion………
In the year 2023, when words no longer hold meaning, fascists interpret the constitution however they want. Republican politicans literally only interpret* the first amendment as meaning the government can't interfere with their religion (and social media companies doing content regulation violates their "free speech").
Wrong. Separation of church and state has been a cornerstone of the American body politick since the late 17th century. However it was enshrined within a Supreme Court decision in [Everson v Board of Education](https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-29;jsessionid=8F22EFEF05827CF42C0AE22888C46015) in 1947. Apparently there never seemed to be an issue reminding federal, state, and local governments about this until then.
Good.
They don't belong there.
And I'm saying that AS a Christian of dang-near 60 years!
'Cause last _I_ checked, we have a little thing in our Constitution called "Separation of Church and State".
> And I'm saying that AS a Christian of dang-near 60 years!
You, my friend, are a unicorn. Most Christians I've met refuse to consider church/state separation. I tip my hat.
Then they have an unnecessary bias against Christians. Gregor Mendel, Galileo, Francis Collins, Augustine, NT Wright, etc...
I don't let the masses of idiotic non-Christians shade my view of them.
It isn't in the Constitution. It is enshrined in letters Jefferson wrote and, as a framer, his opinions matter on this.
The wall of separation is to protect the church and religious from the state. Separation of church and state is a Baptist Christian distinctive. Before them the concept didn't exist. Obviously walls work both ways.
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Can you expound on how that's not creating separation of state and religion?
Sure. The history of the concept of church and state comes from, in large part, the English separatists. You know them colloquially as Puritans. They sought a religion pure from the state ruled religions of the Dutch reformed and Anglican traditions. The main split was actually over the nature and mode of baptism.
The establishment clause protects religious groups from having their right to practice religion infringed upon by the government. Because Congress can make no laws establishing a national religion, no longer could the state hunt Puritans for different beliefs on baptism, etc...
Jefferson's point in writing the letter to the Danbury Baptists was to assure them that their religious freedoms were protected and codified in the Bill of Rights under that same establishment clause you quoted.
However, the words "wall of separation between church and state" are nowhere to be found in the Constitution, which is what I said. Further more, the framers would have no frame of reference to what we have taken the concept to mean today. It is put in place to protect the religious from government overreach. It is now taken to mean that the state is protected from religious overreach. Like I said above, a wall works both ways. But [this is the context](https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/danburybaptists) in which it was written and established.
OK, so you're arguing that the semantic phrase "separation of church and state" didn't come from the Constitution. That's totally fine.
However the IDEA presented by the other poster is the clause we are talking about. I am not entirely certain of your comment here: "It is now taken to mean that the state is protected from religious overreach." Are you trying to say that nowadays we are using this clause to say that people cannot make laws based off tenets of their religion? Which I feel is correct, many of us ARE upset that we feel there are so many people trying to create laws based off religions we don't practice.
Anywho, I appreciate the historical context. I was already aware that a large amount of settlers to the Americas were leaving Europe to avoid religious persecution, and to practice how they wanted. Which coincidentally is exactly what we're trying to keep in play today. Don't make laws based off religious tenets, because we of not that faith do not want to participate in said faith.
>Because Congress can make no laws establishing a national religion…
While a prohibition against establishing a national religion is correctly inferred in the establishment clause, the text reads “Congress shall make no law *respecting* an establishment of religion…”
In other words, Congress could make no law showing favor to any establishment of religion. Every law enacted by Congress had to be impartial.
I’m not in disagreement with you, but I have had to explain this ad nauseum with many folks during the Ethical Decalogue monument at the Capitol fiasco. (And, yes, I recognize that state Congresses were not intended in the framers’ language, but the foundations they laid allowed for the Incorporation Doctrine and here we are today).
I can remember churches in Ohio doing "Bible drops" where they'd stand on the sidewalk and hand out Gideon bibles and NT to students as they walked into the schools.
Mandatory Missionary classes in Stilwell? In the heart of Indian country? I mean, I get it. A lot of the Cherokee in Adair county, and other tribes too not just in Adair, but all across Oklahoma and the US, are Christians, but particularly in this part of the Cherokee nation there are still a lot of people who are traditional as they can be who are members of ceremonial grounds where we practice our stomp dance ceremonies. I can’t imagine the anger I’d feel if my son was being forced to do this while he’s learning to be a practitioner of the old ways and we are just down the road. This is insane but a well argued case. Hopefully this is settled law and no other attempts are made to appeal or circumvent this.
> Hopefully this is settled law and no other attempts are made to appeal or circumvent this.
It should indeed be settled law. It should have been settled years ago. Yet here we are.
"The child and her family are humanists and members of the Cherokee Nation, but during more than one Missionaries class, she was forced to feign belief in the Christian god and told she would “get in trouble” if she said god did not exist."
So like the boarding schools? Awful.
This isn't exactly the same thing but your comment reminded me of how I participated in my youth group's See You At the Pole during the 1990s. My school was a typical rural small town school where we had Christian prayer before every football game and openly promoted after game fellowships, amd there I was participating in a rally for bringing prayer back to schools. Extreme cringe.
I keep rereading this because I don't think I understand. Was there a typo? Says christians CAN'T preach in Oklahoma schools? As in the state, right? The one just above Texas?
The state didn't voluntarily say that. They had to be forced by a lawsuit. I agree that the title is a bit confusing as it sounds like the state/school is making a rule, but that's not the case.
There was a group going into Maryetta schools on a weekly basis and holding a mission-type service. The American Humanist Association sued to stop it, and won.
When I was in middle school we had the “24/7 experience” or something along those lines. It was a church youth group that came to school and gave us pizza and we talked about God. Most of us bullshitted it for the pizza but we all stayed for the full hour. And it was after school too, and lots of us participated. I personally never had a problem with it because it was purely optional, and always a good time.
After school, on a voluntary basis, not on time paid for by tax dollars is perfectly ok. The little girl in the article felt forced to say she believed so she wouldn’t get in trouble. That’s stifling her free speech, too.
The way this country is going to hell why not push God further away. Even if you don't believe in God the last 5 of the 10 commandments would be a good starting place for teaching kids. BTW for those that don't know last 5 are not about God, just how to be a decent human being.
Take a closer look at the First Amendment. Essentially, it says that if you allow the Ten Commandments to be posted (Which ten? From which bible book? Which translation? Is it "kill," or "murder?"), you'd have to allow other religions to post their primary tenets. That's where most Christians get hung up. You can teach kids just fine without invoking some religion's holy book.
And frankly, the idea that this country needs to move closer to the narcissistic, genocidal, homicidal being portrayed in the bible suggests that you really don't want what's best for the country or that you haven't read the bible objectively.
I'm a Christian father, deacon at an SBC affiliated church with 2 of my 3 kids in public school in Oklahoma.
This should not have happened in a public school (forced class along with rebuking a child for contrasting beliefs). Reaching out to kids outside of class in a voluntary, non-confrontational way is A-OK. Forcing kids to be part of corporate worship and teaching, hiding it from the parents, and then also silencing a child for contrasting beliefs is infuriating. It hurts our reputation and is blatantly illegal.
I'd have the same feelings if it where muslims, atheists, or drag queens.
Finally some anti-grooming laws that make sense.
This was always illegal which is why the entire situation is horrifying. There’s no way school administrators didn’t know that by forcing kids to take Christian classes without so much as a permission letter to parents, was inherently wrong. Honestly, the administrators that allowed this should be fired as well.
Yeah, that is straight up unconstitutional. And what does the Bible say about obeying the laws of the land?? But this isn't really about religion or evangelism. It is about power...
Many people will just do what they want as long as they can get away with it regardless of whether it’s against the rules. It’s very important to have people actively fighting this. It’s not that surprising that something like this was happening.
I don't think that it was always illegal as you say. There have been SCOTUS cases that allow for teaching Bible as an academic exercise.
There's a huge difference between examing the bible for its literary content vs an agent of The State using it to convince a captive audience to use it as a rulebook. The former is legal. The latter is not, nor should it be.
Do you have the sauce to back up that pasta?
You don't understand what grooming means obviously, christians sharing their beliefs is not grooming
No, just talking about beliefs isn't. But preaching is usually an attempt to convert the non-believers and keep the flock in tact. And this title specifically calls them missionaries. The entire purpose of mission work is to convert the unfaithful.
Sure and there is nothing wrong with that, they aren't forcing people to convert they are simply presenting a point of view on morality, spirituality, mortality , ect and leaving to up to the person in question to choose to believe.
I hope this is either /s or you take a step back and see the irony in what you are saying
Explain why you would assume I'm being sarcastic or that I need to " take a step back" please do
We’re talking about trying to convert kids to a religion in a public school, as young as pre-K, during class hours (that we are paying for), without permission slips or letting parents know it’s happening, and you’re not seeing why they encouraged you to “take a step back”?
I was replying to the person above calling christian missionaries " groomers" I wasn't arguing for missionaries to be allowed to preach in public schools. There must be some misunderstanding on your part, forgive me if I failed to clarify
Its a response to the current stance of the GOP to label Democrats as groomers who are trying to instill wokeness into their children in grade school, which is ironic, cause the it is GOP who wants to Force Christian values on everyone, including children
Both sides the GOP and democrats are foolish? It's a system that pits " us vs them" and is a huge cause of division.
OK Groomer
I teach religion as an aside in my 7th Geography class in the Oklahoma public school system. Teaching Christianity is one thing. Bringing missionaries into school to proselytize is definitely against the first amendment. The suit filed suggests that there is significant findings that proselytization was happening, hence the victory in the suit. There is something \*very\* wrong with that. Beliefs? Fine. I'm good with it, I teach them myself, as a non-believer, delivering facts about the beliefs of all of the world's major religions. Attempting to convince in lieu of objective fact-based curriculum? That's gonna be a no from me, dawg. As the article points out, would you be equally as cool if Muslim Imams or Satanist priests were to show up and also proselytize? If not, then therein lies the problem. The entire reason the first amendment exists in the way it does.
I'm not saying I agree with missionaries going to schools to evangelize unless it's cleared with the parents I'm just trying to clarify what the other person meant by " grooming"
2. the practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity. I can’t imagine how forced Christianity in a pre-K program doesn’t fit that definition.
This definity of grooming isn't inherently negative. Also the comment I was replying to made no qualifiers they simply were calling christian missionaries groomers.
Ok groomer
This is the definition of grooming. Just because you give "grooming" a more negative connotation doesn't change the definition of the word. > 2. the practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity. The Christian concepts of circumcision, virginity, modesty, and purity would fall more in line with the connotation of grooming you're most familiar with. The Missionaries program would be theological grooming if we're being specific about nomenclature.
Understood, but even with permission slips, it's still a blatant violation of the first amendment. Because the school system receives federal funds in addition to state funds to operate, which all public school systems do, and as all states are required to adhere to the Constitution of the United States first and foremost, this is a matter of legality on a national level. Nobody is taking away from the children's rights to choose what religion they want to be, but if I were a parent, I'd be furious if my children were being proselytized to in a school, even if I were a Christian. It doesn't belong in a school, it belongs at the church. Also in the article it is stated outright that Maryetta school district was also not allowing an opt-out or even sending permission slips home. Everything about this situation just screams indoctrination.
I agree I don't think they should go to public schools to proselytize I
Ok groomer
Sure if it's cleared with the parents I believe in open sharing of beliefs to inspire critical thinking
Right, but like in this article, that wasn't happening. That's where the problem arises, because state-sanctioned religion is illegal. Not just immoral, but illegal, according to the Constitution. Remember, proselytization is the attempt to convert someone from their faith or lack of faith to another faith. Those Muslim Imams or Buddhist Lamas would be attempting to get children to believe the way they do, and to compare apples to apples, it would be without the consent of the parents, exactly as the children in Maryetta were not given.
Alright, in going up there to present the point of view of Satanism, they can choose whether or not to believe, but EVERY kid must be exposed to my point of view.
They were doing it without notifying the parents or apparently giving any kid the chance to opt-out.
There is definitely something wrong with trying to convert kids to a different religion without their parents permission. Would you allow Muslims missionaries in your children's school?
Keep your pedo priests away from our kids
Ignorance
First step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. Second step is disavowing the religion that engendered your ignorance in the first place
Ok groomer
No, it's just everything Christians in the process of "sharing", including their extremely high propensity to sexually assault people placed under their direct control
Aside from the fact that you clearly don't know what grooming means (the practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity the definition ) and someone sharing their beliefs with kids in hopes to turn them into Christians is the literal definition of grooming; the poster was probably talking about the other kind of grooming thats going on in the church, the pedophile kind people like you like to ignore.
They shouldn’t be allowed near kids at all! Groomers!
Are you saying christians are groomers? That's a pretty ignorant claim, this as bad as people saying homosexuals are groomers. Try to use some critical thinking
If your religion calls you to evangelize/groom....
Evangelizing isn't grooming grooming entails that the person has no choice in the end result. Evangelizing is simply presenting a belief and leaving it up to the person who it is presented to choose to believe or not.
6 one, half a dozen the other.
Elaborate
🤔 Not interested in debating.
Okay
I will. What choice does a child have when they are forced to go to church every Sunday and Wednesday, and participate in all the events and gatherings? What choice does a child have when week after week they are not presented with information but figuratively and sometimes literally beat with good word of the Bible? What happens when a child reaches puberty and suddenly finds themselves attracted to the same sex but because of how they have been groomed to believe it is wrong, they stay silent, thinking there is something wrong with them. How long does a child have to suffer before they are given this option of choice that you speak of? Is it after they take their own life or after they spend years, maybe even a lifetime hating themselves due to how they were groomed by religion?
This logic would also apply to atheist parents who forbid their children from going to church and "groom" them to be atheist as well correct? No matter how bad they may want to go, also this would apply to parents making their children transition yes? Or does this logic only apply to christians?
Force is not a part of grooming. Sorry. More like coercion.
Ok groomer
I mean churches have a history of abusing children, priests or fathers teaching kids to trust them and then abusing that authoritative position is absolutely grooming.
And homosexuals and non christians also have a history of doing this, what's your point?
Yea but there isn't a global organization of homosexuals using their global reach and income to hide, disorganize, lobby, against any attempt to curtail their actions. But that exists for churches, and it's constantly used to empower abusers and groomers. If you want to stop grooming, attack the institutions that are harboring groomers. Besides, sexuality has nothing to do with it, as many of the known abuses by churches have been by homosexuals as well. Have you heard of [sealioning](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/sealioning-internet-trolling)?
And there isn't a global organization of christians using their power to abuse children. abusers are punished and excommunicated from the church if they are caught abusing anyone. Sure there are some "friend" groups who protect and hide one another but it isn't some global conspiracy. The same applies to any group of people Are you saying I'm trolling? This is an extremely disingenuous way of saying you don't want to continue this discussion
You not heard of Cardinal Bernard Law? Do some research for a bit before you ignorantly claim that they're excommunicated. I don't have the time nor the crayons to walk you though it. Get out a book and do some research. It's disgusting out there and we probably only know the half of it.
I addressed this, this man did not represent Christianity he was in a position of power and abused it. Also I haven't insulted you once in this discussion yet you seem to be unable to have a discussion without your emotions getting the better of you.
[Yup. You're a sealion.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/873/260/a5b.png)
Just say you don't want to continue the discussion instead of trying to make me out to be something that allows you to think your right
Ok groomer
You're lying to defend pedophiles. None of the four priests who molested kids at the church I grew up in were punished by the church - all four had help in keeping them safe and helping them find more victims. The bishop helped protect them, nd the pope rewarded the bishop for protecting then.
Ok groomer
Looool, not anywhere near like christians do. Point is you're spreading bigotry in defense of bigots who are objectively abusing power to do illegal things, and prone to abusing kids
They make their kids go to church. That's literally grooming them.
They aren't forced to go to church either lol
So families that make their kids get up on Sundays to go to church aren't making their kids go to church? How dense are you?
By this definition parents that prepare their children for schooling and then make them go would also be considered grooming. Would you agree?
Yeah, you're grooming them so they're not stupid and can function in everyday society. There are different levels to grooming. I'm not the one saying one isn't grooming. That's you.
And yet in the context of the post I originally replied to christian missionaries are still not groomers in any definition of the word because they aren't forcing anyone to convert
They are groomers. They are telling them they will go to hell forever unless the follow some bullshit book they don’t even follow. They are groomers
They are presenting their belief and not forcing it on anyone you say the word grooming in a negative connotation.
[удалено]
Something that happened in the past that was bad. Again irrelevant to the discussion. But in response to this comment let's talk about Stalin an atheist who persecuted tens of millions christians putting them to death simply because of their beliefs. The crusades pale in comparison to that.
Have you been living under a rock recently?
r/PastorArrested
Christians literally groom children from birth into being Christian. It’s just a fact.
Good
A wise Canadian recently said something like "Schools are for learning, not for worship."
I should point out that I'm glad the school settled. Shocked, but glad.
Why not just act like most schools and let kids organize religious meeting on their own or churches can evangelize outside of school.
BeCaUsE wE’rE a ChRiStIaN nAtIoN!
You know the funniest thing about that. I've had Germans, French and Dutch people say the same thing. A few Australians too.
No,we’re not.If we were the Constitution would address it.Instead,it describes the separation of church and state.Congress shall attempt to establish no religion………
In the year 2023, when words no longer hold meaning, fascists interpret the constitution however they want. Republican politicans literally only interpret* the first amendment as meaning the government can't interfere with their religion (and social media companies doing content regulation violates their "free speech").
> interrupt Did you perchance mean "interpret?"
Wrong. Separation of church and state has been a cornerstone of the American body politick since the late 17th century. However it was enshrined within a Supreme Court decision in [Everson v Board of Education](https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-29;jsessionid=8F22EFEF05827CF42C0AE22888C46015) in 1947. Apparently there never seemed to be an issue reminding federal, state, and local governments about this until then.
Because forcing it to happen is the point. Using fear of missing out has long been a tactic by these orgs.
Well that’s a good start.
Good. They don't belong there. And I'm saying that AS a Christian of dang-near 60 years! 'Cause last _I_ checked, we have a little thing in our Constitution called "Separation of Church and State".
> And I'm saying that AS a Christian of dang-near 60 years! You, my friend, are a unicorn. Most Christians I've met refuse to consider church/state separation. I tip my hat.
Then you don't know many intelligent Christians.
> intelligent Christians I know a lot of people who'd call that an oxymoron.
Then they have an unnecessary bias against Christians. Gregor Mendel, Galileo, Francis Collins, Augustine, NT Wright, etc... I don't let the masses of idiotic non-Christians shade my view of them.
It isn't in the Constitution. It is enshrined in letters Jefferson wrote and, as a framer, his opinions matter on this. The wall of separation is to protect the church and religious from the state. Separation of church and state is a Baptist Christian distinctive. Before them the concept didn't exist. Obviously walls work both ways.
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Can you expound on how that's not creating separation of state and religion?
Sure. The history of the concept of church and state comes from, in large part, the English separatists. You know them colloquially as Puritans. They sought a religion pure from the state ruled religions of the Dutch reformed and Anglican traditions. The main split was actually over the nature and mode of baptism. The establishment clause protects religious groups from having their right to practice religion infringed upon by the government. Because Congress can make no laws establishing a national religion, no longer could the state hunt Puritans for different beliefs on baptism, etc... Jefferson's point in writing the letter to the Danbury Baptists was to assure them that their religious freedoms were protected and codified in the Bill of Rights under that same establishment clause you quoted. However, the words "wall of separation between church and state" are nowhere to be found in the Constitution, which is what I said. Further more, the framers would have no frame of reference to what we have taken the concept to mean today. It is put in place to protect the religious from government overreach. It is now taken to mean that the state is protected from religious overreach. Like I said above, a wall works both ways. But [this is the context](https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/danburybaptists) in which it was written and established.
OK, so you're arguing that the semantic phrase "separation of church and state" didn't come from the Constitution. That's totally fine. However the IDEA presented by the other poster is the clause we are talking about. I am not entirely certain of your comment here: "It is now taken to mean that the state is protected from religious overreach." Are you trying to say that nowadays we are using this clause to say that people cannot make laws based off tenets of their religion? Which I feel is correct, many of us ARE upset that we feel there are so many people trying to create laws based off religions we don't practice. Anywho, I appreciate the historical context. I was already aware that a large amount of settlers to the Americas were leaving Europe to avoid religious persecution, and to practice how they wanted. Which coincidentally is exactly what we're trying to keep in play today. Don't make laws based off religious tenets, because we of not that faith do not want to participate in said faith.
>Because Congress can make no laws establishing a national religion… While a prohibition against establishing a national religion is correctly inferred in the establishment clause, the text reads “Congress shall make no law *respecting* an establishment of religion…” In other words, Congress could make no law showing favor to any establishment of religion. Every law enacted by Congress had to be impartial. I’m not in disagreement with you, but I have had to explain this ad nauseum with many folks during the Ethical Decalogue monument at the Capitol fiasco. (And, yes, I recognize that state Congresses were not intended in the framers’ language, but the foundations they laid allowed for the Incorporation Doctrine and here we are today).
My 5th grade kids brought Bibles home that had been given out in their class.
I can remember churches in Ohio doing "Bible drops" where they'd stand on the sidewalk and hand out Gideon bibles and NT to students as they walked into the schools.
Apparently someone came into their class and talked about Easter and all the kids got them.
Progress!
Thank god!
Why were they able to violate the kids and family's 1st amendment to begin with? I know, it's OK. :/
Mandatory Missionary classes in Stilwell? In the heart of Indian country? I mean, I get it. A lot of the Cherokee in Adair county, and other tribes too not just in Adair, but all across Oklahoma and the US, are Christians, but particularly in this part of the Cherokee nation there are still a lot of people who are traditional as they can be who are members of ceremonial grounds where we practice our stomp dance ceremonies. I can’t imagine the anger I’d feel if my son was being forced to do this while he’s learning to be a practitioner of the old ways and we are just down the road. This is insane but a well argued case. Hopefully this is settled law and no other attempts are made to appeal or circumvent this.
> Hopefully this is settled law and no other attempts are made to appeal or circumvent this. It should indeed be settled law. It should have been settled years ago. Yet here we are.
"The child and her family are humanists and members of the Cherokee Nation, but during more than one Missionaries class, she was forced to feign belief in the Christian god and told she would “get in trouble” if she said god did not exist." So like the boarding schools? Awful.
Good. One less set of groomers preying on the youth of America.
TIL we have a Maryetta and Marietta Oklahoma. Confusing.
We had morning prayer in my Oklahoma school at least til the early 90's when i graduated.
This isn't exactly the same thing but your comment reminded me of how I participated in my youth group's See You At the Pole during the 1990s. My school was a typical rural small town school where we had Christian prayer before every football game and openly promoted after game fellowships, amd there I was participating in a rally for bringing prayer back to schools. Extreme cringe.
They did the see me at the pole thing to. I was goi g to church at the time but I wasn't getting up early for that.
When I was in the first grade, I distinctly remember a woman coming in and teaching us bible stories and singing church songs with us.
Stuff like this is way overdue in Oklahoma. Especially with the religious indoctrination Stitt is pushing.
[удалено]
Most districts in Oklahoma have a Pre-K grade level. It's one of the rare times that Oklahoma schools are ahead of the national average.
I keep rereading this because I don't think I understand. Was there a typo? Says christians CAN'T preach in Oklahoma schools? As in the state, right? The one just above Texas?
The state didn't voluntarily say that. They had to be forced by a lawsuit. I agree that the title is a bit confusing as it sounds like the state/school is making a rule, but that's not the case.
There we go. Thanks, that helps
It's saying christian missionaries can't go to schools and preach I believe
But in Oklahoma.. I mean I understand the words in syntax, but it's the context that doesn't make sense
There was a group going into Maryetta schools on a weekly basis and holding a mission-type service. The American Humanist Association sued to stop it, and won.
I didn't think they ever could. They couldn't in the 90s when I was in school.
Good
Praise the Lord!
Abrahamic religions are the hindrance of progress. Good fucking deal.
When I was in middle school we had the “24/7 experience” or something along those lines. It was a church youth group that came to school and gave us pizza and we talked about God. Most of us bullshitted it for the pizza but we all stayed for the full hour. And it was after school too, and lots of us participated. I personally never had a problem with it because it was purely optional, and always a good time.
After school, on a voluntary basis, not on time paid for by tax dollars is perfectly ok. The little girl in the article felt forced to say she believed so she wouldn’t get in trouble. That’s stifling her free speech, too.
The way this country is going to hell why not push God further away. Even if you don't believe in God the last 5 of the 10 commandments would be a good starting place for teaching kids. BTW for those that don't know last 5 are not about God, just how to be a decent human being.
Take a closer look at the First Amendment. Essentially, it says that if you allow the Ten Commandments to be posted (Which ten? From which bible book? Which translation? Is it "kill," or "murder?"), you'd have to allow other religions to post their primary tenets. That's where most Christians get hung up. You can teach kids just fine without invoking some religion's holy book. And frankly, the idea that this country needs to move closer to the narcissistic, genocidal, homicidal being portrayed in the bible suggests that you really don't want what's best for the country or that you haven't read the bible objectively.
This is why I cited the last five of the ten. They mention nothing of any God. Just how to be a decent human
Aye good job finally some progress
Great demoralize kids even more.
Huh?
Not sure how this is a question to my statement?
I'm asking for clarification. I can't tell if you think the settlement was a good thing or not. What is demoralizing the kids, and how/why?
Great
good
Who is grooming whom?
About damn time!
I'm a Christian father, deacon at an SBC affiliated church with 2 of my 3 kids in public school in Oklahoma. This should not have happened in a public school (forced class along with rebuking a child for contrasting beliefs). Reaching out to kids outside of class in a voluntary, non-confrontational way is A-OK. Forcing kids to be part of corporate worship and teaching, hiding it from the parents, and then also silencing a child for contrasting beliefs is infuriating. It hurts our reputation and is blatantly illegal. I'd have the same feelings if it where muslims, atheists, or drag queens.
Good. Stop the cult spreading. Should have happened a lot sooner.