Hodad

Eh, to each his own. In my view "don't feed the trolls" is a fine strategy for a debate forum (using that label very generously in this case), but not when we're talking about state laws that will actually affect a million+ children. It's real at that point, and due for smiting. Stage 1 cancer is, in most ways, more urgent than stage 4, because the worst effects are still avoidable. If you act quickly and decisively, you can avoid an enormous amount of suffering later. If you let it metastasize because it wasn't really bothering you at stage 1, it's just inviting mortal peril. This is the time to push back.

Hindus? Muslims? Buddhists? Wiccan? Satanists? Followers of the celestial teapot? See, the point isn't that a lot of people display the pride flag, it's that a message of tolerance and welcome and safety isn't exclusive to LGBTQ+ people. In fact, it's not exclusive of anyone. The only people who could possibly find that message antagonistic are those who don't feel that LGBTQ+ people don't have a right to be proud, or to be safe--or even to exist. The lovely people who dragged Matthew Sheppard to death might find a pride flag antagonistic, but it's a pretty well established feature of this society that we are entitled to our non-harm liberties. We don't get to decide for others whether they have a right to existence. I am what? The lord, thy god? -- Flattered, but no. Feel free to make an actual argument some time.

I agree with all of this EXCEPT that these brazen attacks on the establishment clause shouldn't be taken seriously. The slippery slope isn't always a fallacy, sometimes it's just a reasonable warning, and specifically in reference to laws that are obvious and deliberate test cases meant to generate lawsuits and make their way to the SCOTUS. And if they can get this bizarre bench to take a bite out of the first amendment, they will come back immediately for more. It's not just possible, or even probable, but an absolute certainty. Classroom prayer. Bible study. Etc.

I believe the phrase you're actually looking for is "reacharound."

It's unclear what your position is, but it sounds a lot like you are proposing that this law is okay (in spite of the constitution) because some students in some classrooms might not take it seriously? If that's the case, it's really quite beside the point. The Constitution doesn't constrain the government only in cases in which something might be effective. And I'm not worried about students being converted by a single poster. I'm rightly concerned that this is the first leap down the very slippery slope. There is every reason to take this law very seriously. I mean, the question of a law mandating the Ten Commandments in the classroom was before the SCOTUS in 1980 and the answer was so obvious they didn't even need to hear the case to strike down the law. And now, nearly 50 years later the fanatics are taking another run at it because of this crazy court.

Stop and think about what you're saying. Like, just for a minute, actually think about it. The documents are the evidence. They will be cataloged and presented. You know who won't have security clearance to see those documents? The judge. The bailiff. The clerks. The attorneys. The jury. The weird dude who runs the records room. The assistants that schlep stuff around. And on an on. OF COURSE THE DAMN DOCUMENTS WERE COVERED. Incredibly stupid thread.

Come back when you have an actual argument to make instead of just waving your hands and making proclamations and false attributions.

This is a very nice post and it takes a more nuanced view of what education really is, but it doesn't really apply to this scenario. I didn't think it worth trying to go to a deeper level when we can't get agreement on basic facts--which is what I'm talking about: basic facts. A sign on the wall of the classroom that says "Hydrogen is the lightest element" is understood by students to be a statement of fact. By virtue of presenting that unqualified statement of fact in the classroom, we are telling them that it's true and that they should believe it. The expectation is that it is presented as a statement of fact because it is true. It has been endorsed. The same thing is true when you put a sign on the wall that says that the (Christian) god is the one true god. That's an unqualified statement of fact. In no way is it appropriate for the government to be mandating religious indoctrination of any kind to students. And it's really quite absurd that this is even a matter of debate. America exists because people were forced to flee religious government simply to have the freedom to worship (or not worship) as they pleased. That's why the establishment clause exists, to explicitly create the wall between church and state so that both might flourish.

That's specious and lazy. You know full well that schools are designed and intended to be an authoritative source of information for students. Their design and purpose is literally to tell children what to believe, from basic literacy and math to history and social studies, the premise is to teach them what is true. The expectation and trust is that they will deliver valuable, factual information. It's the place we send them to learn and we ask the children to trust and learn. Public schools should NEVER be promoting any mythology as fact. It's not actually called that, but that's a trivial point. It is not in any way exclusive. People in the LGBTQ community show it. Allies show it. Businesses show it. Other organizations show it. All to communicate support for an oppressed minority. Messages are pride, self-acceptance and tolerance. Again, the only persons to whom those messages could possibly be antagonistic or exclusive are the hateful homophobes--the intolerant-- who think that LGBTQ people have no right to pride in themselves and no right to exist. You apparently count yourself among them. I have no sympathy.

This is why you don't drink from the conspiracy swamp--you end up with brain fever. I have no idea who Julie Kelly is, but apparently she's either as dumb as a bag of hammers or has no hesitation about misleading people who are. And what a nonsense thread we have here. Oh, noes! The FBI covered up the classified documents! Get this: they are classified--at whatever level--and they are stored as evidence. They should be covered. The FBI can't spill white out all over the original documents to "redact" them. The documents must be maintained and inventoried, but they shouldn't be exposed, FFS. This thread is 100% as stupid as some yahoo complaining because the crack pipe from a drug bust was put in a ziploc bag. Those sneaky cops! Jeebus.

That's a lie. "I AM the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." That's a straw man. Never have I--nor anyone else to my knowledge--proposed that displayed flags aren't consumed. They are. But the fact is that they don't symbolize anything exclusive--and more importantly do not communicate anything prohibited by the Constitution.

Apparently it's not a kickback if you can't prove it was negotiated beforehand.🙄 This is another nonsensical, indefensible ruling from our kooky conservative majority. This is not in keeping with the letter of the law, the spirit of the law, or the will of the people. I can see nakedly corrupt Thomas, or even Alito, being selfishly aligned with and protective of "gratuities" but some of the others are surprising.

Eh, in a being with dissociative personality disorder, it's hard to know what one personality knows about the others, and omnipotence complicates things.

The establishment clause doesn't include the word "force." That's not the standard. We have over two centuries of writing and jurisprudence on the establishment clause, from the authors of the constitution to contemporary SCOTUS. Government funding--and beyond that, mandatory consumption--of religious proselytizing is miles outside of what is permissible. There is simply no room and no excuse for the state to be telling children which god to believe in. Right out. I noticed that you dodged all questions and substantive argument in favor of hand waving. You don't have a leg to stand on, and you know it. You just want what you want.

The "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument was probably very comforting in the 4th grade, but you're supposed to be an adult. As usual, you made a claim you can't support, and can't manage to when it together a coherent argument. A poster that says only the God of the Christian Bible is the true god is, by definition, exclusive. A symbol that represents pride in in one's own sexuality is inherently inclusive. It's a reminder that only oppressed peoples actually need, but that's a message that applies to everyone. And hat people being proud doesn't make anyone else "less than."

Lame. Do better.

No, he took it several steps further. He told them where to go: the Capitol. He told them when to go: right now. He told them that they had won the election, but that it was being stolen at the Capitol right now. He told them they can't take back their country through weakness, but only through strength. He told them they had to fight had to fight 23 times, and fight like hell to "stop the steal" (at the Capitol, right now) it they wouldn't have a country anymore. He lied to them for months about a stolen election, and then on Jan 6 he spent an hour spinning them up into an existential crisis. And damn if those looks didn't take the bait and try with all their urgency to stop what he told them they must stop in order to preserve the nation. The fig leaf is that at the beginning he used the word "peaceful" a single time. But people had rather forgotten that after an hour of provocation. They heard what he wanted them to hear..

Or the simple fact that it's coming from Christian scripture (KJV) rather than Jewish Scripture. Nobody is actually confused about what this message is.

In no way, shape or form is the pride flag exclusive of non-lgbtq people. That's absurd. I guess if you're primarily animated by bitterness and hate you might find messages of inclusion and tolerance offensive. But that nobody is fussed with that.

They didn't, actually. Didn't move the needle a bit. Growth maintained the exact same trend.

If you didn't understand it the last dozen times, this is unlikely to do the trick... Those Christian religious messages (KJV) are explicitly exclusive and hostile to other religions and non-religions. They are unwelcome. The Pride flag is inclusive. Everyone is welcome to feel pride in whatever they are. There is no explicit message. There is no antagonism or alienation. There is no effort to convert anyone to anything. It doesn't tell people but to be cis or straight. The only thing it symbolizes is that this is a safe space to be yourself even if you are not cis or straight. I react to them differently because they are very different. There is no equivalency. Not to mention that one is barred but the Constitution and the other is not.

No, but I'm pretty sure ^^this post is evidence that you're a crazy person. WTF?

Yes, it's superficial. Until people mistreat others based on their skin color, as has been done both openly and subtly in this country since its founding. Then it becomes rather meaningful. I certainly wouldn't feel like I would be served impartial justice in a place that aggrandizes, commemorates and celebrates the most famous perpetrators of injustice.

Yes, it does intend to further the establishment of a religion. Period. (See how useful those hand-waving proclamations are?) When you announce that you want every child in every classroom, all day, every day to see a government-sponsored message about the one true god from a specific scripture and tradition (and how sculpture is evil, lol) the intention is to have children absorb that message. And you know it. Same question to you. Would you support as constitutional state legislation that mandates that every classroom present a banner that reads "Muhammad is the one true prophet." Or one that reads "There is no god." Or, "Satan is king." Would those mandates be legal or constitutional in your view? Of course you wouldn't. Because you know that those are examples of government endorsement and indoctrination of those religions or of non-religion. You know that it's wrong for the government to tell children what religious beliefs to follow. But you will lie about knowing that when the endorsement is one of which you, personally, approve. Perhaps you should spend some time contemplating the ninth commandment?

Yes, never-passed legislation sabotaged by a bitter ex president for purely selfish reasons tends to do nothing. That's the point, after all. If some progress was made to actually serve the interests of the American people, Trump wouldn't be able to campaign on the issue and we wouldn't have silly threads like these.