Hodad

There is no open border policy. That's pure fiction. The border is operating according to law, exactly as it did before COVID. And Republican-led bipartisan legislation to greatly improve border processes was spiked because denying the impression of a "Biden win" is more important to Trump than giving the country an actual win.

No, it was a significant piece of legislation, created with Republican leadership and bipartisan support. Progress is just politically inconvenient for Trump, so he had his lackies kill it. You bought the lies hook, line and sinker.

This post is about as stupid as it gets. No one in either of our countries has any ability to send Ukrainians to their death. But if a free people are going to fight for their freedom against a conquering tyrant, we can aid them by providing the equipment they need. It's you appeasing, capitulating cowards who would turn your backs on democratic allies begging for help, sacrificing their hope and liberty for another chance to kiss Putin's ass. You're not just on the wrong side of history, Mr. Chamberlain, you're on the wrong side of decency.

Because his application is still pending.

Confucianism is not really a religion, certainly not a deistic one. Some people would argue that it has elements of spiritualism, but WTF does that even mean? And I challenge you to find a single Confucius quote in any classroom anywhere that is religious in nature, let alone "government mandated" Confucius quotes. You're talking nonsense. What you are advocating is worlds apart. Night and day. Apples and watermelons. What you want is for the goernment to send explicitly and exclusively religious messages to every child, every hour, of every day about the "one true god." The truth is that you CAN understand the difference between these things. You are making specious arguments in and attempt to justify an end you desire, but you DO know the difference. Which is why you refuse to answer the theoretical about Muhammad.

Maybe Trump shouldn't have spiked the immigration reform bill? Oh, wait, that's right. The only way Republicans care about the border is as a campaign issue. Cynical, but effective.

I love that your solution for staffing and budget challenges with border immigration is to "punish" potentially millions of people with room and board for years at a time. Apparently that will be cost-free and unstaffed.🤣 Probably the proper response to misleading vividness posts like this is a story about an undocumented person saving someone's life or living quietly and productively as a valued member of a community. But, you know, nobody is scared of that...

My point is abundantly clear. As part of a unit of world cultures and religions, that's fine. Pluralism was never a problem. That's dramatically different. We belive/they believe vs you must believe. Can you not spot the difference? It does, indeed use the power of the government to literally force religious directives on children. That's literally and factually and explicitly what it does. And you are dodging the question about Muhammad because you KNOW that's the case. Christians can speak. The government can't speak to tell people to be Christian. Again, that's a HUGE difference? You can't tell the two apart?

Run on this issue? I don't think you understand this issue. This is not an undocumented immigrant who was released into the US. Ir really has nothing to do with immigration policy. Simply someone who eventually managed to evade capture on 1 out of 4 tries. But I don't expect the facts will deter Republicans from cynically exploiting this family's loss.

I dare you to answer the question honestly. And I have no idea what you are talking about, but are they "giving elders" to opportunity tell kids what they, the elders, believe, as part of a pluralistic study of religions and cultures in the world. Do they read Greek and Roman mythology? Hindu mythology? This is not even a particularly nuanced point. There is a massive, obvious difference between teaching kids that Christian mythology is ABC, Jews believe DEF, Muslims believe HIJ, etc. That is important information to understand that there are different cultures around the world who believe different things and here are the ways that those beliefs shaped those cultures. That is NOT promoting those religions as truth. It's simply teaching kids about other cultures.

Discussing comparative religion in an anthropological sense is academic and healthy. They are not teaching or promoting those religions. And yes, they very much ARE trying to convert kids-- or more accurately promote a singular religion at truth. And worse, doing it in schools, which are supposed to be reserved for the dissemination of true and valuable information. Imagine for a moment that the government of BFE (or wherever you live) passed a law that said that you would help fund the creation of posters that said "Muhammad is the one true prophet of god." And that these posters MUST be displayed in classrooms, and the your children and your neighbors' children and every little person in your province had to be exposed to that message all day, every day at school. Would you then argue that the government is not trying to indoctrinate or convert people? Would you support and cheer for that?

My expectations for you are already very low, but I think they may yet be too high. You're just chattering away without a cogent thought to share. It's a weird hobby.

Lol. No one can "require" anyone to believe or follow the 10 commandments. That's literally impossible. And it's also not what the establishment clause proscribes. The government should use taxpayer money to promote any religion. In constitutional terms, they should not further the establishment of said religion. The government should not force people to consume religious messages. Period. For lots of reasons evident with even a rudimentary logical exercise, but also in plain writing in and around our constitution. You simply cannot have freedom of religion in an environment in which the government promotes a religion. "Freedom of" and "freedom from" are two sides of the same coin, and have been since this nation was founded.

Unless you think you're a god, mindfulness isn't religious at all. It's simple introspection. Maybe look for a valid point to make.

No, they very much are codifying Christianity as the official religion of the state. They are using taxpayer dollars to promote a specific religious message from a specific religious text (KJV, I imagine)--one that explicitly rejects other gods--and forcing it to be displayed before children all day, every day at school. That's a farking bonkers, batshit crazy violation of the establishment clause. The crazier part is that they think they can get away with it. The worrying part is that with this court, it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility. Any other court in the past century it wouldn't be a question, but this incarnation is political and perverse. That's why they're taking such a big swing.

🙄So they're not just violating the establishment clause by promoting one particular faith, but one specific version of the bible. Crazier still.

I've explained it pretty thoroughly. I can't understand it for you. When you use laws to shape society based on religious dogma rather than a rational compromise between liberty and harm, then you are building a theocracy. Oh, look. More hand waving, with nary an argument in sight. I think it's pretty clear that once a question goes deeper than a Fox news headline, you run out of new things to say. Hence the unsupported repetitions. Have you no thought behind your proclamations?

Other motivations like what? Lol Legislating that all children must consume your religious dogma, just like anyone else... What is the rational reason for restricting a seller from selling beer on Sunday? What is the rational reason for restricting a buyer from buying been on Sunday. What is the rational reason for impinging on their freedoms? -- Oh, that's right. There isn't one. It's because an old book told you so, and you believed it, so your forced them to live according to your beliefs. In that case, is there any belief you wouldn't or couldn't legislate? The obvious answer is that if you want to keep your version of the "Sabbath" holy, go for it, but when you try to force other people to live according to your superstitions you are going against the very reason this country was founded and the constitution upon which it is built. If you don't give respect, you don't deserve it. People who are uncivil and intolerant forfeit any expectation of civility and tolerance. Well, as long as you can just wave your hands and dismiss the establishment clause without even making an argument, then no worries!

The government shouldn't have those things (we are an imperfect union) but at least they are defensibly non-denominational. Leaders and employees can express themselves where situationally appropriate. To have freedom of religion, we must have freedom from religion. Can't have one without the other.

I'm basing that assertion on the fact of watching them do it year after year. There is no other end game for people passing religious legislation. Laws against sodomy, laws against IVF, mandatory indoctrination of children, challenges to contraception, the end of the Lemon test. That's simply where the road goes. Fine. You're allowed to be shitty. Tell Bill--er... William... that you reject his lie, his feelings don't matter, and that you are the one entitled to define is identify. But don't be surprised when the rest of us reject the lie that you're not a sociopath.

Indeed. That "peacefulness" is not inherent to the religion. We don't have to look very far back to see Christian sectarian violence like Catholics and protestants at war in England and Ireland. Or the discrimination against Catholic immigrants by US Protestants. It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties... Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? James Madison -- From the "Memorial and Remonstrance," 1785 Indeed, who does not see? Apparently a lot of people here, and the legislature of Louisiana. This Ten Commandments nonsense is not the first experiment on our liberties, but it's the biggest in recent memory and it's wrong and terribly dangerous to the religious and non-religious alike.

Eh, not quite. The SCOTUS building is adorned with many depictions of cultural and historical artifacts from our past. A history of law, as it were. Moses and the ten commandments are certainly a part of that tradition and will be depicted, but AFAIK you won't actually see the ten commandments written anywhere. In other words, it's in keeping with the United States commitment to pluralism--not just one religious or historical tradition represented, but many. You see how that's very different from mandating the 10 commandments--and exclusively the 10 commandments--in classrooms? It's rather like why public institutions can teach religious history or comparative religion but cannot teach one religious tradition as truth. Yes, I support it. There are MANY constitutional arguments for the individual right to abortion, including the first, fourth, ninth and thirteenth amendment, among others. No state, no matter how bible-thumping religious the general population, should be able to deny a woman the right to choose.

Yes, as far as the government is concerned there is freedom from religion. That's the whole damn point of the establishment clause. Religions are, by default exclusive of and hostile to other religions. Madison and Jefferson understood that a government that acts to establish or promote one religion cannot hope to successfully govern a people of many faiths. You can't have freedom of religion while the government makes religious law. Therefore the government must be free of religion, secular and not permitted to alienate and oppress its own people. Sorry, but no. Read Madison. Read Jefferson. Their explanation and rationale for the establishment cause is explicit.

🤨Not sure what you're not getting. What do you think the point is of taking on the establishment clause head on? Whimsy? Is it so that they can NOT establish a state religion? Why break down the wall if they don't intend to expand further and further into government? For decades, conservatives have relied on and used the religious right as a critical voting bloc, but in the process it's empowered and emboldened the religious right. They are not simply to be used anymore. They are demanding more of what was promised when that marriage was made. We'll continue to see more and more "biblical" legislation. This is not the first and certainly not the last, just the opening of the floodgate. It's simply not your place to agree or disagree with who a person is or wants to be. Not your business. If someone says "My name is William but I prefer to be called Bill," is it your place to "reject their lie" and refuse to respect that simple request? Is it your job to define their identity? Just address people how they prefer to be addressed. Basic civility and decency. It's not hard. Well, not hard for most people.

How long do you think it would take people to become un-confused? Seems pretty easy. And yes, of course I support the constitution. Though our interpretations surely differ on several key points.