Hodad

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.

I don't have anything more against your god than I have against the celestial teapot. You should be aware that those are rather loosely translated and summarized, but points 1, 2 , 3, 4 and 10 are all problematic. Potentially 5 as well, though only for a smaller subset of people. But the rest are generally good advice. However, even for the ones that are okay it's problematic that they are ungrounded directives from a purported higher power. God says X,Y,Z as a directive denies the recipient a chance to understand why those things should not be done. The rough equivalent of a parent's "because I said so" rather than the rationale for why. And worse, that kind of superficial moral code is easily--and often--perverted by people pretending to relay the words of gods. "Thou shalt not kill" then easily becomes, "Thou shalt not kill, except for those outside the faith." We see that over and over and over again in our world. Simple people without a robust internal sense of what is right, wrong and why follow self-proclaimed holy men into decidedly unholy acts. And the KJV translation of #2 will pose a particular challenge for art classes. 🙄

Yes, you repeated yourself endlessly, without understanding, so I got bored and let it drop. I don't care what you "agree to" or what you think privately, as long as you treat others with tolerance and respect. It's not hard. Just be a decent person. God didn't command you personally to go be shitty to people and antagonize them. If Luke wants to be known as Leia, it's no skin off your nose, or anyone else's. It's really none of your business. As long as they aren't harming anyone, let people be.

You're like the people who think "free speech" means speech free of consequences in all circumstances everywhere. It never has. It refers to the government curtailing of speech. In the exact same way that freedom of religion and from religion refer to government action. Religiously indoctrinated children can chatter in schools all they like. The government must remain free of religion, and mandatory indoctrination in school classrooms absolutely shatters the wall between the two. There is no mystery behind the establishment clause and no question about the separation of church and state. Jefferson and Madison both wrote on it extensively. We know full well what the original language means and why they believed it was important. This Louisiana law is making another run at it with a favorable court. I'm sure this makes sense in your head, but no, the right to personal sovereignty, to privacy, should be protected for all citizens, not just those lucky enough to live in decent states.

Government by god--their god. A Christian Taliban. Inch-by-inch. No, I demand tolerance. You an repeat yourself ad nauseum as much as you like. Your chances of convincing me that I am confused about what I want is pretty low.

Kids can talk about their faith. The government can't. Keep up. -- And kids are free to sloganeer only insomuch as it is not disruptive.

Jews do. Muslims, not really. They have some parallels and others not. As for the second remark, luckily you can kill two birds with one stone. The latest marketing scam wants you to read the 10 commandments from a $60 bible hawked by a man who's never read one. 😜

The indoctrination is the minor point. What they clearly want is for this to go to this twisted SCOTUS in the hope of weakening or defeating the establishment clause. Mandatory religious messages in classrooms is the gateway to mandatory religious messages and rituals elsewhere/everywhere. Yes, I "demand" you accept tolerance. You know, so other people are allowed to live, and whatnot. 🙄

That's true. And thanks to legal protections, we don't have to roll over. We can avail ourselves of the protections available. You, personally, aren't obligated to, but if nobody does we will lose those protections.

No, each teacher is not a king in their classroom. You don't go to math class to be told that Yahweh is the one true god and then turn up in history class to be told that Mohamed is the one true prophet, peace be upon him. Freedom of religion means freedom from religion as well. The Muslim kid should feel comfortable in math and the Christian kid should be comfortable in history. And the atheist should be comfortable everywhere. That's why we keep religion out of schools. Attendance is compulsory. Everyone has to go, so it should be a place where everyone can feel comfortable, rather than being singled out or excluded or targeted because of religious messages.

Lol. Sorry, but other peoples gender transitions are not about you. They are not targeting you. Just let them live their lives.

You shouldn't have to. The whole point of a constitutional system (as opposed to a pure democracy) is that core values are safeguarded from the whim majority. The establishment clause is there for a reason. We shouldn't roll over to extremists.

Yes. About half of them are sensible secular law. The rest are religious nonsense.

Dude, that's what I just said. They are pushing toward theocracy. That's what the actually want, and this is meant to be a wedge to push that agenda into more places.

Your timeline is off. Texas outlawed such care in September 2023. Prior to that, it was legal. Haim stole and leaked the medical records in May 2023. "Genetic mutilation" is a phrase you made up just now and in no way factual or scientific. Gender dysphoria, like clinical depression, is something most people won't ever feel. Therefore, most people won't make any effort to understand it--particularly those with low empathy. They don't understand it, so they dismiss the experience. But for the people who experience dysphoria, the effects are profound. The struggle and constant social friction of being misgendered is incredibly painful and alienating. The teasing and bullying pile on top of it. These kids are driven to suicide at insanely high rates. Puberty blockers are reversible. They have an immediate effect and dramatic effect on patient wellbeing. It's quite literally life-saving medicine. And if you're worried about the infinitesimally small number of patients who regret receiving gender-affirming care (basically a made up issue) then this reversible treatment at least buys time. Your "morals" are whatever they are, but the consequence of this kind of law will be suffering and death for the affected children. This isn't a medical or science driven opposition. It's more culture war bullshit, with the most vulnerable kids in the crosshairs.

Gross violation of the separation of church and state. This will go to SCOTUS, as they hoped when they enacted it. The lusty march to replace pluralism with theocracy continues from Republicans. Who knows what this twisted bench will do?

Sorry, but Trump was shitty to our friends and kept our enemies so close they were deep inside him.

You're full of it. The only "actual criminal" in this case is the disgraced surgeon. There was no "crime against children" aside from his actions.

Sorry, but all of the interventions the hospital was doing were legal at that time. Neither the doctors not the hospital are in any legal jeopardy. And even if Haim "felt" like he was a "whistleblower," there are ethical ways to blow the whistle. Ways that don't involve breaking laws, breaking ethical codes and risking personal identification via the patient and practitioner information he exposed. AFAIK, he blew the whistle on reversible puberty blockers, not "mutilations."

You can't lie and scam your way into a system with nefarious purpose. That's social engineering and it's illegal. But beside the point because he hasn't been charged for that. As far as I know, nobody outside of the disgraced doctor, the activist recipient and the legal teams has an inventory of what he shared. But per the indictment, it includes names, dates, treatments and other identifying information that is illegal to access without authorization and illegal to share. He knew it was illegal an unethical. he made a choice.

Some names were, others were not. And additional protected information was shared. Not sure why you're not getting this. Unauthorized access and sharing of protected personal information is the whole reason for the indictment. Frankly, he should probably be facing CFAA charges as well.

It doesn't matter if the patient names were "published." The files he stole and shared included patient info, doctors names, dates treatment codes and other identifiable information. All illegal.

A. I answered unequivocally; he did, and it's illegal. The files included names, dates treatment codes and other identifiable information. B. No, you don't "know all about the personal info laws." It is illegal for caregivers to access the records of patients not in their care. He was not an authorized doctor. Further, it wasn't incidental discovery. He lied to regain admission to the system (social engineering). As always, who knows what the jury will do, but he certainly committed the crimes.