[“We had prayer in schools from the founding of the country all the way up until 1962, and we built a beautiful, wonderful country,” Bulso said. ]
Dead slaves, Native Americans, LGBTQ people, women, and Black people might disagree.
[“Since prayers have been removed from schools, I think you can see the social decline that we’ve had.”]
No. I really can't. I see more people enjoying the freedom to pursue happiness even if it makes shits like you angry and that's the real thing that sticks in your craw.
[Bulso cited the abortion rate, a falling marriage rate and an increased divorce rate, saying such social ills did not exist when children were permitted to pray in school.]
"We need more unwanted children born into poverty! We need women trapped in abusive and failing relationships!" is definitely a take.
Not only have abortions increased since these bans were passed, but material mortality rates are skyrocketing. Who cares about those lives anyhow…?
Based on 2024–2025 analyses, maternal mortality in Texas rose significantly following the state’s 2021 abortion ban, with studies indicating a 56% increase in maternal deaths from 2019 to 2022.
After a second glance at the data, I have to admit it doesn't support an early '60s change doing anything. The x-scale isn't linear; it compresses the first two decades. So there's not actually a steep rise in education correlated with the early 60s; the whole chart would likely be very linear if the x-scale was linear.
I am for teaching the Bible as literature, if it is presented as being ONLY literature, and combined with education on the developmental science of the stages of human cognition.
Key points:
Children lack:
-Fully mature abstract reasoning
-Metacognitive evaluation
-Independent epistemic frameworks
Therefore:
Permanent metaphysical commitments made under authority pressure may not represent informed conscience.
1. Suppression of Epistemic Curiosity
Young children are naturally inquisitive. When questioning is discouraged (“don’t doubt,” “just believe”), children may learn that certain topics are off-limits.
Over time this can:
Reduce intellectual risk-taking
Increase conformity to authority
Associate doubt with moral failure
The harm here isn’t belief.
It’s fear of inquiry.
2. Authority Fusion
In early development, children tend to fuse:
Caregiver authority
Moral authority
Ultimate truth
If metaphysical claims are presented as absolute and tied to parental approval, belief becomes identity-bound.
Later questioning may then feel like:
Betrayal of family
Moral failure
Threat to belonging
That can produce significant psychological stress in adolescence or adulthood.
3. Shame Conditioning
Some religious environments emphasize:
Inherent sinfulness
Eternal punishment
Thought crimes
Surveillance by a judging deity
For young children who think concretely and literally, these concepts can generate:
Excessive guilt
Anxiety
Fear-based compliance
This varies widely by tradition, but developmental research shows that abstract theological metaphors are often interpreted literally by children.
The potential harm is chronic fear, not moral education.
4. Reduced Autonomy Development
Self-Determination Theory in psychology shows that autonomy is a core human need.
When children are rewarded for belief conformity rather than encouraged to explore ideas, they may:
Internalize beliefs without integration
Become externally motivated rather than internally grounded
Develop rigid cognitive styles.
Beliefs chosen freely tend to be more stable and less defensive than beliefs adopted under social pressure.
That's TWICE you've posted the same screed here. Enough is enough. If you want to hang around, either contribute to the conversation or don't be surprised when you get kicked.
The fools who never stop trying to break down the barriers between church and state also seem to operate under the assumption it will be their particular tribe in charge and calling the shots for everyone else. They always assume forcing religion into the public schools would have a happy ending. For them. Their heads would explode at the mere suggestion any religion but their own be forced on their children and yet they cannot see the problem. There is no evidence the founders ever meant to do anything but separate religion and government. They wanted no part of the religious strife that had soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.
The thing that floors me is that, in Keven Kruse's book, One Nation Under God, there were governmental officials who asserted that, while the Establishment Clause mandated separation of Church and State, that did not necessitate separation of religion and government! I read that and about lost my lunch! I mean, can you say, "Distinction without a difference," boys and girls?
I've also heard people make the claim that the freedom OF religion doesn't mean freedom FROM religion. I don't know how you can have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. They're assuming they have some kind of right to force their beliefs on others.
They are the ones who think that freedom of religion means that Christianity can be mandatory, but you cannot be forced to pick Baptist over Presbyterian.
One can be free to believe or not believe. The phrase "freedom from religion" raises in the minds of many the idea that religion must be removed from the public square and have no influence in our government or society. Practically speaking, that's impossible given the millions who are Christians but I'm just stating what many of them think when they hear that phrase.
I don't think anyone using their eyes and ears in the US could come to the conclusion the 1a prevents religious expression in the public square. That has to be drilled into someone through lies (by others or by themselves) for it to stick.
I am for teaching the Bible as literature, if it is presented as being ONLY literature, and combined with education on the developmental science of the stages of human cognition.
Key points:
Children lack:
-Fully mature abstract reasoning
-Metacognitive evaluation
-Independent epistemic frameworks
Therefore:
Permanent metaphysical commitments made under authority pressure may not represent informed conscience.
1. Suppression of Epistemic Curiosity
Young children are naturally inquisitive. When questioning is discouraged (“don’t doubt,” “just believe”), children may learn that certain topics are off-limits.
Over time this can:
Reduce intellectual risk-taking
Increase conformity to authority
Associate doubt with moral failure
The harm here isn’t belief.
It’s fear of inquiry.
2. Authority Fusion
In early development, children tend to fuse:
Caregiver authority
Moral authority
Ultimate truth
If metaphysical claims are presented as absolute and tied to parental approval, belief becomes identity-bound.
Later questioning may then feel like:
Betrayal of family
Moral failure
Threat to belonging
That can produce significant psychological stress in adolescence or adulthood.
3. Shame Conditioning
Some religious environments emphasize:
Inherent sinfulness
Eternal punishment
Thought crimes
Surveillance by a judging deity
For young children who think concretely and literally, these concepts can generate:
Excessive guilt
Anxiety
Fear-based compliance
This varies widely by tradition, but developmental research shows that abstract theological metaphors are often interpreted literally by children.
The potential harm is chronic fear, not moral education.
4. Reduced Autonomy Development
Self-Determination Theory in psychology shows that autonomy is a core human need.
When children are rewarded for belief conformity rather than encouraged to explore ideas, they may:
Internalize beliefs without integration
Become externally motivated rather than internally grounded
Develop rigid cognitive styles.
Beliefs chosen freely tend to be more stable and less defensive than beliefs adopted under social pressure.
Is there age appropriate instruction on Israel? It’s a whole bunch of genocide and sex crimes, both perpetrated on Israel and by Israel. I mean, most of the Bible is not appropriate for all audiences.
I live in Tennessee, under what I call White Christian Nationalist Occupation Government. I actually know Gino Bulso, the sponsor of this bill. I coached one of his kids in junior high. (I feel really bad for those poisoned kids.) Being as objective and clinical as possible, I would describe Bulso as a morally malformed, fanatical Catholic zealot with a terminal case of short man's syndrome that leads him to write checks with his loud-running mouth that his homunculus body couldn't cash if challenged by anyone over 5'6".
Gino is the kind of person defined by the title of my Substack blog, "Christians Making Jesus Vomit."
Something to know about Gino is that nobody likes him. I've never met anyone, even among right-wing Republicans, who will say anything positive about him as a person. The entire legal community in the greater Nashville area seems to despise him. When he ran to be a delegate to the 2024 Republican convention from the red suburban county he represents in the legislature, he finished a distant 18th out of the 18 candidates on the ballot (he did manage to edge out some of the write-ins).
In last year's legislative session, Gino spoke on behalf of a bill he introduced allowing cousin-marriage (!) Yes, he did. He defended it on the grounds that his grandparents were cousins who immigrated from Italy. They had to move to Tennessee from Illinois, because Illinois didn't allow cousins to marry. The bill went nowhere, and Gino's speech was greeted with general guffaws, even from fellow Republicans--one of whom was heard mockingly to say, "Stand up when you talk, Gino." I relate this to give you a picture of how Gino is regarded by his peers. And I guess also to suggest that Gino is what inevitably happens when first cousins marry each other.
But Gino's bill--along with another of his that attempts to nullify the 14th Amendment and the Obergefell decision as it applies to private entities and individuals—will sail through because it serves the agenda of the Howler Monkeys for Jesus. It doesn't matter if your bill is blatantly unconstitutional, like both of these are. Basically, if you preface your bill with, "Ooogabooga, Jesus!" to Tennessee Republicans, they will chatter and clap and yell "Ooogabooga, Jesus!" and vote for whatever you're selling. Especially if you also say that liberals and atheists will hate your bill.
That's what life is like here right now. I stay because there are a lot of good people here worth fighting for. But this place is governed by Evil.
The stand up line is offensive. But not surprising from Republicans. And it isn't short man syndrome. Plenty of short men are perfectly reasonable people. He's just an asshole.
Lies. Thomas Jefferson was a "nativist" who was deeply prejudiced against Catholics? Nope. He wasn't a big fan of organized religion himself, but had no problem with others practicing. What about Madison? Washington? Hamilton? Franklin?
I can see a small justification for the unnecessary step of a mandatory period set aside for students to pray if they wish, but this feels like mandatory prayer. And the Bible as objective history?
The only valid thing here is the Bible's influence on western civilization, specifically the atrocities committed because of it and the resulting systemic problems we still haven't overcome. True, there are some bits in the middle of the Old Testament that are mostly historical, but learning about them can wait until college level classes.
This entire bill is about making conservative Christianity mandatory. It is about pushing through authoritarian theocracy with white evangelical Christian men like Bulso in charge.
Someone needs to impress a simple yet critical fact on Bulso, to wit: THE BIBLE IS NOT HISTORY. Almost without exception, there is no event in the bible which is corroborated by any secular historical record.
And Bulso & Co. need to have their noses rubbed in that.
Oh, BER-ROTHER! Can you imagine the kinds of arguments that were going on during the Nicaea debacle? And the Children's Crusade, for what little I know of it, was plainly and simply tragic.
Sadly, I doubt Bulso cares much for history, or the lessons it teaches.
"Cherrypickers" will have to come up with something to talk about, with Jesus no longer a particularly active participant in the Bible.
Not sure why the trafficking of many thousands of innocent children hasn't already been used to "excuse" Trump-stein type behavior...
"Sexual exploitation of children has been going on for many centuries, and on a much grander scale, and with even younger children. What Trump-stein did, involving merely HUNDREDS of children was small potatoes, and hardly even worth a mention!"
Bulsofullashit thinks that the 7 Key Founders were anti-Catholic? Funny how the only orthodox xtian of those seven (John Jay) would later, as governor of New York, try to prevent Catholics from serving in public office. He failed.
England was anti-Catholic at the time, they criminalized the Catholic religion and shipped the criminals off to the colonies. The founders would have been influenced by the English disdain for Catholicism, but more on the side of the Catholics, and the first amendment was actually written for Catholics as much as any other sect or religion.
Tennessee Constitution Article VIII, Section 2 required a belief in God for public office. But they didn't put in verbiage to knock out Catholics the way Maryland did. So Bulso would not have been targeted by his state's early residents, unlike in some places.
Just another example of 'happy to vote for leopards eating faces laws, so long as it's not my face.'
So, let's start with the book of Joshua. Surely there is no objection to that. From memory, it is a non-stop recital of murder, mayhem, rape, enslavement and destruction. Joshua did a lot more than "fit the battle of Jericho" and his record of anti-social behaviour (to say the least) is not worthy of emulation. Follow that with the book of Esther, especially the, usually untaught, later chapters for details of how to deal with anti-you elements of the state and there is the perfect (it's in the Bible) treatise for foreign policy.
Now I think further on it, perhaps someone has been using these books for modern purposes.
What small justification is there for set-aside *generic* prayer time during the school day?
If you've got a Muslim student who wants to do the Salat and the school wishes to accommodate that, you give that student time specific to the salat. But telling a school they can set aside time when the school wants respects no specific pratice, accommodates nobody.
It is also utterly pointless, performative legislation, given that his law goes on to say this set aside time can be before the start of the school day. You don't need a law to say kids can pray before the bell rings, they always could.
The small justification is that schools would be able to explicitly accommodate student prayer. It is also unnecessary as current law and 1a jurisprudence already permits student prayer at any time. Yes the entire bill is pointless, performative legislation. As we move into campaign season, this is the kind of thing that plays well with the rubes, even if there is no real chance of it passing.
A cult so pathetic and in decline that its adherents must force its propaganda on young, vulnerable minds to continue to fill the cult's need for more victims of sexual abuse.
I would be willing to bet that not a one of those promoting this bill, Bulso included, has ever heard that Benjamin Franklin quote about good / bad religions that we've cited here more times than I care to count. They wouldn't care, of course.
They're too hung on the idea of pushing their religion on EVERYONE and especially impressionable kids.
They are afraid of losing the power that comes from having the majority beliefs. They know how minorities have been treated, and they fear the same treatment. Forcing children to have their beliefs and no other is a way to maintain their power and their majority so they can continue to treat minorities the way they do now.
The current rise of Christian Nationalism, to me at least, is clearly a reaction to the loss of power Christianity in general is experiencing in the 21st century. They're losing traction, they KNOW they're losing traction, and they're scared shitless.
And they're scared of something they don't know and don't wish to know. How utterly foolish is that? [Answer: pretty damned foolish!]
I rather see him in an orange jumpsuit, sharing a cell with a crazed inmate who says to Trump: “YOU ARE MY LITTLE BITCH, NOW TRUMPYBOY! With no access to any regular media or social media, but able to see everything he owns taken away from that ugly, brain dead, inbred, orange skunk ape!
He DOES need to rot in a 6 x 9 cell for a good while. After all the crap he's foisted, not just on the US but the world, some serious recompense is in order.
I'm torn between the two. The big beautiful obituary that means his stench is no longer among us, or the humiliation of an orange jumpsuit and a locked cell with all control taken away from him.
“Writing for the majority, however, Justice Hugo Black advanced the idea that the Establishment Clause was intended to erect “a wall of separation between Church and State.”
“This bill cites that decision—written by “a former Klansman””
Oh, so now republicans care when a Klansmember is making decisions?! Besides, the entire Court made the decision, Black just wrote the summary. Still, the entire current regime has welcomed the Klan, and all of its bastard offshoots like the Pout Boys, QAnon, and whatever, with open arms. The regime is doing all the things the Klan did and has been trying to do for a century. Why is the Justice’s accused status as a member of the Klan a problem with these guys? The Klan would want this bill, but it is just unconstitutional and they can’t make up new rules to pass it, so now they’re throwing their past members under the bus to get what they want.
Justice Black wasn't even advancing the idea of the Establishment Clause erecting the wall. He was standing on 150 years of jurisprudence, as well as statements by the Founders.
I am mildly amused that one xtian has shown up to write checks with insufficient funds and unsurprised that another xtian, also with zero credibility, has arrived to prop him up.
I waiting to see if he invokes the “you hate god trope” or that “you are going to hell” when he finally figures out that we require evidence and can’t provide any actual proof!
Meanwhile, the snow here is all but GONE, after several days well above freezing. Honestly, I'm glad for the break. Those days in the teens and 20s were getting me down.
We've had a couple wet firecrackers and at least one pretty solid storm, the results of which, along with prolonged sub-freezing temperatures, kept the snow with us for a good couple of weeks. Right now it's 57°F here, but another storm between here and the end of March wouldn't surprise me.
I've lived in Northern Ohio for too long to take anything for granted.
One headline in a local newspaper suggested we'd been cheated of a summer. I'm not particularly unhappy apart from the storms. Temperatures have been a bit lower than usual – or rather lower than the new usual – which is a bit of a relief for me.
My snowplow guy made me a liar. I was on the phone cancelling an appointment when I heard him out clearing the driveway. In my defense, I still have some snow blowing to do and the road looks a little dicey.
Church. 𝗪𝗔𝗟𝗟. State. THAT is how it's supposed to work, yet this Bulso character is clearly bound and determined to treat the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as though it didn't exist. And while we're at it:
Really? Can you demonstrate a hard, causal link between removal of prayer and the "social decline" you allege? Where are your studies, Bulso? Where is the peer review ... or is this just one more assertion without corroboration?
Once again, I'm pleased that the Freedom From Religion Foundation is all over this AND Bulso. Oh, he won't learn anything from a court fight, nor will that cost him anything. Maybe the Volunteer State might cop a clue, though.
They really don't understand what separation of church and state really means. They have this habit of binary thinking, where religion is their version of Christianity, and any other position is antagonistic. In their minds, if the religion clauses really mak a separation of church and state, that automatically renders the government hostile to their preferred beliefs. They can't wrap their heads around the fact that separating church from state is what allowed their version of Christianity to flourish as it has over the last 250 years. The UK does not separate church from state, and look how low their religiosity has fallen.
Correlation evidently equals causation, as removing organized prayer from the public schools is the only thing that has changed in this country over the last seventy years or so. I doubt he can remember a time with school prayer was legal.
[“We had prayer in schools from the founding of the country all the way up until 1962, and we built a beautiful, wonderful country,” Bulso said. ]
Dead slaves, Native Americans, LGBTQ people, women, and Black people might disagree.
[“Since prayers have been removed from schools, I think you can see the social decline that we’ve had.”]
No. I really can't. I see more people enjoying the freedom to pursue happiness even if it makes shits like you angry and that's the real thing that sticks in your craw.
[Bulso cited the abortion rate, a falling marriage rate and an increased divorce rate, saying such social ills did not exist when children were permitted to pray in school.]
"We need more unwanted children born into poverty! We need women trapped in abusive and failing relationships!" is definitely a take.
Really, Bulso should check the divorce rate, abortion rate, and poverty in the Bible Belt before citing anything from his goddamm fucking ass!
Not only have abortions increased since these bans were passed, but material mortality rates are skyrocketing. Who cares about those lives anyhow…?
Based on 2024–2025 analyses, maternal mortality in Texas rose significantly following the state’s 2021 abortion ban, with studies indicating a 56% increase in maternal deaths from 2019 to 2022.
They cherry-pick history just like they cherry-pick the Bible. Always looking for the things that appear to support their predetermined conclusions.
Predetermined? Perhaps predestined.
Hmmm....prayer was removed in 1962 he says? Now, correlation is not causation but...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/184260/educational-attainment-in-the-us/?srsltid=AfmBOopI1HUY6AUm2WrOgNJOfzj7DjM3LhwqJcrEKuaHVV9PLixlqXZ8
...that's one heckuva correlation.
Oh, I can just hear the answer now: "FAKE NEWS!!!"
I wonder if Cronkite or Huntley and Brinkley would have tolerated fake news back then. Somehow, I just don't think so.
After a second glance at the data, I have to admit it doesn't support an early '60s change doing anything. The x-scale isn't linear; it compresses the first two decades. So there's not actually a steep rise in education correlated with the early 60s; the whole chart would likely be very linear if the x-scale was linear.
This couldn’t be the problem could it?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
Nah, that COULDN'T be it!
Seriously ... that is BADLY fucked up, ain't it?
Yep and this was from years ago. Imagine what it is today?
Don't have to imagine. The reality of it is right in front of all of us. Problem is, there are too many who don't want to acknowledge what they see.
Between 1900 and 1950 there were around 2500 lynchings of Black people in America.
Well dang it, that's what made America so great. And if we would just let Trump have his way we could be great again.
Delusional thinking + Toxic beliefs = Bad outcomes.
Well, it was a "beautiful, wonderful country" for people like him and his supporters. Not necessarily for others as you note in your comment.
I am for teaching the Bible as literature, if it is presented as being ONLY literature, and combined with education on the developmental science of the stages of human cognition.
Key points:
Children lack:
-Fully mature abstract reasoning
-Metacognitive evaluation
-Independent epistemic frameworks
Therefore:
Permanent metaphysical commitments made under authority pressure may not represent informed conscience.
1. Suppression of Epistemic Curiosity
Young children are naturally inquisitive. When questioning is discouraged (“don’t doubt,” “just believe”), children may learn that certain topics are off-limits.
Over time this can:
Reduce intellectual risk-taking
Increase conformity to authority
Associate doubt with moral failure
The harm here isn’t belief.
It’s fear of inquiry.
2. Authority Fusion
In early development, children tend to fuse:
Caregiver authority
Moral authority
Ultimate truth
If metaphysical claims are presented as absolute and tied to parental approval, belief becomes identity-bound.
Later questioning may then feel like:
Betrayal of family
Moral failure
Threat to belonging
That can produce significant psychological stress in adolescence or adulthood.
3. Shame Conditioning
Some religious environments emphasize:
Inherent sinfulness
Eternal punishment
Thought crimes
Surveillance by a judging deity
For young children who think concretely and literally, these concepts can generate:
Excessive guilt
Anxiety
Fear-based compliance
This varies widely by tradition, but developmental research shows that abstract theological metaphors are often interpreted literally by children.
The potential harm is chronic fear, not moral education.
4. Reduced Autonomy Development
Self-Determination Theory in psychology shows that autonomy is a core human need.
When children are rewarded for belief conformity rather than encouraged to explore ideas, they may:
Internalize beliefs without integration
Become externally motivated rather than internally grounded
Develop rigid cognitive styles.
Beliefs chosen freely tend to be more stable and less defensive than beliefs adopted under social pressure.
For adults: FirstImagineChurch.org
No one is here to give you clicks.
He got one upvote when he reposted this.
Why, I don't know.
He's copy-pasted the same post three times... I'ma go out on a limb and guess "self-upvote."
That's TWICE you've posted the same screed here. Enough is enough. If you want to hang around, either contribute to the conversation or don't be surprised when you get kicked.
Sounds like child grooming.
You know. That thing xtians falsely accuse drag queens and LGBTQs of doing.
The fools who never stop trying to break down the barriers between church and state also seem to operate under the assumption it will be their particular tribe in charge and calling the shots for everyone else. They always assume forcing religion into the public schools would have a happy ending. For them. Their heads would explode at the mere suggestion any religion but their own be forced on their children and yet they cannot see the problem. There is no evidence the founders ever meant to do anything but separate religion and government. They wanted no part of the religious strife that had soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.
The thing that floors me is that, in Keven Kruse's book, One Nation Under God, there were governmental officials who asserted that, while the Establishment Clause mandated separation of Church and State, that did not necessitate separation of religion and government! I read that and about lost my lunch! I mean, can you say, "Distinction without a difference," boys and girls?
Phenomenal. 😝
I've also heard people make the claim that the freedom OF religion doesn't mean freedom FROM religion. I don't know how you can have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. They're assuming they have some kind of right to force their beliefs on others.
Oh, did you just push a button!
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑜𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑜𝑚 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑒.
-- David Hume
"None Of The Above" MUST be a choice.
They are the ones who think that freedom of religion means that Christianity can be mandatory, but you cannot be forced to pick Baptist over Presbyterian.
One can be free to believe or not believe. The phrase "freedom from religion" raises in the minds of many the idea that religion must be removed from the public square and have no influence in our government or society. Practically speaking, that's impossible given the millions who are Christians but I'm just stating what many of them think when they hear that phrase.
I don't think anyone using their eyes and ears in the US could come to the conclusion the 1a prevents religious expression in the public square. That has to be drilled into someone through lies (by others or by themselves) for it to stick.
I am for teaching the Bible as literature, if it is presented as being ONLY literature, and combined with education on the developmental science of the stages of human cognition.
Key points:
Children lack:
-Fully mature abstract reasoning
-Metacognitive evaluation
-Independent epistemic frameworks
Therefore:
Permanent metaphysical commitments made under authority pressure may not represent informed conscience.
1. Suppression of Epistemic Curiosity
Young children are naturally inquisitive. When questioning is discouraged (“don’t doubt,” “just believe”), children may learn that certain topics are off-limits.
Over time this can:
Reduce intellectual risk-taking
Increase conformity to authority
Associate doubt with moral failure
The harm here isn’t belief.
It’s fear of inquiry.
2. Authority Fusion
In early development, children tend to fuse:
Caregiver authority
Moral authority
Ultimate truth
If metaphysical claims are presented as absolute and tied to parental approval, belief becomes identity-bound.
Later questioning may then feel like:
Betrayal of family
Moral failure
Threat to belonging
That can produce significant psychological stress in adolescence or adulthood.
3. Shame Conditioning
Some religious environments emphasize:
Inherent sinfulness
Eternal punishment
Thought crimes
Surveillance by a judging deity
For young children who think concretely and literally, these concepts can generate:
Excessive guilt
Anxiety
Fear-based compliance
This varies widely by tradition, but developmental research shows that abstract theological metaphors are often interpreted literally by children.
The potential harm is chronic fear, not moral education.
4. Reduced Autonomy Development
Self-Determination Theory in psychology shows that autonomy is a core human need.
When children are rewarded for belief conformity rather than encouraged to explore ideas, they may:
Internalize beliefs without integration
Become externally motivated rather than internally grounded
Develop rigid cognitive styles.
Beliefs chosen freely tend to be more stable and less defensive than beliefs adopted under social pressure.
For adults: FirstImagineChurch.org
Don't make me pull out the Spam memes.
Oh, no, NOT the SPAM memes! 😱
Be a shame if Hemant saw someone was spamming the board.
I have no problem dropping a dime if he wants to persist. Seems like he's done, at least for the moment.
“𝐴𝑔𝑒-𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐼𝑠𝑟𝑎𝑒𝑙,”
Is there age appropriate instruction on Israel? It’s a whole bunch of genocide and sex crimes, both perpetrated on Israel and by Israel. I mean, most of the Bible is not appropriate for all audiences.
High schoolers should absolutely learn about WWI, the breakup of the Ottoman empire, and the knock-on geopolitical changes to the world it caused.
But we all know that's not what he means. He means 'teach kindergartners Exodus as fact.'
I live in Tennessee, under what I call White Christian Nationalist Occupation Government. I actually know Gino Bulso, the sponsor of this bill. I coached one of his kids in junior high. (I feel really bad for those poisoned kids.) Being as objective and clinical as possible, I would describe Bulso as a morally malformed, fanatical Catholic zealot with a terminal case of short man's syndrome that leads him to write checks with his loud-running mouth that his homunculus body couldn't cash if challenged by anyone over 5'6".
Gino is the kind of person defined by the title of my Substack blog, "Christians Making Jesus Vomit."
Something to know about Gino is that nobody likes him. I've never met anyone, even among right-wing Republicans, who will say anything positive about him as a person. The entire legal community in the greater Nashville area seems to despise him. When he ran to be a delegate to the 2024 Republican convention from the red suburban county he represents in the legislature, he finished a distant 18th out of the 18 candidates on the ballot (he did manage to edge out some of the write-ins).
In last year's legislative session, Gino spoke on behalf of a bill he introduced allowing cousin-marriage (!) Yes, he did. He defended it on the grounds that his grandparents were cousins who immigrated from Italy. They had to move to Tennessee from Illinois, because Illinois didn't allow cousins to marry. The bill went nowhere, and Gino's speech was greeted with general guffaws, even from fellow Republicans--one of whom was heard mockingly to say, "Stand up when you talk, Gino." I relate this to give you a picture of how Gino is regarded by his peers. And I guess also to suggest that Gino is what inevitably happens when first cousins marry each other.
But Gino's bill--along with another of his that attempts to nullify the 14th Amendment and the Obergefell decision as it applies to private entities and individuals—will sail through because it serves the agenda of the Howler Monkeys for Jesus. It doesn't matter if your bill is blatantly unconstitutional, like both of these are. Basically, if you preface your bill with, "Ooogabooga, Jesus!" to Tennessee Republicans, they will chatter and clap and yell "Ooogabooga, Jesus!" and vote for whatever you're selling. Especially if you also say that liberals and atheists will hate your bill.
That's what life is like here right now. I stay because there are a lot of good people here worth fighting for. But this place is governed by Evil.
The stand up line is offensive. But not surprising from Republicans. And it isn't short man syndrome. Plenty of short men are perfectly reasonable people. He's just an asshole.
https://youtu.be/UrgpZ0fUixs
A liar for Jesus lying. Of course.
“𝑁𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑠” 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 “𝑠𝑜-𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑐ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒” 𝑑𝑖𝑑 𝑠𝑜 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 “𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑦 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑗𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 𝑒𝑐𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐶𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝐶ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ.”
Lies. Thomas Jefferson was a "nativist" who was deeply prejudiced against Catholics? Nope. He wasn't a big fan of organized religion himself, but had no problem with others practicing. What about Madison? Washington? Hamilton? Franklin?
[𝑅]𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐵𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑠 𝑜𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑦.
I can see a small justification for the unnecessary step of a mandatory period set aside for students to pray if they wish, but this feels like mandatory prayer. And the Bible as objective history?
“𝐴𝑔𝑒-𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐼𝑠𝑟𝑎𝑒𝑙, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑂𝑙𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑠, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝑐ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐵𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒'𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛 𝑐𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛.”
The only valid thing here is the Bible's influence on western civilization, specifically the atrocities committed because of it and the resulting systemic problems we still haven't overcome. True, there are some bits in the middle of the Old Testament that are mostly historical, but learning about them can wait until college level classes.
This entire bill is about making conservative Christianity mandatory. It is about pushing through authoritarian theocracy with white evangelical Christian men like Bulso in charge.
Someone needs to impress a simple yet critical fact on Bulso, to wit: THE BIBLE IS NOT HISTORY. Almost without exception, there is no event in the bible which is corroborated by any secular historical record.
And Bulso & Co. need to have their noses rubbed in that.
If Bible history is required...
Why not in-depth analysis of the Conference of Nicea, 422 AD?
And of course, the deadly and tragic Children's Crusades...
I'm trying to stop referring to these fools as "Christians", and switch to "Cherrypickers".
Oh, BER-ROTHER! Can you imagine the kinds of arguments that were going on during the Nicaea debacle? And the Children's Crusade, for what little I know of it, was plainly and simply tragic.
Sadly, I doubt Bulso cares much for history, or the lessons it teaches.
"Cherrypickers" will have to come up with something to talk about, with Jesus no longer a particularly active participant in the Bible.
Not sure why the trafficking of many thousands of innocent children hasn't already been used to "excuse" Trump-stein type behavior...
"Sexual exploitation of children has been going on for many centuries, and on a much grander scale, and with even younger children. What Trump-stein did, involving merely HUNDREDS of children was small potatoes, and hardly even worth a mention!"
Wait for it...
He probably goes with David Barton version of history (I use that term very, very loosely).
Bulsofullashit thinks that the 7 Key Founders were anti-Catholic? Funny how the only orthodox xtian of those seven (John Jay) would later, as governor of New York, try to prevent Catholics from serving in public office. He failed.
England was anti-Catholic at the time, they criminalized the Catholic religion and shipped the criminals off to the colonies. The founders would have been influenced by the English disdain for Catholicism, but more on the side of the Catholics, and the first amendment was actually written for Catholics as much as any other sect or religion.
Tennessee Constitution Article VIII, Section 2 required a belief in God for public office. But they didn't put in verbiage to knock out Catholics the way Maryland did. So Bulso would not have been targeted by his state's early residents, unlike in some places.
Just another example of 'happy to vote for leopards eating faces laws, so long as it's not my face.'
“𝐴𝑔𝑒-𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐼𝑠𝑟𝑎𝑒𝑙....."
So, let's start with the book of Joshua. Surely there is no objection to that. From memory, it is a non-stop recital of murder, mayhem, rape, enslavement and destruction. Joshua did a lot more than "fit the battle of Jericho" and his record of anti-social behaviour (to say the least) is not worthy of emulation. Follow that with the book of Esther, especially the, usually untaught, later chapters for details of how to deal with anti-you elements of the state and there is the perfect (it's in the Bible) treatise for foreign policy.
Now I think further on it, perhaps someone has been using these books for modern purposes.
I wonder how they would react if that mandatory period to pray also included "pray or meditate".
What small justification is there for set-aside *generic* prayer time during the school day?
If you've got a Muslim student who wants to do the Salat and the school wishes to accommodate that, you give that student time specific to the salat. But telling a school they can set aside time when the school wants respects no specific pratice, accommodates nobody.
It is also utterly pointless, performative legislation, given that his law goes on to say this set aside time can be before the start of the school day. You don't need a law to say kids can pray before the bell rings, they always could.
The small justification is that schools would be able to explicitly accommodate student prayer. It is also unnecessary as current law and 1a jurisprudence already permits student prayer at any time. Yes the entire bill is pointless, performative legislation. As we move into campaign season, this is the kind of thing that plays well with the rubes, even if there is no real chance of it passing.
Spring is the season when the crank theater happens, because legislators procrastinate real work (passing a budget, taxes etc.) worse than a teenager.
A cult so pathetic and in decline that its adherents must force its propaganda on young, vulnerable minds to continue to fill the cult's need for more victims of sexual abuse.
I would be willing to bet that not a one of those promoting this bill, Bulso included, has ever heard that Benjamin Franklin quote about good / bad religions that we've cited here more times than I care to count. They wouldn't care, of course.
They're too hung on the idea of pushing their religion on EVERYONE and especially impressionable kids.
They are afraid of losing the power that comes from having the majority beliefs. They know how minorities have been treated, and they fear the same treatment. Forcing children to have their beliefs and no other is a way to maintain their power and their majority so they can continue to treat minorities the way they do now.
The current rise of Christian Nationalism, to me at least, is clearly a reaction to the loss of power Christianity in general is experiencing in the 21st century. They're losing traction, they KNOW they're losing traction, and they're scared shitless.
And they're scared of something they don't know and don't wish to know. How utterly foolish is that? [Answer: pretty damned foolish!]
Ahh ... the great replacement theory, and the browning and secularization of America. A Boogeyman that has them in full panic mode.
I think you're right. That explains why so many have put their trust in someone as morally reprehensible like Trump.
It's an open admission as to just how weak their message ultimately is that they have to indoctrinate children before the age of reason.
https://ibb.co/8D9K6PxH
https://ibb.co/cK08bXGk
Oh, that SECOND one ... BINGO!
Every time they pray in public, they slap their Jesus in the face.
I’ve mentioned before that I took a Bible as Lit class in college. I also took a mythology class. Two sides of the same coin.
Bet there were some lively discussions coming out of that class!
Most of the people in the lit class understood why we were there: literature! One moron tried to argue theology and the professor kicked him out.
"the professor kicked him out"
Did he give him a zero on his papers?
Lol, I don’t think he made it past two days
Hooboy! I LIKE your prof!
He was fantastic. One of the best profs.
https://ibb.co/CK1DmVcr
Honestly, I am sick very nearly to death of that specious, infantile idiot. He needs to be GONE. That simple.
Every day I hope to awaken to the big, beautiful obituary.
I rather see him in an orange jumpsuit, sharing a cell with a crazed inmate who says to Trump: “YOU ARE MY LITTLE BITCH, NOW TRUMPYBOY! With no access to any regular media or social media, but able to see everything he owns taken away from that ugly, brain dead, inbred, orange skunk ape!
He DOES need to rot in a 6 x 9 cell for a good while. After all the crap he's foisted, not just on the US but the world, some serious recompense is in order.
I'm torn between the two. The big beautiful obituary that means his stench is no longer among us, or the humiliation of an orange jumpsuit and a locked cell with all control taken away from him.
You are in GOOD company, as it comes to that!
“If someone is demanding you waive your constitutional rights in order to participate in a supposedly voluntary program, you know there’s a problem.”
Indeed, a very big RED FLAG 🚩
If you have to force your beliefs onto other people, perhaps your beliefs aren’t that believable?
It screams of insecurity and infantilism.
They don't want you to sue them, but they want the ability to sue you.
Sorry, it doesn't work like that.
Once again, sauce for the goose is NOT a horse of a different color!
Does that horse have a name?
Nope ... but it's good to be out of the rain.
And in the desert, you can remember your name 'cause there ain't no one for to give you no pain.
The ABDL community is throwing a tantrum over that statement.
Of course they are. Give 'em their baba and a blankee and put 'em down for a nap!
“Writing for the majority, however, Justice Hugo Black advanced the idea that the Establishment Clause was intended to erect “a wall of separation between Church and State.”
“This bill cites that decision—written by “a former Klansman””
Oh, so now republicans care when a Klansmember is making decisions?! Besides, the entire Court made the decision, Black just wrote the summary. Still, the entire current regime has welcomed the Klan, and all of its bastard offshoots like the Pout Boys, QAnon, and whatever, with open arms. The regime is doing all the things the Klan did and has been trying to do for a century. Why is the Justice’s accused status as a member of the Klan a problem with these guys? The Klan would want this bill, but it is just unconstitutional and they can’t make up new rules to pass it, so now they’re throwing their past members under the bus to get what they want.
Justice Black wasn't even advancing the idea of the Establishment Clause erecting the wall. He was standing on 150 years of jurisprudence, as well as statements by the Founders.
He was also a pretty powerful voice for civil and personal rights at the time.
I think he was like LBJ: grew up in southern good-'ol-boy culture long enough so that when he was older, he used his position to oppose it.
It's not the "Klansman" part they take issue with. It's the "former" part.
The Count of Mostly Crisco is very upset that his hand picked shills on the Scotus defied him.
From: The Six at SCOTUS
To: Donnie Dumb-Ass
Re: The Tariff Decision
Message: YOU DON'T OWN US!
https://youtu.be/dRLdtDYoVX8?t=44
I am mildly amused that one xtian has shown up to write checks with insufficient funds and unsurprised that another xtian, also with zero credibility, has arrived to prop him up.
I waiting to see if he invokes the “you hate god trope” or that “you are going to hell” when he finally figures out that we require evidence and can’t provide any actual proof!
It'd be one thing if any of them could come up with new material ... but I'm not certain that is possible.
He’ll likely slink away.
I guess he did because he still hasn’t responded to anyone for a least a couple of minutes.
He’s back, still hasn’t proven any of his assertions!
OT: 10 fuckin' inches!
(Of snow, you perverts.)
Meanwhile, the snow here is all but GONE, after several days well above freezing. Honestly, I'm glad for the break. Those days in the teens and 20s were getting me down.
We were supposed to get snow and didn’t. Thanking the weather gods. See! Prayer does work 😂
Kay? You're off your meds, aren't you Kay? Come on, now, Kay ... let's be honest!
🤣🤣🤣
Honestly, I was just relieved the weather people were wrong
Yeah, I know. No worries! 🤗
They keep predicting snow here and it never comes.
We've had a couple wet firecrackers and at least one pretty solid storm, the results of which, along with prolonged sub-freezing temperatures, kept the snow with us for a good couple of weeks. Right now it's 57°F here, but another storm between here and the end of March wouldn't surprise me.
I've lived in Northern Ohio for too long to take anything for granted.
One headline in a local newspaper suggested we'd been cheated of a summer. I'm not particularly unhappy apart from the storms. Temperatures have been a bit lower than usual – or rather lower than the new usual – which is a bit of a relief for me.
74F at 8p last night. Even this pervert thinks 10 inches is too much. (not just of snow)
We're supposed to get the same. Snowblower is ready but I don't have to go anywhere until tomorrow so I am sitting by the fire for the day.
My snowplow guy made me a liar. I was on the phone cancelling an appointment when I heard him out clearing the driveway. In my defense, I still have some snow blowing to do and the road looks a little dicey.
Church. 𝗪𝗔𝗟𝗟. State. THAT is how it's supposed to work, yet this Bulso character is clearly bound and determined to treat the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as though it didn't exist. And while we're at it:
“𝑆𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑠, 𝐼 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑠𝑒𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑤𝑒’𝑣𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑑.”
Really? Can you demonstrate a hard, causal link between removal of prayer and the "social decline" you allege? Where are your studies, Bulso? Where is the peer review ... or is this just one more assertion without corroboration?
Once again, I'm pleased that the Freedom From Religion Foundation is all over this AND Bulso. Oh, he won't learn anything from a court fight, nor will that cost him anything. Maybe the Volunteer State might cop a clue, though.
They really don't understand what separation of church and state really means. They have this habit of binary thinking, where religion is their version of Christianity, and any other position is antagonistic. In their minds, if the religion clauses really mak a separation of church and state, that automatically renders the government hostile to their preferred beliefs. They can't wrap their heads around the fact that separating church from state is what allowed their version of Christianity to flourish as it has over the last 250 years. The UK does not separate church from state, and look how low their religiosity has fallen.
Correlation evidently equals causation, as removing organized prayer from the public schools is the only thing that has changed in this country over the last seventy years or so. I doubt he can remember a time with school prayer was legal.
Oh no oraxx, didn't you know that moral decline set in in the US when John F. Kennedy
failed to wear a hat to his inauguration?