Ms. Rooks, allow me to ask this question: What part of "secular government" don't you get? Certainly, you have every right to practice your religion π’π‘ π¬π’π¨π₯ π’πͺπ‘ π§ππ π. When you are in the halls of government, you ONLY obligation is TO THE LAW. Your devotion to your religious beliefs have as much place in a public school board meeting as your favorite recipe for chocolate cake, probably less so. Your religion is NOT the only religion out there, and as such, school board meeting should not indulge in any form of religious practice or expression.
No, I don't expect her to get this [religious freaks like Rooks never do]. I'm pleased that the Freedom From Religion Foundation has weighed in on the matter, and it's just possible that the threat of legal action, backstopped by the FFRF, may just get the message through.
The Bible does in fact contains the occasional bit of good advice, and I find myself hoping that one of the rational members of the Peoria school board will soon trot out the nice little couplet from Matthew 6:5-6:
βAnd when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
βBut thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.β
I seem to recall Jesus had a lot of negative things to say about preening religious jerks who spent all of their time doing performative "righteousness" instead of being compassionate, caring, and kind.
βThere are parts of those meetings called βBoard commentsβ where members are allowed to say whatever they want, whether itβs commemorating a holiday or drawing attention to issues faced by the district.β
This part is what gave me pause, and where I can see right wing judges or justices finding a free speech right to quote Bible scriptures. But if Iβm understanding the situation correctly, this is not a public comment time. The Board members are still speaking in their capacity as Board members, just on matters not specified in the meeting agenda. So it should still run afoul of the Establishment Clause.
One of our Linn-Mar (we got a shout-out from Mike Pence at last night's GOP cage match cum circus) school board members - Matt "Shoutyman" Rollinger - places his Bible on the table in front of him at every meeting...gotta let everyone know how very Xtian he is else they might judge him by his behaviors.
Pardon me, this is very likely to devolve into something of a rant.
I am heartily sick of this anti-education position we've been seeing out of the Republican platform in recent years. I honestly wish I could take away every last bit of benefit Ms. Rooks is receiving from education in the United States; that includes things like social media, her copy of the Christian Bible, her car, and that bleach she's using on her hair. Anyone who hates education to the extreme some of these people do should just go on and suffer without it for a few hours. Booting these people out of society may seem extreme, but it sure looks to me like that's what they expect everyone else to do; they should lead by example.
That said, I also feel it necessary to point out that inspirational quotes don't usually much come out of that bible. I remember being miserable at church when surrounded by 'loving Christians' and what they really thought. The Christian bible didn't stop them then, and I don't see any reason to think that's changed; if that's the result of the inspirational qualities of the bible, yeah, I'm gonna have to take a pass, sorry.
The lawsuit claims she quotes βfrom religious, historical, and philosophical sources and figures as a source of personal inspiration.β But so far all we see are bible quotes, can she prove that she is drawing from the historical or philosophical sources she claims? It doesnβt count if sheβs calling the characters in the Bible historical or philosophical, nor does it count if sheβs using historical and philosophical folks quoting from the Bible in their speeches, books, or whatever.
The quotes she chose are blatant in their expression of demanding the district students believe as she does. If the quotes were the βdo unto othersβ type of feel good verses, this would be a little more difficult to prove her intentions. But theyβre the, βyou must make children Christian, you must follow Godβs rules, you have to submitβ type verses. And theyβre clearly targeting folks who are non-Christian with a bit of threatening language.
I wish the voters could truly learn about the school board candidates before voting on them. The Nazis and white supremacists get away with being elected because they can hide their true intentions with dog whistles and misleading Facebook pages. The questions they answer in for the papers and election websites are too generic and can be well manipulated into feel good rhetoric. Too many people donβt recognize the dog whistles and the right has done a fantastic job of using common, completely benign language for their nefarious ends. Take traditional values for example. Whenever I see a candidate use that phrase I donβt really need to read further, they wonβt get my vote, but some folks I interact with see that phrase as nothing alarming, itβs just that the candidate wants to care for their family and support a strong community. But the right uses that religion for the phrase to forward strict and harmful rules for families, no LGBTQ, no single mothers, women stay home and never send your kids to daycare, and promote school vouchers, the community must be Stepford-like and so on. The manipulation is so obvious to me, but the average citizen, though they might be concerned and care, may not have the ability to discern the dog whistles from the din. I had a a village board candidate that anonymously wrote a letter to the editor about the library grooming children, but it was typical right wing lies over an attempt to ban any books that might mention LGBT people or issues. The media covering him, including his own Facebook page, was benign, average, traditional values, diversity of thought*, bla bla bla, no red flags waving. If folks in the know, a part of the incident at the library, hadnβt spoken out, no one would have known he wrote that letter, or his real agenda. He lost, but he got too many votes for my comfort.
*diversity of thought is another dog whistle that means βwhite supremacists should have a seat at the table regarding diversity.β It may have had another meaning at one time, Iβve never heard it used outside the right wing manipulation, but it really is the βtolerate my intolerance or else you arenβt really tolerant.β I even had a friend try to tell me that itβs a real thing and not a white supremacy dog whistle. So we are fighting an uphill battle.
When I first became aware of such shenanigans years ago, I often get angry at those who violate one's freedom of religion and speech. But over the years, I gradually began to understand that these are efforts made by Christian zealots to throw tantrums and cry out "Persecution!" only because the government wouldn't let them forcefully impose on others prayers, Bible reading, and all other forms of Christian doctrines and ideologies.
The school board tries to do the right thing (and incidentally pay attention to the very expensive lawyer they pay for legal advice) and gets sued anyway.
If a Muslim started quoting Koran scripture during board meetings, they will end those board comments in a heartbeat.
Ms. Rooks, allow me to ask this question: What part of "secular government" don't you get? Certainly, you have every right to practice your religion π’π‘ π¬π’π¨π₯ π’πͺπ‘ π§ππ π. When you are in the halls of government, you ONLY obligation is TO THE LAW. Your devotion to your religious beliefs have as much place in a public school board meeting as your favorite recipe for chocolate cake, probably less so. Your religion is NOT the only religion out there, and as such, school board meeting should not indulge in any form of religious practice or expression.
No, I don't expect her to get this [religious freaks like Rooks never do]. I'm pleased that the Freedom From Religion Foundation has weighed in on the matter, and it's just possible that the threat of legal action, backstopped by the FFRF, may just get the message through.
See her voter guide page, particularly the survey.
https://www.azvoterguide.com/candidate/school-board/rooks-heather/
Some quotes:
"I will make sure no transgender boys are in girls bathrooms and showers."
"There will be no teaching of CRT, equity, diversity, SEL when I become a board member"
She's a horrible person through and through. And a moron.
The Bible does in fact contains the occasional bit of good advice, and I find myself hoping that one of the rational members of the Peoria school board will soon trot out the nice little couplet from Matthew 6:5-6:
βAnd when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
βBut thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.β
I seem to recall Jesus had a lot of negative things to say about preening religious jerks who spent all of their time doing performative "righteousness" instead of being compassionate, caring, and kind.
βThere are parts of those meetings called βBoard commentsβ where members are allowed to say whatever they want, whether itβs commemorating a holiday or drawing attention to issues faced by the district.β
This part is what gave me pause, and where I can see right wing judges or justices finding a free speech right to quote Bible scriptures. But if Iβm understanding the situation correctly, this is not a public comment time. The Board members are still speaking in their capacity as Board members, just on matters not specified in the meeting agenda. So it should still run afoul of the Establishment Clause.
"the worldβs best-selling book" - Maybe.
Least read - for sure.
One of our Linn-Mar (we got a shout-out from Mike Pence at last night's GOP cage match cum circus) school board members - Matt "Shoutyman" Rollinger - places his Bible on the table in front of him at every meeting...gotta let everyone know how very Xtian he is else they might judge him by his behaviors.
Pardon me, this is very likely to devolve into something of a rant.
I am heartily sick of this anti-education position we've been seeing out of the Republican platform in recent years. I honestly wish I could take away every last bit of benefit Ms. Rooks is receiving from education in the United States; that includes things like social media, her copy of the Christian Bible, her car, and that bleach she's using on her hair. Anyone who hates education to the extreme some of these people do should just go on and suffer without it for a few hours. Booting these people out of society may seem extreme, but it sure looks to me like that's what they expect everyone else to do; they should lead by example.
That said, I also feel it necessary to point out that inspirational quotes don't usually much come out of that bible. I remember being miserable at church when surrounded by 'loving Christians' and what they really thought. The Christian bible didn't stop them then, and I don't see any reason to think that's changed; if that's the result of the inspirational qualities of the bible, yeah, I'm gonna have to take a pass, sorry.
The lawsuit claims she quotes βfrom religious, historical, and philosophical sources and figures as a source of personal inspiration.β But so far all we see are bible quotes, can she prove that she is drawing from the historical or philosophical sources she claims? It doesnβt count if sheβs calling the characters in the Bible historical or philosophical, nor does it count if sheβs using historical and philosophical folks quoting from the Bible in their speeches, books, or whatever.
The quotes she chose are blatant in their expression of demanding the district students believe as she does. If the quotes were the βdo unto othersβ type of feel good verses, this would be a little more difficult to prove her intentions. But theyβre the, βyou must make children Christian, you must follow Godβs rules, you have to submitβ type verses. And theyβre clearly targeting folks who are non-Christian with a bit of threatening language.
I wish the voters could truly learn about the school board candidates before voting on them. The Nazis and white supremacists get away with being elected because they can hide their true intentions with dog whistles and misleading Facebook pages. The questions they answer in for the papers and election websites are too generic and can be well manipulated into feel good rhetoric. Too many people donβt recognize the dog whistles and the right has done a fantastic job of using common, completely benign language for their nefarious ends. Take traditional values for example. Whenever I see a candidate use that phrase I donβt really need to read further, they wonβt get my vote, but some folks I interact with see that phrase as nothing alarming, itβs just that the candidate wants to care for their family and support a strong community. But the right uses that religion for the phrase to forward strict and harmful rules for families, no LGBTQ, no single mothers, women stay home and never send your kids to daycare, and promote school vouchers, the community must be Stepford-like and so on. The manipulation is so obvious to me, but the average citizen, though they might be concerned and care, may not have the ability to discern the dog whistles from the din. I had a a village board candidate that anonymously wrote a letter to the editor about the library grooming children, but it was typical right wing lies over an attempt to ban any books that might mention LGBT people or issues. The media covering him, including his own Facebook page, was benign, average, traditional values, diversity of thought*, bla bla bla, no red flags waving. If folks in the know, a part of the incident at the library, hadnβt spoken out, no one would have known he wrote that letter, or his real agenda. He lost, but he got too many votes for my comfort.
*diversity of thought is another dog whistle that means βwhite supremacists should have a seat at the table regarding diversity.β It may have had another meaning at one time, Iβve never heard it used outside the right wing manipulation, but it really is the βtolerate my intolerance or else you arenβt really tolerant.β I even had a friend try to tell me that itβs a real thing and not a white supremacy dog whistle. So we are fighting an uphill battle.
When I first became aware of such shenanigans years ago, I often get angry at those who violate one's freedom of religion and speech. But over the years, I gradually began to understand that these are efforts made by Christian zealots to throw tantrums and cry out "Persecution!" only because the government wouldn't let them forcefully impose on others prayers, Bible reading, and all other forms of Christian doctrines and ideologies.
"the worldβs best-selling book"
The logical fallacy Argumentum ad Populum in all its glory.
People like her are just the symptoms. Christianity is the cause.
To the First Liberty cretins...
Uh, the first 6 Presidents were Deists, not Christians. Can't see them quoting scripture from a religion they neither liked nor trusted.
Your school boards have both too much power and free time on their hands.
The school board tries to do the right thing (and incidentally pay attention to the very expensive lawyer they pay for legal advice) and gets sued anyway.
'Murica.