"When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it cannot support itself, and God does not care to support, so that its Professors are oblig'd to call for the help of the Civil Power, 'tis a Sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
-- Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Dr. Richard Price (a Christian) dated October 9th, 1780
When it comes to this subject, I always lead off with those words of wisdom from that wily Deist Franklin.
A Trump appointed judge pretzels their logic to give a veneer of legal justification to the hole in the wall of separation that SCOTUS made. That tracks. Typical fundie Christian Nazionalist. Equating a discriminatory statement of faith with a hypothetical statement of reason. It's almost as if the Christian Nazionalists want to prohibit thinking.
There's a bit of pretzel logic but that's not really the problem. However weird the pathway the judge took to get there, the end conclusion is consistent with SCOTUS' recent precedents and thus a 'correct' lower court decision that upholds current judicial rules. It's the SCOTUS-level decision that's the problem here.
Minnesota was fighting the last war not the present one. There is no more state/local government forcing contractors who take their money to follow government non-discrimination rules. It's now: allow contractors of all ideologies with their own private rules to take the money, or allow none. Maybe, *maybe* you can get away with some sort of contractor criteria which is entirely separate from religious claims, but that's touch and go and certainly Minnesota's law calling out *faith* statements as the specific one thing it doesn't allow was not going to pass SCOTUS muster.
These fine folks need to reevaluate their values. Since that will never happen, the only path forward is to TAX them!
“I don't know how you feel, but I'm pretty sick of church people. You know what they ought to do with churches? Tax them. If holy people are so interested in politics, government, and public policy, let them pay the price of admission like everybody else. The Catholic Church alone could wipe out the national debt if all you did was tax their real estate.”
“The statements simply ask students to affirm the schools’ religious beliefs for the purpose of upholding their Christian communities.”
Why? Are your beliefs that weak that you need children to comfort your decisions to believe in them? Is your Christian community that fragile that a kid can destroy it all with a word?
You have a great opportunity to prove your faith and bring more into the fold by inviting people who aren’t willing to sign this into your campus and show them how you Christian so they might find the value in it. But no, you chose to be exactly what we all think of a lot of Christians, overbearing, ignorant, cruel, and authoritarian. Good for you.
They’ve always been the snowflakes all along, fear and weakness rebranded as “courage” and “ strength”, incompetence as “qualifications”, paranoia and bullshit as “instincts” and “intelligence”.
It’s sad that the judge cannot see the forest for the trees here. If this issue would be viewed from the lens that the beneficiaries of this funding were the students rather than the schools, then there wouldn’t be an issue at all. The money does benefit the schools, but that isn’t what the money is for. Taxpayer money belongs to all the people in the tax base, this case the state, it is set aside for high school students to have the opportunity to gain college level knowledge, it is given directly to the schools but the schools must provide the product to the students in return for the money. If the schools deny student access, then the money doesn’t apply to them. I’m not giving a contractor money if he isn’t going to do the work I ask of him. Even if he says it’s against his religion. You only get paid for what you do.
The schools aren’t the intended beneficiaries. They are only the contractors. The students are the beneficiaries. That goes for the first amendment as well. The first amendment is about individual rights not organizations, no matter what they want citizens united to say. This is a government function, the schools are acting in loco governmentis and therefore cannot be discriminating against students in regards to protected class, including religion. Their first amendment rights are not being violated since they are playing government in this instance. The constitution, particularly the bill of rights, is a document restricting the government, not giving it rights over citizens. This is so fucking obvious, it’s too bad there are judges that are too corrupt to see this.
Anyway, the rights of the schools are not the rights the courts should be focusing on, the students’ rights are the rights that are being trampled here and the courts don’t care.
I think those corrupt MAGAT judges see things clearly. They are not as stoopid as your average, run of the mill MAGAT.
Corrupt is the operative word. They have intentionally traded their loyalty to the Constitution for personal gain, be it power or wealth. They are the weak. They are the enemy.
I have a feeling the FFRF are going to be very busy for the next few years. And that the percentage of cases they win is going to look like a ski slope despite the great work the are doing.
But unlike poor King Cnut, somebody has to at least try to hold back the tide. The very fabric of the US is being torn apart and the First Amendment is on the front line of this war. Freedom from religion and freedom of speech for individuals and the press especially.
“The Supreme Court has consistently and recently affirmed that public benefits that are open to private secular organizations must also be open to religious ones.“
THAT is not the problem. Everybody simply has to play by the same rules. We don't discriminate against YOU because you're a religious organization, and you don't discriminate against any of our students that come your way. NOBODY said religious schools could not participate. Religious schools were already particpating.
The problem is the intrusive, bigoted faith statement that two of the religious schools have decided that MUST be signed by the students or sorry you do not get your credits. The *secular* private schools don't do this (what the hell a student's religious beliefs or lack thereof have to do with earning college credits escapes me, but I digress), and it's good to hear that most of the participating religious schools in Minnesota ARE playing by the rules with no problem, but the two biggest ones have decided that they are the super special 800 pound gorillas in the room and thus should be able to do as they please while raking in taxpayer money. And now the goddamn trump-stained court has sided with them.
Shit on a fucking stick. This madness has come to Minnesota.
On one hand, I do see a lot of catholic schools and colleges near where I live (far, far more of them than secular ones), but on the other hand, after living in SE Georgia where nine out of ten people had bible verses and religious symbols liberally tattooed on their bodies, or wore religious tee shirts with what they thought were either deepities about gawd or very witty and clever memes putting non-christians in their place (not to mention the occasional very graphic depiction of the crucifiction -- that's actually how it was spelled on a couple of shirts I saw), and where people would form prayer circles in the middle of the hardware store, linking arms and praying out loud - I shit you not - and almost every popular mom and pop diner and burger joint was decorated with religious art and symbols, even Bible verses printed on the cups and napkins, and the local gym played only christian music for people to work out to, and every Easter season, there were dozens of yards with trios of wooden crosses and purple cloth, but Halloween decorations were "actively discouraged" by the town council and trick-or-treating was also discouraged in favor of bible-themed trunk-or-treating at "any of our very fine local churches." Kids who wanted to go trick-or-treating had to have their parents drive them over the county line to a nearby town....
After all THAT....Minnesota seemed a secular paradise. I know the state has its faults, every state does, but god DAMN, Southeast Georgia was a fucking shithole.
It felt good to move to a state where a white cop could be jailed for the callous, slow murdering of a black man in his custody, and it was downright exhilarating to walk into a local shop or diner and not see crucifixes and framed copies of "Footprints in the Sand" all over the place. To not have strangers knocking on my door every few days to shove religious nonsense in my face. That's right, mundane sanity and normality actually brought on a rush. Now that sanity is under attack by poor, poor, persecuted kkkrister crybabies who can't tolerate being treated the same as everybody else, throwing tantrums and screaming "No fair! No fair! PER-SUH-KEW-SHUN!!!!!"
I realized there was some element of that here all along, but at a very low level, or so I thought. But now that Democrat lawmakers in Minnesota have literal targets on their backs and the religious nutcases are SUING to siphon off taxpayer money to fund their bigotry, I see that no one anywhere can escape for long.
The only place I can think of that might be saner right now is maybe somewhere in New England. But again, not for long. This crap has a way of spreading into even the sanest of environments.
I think the legal problem is that the Minnesota law, the way it's written and been defended, implies they could if they wanted to. The law stating that *faith* statements are not allowed is pointing just to religious oaths. The Reps and Sens defending it didn't help, as they explicitly said this is about religious freedom. And thirdly that's the point of the judge's contrived example: if some secular school demanded a secular oath, would the law still allow them to participate? Why yes it would. Therefore, not the same treatment and obviously not something that follows the precedents set by this SCOTUS.
The state might have better luck if they made it a requirement to participate that *no* college require *any* oath for *any* ideology, period, no matter what the intent or noble meaning. However i think at this point the well might be poisoned i.e. the courts would simply see it as an attempt to achieve the same end point with less religious language. So my guess would be, at least in the short term, Minnesota is better off going all (let these two school participate) or none (limit the program to public colleges, over which they have some say).
A student's personal belief should have no bearing on access to education. I am not familiar with legal intricacies, but aren't there certain concepts of "fair play" that apply or could help here?
Asking because the story tells us that in some geographical regions, a private religious college is the only available option. Going "public schools only" would close down options for those students. Allowing public and religious schools to participate reaches more students, and that's a good thing...until the two largest participants decided to start shoving religious oaths in front of kids who aren't even old enough to sign legal contracts or vote. Isn't THAT illegal in some sense of the law? Is there a provision somewhere in the legal code that could address the issue this way? Minors cannot be required to sign any sort of agreement or contract or oath or whatever?
It's a shame because this sounds like an excellent program for a lot of bright kids who want to go to college and earn degrees to help them succeed, without incurring ruinous student loan debt. We will need these bright young people in the years ahead.
And as always, religious assholes have to come along, piss all over everything, and ruin it for everybody.
Probably not. There's little 'spirit of the law' here. If the Minnesota law says "no faith statements", then what it excludes is faith statements. That law does not exclude ideological statements which aren't faith statements.
Under this SCOTUS, Minnesota has the choice of letting no private school shove any oath in front of kids or let every private school shove any type of oath in front of kids. But they do not have the legal option of (1) let schools shove non-religious oaths in front of kids, but not religious oaths, or (2) let nonreligious schools shove oaths in front of kids, but not religious schools.*
This judge did not say "must do every/any." She said "can't do 1 or 2, which is what this law does."
However as I said, it may be impossible to get a do-over with a 'no ideological oaths for anyone' revision through the courts. Given the history of the case, they'd be suspicious that it's just an attempt to impose on these two religious schools without the religious language.
*And yes for the record I think SCOTUS has got the 1st amendment wrong. If the free exercise clause means the government has to give special freedom to religious expressions (over other expressions) by individuals, then it stands to reason that the establishment cause acts in a similar manner to impose special limitations to religious expressions (over other expressions) by government agents. In my opinion, this SCOTUS unevenly and without justification favors 1a free expression over 1a establishment. There is nothing wrong in looking at the 1a in total and going "okay, religious expressions don't follow the exact same rules as other expressions. They have special rules because look, they are called out specially in the 1a." What is wrong is reading one of the clauses as calling for special treatment but not the other.
"Now, consider a hypothetical secular private college that participates in the PSEO program. If that secular school required that all PSEO applicants attest to “honor reason,” “seek reason‐centered community,” and “stand together against all that rationalism clearly condemns,” such an admissions requirement would seemingly not be proscribed by the Faith Statement Ban."
I can play this game too. Once again, how many judges would pass a basic Constitutional law test ?
"Consider an hypothetical Muslim private college that participate in the PSEO program. If that Muslim required that all PSEO participants attest to "deny the divin aspect of Jesus Christ", "follow the 5 pillars of Islam", "and respect a strict gender based separation between students" such an admission requirement would infringe on the religious liberty and first amendment rights of the students. It's... Bla bla bla.
"We believe the district court is wrong. This law is neutral and generally applicable. It simply requires that all colleges receiving taxpayer funds treat students equally, regardless of religion, gender, or sexual orientation. No school should get a license to discriminate on the public dime."
How funny that the allegedly best democracy in the world can't do what some European countries do without complaints from anyone.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed"
We don’t live in a democracy unfortunately. Just look at the electoral college and its racist origins. A lot of compromises were made and that’s how we got here with Dear Leader.
Mostly because Abe Lincoln, the driving force behind “All men are created equal,” in America, was murdered by the South. Many of the principles the North fought so valiantly for, were cast aside by his racist successor, Andrew Johnson. The anti-democratic fuckery goes back that far!
Ok, University of Northwestern–St. Paul and Crown College, how would you handle a gay atheist student who signs your statement of faith just to take advantage of your program? Would you expel them? Deny full credit for the courses they take? Ban them from the campus? How serious is your statement of faith?
It is all about creating an in-group and an out-group - you know, those people. The ones our one, true ghod is sending straight to Hell. Religion is one of the most powerful forces for disruption of civil society there is.
I'm sure they'd be happy to receive the funding and not supply the benefit. So yep, I think once they've got the State's money in hand they'd have no problem "being serious" and expelling the student.
Imagine your faith being SO WEAK that you have to force others to acknowledge it, and imagine being SO NARCISSISTIC that you think it’s a good thing to announce it to the world.
That’s what I would do if I were a student and my only option was one of the statements of faith schools. I’d play by their rules — their rules being “rig the game”.
As I have posted before, the fundamental problem with the right wing courts, SCOTUS leading the backward way, is putting some groups mythical beliefs, having no evidence in support, over the rights of real live humans to not be discriminated against. Irrational Beliefs over flesh and blood. This demonstrates how bad religious beliefs have F U intelligent and educated people’s ability to think rationally for justice and equality under law. We will never solve the climate crisis or avoid nuclear war and have peace and justice in our world as long as mythical dogmas are given equal or greater standing against rational and logical evidence based arguments.
That's what is so horrific. The Orange Toad kicking off will be only a brief respite compared to the lasting and ongoing wreckage of our country. It may very well be irreparable no matter how many good people work their asses off trying repair it.
If you want to enter my house, you must sign a statement that says no religious bullshit may be spoken here. Welp, that leaves out the holy troller riff-raff.
I once had a sign in my front yard that read "NO Solicitors NO Salespersons NO Proselytizers." It didn't work, and they kept coming. I finally lost it with one stubborn shithead and asked him if he got his GED from a bubblegum machine because obviously he couldn't read the damned sign in my yard telling him to stay the hell off my property. It turned out he didn't know what "Proselytizers" meant. *
Clicky ba – a cricket bat wound with copper wire in the hands of some old-fashioned hero's sidekick. The Wolf of Kabul. That would certainly have a certain impact.
Clicky-ba thundered, and men with crushed heads squirmed on the path. Dreadful sounds echoed up the cliffs as the vanguard of Yahaw Khan's army swung this way and that, retreating and advancing in turns ... In sheer desperation they attacked, but found themselves opposed not only by Chung, but by the twin daggers of the Wolf.
I've had JWs showing up here since we moved here 16 years ago. I'm always polite, but I don't tolerate BS. Shortly, we'll be moving south of here, and I'm wondering if the local Kingdom Hall will figure that we're fresh meat.
[TS smiles to himself] Dey don't know me vewwy well, do dey?
My childhood home is in North Florida, in a pretty little town with tree-lined streets. Unfortunately, though, now red as Texass and twice as fucking stupid. Much as I once dreamed of retiring and moving back there someday, I don't think that will happen. The thought of familiar surroundings would be comforting, but where would I find anyone I could talk to without watching what I say? Without biting my tongue to hold back my liberal opinions? While concealing my distaste for anything even remotely religious? This is a place that literally has a church on every street corner, and in at least one case, two of the biggest churches in town (Baptist and Methodist) *directly* across the street from each other.
BTW, (if you've heard this joke already, feel free to groan)....
Q: What's the difference between Baptists and Methodists?
A: Methodists will speak to each other in the liquor store.
Remember according to the religious reading, knowledge, expertise, skill are considered sins and woke. The religious is a group that has the reading comprehension of: The Cat Sat On The Mat. Plus the use of dictionaries and encyclopedias are tools of Satan according to the religious mindset.
Has anyone else noticed that MAGA Christians are handing over Christianity to the federal government, after all these years of hating the government on principle? These MAGA Christianity committees that police whether or not Christians in our federal agencies have been properly submitted to... I don't think they're going to like how that turns out.
And one of the very interesting aspects of MAGA Christians relying on the federal government is their repeated insistence that that 1A applies ONLY to the federal government.
One of the certifiable nutso commenters at Christian Post recently asserted that the disciples were 6 men and 6 women. They were couples. I had interacted with that commenter before and wasn’t up for another round of bafflegab.
"When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it cannot support itself, and God does not care to support, so that its Professors are oblig'd to call for the help of the Civil Power, 'tis a Sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
-- Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Dr. Richard Price (a Christian) dated October 9th, 1780
When it comes to this subject, I always lead off with those words of wisdom from that wily Deist Franklin.
I keep saying, the continued existence of “these” Christians is absolute proof their so-called god DOESN’T exist.
A Trump appointed judge pretzels their logic to give a veneer of legal justification to the hole in the wall of separation that SCOTUS made. That tracks. Typical fundie Christian Nazionalist. Equating a discriminatory statement of faith with a hypothetical statement of reason. It's almost as if the Christian Nazionalists want to prohibit thinking.
𝐼𝑡’𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑜𝑚. 𝐼𝑡’𝑠 𝑡𝑎𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟-𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑗𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑡ℎ.
All because they want to force everyone to conform to their narrow little boxes.
“All because they want to force everyone to conform to their narrow little boxes.”
There it is. Not Jeebus. Not “love thy neighbor,” or any of the other extinct religious ways, taught by the man himself. Power and control.
There's a bit of pretzel logic but that's not really the problem. However weird the pathway the judge took to get there, the end conclusion is consistent with SCOTUS' recent precedents and thus a 'correct' lower court decision that upholds current judicial rules. It's the SCOTUS-level decision that's the problem here.
Minnesota was fighting the last war not the present one. There is no more state/local government forcing contractors who take their money to follow government non-discrimination rules. It's now: allow contractors of all ideologies with their own private rules to take the money, or allow none. Maybe, *maybe* you can get away with some sort of contractor criteria which is entirely separate from religious claims, but that's touch and go and certainly Minnesota's law calling out *faith* statements as the specific one thing it doesn't allow was not going to pass SCOTUS muster.
The Trump-packed POSCOTUS.
I appreciate the analysis. If memory serves, you are an attorney?
These fine folks need to reevaluate their values. Since that will never happen, the only path forward is to TAX them!
“I don't know how you feel, but I'm pretty sick of church people. You know what they ought to do with churches? Tax them. If holy people are so interested in politics, government, and public policy, let them pay the price of admission like everybody else. The Catholic Church alone could wipe out the national debt if all you did was tax their real estate.”
-George Carlin
The time has never been better for listening to George Carlin.
I miss him so
“The statements simply ask students to affirm the schools’ religious beliefs for the purpose of upholding their Christian communities.”
Why? Are your beliefs that weak that you need children to comfort your decisions to believe in them? Is your Christian community that fragile that a kid can destroy it all with a word?
You have a great opportunity to prove your faith and bring more into the fold by inviting people who aren’t willing to sign this into your campus and show them how you Christian so they might find the value in it. But no, you chose to be exactly what we all think of a lot of Christians, overbearing, ignorant, cruel, and authoritarian. Good for you.
"Is your Christian community that fragile that a kid can destroy it all with a word?"
Yes, they are the real snowflakes.
They’ve always been the snowflakes all along, fear and weakness rebranded as “courage” and “ strength”, incompetence as “qualifications”, paranoia and bullshit as “instincts” and “intelligence”.
Yes! Their beliefs ARE THAT WEAK.
Exactly right. 100%.
It’s sad that the judge cannot see the forest for the trees here. If this issue would be viewed from the lens that the beneficiaries of this funding were the students rather than the schools, then there wouldn’t be an issue at all. The money does benefit the schools, but that isn’t what the money is for. Taxpayer money belongs to all the people in the tax base, this case the state, it is set aside for high school students to have the opportunity to gain college level knowledge, it is given directly to the schools but the schools must provide the product to the students in return for the money. If the schools deny student access, then the money doesn’t apply to them. I’m not giving a contractor money if he isn’t going to do the work I ask of him. Even if he says it’s against his religion. You only get paid for what you do.
The schools aren’t the intended beneficiaries. They are only the contractors. The students are the beneficiaries. That goes for the first amendment as well. The first amendment is about individual rights not organizations, no matter what they want citizens united to say. This is a government function, the schools are acting in loco governmentis and therefore cannot be discriminating against students in regards to protected class, including religion. Their first amendment rights are not being violated since they are playing government in this instance. The constitution, particularly the bill of rights, is a document restricting the government, not giving it rights over citizens. This is so fucking obvious, it’s too bad there are judges that are too corrupt to see this.
Anyway, the rights of the schools are not the rights the courts should be focusing on, the students’ rights are the rights that are being trampled here and the courts don’t care.
I think those corrupt MAGAT judges see things clearly. They are not as stoopid as your average, run of the mill MAGAT.
Corrupt is the operative word. They have intentionally traded their loyalty to the Constitution for personal gain, be it power or wealth. They are the weak. They are the enemy.
Exhibit 1 : cannon fodder in florihell. She is both.
By deliberately delaying Trump’s 34 sentences, she started this whole thing.
Burn the witch!!!!!
I have a feeling the FFRF are going to be very busy for the next few years. And that the percentage of cases they win is going to look like a ski slope despite the great work the are doing.
But unlike poor King Cnut, somebody has to at least try to hold back the tide. The very fabric of the US is being torn apart and the First Amendment is on the front line of this war. Freedom from religion and freedom of speech for individuals and the press especially.
Rule of law and justice are dead in the U.S. Until the people take them back. It won't be peaceful.
“In most countries corruption involves breaking the law. In the US too often it is the law.“
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3b44fb905f05ab734c13e2aa560fe16e76581d4727d67c7bd00bdcf7d5858952.jpg
“The Supreme Court has consistently and recently affirmed that public benefits that are open to private secular organizations must also be open to religious ones.“
THAT is not the problem. Everybody simply has to play by the same rules. We don't discriminate against YOU because you're a religious organization, and you don't discriminate against any of our students that come your way. NOBODY said religious schools could not participate. Religious schools were already particpating.
The problem is the intrusive, bigoted faith statement that two of the religious schools have decided that MUST be signed by the students or sorry you do not get your credits. The *secular* private schools don't do this (what the hell a student's religious beliefs or lack thereof have to do with earning college credits escapes me, but I digress), and it's good to hear that most of the participating religious schools in Minnesota ARE playing by the rules with no problem, but the two biggest ones have decided that they are the super special 800 pound gorillas in the room and thus should be able to do as they please while raking in taxpayer money. And now the goddamn trump-stained court has sided with them.
Shit on a fucking stick. This madness has come to Minnesota.
On one hand, I do see a lot of catholic schools and colleges near where I live (far, far more of them than secular ones), but on the other hand, after living in SE Georgia where nine out of ten people had bible verses and religious symbols liberally tattooed on their bodies, or wore religious tee shirts with what they thought were either deepities about gawd or very witty and clever memes putting non-christians in their place (not to mention the occasional very graphic depiction of the crucifiction -- that's actually how it was spelled on a couple of shirts I saw), and where people would form prayer circles in the middle of the hardware store, linking arms and praying out loud - I shit you not - and almost every popular mom and pop diner and burger joint was decorated with religious art and symbols, even Bible verses printed on the cups and napkins, and the local gym played only christian music for people to work out to, and every Easter season, there were dozens of yards with trios of wooden crosses and purple cloth, but Halloween decorations were "actively discouraged" by the town council and trick-or-treating was also discouraged in favor of bible-themed trunk-or-treating at "any of our very fine local churches." Kids who wanted to go trick-or-treating had to have their parents drive them over the county line to a nearby town....
After all THAT....Minnesota seemed a secular paradise. I know the state has its faults, every state does, but god DAMN, Southeast Georgia was a fucking shithole.
It felt good to move to a state where a white cop could be jailed for the callous, slow murdering of a black man in his custody, and it was downright exhilarating to walk into a local shop or diner and not see crucifixes and framed copies of "Footprints in the Sand" all over the place. To not have strangers knocking on my door every few days to shove religious nonsense in my face. That's right, mundane sanity and normality actually brought on a rush. Now that sanity is under attack by poor, poor, persecuted kkkrister crybabies who can't tolerate being treated the same as everybody else, throwing tantrums and screaming "No fair! No fair! PER-SUH-KEW-SHUN!!!!!"
I realized there was some element of that here all along, but at a very low level, or so I thought. But now that Democrat lawmakers in Minnesota have literal targets on their backs and the religious nutcases are SUING to siphon off taxpayer money to fund their bigotry, I see that no one anywhere can escape for long.
The only place I can think of that might be saner right now is maybe somewhere in New England. But again, not for long. This crap has a way of spreading into even the sanest of environments.
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑚 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒, 𝑏𝑖𝑔𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑀𝑈𝑆𝑇 𝑏𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑦 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑑𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑠. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 *𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟* 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑠 𝑑𝑜𝑛'𝑡 𝑑𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠
I think the legal problem is that the Minnesota law, the way it's written and been defended, implies they could if they wanted to. The law stating that *faith* statements are not allowed is pointing just to religious oaths. The Reps and Sens defending it didn't help, as they explicitly said this is about religious freedom. And thirdly that's the point of the judge's contrived example: if some secular school demanded a secular oath, would the law still allow them to participate? Why yes it would. Therefore, not the same treatment and obviously not something that follows the precedents set by this SCOTUS.
The state might have better luck if they made it a requirement to participate that *no* college require *any* oath for *any* ideology, period, no matter what the intent or noble meaning. However i think at this point the well might be poisoned i.e. the courts would simply see it as an attempt to achieve the same end point with less religious language. So my guess would be, at least in the short term, Minnesota is better off going all (let these two school participate) or none (limit the program to public colleges, over which they have some say).
A student's personal belief should have no bearing on access to education. I am not familiar with legal intricacies, but aren't there certain concepts of "fair play" that apply or could help here?
Asking because the story tells us that in some geographical regions, a private religious college is the only available option. Going "public schools only" would close down options for those students. Allowing public and religious schools to participate reaches more students, and that's a good thing...until the two largest participants decided to start shoving religious oaths in front of kids who aren't even old enough to sign legal contracts or vote. Isn't THAT illegal in some sense of the law? Is there a provision somewhere in the legal code that could address the issue this way? Minors cannot be required to sign any sort of agreement or contract or oath or whatever?
It's a shame because this sounds like an excellent program for a lot of bright kids who want to go to college and earn degrees to help them succeed, without incurring ruinous student loan debt. We will need these bright young people in the years ahead.
And as always, religious assholes have to come along, piss all over everything, and ruin it for everybody.
𝐴 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡'𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑓 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑛𝑜 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛.
Agreed!
𝐼 𝑎𝑚 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑓𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑟 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑠, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛'𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 "𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑦" 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦 𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑝 ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒?
Probably not. There's little 'spirit of the law' here. If the Minnesota law says "no faith statements", then what it excludes is faith statements. That law does not exclude ideological statements which aren't faith statements.
𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑡 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑘𝑖𝑑𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛'𝑡 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑟 𝑣𝑜𝑡𝑒. 𝐼𝑠𝑛'𝑡 𝑇𝐻𝐴𝑇 𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑤?
Under this SCOTUS, Minnesota has the choice of letting no private school shove any oath in front of kids or let every private school shove any type of oath in front of kids. But they do not have the legal option of (1) let schools shove non-religious oaths in front of kids, but not religious oaths, or (2) let nonreligious schools shove oaths in front of kids, but not religious schools.*
This judge did not say "must do every/any." She said "can't do 1 or 2, which is what this law does."
However as I said, it may be impossible to get a do-over with a 'no ideological oaths for anyone' revision through the courts. Given the history of the case, they'd be suspicious that it's just an attempt to impose on these two religious schools without the religious language.
*And yes for the record I think SCOTUS has got the 1st amendment wrong. If the free exercise clause means the government has to give special freedom to religious expressions (over other expressions) by individuals, then it stands to reason that the establishment cause acts in a similar manner to impose special limitations to religious expressions (over other expressions) by government agents. In my opinion, this SCOTUS unevenly and without justification favors 1a free expression over 1a establishment. There is nothing wrong in looking at the 1a in total and going "okay, religious expressions don't follow the exact same rules as other expressions. They have special rules because look, they are called out specially in the 1a." What is wrong is reading one of the clauses as calling for special treatment but not the other.
Okay...I think I follow that....
This is why I did not go to law school. My poor brain would have screamed bloody murder and run shrieking into the shadows long before now.
SIGH
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑚 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒, 𝑏𝑖𝑔𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 ... 𝑀𝑈𝑆𝑇 𝑏𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠...
There's a word for that: COERCION.
Time to play by their rules.
"Now, consider a hypothetical secular private college that participates in the PSEO program. If that secular school required that all PSEO applicants attest to “honor reason,” “seek reason‐centered community,” and “stand together against all that rationalism clearly condemns,” such an admissions requirement would seemingly not be proscribed by the Faith Statement Ban."
I can play this game too. Once again, how many judges would pass a basic Constitutional law test ?
"Consider an hypothetical Muslim private college that participate in the PSEO program. If that Muslim required that all PSEO participants attest to "deny the divin aspect of Jesus Christ", "follow the 5 pillars of Islam", "and respect a strict gender based separation between students" such an admission requirement would infringe on the religious liberty and first amendment rights of the students. It's... Bla bla bla.
"We believe the district court is wrong. This law is neutral and generally applicable. It simply requires that all colleges receiving taxpayer funds treat students equally, regardless of religion, gender, or sexual orientation. No school should get a license to discriminate on the public dime."
How funny that the allegedly best democracy in the world can't do what some European countries do without complaints from anyone.
We haven't been the best democracy in the world since at least Reagan, mainly due to Christian Fucking Privilege.
Nixon...
Eisenhower. His administration was the one that inserted "under God" into the pledge.
otoh he did get the interstate freeway system going.
DDE also warned of "the military-industrial complex."
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed"
ONLY because he got the idea from the German Autobahn.
We don’t live in a democracy unfortunately. Just look at the electoral college and its racist origins. A lot of compromises were made and that’s how we got here with Dear Leader.
Mostly because Abe Lincoln, the driving force behind “All men are created equal,” in America, was murdered by the South. Many of the principles the North fought so valiantly for, were cast aside by his racist successor, Andrew Johnson. The anti-democratic fuckery goes back that far!
👏
This time the boot stays on treasonous confederate necks until they cease to foul the air with their breath.
We are up to our eyelashes in reichwing religionists over here. They are determined to thrust a theofascist state on the whole Country.
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑠𝑘 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑠’ 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑓𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑢𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑢𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠.
Ok, University of Northwestern–St. Paul and Crown College, how would you handle a gay atheist student who signs your statement of faith just to take advantage of your program? Would you expel them? Deny full credit for the courses they take? Ban them from the campus? How serious is your statement of faith?
Religion is a display of fear of "the other." Always has been.
It is all about creating an in-group and an out-group - you know, those people. The ones our one, true ghod is sending straight to Hell. Religion is one of the most powerful forces for disruption of civil society there is.
“For good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
- Steven Weinberg
The university would take the money, but make the student’s life miserable so that student would quit
So, just serious enough to profit. Yep, that tracks.
It's a win-win for God and his faithful believers. What's wrong with that?
I'm sure they'd be happy to receive the funding and not supply the benefit. So yep, I think once they've got the State's money in hand they'd have no problem "being serious" and expelling the student.
Wouldn't that be considered a breach of contract?
From the people who cares fuck-all about “human” laws? They’re just doing “the godly thing”.
"You knew what I was when you picked me up." - The Snake
No. They would claim that it is the student who breached the contract.
Christian math class: 1 + 1 = Jesus. The answer is correct. Because these are irrational numbers.
Imagine your faith being SO WEAK that you have to force others to acknowledge it, and imagine being SO NARCISSISTIC that you think it’s a good thing to announce it to the world.
That’s what I would do if I were a student and my only option was one of the statements of faith schools. I’d play by their rules — their rules being “rig the game”.
As I have posted before, the fundamental problem with the right wing courts, SCOTUS leading the backward way, is putting some groups mythical beliefs, having no evidence in support, over the rights of real live humans to not be discriminated against. Irrational Beliefs over flesh and blood. This demonstrates how bad religious beliefs have F U intelligent and educated people’s ability to think rationally for justice and equality under law. We will never solve the climate crisis or avoid nuclear war and have peace and justice in our world as long as mythical dogmas are given equal or greater standing against rational and logical evidence based arguments.
Xtians are the worst fucking people. This is why we have a fascist dick-tater now.
They went from damning the Antichrist to exalting him.
They were always going to. It is not like they haven't had these opinions for at least a century. It is just that it has become mainstream now.
And when Trump is done, they are not going to change their opinions.
That's what is so horrific. The Orange Toad kicking off will be only a brief respite compared to the lasting and ongoing wreckage of our country. It may very well be irreparable no matter how many good people work their asses off trying repair it.
Because the reichwing propaganda machine is working 24/7 to undo all repair efforts.
Yes.
*SIGH*
And my gawd, the tithing!
If you want to enter my house, you must sign a statement that says no religious bullshit may be spoken here. Welp, that leaves out the holy troller riff-raff.
I once had a sign in my front yard that read "NO Solicitors NO Salespersons NO Proselytizers." It didn't work, and they kept coming. I finally lost it with one stubborn shithead and asked him if he got his GED from a bubblegum machine because obviously he couldn't read the damned sign in my yard telling him to stay the hell off my property. It turned out he didn't know what "Proselytizers" meant. *
* (primal scream of frustration)
As BHDM noted, I bought a pentagram and a sign with a list of NO’s. Sometimes they work, sometimes I have to use a 2x4.
A slugger is definitely better. Easier grip.
Clicky ba – a cricket bat wound with copper wire in the hands of some old-fashioned hero's sidekick. The Wolf of Kabul. That would certainly have a certain impact.
Clicky-ba thundered, and men with crushed heads squirmed on the path. Dreadful sounds echoed up the cliffs as the vanguard of Yahaw Khan's army swung this way and that, retreating and advancing in turns ... In sheer desperation they attacked, but found themselves opposed not only by Chung, but by the twin daggers of the Wolf.
Is that better than a Louisville Slugger?
This enquiring mind wants to know!
When I was living at home, we had a NO SOLICITORS sign at the front door. JWs turned up anyway (once with their kids in tow).
I finally put a stop to it by telling them I was an atheist. They didn't say a word. Just left. They never returned. They must have spread the word.
I've had JWs showing up here since we moved here 16 years ago. I'm always polite, but I don't tolerate BS. Shortly, we'll be moving south of here, and I'm wondering if the local Kingdom Hall will figure that we're fresh meat.
[TS smiles to himself] Dey don't know me vewwy well, do dey?
Isn't the first question they ask you in the South – "What church do you attend?"?
Yes. Right after "What's your name?" and before "Where are you from?"
Not really THAT far south. Massillon is roughly an hour south of Cleveland. Sadly, it's considerably redder than where we've been.
My childhood home is in North Florida, in a pretty little town with tree-lined streets. Unfortunately, though, now red as Texass and twice as fucking stupid. Much as I once dreamed of retiring and moving back there someday, I don't think that will happen. The thought of familiar surroundings would be comforting, but where would I find anyone I could talk to without watching what I say? Without biting my tongue to hold back my liberal opinions? While concealing my distaste for anything even remotely religious? This is a place that literally has a church on every street corner, and in at least one case, two of the biggest churches in town (Baptist and Methodist) *directly* across the street from each other.
BTW, (if you've heard this joke already, feel free to groan)....
Q: What's the difference between Baptists and Methodists?
A: Methodists will speak to each other in the liquor store.
I remember telling one of them I was a secular humanist – I think they were a Mormon. He said "I've never heard of that religion."
Kay-El bought a pentagram to put on her door. Maybe it's worth a try.
😄
Or the recording of a big dog. Intruders can't know they only risk to be loved to death (Aria).
https://www.pacificsignandstamp.com/products/fancy-no-soliciting-no-politics-no-religion-no-sales-no-flyers-no-exceptions-wall-or-door-sign?variant=39770169966640
Remember according to the religious reading, knowledge, expertise, skill are considered sins and woke. The religious is a group that has the reading comprehension of: The Cat Sat On The Mat. Plus the use of dictionaries and encyclopedias are tools of Satan according to the religious mindset.
We had this sign on our old wooden front door. When we replaced it with steel I didn't put it back up but thinking about getting one as a magnet.
https://ibb.co/Y7VrHqds
As Arte Johnson would say, "That's a real goodie!"
Very interesting.
Perfect!
It worked with Mormons but not JoHos.
Are the latter not as smart or less able to take a big fucking hint? 🤔
Not sure but they left quickly after I talked to them.
Scared the (be)Jesus out of their talking points. 😂
Love it! 💙🩵💙🩵
OT: How climate will affect Gilead.
https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/
Okay ... THAT was disturbing...
I am thankful I have no offspring that will have to try to survive in this new world of fascism and climate destruction.
As you may know from previous posts here, I have a daughter. Love her to pieces, and she's damned sharp ... but the shit show she's facing? DAMN...
I have immense sympathy. I have a niece and nephew. When the shit hits the fan, I will likely be dust in the wind. I hate this fucking timeline.
I second that.
Another reason NOT to move back to floriduh.
Ah well, Florida will be a lot smaller which may be a blessing.
SHRINKAGE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/79S6bswOYLI
Maybe the gators will get de Satan.
Zorgichou and Natalie may not agree.
You forgot Die Anyway.
I didn't forgot him, I didn't know he lives there, nuance 😝
He lives about five to ten miles north of me.
Has anyone else noticed that MAGA Christians are handing over Christianity to the federal government, after all these years of hating the government on principle? These MAGA Christianity committees that police whether or not Christians in our federal agencies have been properly submitted to... I don't think they're going to like how that turns out.
And one of the very interesting aspects of MAGA Christians relying on the federal government is their repeated insistence that that 1A applies ONLY to the federal government.
Logic. How does it work?
I have noticed that too.
The solution is very simple. If you want to change this, simply start a school that's religious statement is that "Jesus is gay."
Well, he did spend three years hanging around with twelve guys.
One of the certifiable nutso commenters at Christian Post recently asserted that the disciples were 6 men and 6 women. They were couples. I had interacted with that commenter before and wasn’t up for another round of bafflegab.
And jeezyboy did “ride” a donkey too.
John (The Beloved) was a donkey? 😉
And wasn't John underage?
Jesus rode his ass into all the cities. Tell me that’s not him bringing orgies all over the place!
Was he over 13 (Bar mitzvah) ? Or 14* ?
* First age of majority (the other is 25) for Roman citizens. No idea if it applied to Jews.
He was probably a teenager.
At that time, that would have made of him a legal adult.