472
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
472 points (99.2% liked)
politics
19097 readers
1975 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Well kudos to him for being a Republican standing up for the constitutional separation of church and state.
Apparently that's not what he's standing up for. They're not the right religion. When Republicans make decisions, the seeing irrational or against their normal behavior. Always assume there's bigotry tied to it.
Not saying you're wrong, but the article gives absolutely no evidence that this is the case.
Don't get me wrong, he clearly knows that the day that school gets established, the Satanic Temple is going to come marching right on in. More importantly, so is everyone attempting to establish schools for Jewish students and Muslims as well, and God knows they won't have any of that going on. He's definitely trying to keep "them" out, and we all know what I mean when I say "them". But there's no indication he's in favor of any one particular religion, either. At least, not publicly.
It seems to be more on the side of "No, that means my religion as well. Not because I'd be against it, but because I can't let them establish one without letting brown people do the same thing. You don't want one of those schools next door to you, do you?"
And hey, if that's what it takes to keep religion out of schools, I'm all for it. Silver linings and all that.
So, the authors of the article irresponsibly chose not to include this guy's very public extremist rhetoric, but here's a quote directly from the press release:
Honestly, I feel more conservatives would be against religion in schools if it was pointed out more often that implies their tax dollars supporting religion in general. Why should some teacher lead prayers on our dime?
This doesn't really show his preference for any other religion, though. In fact, he specifically used the word "compelled" when talking about Catholicism. Which seems to indicate he believes the way I described above: He doesn't want any religion because he knows doing so means all those brown people can have religious schools too, and we can't have any of that.....
He probably would be OK with it if he wasn't worried about Muslims opening up their own school. His fears are deeply entrenched in prejudice. That's obvious. But if his paranoia over Muslims is enough to get him to keep all religion out of schools, I'll take small victories any way I can get them.
I mean, he's a protestant evangelical, so he's not a big fan of catholicism, but alongside his fearmongering about muslims, he definitely shows plenty of preference for his particular religion. Here's another quote from the press release:
I'm certainly glad he's fighting these religious charter schools, for whatever reason, but I think it's silly to pretend his motivations are anything but bigotry and bias toward his favorite sect.
This still doesn't show that, though.
In fact, he specifically says the opposite: Religion is best taught at homes and churches. So what if he only wants reading proficiency so kids "can read the bible at home with their family."? Bigotry aside, he's doing what he's supposed to be doing. Keeping the schools focused on education, keeping religion at home. He could be the (whatever the evangelical equivalent of the Pope is) on his own time, and the bigotry certainly has no place anywhere. But at the very least, he does at least seem to be trying to keep religion (including his own) out of schools. I'm OK with that, even if we have completely different reasons why.
The language he uses definitely shows a preference for a specific religion. He's clearly keeping his religion out of school only because it would allow the religions he doesn't like in too, which is the entire point of the post you first responded to.
So? He's not trying to jam that religion into classrooms. In fact, he's trying to keep it out.
It's also a point I've been making the entire time. Yes, he's clearly keeping his own religion out because his hatred/fear/bigotry of other religions is that deep. But as long as the end result is him continuing to keep all religion out of schools, I'm OK with that. When he joins most of the other members of his party and tries to jam Bible study in the classroom, then we'll talk.
Holy moving goalposts batman!
OP:
In your first response you wrote:
So I provided a press release quoting the AG's anti-muslim bigotry as evidence.
Your response:
So I provided further evidence of his religious preferences.
Your response:
I indicated that the point in the post you originally responded to is pretty well supported by the evidence...
Your response:
I'm done, please keep better track of your point in the future
This is completely incorrect.
You said: "Apparently that’s not what he’s standing up for. They’re not the right religion.".
I agreed; he's clearly biased against Muslims but your statement showed no evidence that he was trying to push said "right religion" into schools either. In fact, he was going out of his way to keep even his own religion out of schools, out of fear that it would set precedent for others to establish religious schools he doesn't like.
Then you posted a quote where he blatantly stated his fear of a Muslim school being established, and I asked you to still provide evidence of where he's trying to force his own religion anywhere.
You then replied with a post where he TWICE said that any religion belongs at home as somehow proof that he's favoring one religion over another.
And then you said "The language he uses definitely shows a preference for a specific religion.", seemingly failing to understand that he absolutely has a right to prefer a specific religion, so long as he keeps that religious preference out of the government and out of our schools. You have continued to show no evidence that he is attempting to force his own religious views into the issue. In fact, you've provided plenty of evidence contradicting your own talking point.
There is nothing wrong with this guy having his own religious preferences. You have provided no evidence he's trying to force his own or any other religion on anybody. Everything you yourself have shown so far points to him wanting all religion out of schools, even if those wants are itself based in bigotry. As long as he continues to support keeping all religion out of schools, I'm not really all that concerned over why.
Lol, ok dude. I never said he was trying to force his religion into anything, you're just making stuff up. I supported the OPs statement that bigotry against the wrong religions was the motivator here, not high-minded ideals about the separation of church and state, and I think that's been substantiated by the evidence.
He seems to grasp that all religions should be prohibited from getting state funds.
From the article:
“Make no mistake, if the Catholic Church were permitted to have a public virtual charter school, a reckoning will follow in which this state will be faced with the unprecedented quandary of processing requests to directly fund all petitioning sectarian groups,” the lawsuit states.