Texas Board of Education mandates classroom Bible readings..

[Magical Realist]

Yeehaw! Praize dah Lord and pass dah ammo!

"The Texas State Board of Education has voted to make Bible passages required reading in public schools.
The education board, which is controlled by Republicans, voted to pass a new required reading list on Friday by a vote of 9-5-1. The list for required literature includes sections of the Book of Exodus for fifth graders, The Shepherd's Psalm for seventh graders and more.

Board discussions about the required reading list took place Friday morning and touched on issues related to the implementation timeline and the question of teacher autonomy in deciding which works should be required reading.

The list will impact the more than 5 million students enrolled in public schools across the state..."

https://abcnews.com/GMA/News/texas-educa...NvztRsAYlg

[Syne]

Yes, it's somehow okay to mandate/allow LGBT education, but hypocritically wrong to educate children on the book foundational to the formation of our country.

[Magical Realist]

It's the difference between teaching actual history as opposed to teaching made-up history from one particular religious book of fairy tales as opposed to any others. It's the state enforcing one religion on its people, which the Constitution explicitly forbids, not to mention lending school authority to complete bullshit to enslave young minds with.

[Syne]

The Bible is part of actual US history, no matter what you think of its contents. There is no other religion foundational to our country's formation. The US Constitution does not forbid teaching US history.
But I notice you don't mind lending school authority to your favored partisan bullshit, confusing the minds of young children.

[Magical Realist]

The Bible is part of actual US history, no matter what you think of its contents

No it isn't. Nothing in the Bible is part of confirmed history. Should we make kids read it because it has been believed in the past? No..no more than we should make them read the writings of astrologers and alchemists because they too were believed in the past. The Book of Mormon is part of American history too. Should we have students reading that too?

Students should learn ABOUT history, not be re-taught its superstitious delusions..

But I notice you don't mind lending school authority to your favored partisan bullshit, confusing the minds of young children.

LGBTQ people have been part of history and have greatly influenced its course. We are 10-15% of the human race. There's nothing partisan about teaching about them to students. Only you homophobes turn it into an ideology of hate and concealment to enforce on children. They are not in school to be made more ignorant. They are in school to learn, and often about their own selves and/or each other.

[Syne]

The Bible is part of actual US history, no matter what you think of its contents

No it isn't. Nothing in the Bible is part of confirmed history.

Literacy is amazing!
The context of differentiating the Bible (and its influence on US history) from its "contents" didn't even help. 9_9

Should we make kids read it because it has been believed in the past? No..no more than we should make them read the writings of astrologers and alchemists because they too were believed in the past. The Book of Mormon is part of American history too. Should we have students reading that too?

When our founding fathers said things like "all men are created equal," there's a context worth knowing. Just like when learning law, there is a context of English common law worth knowing.
The Book of Mormon did not significantly alter the overall trajectory of US expansion or development.

But I notice you don't mind lending school authority to your favored partisan bullshit, confusing the minds of young children.

LGBTQ people have been part of history and have greatly influenced its course. They are 10-15% of the human race. There's nothing partisan about teaching about them  to students. Only you homophobes turn it into an ideology of hate and concealment to enforce on children. They are not in school to be made more ignorant. They are in school to learn, and often about their own selves and/or each other.

It's weird when people seem to claim that someone's contribution to history, science, etc. was somehow dependent upon their sexual orientation, gender expression, etc.. As if you couldn't teach about any person without delving into their personal sexual proclivities. It's very groomerish to insist on teaching children about adult sexuality, beyond basic safe-sex.

[Magical Realist]

The context of differentiating the Bible (and its influence on US history) from its "contents" didn't even help.

Which is why I covered all that in the remaining 2/3's of my post.

When our founding fathers said things like "all men are created equal," there's a context worth knowing.

A context in nowise derived from the Bible, which is basically the story of how a belligerent and primitive Skydaddy chose one people out of all others on earth, promised them a special land to live in, and spent the rest of the OT encouraging them to commit genocide on the people living there. That's a far cry from "all men are created equal."

Just like when learning law, there is a context of English common law worth knowing.

I know of few law courses that require students to read and believe in the Code of Hammurabi.

The Book of Mormon did not significantly alter the overall trajectory of US expansion or development.

How did the Bible do that? And as I said, what would forcing students to read it as if it was true have to do with pointing out how people used to believe in its bullshit? Did you know how often the story of Ham's curse was used to justify viewing slaves as an inferior race?

It's weird when people seem to claim that someone's contribution to history, science, etc. was somehow dependent upon their sexual orientation, gender expression, etc..

Nobody ever claimed that. It's even weirder when people claim that an oppressed class of people in history who nonetheless contributed greatly to its advances should never be mentioned in school at all. Well not so weird given that's the whole agenda of your homophobic people--to make such courageous people seem to have never existed at all.

As if you couldn't teach about any person without delving into their personal sexual proclivities.

That's the result of you homophobes having oppressed and even imprisoned people solely for that. You've made it pretty much inevitable that what they were persecuted and hated for has to be mentioned.

It's very groomerish to insist on teaching children about adult sexuality, beyond basic safe-sex.

LOL..Like simply educating students about the existence of LGBT turns students LGBT. That's utter insane.

[Syne]

If you don't understand the basic reasoning of our country's founding fathers, I'm not about to try educating you on it. Go to public school in Texas for that. Christianity is foundational to the founding of America, especially in the very premises included in the Constitution that led to abolishing slavery. It's a strawman that anyone is forcing students to read the Bible "as if it was true." It is being taught as literature, along side E.B. White, Shel Silverstein, Aesop, Kurt Vonnegut, Elie Wiesel, etc.. Aesop's fables are also not being taught "as if it was true." It's another strawman that anyone said no LGBT should ever be mentioned in school. Only that their sexuality, gender identity, etc. are irrelevant to their historical contributions. And you immediately contradict yourself. Claiming "nobody ever claimed that" their "contribution... was somehow dependent upon their sexual orientation, gender expression, etc." and then demanding that their identity is crucial to their role in history. You can't have it both ways if you have a shred of intellectual honesty or even just logical consistency. Yes, propagandizing young children in gender ideology is groomer behavior. Don't like it? Then what age you think teaching children about adult sexuality is appropriate? @_@

[Magical Realist]

If you don't understand the basic reasoning of our country's founding fathers, I'm not about to try educating you on it.

I know that reasoning doesn't ever rely on the dogmas of some allegedly holy book, and the reasoning of the founding fathers certainly didn't. Hence the separation of church and state.

Christianity is foundational to the founding of America, especially in the very premises included in the Constitution that led to abolishing slavery.

No it isn't. The Constitution is. And Christianity says nothing about abolishing slavery, which is why it went on for generations in American after American Revolution.

Google AI:

"The United States was intentionally founded as a secular republic, with a government strictly separated from religious authority to protect the rights of all citizens. Its core governing documents omit any mention of Christianity or Christ, and the nation was structured to avoid endorsing a state religion.This deliberate secular foundation is established and enforced by several key points:

The U.S. Constitution: The supreme law of the land makes no reference to God, Christianity, or any religious text. In fact, Article VI explicitly states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The First Amendment: The First Amendment features the Establishment Clause, which prevents the government from establishing or sponsoring any religion, while protecting the free exercise of all faiths (or none at all).

The Treaty of Tripoli (1797): Ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate and signed into law by President John Adams, Article 11 explicitly declares that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

The Founding Fathers: The key architects of the nation held a diverse array of beliefs, heavily influenced by Enlightenment philosophy and Deism. While many were religious men, they favored a pluralistic government.

While many early settlers and citizens were Christians, the legal and constitutional framework of the country was designed from its inception to be neutral, pluralistic, and separate from religious doctrine."

It's a strawman that anyone is forcing students to read the Bible "as if it was true.

Yet that's exactly the point in making them read it---to force its teachings on students.

It is being taught as literature, along side E.B. White, Shel Silverstein, Aesop, Kurt Vonnegut, Elie Wiesel, etc.. Aesop's fables are also not being taught "as if it was true."

The lessons of all these authors are true as are those of Aesop's fables. The Bible's are not.

It's another strawman that anyone said no LGBT should ever be mentioned in school. Only that their sexuality, gender identity, etc. are irrelevant to their historical contributions.

They're forbidding the very mention of LGBTs in history, as if they don't even exist. It's like forbidding the mention of Jews given their own long history of being hated and persecuted. Why should such a history be hidden from students? Do you think it benefits students not to know they or any of their friends can be persecuted and hated simply for who they love? Why?

Claiming "nobody ever claimed that" their "contribution... was somehow dependent upon their sexual orientation, gender expression, etc." and then demanding that their identity is crucial to their role in history.

Noone is claiming that LGBTs contributed to history because they are LGBT anymore than they're claiming blacks or women contributed to history because of their race or sex. It's just a fact of history that everyone needs to learn about. Again, education is about helping students learn, not keeping them ignorant.

Yes, propagandizing young children in gender ideology is groomer behavior

Prove it then. Show me actual cases of kids being turned LGBT simply for knowing that LGBTs exist.

Then what age you think teaching children about adult sexuality is appropriate?

That men can love men and women can love women has nothing to do with sex. Every kid should be educated about this fact of the world.

[Syne]

If you don't understand the basic reasoning of our country's founding fathers, I'm not about to try educating you on it.

I know that reasoning doesn't ever rely on the dogmas of some allegedly holy book, and the reasoning of the founding fathers certainly didn't. Hence the separation of church and state.

The establishment clause of the Constitution is not about a complete "separation of church and state." Thomas Jefferson, who coined the phrase, said it was a one-way wall that protected religion from government interference but did not keep religion out of the public square or influencing government.

Christianity is foundational to the founding of America, especially in the very premises included in the Constitution that led to abolishing slavery.

No it isn't. The Constitution is. And Christianity says nothing about abolishing slavery, which is why it went on for generations in American after American Revolution.

Most of the founding fathers believed in God, whether orthodox Christians, rationalist Christians, or Deists, and even the deists valued the morality of the Bible. All people being created in God's image is a direct rebuke of slavery, even though it was the cultural norm back then. And there's a reason Christian Quakers in the US started abolition. Slavery continued in American because it was the norm at the time, and it took time to negotiate the laws between semi-autonomous states. Even Frederick Douglass argued that the Constitution was designed to eventually end slavery, though Article I section 9, Article IV, and refusing to acknowledge slavery at all.

It's a strawman that anyone is forcing students to read the Bible "as if it was true.

Yet that's exactly the point in making them read it---to force its teachings on students.

It is being taught as literature, along side E.B. White, Shel Silverstein, Aesop, Kurt Vonnegut, Elie Wiesel, etc.. Aesop's fables are also not being taught "as if it was true."

The lessons of all these authors are true as are those of Aesop's fables. The Bible's are not.

That's your biased opinion. The point is that Aesop's fables, Charlotte's Web, Slaughterhouse-Five, etc. are works of fiction. So even if you consider the Bible fiction, it is no less literature... which can be taught as such. No one is teaching Slaughterhouse-Five or Charlotte's Web as lessons to live your life by... much less to believe actually happened.

It's another strawman that anyone said no LGBT should ever be mentioned in school. Only that their sexuality, gender identity, etc. are irrelevant to their historical contributions.

They're forbidding the very mention of LGBTs in history, as if they don't even exist. It's like forbidding the mention of Jews given their own long history of being hated and persecuted. Why should such a history be hidden from students? Do you think it benefits students not to know they or any of their friends can be persecuted and hated simply for who they love? Why?

Now you're either ignorant or just lying. No state has banned teaching about LGBT historical figures. Only that their sexuality/gender identity is not appropriate in primary and secondary school, especially without parental notification and permission.
Again, adult sexuality is not appropriate for children. The fact that this is so hard for some people to understand makes them sound like groomers.
It serves no one to be taught they are a victim.

Claiming "nobody ever claimed that" their "contribution... was somehow dependent upon their sexual orientation, gender expression, etc." and then demanding that their identity is crucial to their role in history.

Noone is claiming that LGBTs contributed to history because they are LGBT anymore than they're claiming blacks or women contributed to history because of their race or sex. It's just a fact of history that everyone needs to learn about. Again, education is about helping students learn, not keeping them ignorant.

Only according to your ideology. But like I said, no one is banning teaching about these people's contribution to history... because, as you say, their sexuality is not inherent to their contribution.
Anyone can learn about LGBT, in college or from the culture. There's plenty of college courses that include or focus on and plenty of movies, music, books, etc. that explicitly show and tell people whatever they want to learn about.

Yes, propagandizing young children in gender ideology is groomer behavior

Prove it then. Show me actual cases of kids being turned LGBT simply for knowing that LGBTs exist.

Strawman, as I never made that claim. Some former LGBT people do cite LGBT-inclusive education and gender ideology for confusing them as children.
See https://www.changedmovement.com/stories for personal experiences.

Individuals describe feeling that standard childhood traits—such as being a "tomboy," experiencing social anxiety, or navigating autism—were interpreted by school staff or curricula as signs that they were born in the wrong body or possessed a different sexual orientation. They argue that this educational framing "fast-tracked" them into an identity they later rejected.
- gemini

Then what age you think teaching children about adult sexuality is appropriate?

That men can love men and women can love women has nothing to do with sex. Every kid should be educated about this fact of the world.

And that's why you come off as a groomer. You cant even name an appropriate age. You just deflect.