The unimportant news thread

[AnotherSpin]

lulz

не розумію

[Todd]

I am not a lawyer, much less a US constitutional lawyer

The applicable SCOTUS decisions are available freely online right now.  Do some research and report back.

[Florestan]

The applicable SCOTUS decisions are available freely online right now.  Do some research and report back.

https://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Politics/Bible-in-Schools.htm

The Bible and the Religious-Liberty Rights of Students

Many Americans continue to hold the mistaken view that the Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s concerning prayer and devotional Bible-reading prohibited students from expressing their faith in a public school. Actually, the Court did not eliminate prayer or the Bible from public schools; it barred state-sponsored religious practices, including devotional use of the Bible by public-school officials.

What do the courts say?

The Supreme Court has held that public schools may teach students about the Bible as long as such teaching is "presented objectively as part of a secular program of education."6

In recent years, a consensus has emerged among many religious and educational groups about the appropriate role for religion in the public-school curriculum. In 1989, a coalition of 17 religious and educational organizations issued the following statements to distinguish between teaching about religion in public schools and religious indoctrination:

        The school's approach to religion is academic, not devotional.

       
        The school may strive for student awareness of religions, but should not press for student acceptance of any religion.

       
        The school may sponsor study about religion, but may not sponsor the practice of religion.

       
        The school may expose students to a diversity of religious views, but may not impose, discourage, or encourage any particular view.

       
        The school may educate about all religions, but may not promote or denigrate any religion.

       
        The school may inform the student about various beliefs, but should not seek to conform him or her to any particular belief.20

When teaching about the Bible in a public school, teachers must understand the important distinction between advocacy, indoctrination, proselytizing, and the practice of religion - which is unconstitutional - and teaching about religion that is objective, nonjudgmental, academic, neutral, balanced, and fair - which is constitutional.

Looks like I am right.

[DavidW]

Actually, the Court did not eliminate prayer or the Bible from public schools; it barred state-sponsored religious practices, including devotional use of the Bible by public-school officials.

What do the courts say?

The Supreme Court has held that public schools may teach students about the Bible as long as such teaching is "presented objectively as part of a secular program of education."6

Looks like I am right.

Nope!  You have to pay careful attention to the wording that you read.  You might always want to google Lemon Test.  And hiding under the academic umbrella doesn't satisfy the spirit of the law as enforced multiple times by the Supreme Court, which is that of religious neutrality.

[Florestan]

Nope!  You have to pay careful attention to the wording that you read.  You might always want to google Lemon Test.  And hiding under the academic umbrella doesn't satisfy the spirit of the law as enforced multiple times by the Supreme Court, which is that of religious neutrality.

Why, yes. If the Bible is taught just as, say, Plato, Aristotle, Homer or the Roman Law are taught, ie like one of the manifold sources of Western culture and civilization, what's the problem, pray tell?

I can see a problem if the Bible were taught as the law of the land. Is this what the Oklahoman government really wants to implement?

[Todd]

Looks like I am right.

Incorrect.

You really ought to consider reading the Establishment rulings directly.  All are available freely. 

Also, a reasonable person might question the thoroughness and objectivity of a group called the "National Bible Association", which co-published the cited piece.

Is this what the Oklahoman government really wants to implement?

No.  As mentioned previously, this is intended to elevate this topic as a wedge issue in upcoming election cycles.  Some Oklahoma legislators are no doubt true believers, but they are almost all lawyers and know that court challenges will be forthcoming.  It's all deliciously cynical.

[Florestan]

As mentioned previously, this is intended to elevate this topic as a wedge issue in upcoming election cycles.  Some Oklahoma legislators are no doubt true believers, but they are almost all lawyers and know that court challenges will be forthcoming.  It's all deliciously cynical.

Ah, well, yes, now I get it. It's all about the typically American culture of "sue me" / "see you in court". Silly me for thinking otherwise --- but in my defense I plead the huge and most probably unbridgeable cultural gap between USA and Romania.

[Todd]

It's all about the typically American culture of "sue me" / "see you in court".

Incorrect.  You just don't get it.

[Florestan]

the huge and most probably unbridgeable cultural gap between USA and Romania.

To give you just one very on-topic example, in Romania the Orthodox priests' salaries are paid by the state, and nobody can be ordained an Orthodox priest who is not a graduate of a state-sponsored Faculty of Theology.

@DavidW I guess that judging by the Lemon Test, Romania is a theocratic state. 

[Florestan]

Incorrect.  You just don't get it.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. There are lots of things I really don't get about America, starting with the pathetic gerontocracy they've become as of late. 

[Todd]

starting with the pathetic gerontocracy they've become as of late.

That's due to boomers.  Fortunately, there is a literal lifespan to that phenomenon.

[Florestan]

there is a literal lifespan to that phenomenon.

True, but you know --- one single year, nay, one single month is enough to fuck up the whole world... 

[Todd]

one single year, nay, one single month is enough to fuck up the whole world...

One instantaneous decision to launch an ICBM would destroy civilization.  It could happen in the next thirty minutes.  It won't, the world will trudge along, and, to borrow from my daughter, boomers will do the world a favor and die off.  Then the next generation will fuck everything up anew. 

[Florestan]

One instantaneous decision to launch an ICBM would destroy civilization.  It could happen in the next thirty minutes.  It won't, the world will trudge along, and, to borrow from my daughter, boomers will do the world a favor and die off.  Then the next generation will fuck everything up anew. 

In principle, I don't disagree. But hey, if this is so, why are you so concerned about the current US foreign policy? 

[NumberSix]

Actually, let's see.

Constitution of Oklahoma:

SECTION I-1. Supreme law of land.

The State of Oklahoma is an inseparable part of the Federal Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

SECTION I-2. Religious liberty - Polygamous or plural marriages.

Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of the State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; and no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. Polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.

Constitution of the US, First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I am not a lawyer, much less a US constitutional lawyer, but --- my own logic and common-sense doesn't see anything in the above prohibiting the Bible being taught in public schools. If I will be proven wrong I will stand corrected.

As with so many things in this issue, I feel like it would depend on what approach they're taking. If they're teaching the text for literary and cultural history reasons, then that's probably legally acceptable. What should be illegal is taxpayer-funded public schools teaching the text as religious truth; it feels like the latter might be their intention, but then again it might not be.

It reminds me of one of those God's Not Dead movies, where Sabrina the teenage witch turned teacher gets sued by a student's parents and the ACLU for mentioning the Bible in her history class.

Ironically, the character did everything right. They were talking about Martin Luther King Jr, and a student asked about how his Christian background informed his political philosophy. I believe she mentions something about the sermon on the mount, but it's all treated as cultural history and not religious preaching from her part. I seriously doubt there was anything legally wrong with what she did. She certainly didn't deserve to get fired and sued for what she said. But that's the plot of the movie.

[Todd]

But hey, if this is so, why are you so concerned about the current US foreign policy?

1.) Squanders US tax dollars
2.) Increases debt service expenses (see #1)
3.) Undermines dollar dominance (see #1)
4.) Overextends US military commitments (see #1)
5.) Increases the probability of US servicemembers dying in some faraway, undeserving land
6.) Increases VA outlays to cover wounded US servicemembers (see #1)
.
.
.
.
1xxx.) Non-Americans dying by the thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions
.
.
.
.
2yyy.) Human rights
.
.
.
.
3zzz.) Democracy!!!!

[Florestan]

1.) Squanders US tax dollars
2.) Increases debt service expenses (see #1)
3.) Undermines dollar dominance (see #1)
4.) Overextends US military commitments (see #1)
5.) Increases the probability of US servicemembers dying in some faraway, undeserving land
6.) Increases VA outlays to cover wounded US servicemembers (see #1)
.
.
.
.

Nihil novi sub sole.

1xxx.) Non-Americans dying by the thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions

I am really, really, really moved to tears, nay, weeping out loud, by your heartfelt, humanitarian concern about non-Americans. If only all people in the world thought and behaved like you, peace would ensue all at once.

2yyy.) Human rights

Ah, yes, those things that prevented America from starting wars, invading sovereign nations that never ever threatened her, and killing/maiming innocent people...

Jut remind me: isn't human rights why America & NATO bombed Serbia into giving up Kosovo? And isn't the self same human rights why America is now risking WWIII supporting Ukraine into not giving up Crimea and Donbas? 

3zzz.) Democracy!!!!

Ah, yes, that thing America the world never had and never will have...

[Todd]

I am really, really, really moved to tears, nay, weeping out loud, by your heartfelt, humanitarian concern about non-Americans. If only all people in the world thought and behaved like you, peace would ensue all at once.

Meh.  The world was consumed by war before the US came into existence.  It is now.  It will be so after the US ceases to exist.  We Americans really ought not to look for monsters to destroy.

Jut remind me: isn't human rights why America & NATO bombed Serbia into giving up Kosovo? And isn't the self same human rights why America is now risking WWIII supporting Ukraine into not giving up Crimea and Donbas?

Human rights, in the policy form of "R2P", was the false justification used for American war crimes not only in the former Yugoslavia, but also in Libya and Syria.  (Those latter two worked out well, I tell you what.)  In Ukraine, Democracy!^® itself is the false justification.

Ah, yes, that thing America the world never had and never will have...

Meh.

[Florestan]

Human rights, in the policy form of "R2P", was the false justification used for American war crimes not only in the former Yugoslavia, but also in Libya and Syria.  (Those latter two worked out well, I tell you what.)  In Ukraine, Democracy!^® itself is the false justification.

At long last, something we can agree upon.

[Todd]

At long last, something we can agree upon.

At long last?  I've been very clear for many years that US foreign policy is excessively militaristic, is openly based on lies, and usually violates international law.  Of course, international law does not really apply to the US, nor should it, but that's a different matter.