The funny thing is that a basic understanding of the Bible is actually important for making sense of American history - the people making that history were strongly influenced by the Bible and so unless you know at least the major "plot points", their actions (and a lot of literature) won't make much sense.
With that said, I don't trust Oklahoma to teach about the Bible in a manner appropriate for historical analysis rather than religious dominance.
he people making that history were strongly influenced by the Bible
Depends what era you're talking about and what you mean by influence. I would say that the reason Thomas Paine's Age of Reason was so popular and that Jefferson made his own version of the New Testament, which removed the supernatural, suggest that the Bible was less of an influence in the founding of the nation than would be supposed here. The fact that Muhammad is in as venerated a place on the Supreme Court building as Moses also suggests they didn't think it was the source of all wisdom.
Really, you need to look no further than our legal system though to see how little influence the Bible and Christianity actually have. I don't just mean the First Amendment, I mean the fact that our whole system is basically a gradual evolution from the laws of Ancient Rome. They had trial by jury in Ancient Rome. It was a permanent jury, not a jury of one's peers, but you can see the skeleton of our legal system and how it came from those ancient heathens, not Jesus.
Thank you for that. Incidentally, I have never heard for a big push from Muslims to remove Muhammad from the building, or at least obscure his image. I'm not sure if that's because they aren't aware of it or just because it is too old to do anything about it at this point.
I would reckon it’s because it was specifically designed to not be an accurate depiction? Maybe?
I don’t think that has made a difference in other situations.
I think youre right but age or historical importance hasn’t exactly stopped extremists from destroying what they consider blasphemy either
That’s why I’m wondering if they just aren’t aware.
Hopefully this doesn’t go viral then?
I think you are really glossing over the work of Thomas Aquinas. It's kind of hard to separate the Rome/Greek stuff from the historical Christianity stuff before modern day Evangelical Fundamentalism. Christian thought historically became very linked to Greek philosophy.
In what way was Thomas Aquinas an important influence on the founding of the United States and in what way would that be appropriate to teach elementary school kids?
It's not appropriate for an elementary school kids. Per the article, this applies to grades 5 through 12. So what, 1 year of elementary with the primary focus of impact on junior high and high school?
But if you are getting into questions of "what was more important to our founding fathers, rome or christianity?" I'd say that's pretty difficult to separate because of thinkers like Thomas Aquinas that married Greek Philosophy with Christianity. When you begin with a point that God is the source of reason, and build off of that, I think you can't easily separate that out.
No, I asked in what way Thomas Aquinas contributed to the founding of the U.S. It seems like your reasoning is pretty damn indirect and it's even more indirectly related to the Bible, so this law does not apply.
And it either isn't appropriate for elementary school or it should be taught in the fifth grade (also, sixth grade is still elementary school in many districts). Which is it?
You said this:
Really, you need to look no further than our legal system though to see how little influence the Bible and Christianity actually have. I don’t just mean the First Amendment, I mean the fact that our whole system is basically a gradual evolution from the laws of Ancient Rome.
this statement says nothing about what should be taught in schools, it's a statement of history. my statement is simply stating it is very difficult to separate out the roman influence from the christian influence because of thomas aquinas linking christian tradition to greek thought. I would say that from a intellectual POV, founding fathers were probably equally or more influenced by greeks than romans, but at the end of the day we can just call it all classical thought. that's pretty apparent in our architecture of state houses. This is a tangential discussion where we are not discussing what should be taught in schools, but just historical thought in the USA. Please re-read your own to catch up on the conversation topic.
My statement was made within the context of the article I posted. I’m not sure why you think I would have made it otherwise.
The statement was in response to another commenting not talking about the specific policy, but making a general comment that in order to understand US History and thought of early American Settlers you likely need to have some understanding of the bible. That has nothing to do with this specific teaching policy, and the comment you responded to calls out the commenter didn't trust the superintendent:
With that said, I don’t trust Oklahoma to teach about the Bible in a manner appropriate for historical analysis rather than religious dominance.
in order to understand US History and thought of early American Settlers you likely need to have some understanding of the bible.
And yet this never has been necessary for public schools in the past. Which suggests there is no such need.
Well understanding for a 5rh grader is different than high schooler, or graduate student, or historian. But because protestantism is such a critical historical theme in early America it makes sense to understand to some degree what those religious beliefs are. I'm not saying a fifth grader needs to dive into it, but for high schooler and college students, it's a bit more important to have a general understanding of it. But I think that understanding also extends to learning about other religions.
Okay, but we're talking about grade schoolers and, again, it has never been necessary for public schools to teach about the Bible in the past to give kids an education in American history.
So why you're trying to justify Walters' decision I don't know.
Also, you can teach about Christianity without teaching about the Bible beyond generalities and without venerating it as a sacred document that was also primary founding document for the nation. Which it simply wasn't. I'm not sure why the First Amendment alone doesn't make that clear to you.
I have a lot of friends who, like me grew, up going to church. Some went to catholic high schools, some went to liberal arts colleges with required religions classes in the core curriculum, or had other exposure. None of us go to church in our adulthood and have no intention starting when we have kids. But we all want our kids to have an understanding of what Christianity is because it's important for understanding American history, origins of non profit institutions, and contemporary political and cultural climate. Also want to ensure there's exposure and understanding of Judaism, Islam, and other predominant religions. Not sure how kids are supposed to get that these days without growing up in a religious house hold.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest I remember in school we studied Native American cultures which included some exposure to myth and religion. I wish there was a way schools could touch on modern religions in a more neutral way, perhaps more similar to how we teach classics/greek mythology.
Not sure how kids are supposed to get that these days without growing up in a religious house hold.
The same way I did in my public middle school in the 90s and the same way my daughter did in her social studies class last year- by teaching comparative religion and attempting to do so without bias. And at no point was I or was she taught that the Bible was one of the important founding documents for our nation, since it wasn't and that's not true.
If we read any passages from the Bible or the Quran during that class, I don't remember them. My daughter's class did not have them. And yet we now both have enough understanding of those religions to be able to put them within a historical framework.
There's a lot of truth in that but your second point is the reason why it's still a terrible, terrible idea.
Not just American history, the Bible is the absolute cornerstone of our entire culture. As the one book that every household owned for much of recorded history, the amount of biblical references and reused stories is ridiculous.
I have absolutely no problem with the Bible being taught in schools as it's an incredibly important document. I find it odd that it isn't, because the separation of church and state shouldn't prohibit the study of old books in any way.
I was talking about this with my wife who came from Taiwan at 16 and was sort of second hand exposed to Western culture. She said everything can't be a bible story can it? I dug out a Bible off the shelf and flipped through, well you know David and Goliath, you know Samson, Jonah and the whale yeah these are classics right?
She says no, so I ask if she knows the story of Pinocchio or why her luggage was made by "Samsonite". And the truck that we saw yesterday with the "G0L1ATH" license plate?
Yeah it's everywhere
For a long period which roughly coincided with the founding of America, English-speaking people only learned to read using the Bible, and often that was the only book they ever used for anything so it became a sort of de facto dictionary and Guiness Book of World Records and all kinds of things that it was never meant to be, plus a lot of new things it was never meant to be, and of course the things it was always meant to be.
Mandatory firearms training in school would be more Constitutional than teaching the Bible though. For a very important reason. Akin to a "prime directive" if you will. If you want kids to study it as an elective then fine, allow that, but forcing it on kids is wrong, wrong wrong.
If you go back further though, translation of the text to a language the "people" could understand was illegal. Anyone caught with such texts was imprisoned or worse. Those in charge and using religion to control the masses (it's true intention IMHO) didn't want everyone to be able to read it, they wanted people depending on the "chosen" to teach and judge them (what today we may call a cult).
True, but that was a fair bit before the founding of America. Although to your point I doubt they’ll be forced to teach that history. More likely they’ll be forbidden from teaching that history.
Right, only the modern interpretation of an original text that very few people in the world has even seen, let alone able to read. And then all the MANY offshoots of Christianity because each had something people didn't like, a "leader" made a new "version" for them. Forced indoctrination like this is very similar to starting a cult, as almost all of those start with someone that needs to interpret the text or "God's" word.
I think it would be an interesting exercise for everyone pushing this to have to compare and contrast with say David Koresh, or Joseph Smith, and explain how their version of God's word isn't a cult.
Forcing it as a belief system is definitely wrong, but we were forced to study plenty of literature when I was in school, much of it far less relevant. I don't see the difference with the Bible, especially if presented as a historical document and prototypical collection of stories?
I'm not religious and wasn't raised in a religious family, but when I decided to pick up a Bible and read it as a teenager I couldn't believe how much context it gave me on our culture and its origins.
Having to read and study the whole thing would also help rein in overzealous religion IMO. The #1 reason I've heard from evangelicals who left their church was "I decided to read the Bible for myself"
Forcing it as a belief system is definitely wrong, . . . I don't see the difference with the Bible . . .
Make no mistake, that is absolutely the point of these - again, unconstitutional - laws. They’re hoping to parlay this illegitimate fascist court into making it constitutional while the iron is hot.
. . . especially if presented as a historical document and prototypical collection of stories?
It won’t be. They want this in elementary school. How much literature was in grades 1-3? Any inference that it will be treated as a “historical document” is an outright lie. (Edit: the article says teachers must teach it to “students in grades five through 12” but that’s different than Louisiana’s “10 commandments displayed in all classrooms” law. They all serve the same purpose: to promote “Christianity” in school.)
I'm not religious and wasn't raised in a religious family …
Then believe me when I tell you this is what it is for. These legislators are not history buffs. They are evangelical ‘Christian’ nationalists.
I couldn't believe how much context it gave me on our culture and its origins.
Having to read and study the whole thing would also help rein in overzealous religion IMO. The #1 reason I've heard from evangelicals who left their church was "I decided to read the Bible for myself"
Good points and I’m all in favor of unintended positive outcomes. Bible scholarship is interesting as an elective and if that was offered at my school I might have considered it. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.
We’re talking about criminal penalties for not promoting a specific religion. That’s the whole point of the law, and it is 100% wrong.
Thanks for the American context as I'm a Canadian and our systems are different here. I didn't realize the risks involved and the motivation behind it. I think this might be my least popular comment on Lemmy ever😅
The USA as a battleground between religion and atheism changes the context as I would shrug most of this off here in Canada as harmless. Like the 10 commandments? Most of them are good advice, basically just "don't be a piece of shit" and i wouldn't have a problem teaching them to kids... Unless the goal is to teach them actively as the word of God and marginalize non-believers as sinful, in which case this is absolutely criminal. That is church, not school.
We have a more robust separation of church and state to the point where when I read "teaching the Bible in school" I hear "robustly secular, historical and cultural study" which as I stated I believe would be a valuable learning experience. In Quebec there are even rules that public servants can't display any religious symbols at all, even as small as a cross on a bracelet. The leader of our Conservative party recently made a statement that both abortion and gay rights were "a closed issue" and he would not stand for any attacks on them.
So personally my wife and I made the hard decision this year to send our daughter to a Catholic school next year due to the rapidly declining quality of public education. However the Catholic school district here is publicly funded and staffed, with strict regulations that any religious content is optional and that respect must be given equally to those who choose it or do not choose it.
Many of her friends have already made the switch (regular school is quickly emptying out of smart kids and turning into a zoo as parents pull their kids) and stated this is exactly how it works, most of them being non-religious as well but impressed with the discipline and learning outcomes. My wife teaches college and said the difference is night and day with some kids even making it out of public highschool unable to read. Meanwhile my daughter's new school has won awards for the achievements of its graduates and their placement in top schools and in industry.
So you see I'm comfortable enough with our dedication to secularism here in Canada that I am willing to send my daughter to an actual Catholic school with no fear that she will be brainwashed... Obviously a bit of bible study doesn't scare me but in the context of the USA culture war it's clearly a much bigger deal.
Oh! Oh, yes, it’s a whole thing here since the “Moral Majority” group in the 80’s that packaged well-meaning people into hateful ignorant political cheerleaders.
And I appreciate your perspective because it highlights a different aspect of the right-wing agenda: part of their process is to build in a “reasonable interpretation” of laws that they actually have no interest in whatsoever.
As an example, there was a big push in many states to enact “voter i.d.” laws. We used to just walk into the polling station, give our name and address, they’d look it up, put a checkmark next to it to show we’ve been counted, and we’d go vote.
Well the right wing media in concert with the republiQans and propaganda mills, i mean, “think tanks” started complaining this was a system ripe for abuse. “SO MANY people just vote multiple times under different names!”
That absolutely never happened in any even-close-to significant amount. Never. There were individual cases - we still see them once in awhile, and it’s always the republiQans doing it. Anyway, they kept this lie up for years.
While that was going on, republiQan legislators, united by ALEC, passed laws saying everyone had to show a valid government ID to vote. I had several conversations with friends and family about these, and either due to parroting the fox news talking points or genuine well-meaning concern, they said, “but doesn’t it make sense to know someone is who they SAY they are, before they vote?” And it does. It does make sense.
But that’s not why they did it. They did it because people without government ID are largely older minority voters, who mostly vote Democratic. This was just to prevent them from voting. They had all sorts of made up lies about “oh they can just go down to the DMV and get a free ID”, yeah if someone takes them and walks them through it and they brought the right paperwork, yeah. It was a big burden for a lot of people who just stopped voting (mission accomplished).
Secondarily, anyone with outstanding parking tickets or who suspects there’s a warrant out for them (or is in general targeted by the cops, like black men) will see lots of ads and mailers before the election that when they show their ID to vote they’ll be arrested and taken away. They won’t, it’s just scare tactics but it works well and voting went down for a lot of Democratic-leaning voters.
To this day they stand by the now long-discredited idea that people are using false identities to vote - trump even clings to this as one of his Big Lies of how he “mysteriously” didn’t get enough votes in 2020, still. It was always bullshit; it was always designed to keep Democrats from voting, and it worked.
lots of ads and mailers before the election that when they show their ID to vote they’ll be arrested and taken away
I've seen a mailer providing false information that a certain very liberal group (out-of-state college students) wasn't allowed to vote, but I've never seen something like this. Do you have a link to an example of it?
This is an example regarding mail-in voting (for our Canadian friends, republiQans are very much trying to prevent this as well for the same reason)
This is republiQans threatening other republicans to vote as they demand.
This is the threat-to-arrest mailer wrt ACORN, which is a whole other rant, but particularly relevant.
The funny thing is that a basic understanding of the Bible is actually important for making sense of American history - the people making that history were strongly influenced by the Bible and so unless you know at least the major "plot points", their actions (and a lot of literature) won't make much sense.
With that said, I don't trust Oklahoma to teach about the Bible in a manner appropriate for historical analysis rather than religious dominance.
Depends what era you're talking about and what you mean by influence. I would say that the reason Thomas Paine's Age of Reason was so popular and that Jefferson made his own version of the New Testament, which removed the supernatural, suggest that the Bible was less of an influence in the founding of the nation than would be supposed here. The fact that Muhammad is in as venerated a place on the Supreme Court building as Moses also suggests they didn't think it was the source of all wisdom.
Really, you need to look no further than our legal system though to see how little influence the Bible and Christianity actually have. I don't just mean the First Amendment, I mean the fact that our whole system is basically a gradual evolution from the laws of Ancient Rome. They had trial by jury in Ancient Rome. It was a permanent jury, not a jury of one's peers, but you can see the skeleton of our legal system and how it came from those ancient heathens, not Jesus.
For anyone curious about who shows up on the Supreme Court building
Thank you for that. Incidentally, I have never heard for a big push from Muslims to remove Muhammad from the building, or at least obscure his image. I'm not sure if that's because they aren't aware of it or just because it is too old to do anything about it at this point.
I would reckon it’s because it was specifically designed to not be an accurate depiction? Maybe?
I don’t think that has made a difference in other situations.
I think youre right but age or historical importance hasn’t exactly stopped extremists from destroying what they consider blasphemy either
That’s why I’m wondering if they just aren’t aware.
Hopefully this doesn’t go viral then?
I think you are really glossing over the work of Thomas Aquinas. It's kind of hard to separate the Rome/Greek stuff from the historical Christianity stuff before modern day Evangelical Fundamentalism. Christian thought historically became very linked to Greek philosophy.
In what way was Thomas Aquinas an important influence on the founding of the United States and in what way would that be appropriate to teach elementary school kids?
It's not appropriate for an elementary school kids. Per the article, this applies to grades 5 through 12. So what, 1 year of elementary with the primary focus of impact on junior high and high school?
But if you are getting into questions of "what was more important to our founding fathers, rome or christianity?" I'd say that's pretty difficult to separate because of thinkers like Thomas Aquinas that married Greek Philosophy with Christianity. When you begin with a point that God is the source of reason, and build off of that, I think you can't easily separate that out.
No, I asked in what way Thomas Aquinas contributed to the founding of the U.S. It seems like your reasoning is pretty damn indirect and it's even more indirectly related to the Bible, so this law does not apply.
And it either isn't appropriate for elementary school or it should be taught in the fifth grade (also, sixth grade is still elementary school in many districts). Which is it?
You said this:
this statement says nothing about what should be taught in schools, it's a statement of history. my statement is simply stating it is very difficult to separate out the roman influence from the christian influence because of thomas aquinas linking christian tradition to greek thought. I would say that from a intellectual POV, founding fathers were probably equally or more influenced by greeks than romans, but at the end of the day we can just call it all classical thought. that's pretty apparent in our architecture of state houses. This is a tangential discussion where we are not discussing what should be taught in schools, but just historical thought in the USA. Please re-read your own to catch up on the conversation topic.
My statement was made within the context of the article I posted. I’m not sure why you think I would have made it otherwise.
The statement was in response to another commenting not talking about the specific policy, but making a general comment that in order to understand US History and thought of early American Settlers you likely need to have some understanding of the bible. That has nothing to do with this specific teaching policy, and the comment you responded to calls out the commenter didn't trust the superintendent:
And yet this never has been necessary for public schools in the past. Which suggests there is no such need.
Well understanding for a 5rh grader is different than high schooler, or graduate student, or historian. But because protestantism is such a critical historical theme in early America it makes sense to understand to some degree what those religious beliefs are. I'm not saying a fifth grader needs to dive into it, but for high schooler and college students, it's a bit more important to have a general understanding of it. But I think that understanding also extends to learning about other religions.
Okay, but we're talking about grade schoolers and, again, it has never been necessary for public schools to teach about the Bible in the past to give kids an education in American history.
So why you're trying to justify Walters' decision I don't know.
Also, you can teach about Christianity without teaching about the Bible beyond generalities and without venerating it as a sacred document that was also primary founding document for the nation. Which it simply wasn't. I'm not sure why the First Amendment alone doesn't make that clear to you.
I have a lot of friends who, like me grew, up going to church. Some went to catholic high schools, some went to liberal arts colleges with required religions classes in the core curriculum, or had other exposure. None of us go to church in our adulthood and have no intention starting when we have kids. But we all want our kids to have an understanding of what Christianity is because it's important for understanding American history, origins of non profit institutions, and contemporary political and cultural climate. Also want to ensure there's exposure and understanding of Judaism, Islam, and other predominant religions. Not sure how kids are supposed to get that these days without growing up in a religious house hold.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest I remember in school we studied Native American cultures which included some exposure to myth and religion. I wish there was a way schools could touch on modern religions in a more neutral way, perhaps more similar to how we teach classics/greek mythology.
The same way I did in my public middle school in the 90s and the same way my daughter did in her social studies class last year- by teaching comparative religion and attempting to do so without bias. And at no point was I or was she taught that the Bible was one of the important founding documents for our nation, since it wasn't and that's not true.
If we read any passages from the Bible or the Quran during that class, I don't remember them. My daughter's class did not have them. And yet we now both have enough understanding of those religions to be able to put them within a historical framework.
There's a lot of truth in that but your second point is the reason why it's still a terrible, terrible idea.
Not just American history, the Bible is the absolute cornerstone of our entire culture. As the one book that every household owned for much of recorded history, the amount of biblical references and reused stories is ridiculous.
I have absolutely no problem with the Bible being taught in schools as it's an incredibly important document. I find it odd that it isn't, because the separation of church and state shouldn't prohibit the study of old books in any way.
I was talking about this with my wife who came from Taiwan at 16 and was sort of second hand exposed to Western culture. She said everything can't be a bible story can it? I dug out a Bible off the shelf and flipped through, well you know David and Goliath, you know Samson, Jonah and the whale yeah these are classics right?
She says no, so I ask if she knows the story of Pinocchio or why her luggage was made by "Samsonite". And the truck that we saw yesterday with the "G0L1ATH" license plate?
Yeah it's everywhere
For a long period which roughly coincided with the founding of America, English-speaking people only learned to read using the Bible, and often that was the only book they ever used for anything so it became a sort of de facto dictionary and Guiness Book of World Records and all kinds of things that it was never meant to be, plus a lot of new things it was never meant to be, and of course the things it was always meant to be.
Mandatory firearms training in school would be more Constitutional than teaching the Bible though. For a very important reason. Akin to a "prime directive" if you will. If you want kids to study it as an elective then fine, allow that, but forcing it on kids is wrong, wrong wrong.
If you go back further though, translation of the text to a language the "people" could understand was illegal. Anyone caught with such texts was imprisoned or worse. Those in charge and using religion to control the masses (it's true intention IMHO) didn't want everyone to be able to read it, they wanted people depending on the "chosen" to teach and judge them (what today we may call a cult).
True, but that was a fair bit before the founding of America. Although to your point I doubt they’ll be forced to teach that history. More likely they’ll be forbidden from teaching that history.
Right, only the modern interpretation of an original text that very few people in the world has even seen, let alone able to read. And then all the MANY offshoots of Christianity because each had something people didn't like, a "leader" made a new "version" for them. Forced indoctrination like this is very similar to starting a cult, as almost all of those start with someone that needs to interpret the text or "God's" word.
I think it would be an interesting exercise for everyone pushing this to have to compare and contrast with say David Koresh, or Joseph Smith, and explain how their version of God's word isn't a cult.
Forcing it as a belief system is definitely wrong, but we were forced to study plenty of literature when I was in school, much of it far less relevant. I don't see the difference with the Bible, especially if presented as a historical document and prototypical collection of stories?
I'm not religious and wasn't raised in a religious family, but when I decided to pick up a Bible and read it as a teenager I couldn't believe how much context it gave me on our culture and its origins.
Having to read and study the whole thing would also help rein in overzealous religion IMO. The #1 reason I've heard from evangelicals who left their church was "I decided to read the Bible for myself"
Make no mistake, that is absolutely the point of these - again, unconstitutional - laws. They’re hoping to parlay this illegitimate fascist court into making it constitutional while the iron is hot.
It won’t be. They want this in elementary school. How much literature was in grades 1-3? Any inference that it will be treated as a “historical document” is an outright lie. (Edit: the article says teachers must teach it to “students in grades five through 12” but that’s different than Louisiana’s “10 commandments displayed in all classrooms” law. They all serve the same purpose: to promote “Christianity” in school.)
Then believe me when I tell you this is what it is for. These legislators are not history buffs. They are evangelical ‘Christian’ nationalists.
Good points and I’m all in favor of unintended positive outcomes. Bible scholarship is interesting as an elective and if that was offered at my school I might have considered it. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.
We’re talking about criminal penalties for not promoting a specific religion. That’s the whole point of the law, and it is 100% wrong.
Thanks for the American context as I'm a Canadian and our systems are different here. I didn't realize the risks involved and the motivation behind it. I think this might be my least popular comment on Lemmy ever😅
The USA as a battleground between religion and atheism changes the context as I would shrug most of this off here in Canada as harmless. Like the 10 commandments? Most of them are good advice, basically just "don't be a piece of shit" and i wouldn't have a problem teaching them to kids... Unless the goal is to teach them actively as the word of God and marginalize non-believers as sinful, in which case this is absolutely criminal. That is church, not school.
We have a more robust separation of church and state to the point where when I read "teaching the Bible in school" I hear "robustly secular, historical and cultural study" which as I stated I believe would be a valuable learning experience. In Quebec there are even rules that public servants can't display any religious symbols at all, even as small as a cross on a bracelet. The leader of our Conservative party recently made a statement that both abortion and gay rights were "a closed issue" and he would not stand for any attacks on them.
So personally my wife and I made the hard decision this year to send our daughter to a Catholic school next year due to the rapidly declining quality of public education. However the Catholic school district here is publicly funded and staffed, with strict regulations that any religious content is optional and that respect must be given equally to those who choose it or do not choose it.
Many of her friends have already made the switch (regular school is quickly emptying out of smart kids and turning into a zoo as parents pull their kids) and stated this is exactly how it works, most of them being non-religious as well but impressed with the discipline and learning outcomes. My wife teaches college and said the difference is night and day with some kids even making it out of public highschool unable to read. Meanwhile my daughter's new school has won awards for the achievements of its graduates and their placement in top schools and in industry.
So you see I'm comfortable enough with our dedication to secularism here in Canada that I am willing to send my daughter to an actual Catholic school with no fear that she will be brainwashed... Obviously a bit of bible study doesn't scare me but in the context of the USA culture war it's clearly a much bigger deal.
Oh! Oh, yes, it’s a whole thing here since the “Moral Majority” group in the 80’s that packaged well-meaning people into hateful ignorant political cheerleaders.
And I appreciate your perspective because it highlights a different aspect of the right-wing agenda: part of their process is to build in a “reasonable interpretation” of laws that they actually have no interest in whatsoever.
As an example, there was a big push in many states to enact “voter i.d.” laws. We used to just walk into the polling station, give our name and address, they’d look it up, put a checkmark next to it to show we’ve been counted, and we’d go vote.
Well the right wing media in concert with the republiQans and propaganda mills, i mean, “think tanks” started complaining this was a system ripe for abuse. “SO MANY people just vote multiple times under different names!”
That absolutely never happened in any even-close-to significant amount. Never. There were individual cases - we still see them once in awhile, and it’s always the republiQans doing it. Anyway, they kept this lie up for years.
While that was going on, republiQan legislators, united by ALEC, passed laws saying everyone had to show a valid government ID to vote. I had several conversations with friends and family about these, and either due to parroting the fox news talking points or genuine well-meaning concern, they said, “but doesn’t it make sense to know someone is who they SAY they are, before they vote?” And it does. It does make sense.
But that’s not why they did it. They did it because people without government ID are largely older minority voters, who mostly vote Democratic. This was just to prevent them from voting. They had all sorts of made up lies about “oh they can just go down to the DMV and get a free ID”, yeah if someone takes them and walks them through it and they brought the right paperwork, yeah. It was a big burden for a lot of people who just stopped voting (mission accomplished).
Secondarily, anyone with outstanding parking tickets or who suspects there’s a warrant out for them (or is in general targeted by the cops, like black men) will see lots of ads and mailers before the election that when they show their ID to vote they’ll be arrested and taken away. They won’t, it’s just scare tactics but it works well and voting went down for a lot of Democratic-leaning voters.
To this day they stand by the now long-discredited idea that people are using false identities to vote - trump even clings to this as one of his Big Lies of how he “mysteriously” didn’t get enough votes in 2020, still. It was always bullshit; it was always designed to keep Democrats from voting, and it worked.
I've seen a mailer providing false information that a certain very liberal group (out-of-state college students) wasn't allowed to vote, but I've never seen something like this. Do you have a link to an example of it?
This is an example regarding mail-in voting (for our Canadian friends, republiQans are very much trying to prevent this as well for the same reason)
This is republiQans threatening other republicans to vote as they demand.
This is the threat-to-arrest mailer wrt ACORN, which is a whole other rant, but particularly relevant.