Of course you know about the religious right...

[BCP1928]

And all these devout Christians support SSM enough to vote for it? I don't really know the details on how it all worked. But someone said it was a secular decision and not a religious one. So I don't know.

It was by a 176 to 76 vote of the Greek Parliament..

 

[BCP1928]

I am not the judge.

In my experience, most Orthodox Christians do not support homosexual behavior or homosexual marriage by and large. Most of them are rather disgusted by it.

It's not....infiltrated in Eastern Christianity like it is in the West.

Most Orthodox countries haven't legalized SSM for a reason.

.....but I am getting off topic.

I think we are right on topic. One of the salient features of the Christian Right is their attempts to criminalize Christian sins for non-Christian citizens of a secular state. I have yet to see a cogent theological argument for it consistent with our Constitutional right to religious freedom.

 

[Merrill]

The irony is that the school boards in some states where slavery was practiced, have banned mentions of slavery in a way that might upset people reading about it. Florida even inserted a standard requiring schools to teach that slavery was a benefit to slaves, because they learned trades that way.

We all get it. While the N-word is now an obscenity to decent people, it's a fact that it used to be used by many otherwise decent humans. And kids should know that.

"school boards in some states where slavery was practiced, have banned mentions of slavery"

what school boards have done that? I haven't read that anywhere

where are you getting this from?

 

[The Barbarian]

The irony is that the school boards in some states where slavery was practiced, have banned mentions of slavery in a way that might upset people reading about it.

what school boards have done that? I haven't read that anywhere

where are you getting this from?

A group of Texas educators have proposed to the Texas State Board of Education that slavery should be taught as “involuntary relocation” during second grade social studies instruction, but board members have asked them to reconsider the phrasing, according to the state board’s chair.

“The board -- with unanimous consent -- directed the work group to revisit that specific language,” Keven Ellis, chair of the Texas State Board of Education said in a statement issued late Thursday.

The working group of nine educators, including a professor at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, is one of many such groups advising the state education board to make curriculum changes. This summer, the board will consider updates to social studies instruction a year after lawmakers passed a law to keep topics that make students “feel discomfort” out of Texas classrooms. The board will have a final vote on the curriculum in November.

State education board members push back on proposal to use “involuntary relocation” to describe slavery

The Texas State Board of Education is fielding proposals to update the state’s public school social studies curriculum this summer.

www.texastribune.org

New Florida standards teach students that some Black people benefited from slavery because it taught useful skills​

The standards, which were blasted by a statewide teachers' union as a "step backward," were approved Wednesday by the State Board of Education.

New Florida standards teach that Black people benefited from slavery because it taught useful skills

The standards, which were blasted by a statewide teachers' union as a "step backward," were approved Wednesday by the State Board of Education.

www.nbcnews.com

Trump's followers think that their time has come to take over, and they are making the most of it.

 

[Merrill]

The irony is that the school boards in some states where slavery was practiced, have banned mentions of slavery in a way that might upset people reading about it.

A group of Texas educators have proposed to the Texas State Board of Education that slavery should be taught as “involuntary relocation” during second grade social studies instruction, but board members have asked them to reconsider the phrasing, according to the state board’s chair.

“The board -- with unanimous consent -- directed the work group to revisit that specific language,” Keven Ellis, chair of the Texas State Board of Education said in a statement issued late Thursday.

The working group of nine educators, including a professor at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, is one of many such groups advising the state education board to make curriculum changes. This summer, the board will consider updates to social studies instruction a year after lawmakers passed a law to keep topics that make students “feel discomfort” out of Texas classrooms. The board will have a final vote on the curriculum in November.

State education board members push back on proposal to use “involuntary relocation” to describe slavery

The Texas State Board of Education is fielding proposals to update the state’s public school social studies curriculum this summer.

www.texastribune.org

New Florida standards teach students that some Black people benefited from slavery because it taught useful skills​

The standards, which were blasted by a statewide teachers' union as a "step backward," were approved Wednesday by the State Board of Education.

New Florida standards teach that Black people benefited from slavery because it taught useful skills

The standards, which were blasted by a statewide teachers' union as a "step backward," were approved Wednesday by the State Board of Education.

www.nbcnews.com

Trump's followers think that their time has come to take over, and they are making the most of it.

So a few Texas educators want to introduce euphemistic language regarding slavery, but the board members struck that down?

So I will ask the question again, what school districts "banned the mention of slavery" in school curriculums. That was your original claim. You didn't say some nut-case on a school board in rural Texas tried to change the language, but the board refused.

Now the second example you post doesn't have anything to do with "banning the mention of slavery". The Florida curriculum states:

"“slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit,”

Now that may not be politically-correct, but it is accurate. Some slaves were able to use agricultural skills, or other skills such as blacksmithing, haberdashery, etc. to help support themselves upon winning freedom. I'd like someone to show me how that isn't an accurate statement.

I am not aware of any school district in the US that "banned the mention of slavery" --you are spreading false, left-wing talking-points

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's the re-definition of marriage that many Christians object to, but we are getting off topic.

What about the re-definition of worship?

According to the Ten Commandments we read,

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." (Exodus 20:2-4)

Should this commandment be enforced, by civil law, upon all?
And if so, whose interpretation? You and I both know that there are those Christians who would accuse both you and me of being idolators for having icons. I, myself, have an icon of the Blessed Virgin with Child in my home--should that be illegal? I have neighbors who don't worship God at all, or who worship other gods--should that be illegal?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Barbarian]

So I will ask the question again, what school districts "banned the mention of slavery" in school curriculums.

I wrote:
The irony is that the school boards in some states where slavery was practiced, have banned mentions of slavery in a way that might upset people reading about it.

It's a law that mentioning anything that might upset people in public schools is banned:
This summer, the board will consider updates to social studies instruction a year after lawmakers passed a law to keep topics that make students “feel discomfort” out of Texas classrooms. The board will have a final vote on the curriculum in November.

By law. You just edited what I said a bit, for obvious reasons.

Nice try, though.

 

[The Barbarian]

Should this commandment be enforced, by civil law, upon all?
And if so, whose interpretation? You and I both know that there are those Christians who would accuse both you and me of being idolators for having icons. I, myself, have an icon of the Blessed Virgin with Child in my home--should that be illegal? I have neighbors who don't worship God at all, or who worship other gods--should that be illegal?

Today's winner.

 

[Merrill]

I wrote:
The irony is that the school boards in some states where slavery was practiced, have banned mentions of slavery in a way that might upset people reading about it.

It's a law that mentioning anything that might upset people in public schools is banned:
This summer, the board will consider updates to social studies instruction a year after lawmakers passed a law to keep topics that make students “feel discomfort” out of Texas classrooms. The board will have a final vote on the curriculum in November.

By law. You just edited what I said a bit, for obvious reasons.

Nice try, though.

banned mentions of slavery in a way that might upset people reading about it.

that is a vague statement used to suggest that conservative school districts around the country are banning any mention of slavery because it could "upset people"

the is political speak, and it is totally false

I lived in South Carolina, the hotbed of Confederate sympathizers, and even there, schools taught about slavery, used the term, etc. While some people liked to throw around terms like "War of Northern Aggression" (silly), I never saw an instance where the entire subject of slavery was eliminated from school curriculums.

Now the whole thing about sparing students from "discomfort" is more a symptom of this snowflake culture we have now, in which kids need to be protected from "micro-aggressions", "hostile school climates", or being "singled out" --that didn't originate among conservatives in the south. That is an export from our progressive universities

 

[The Barbarian]

So I will ask the question again, what school districts "banned the mention of slavery" in school curriculums. That was your original claim.

I wrote:
The irony is that the school boards in some states where slavery was practiced, have banned mentions of slavery in a way that might upset people reading about it.

It's a law that mentioning anything that might upset people in public schools is banned:
This summer, the board will consider updates to social studies instruction a year after lawmakers passed a law to keep topics that make students “feel discomfort” out of Texas classrooms. The board will have a final vote on the curriculum in November.

By law. You just edited what I said a bit, for obvious reasons.

Nice try, though.

As you just learned, that's the law in Texas. And yes, it's vague enough to do that. Would you like me to show you?

 

[BCP1928]

banned mentions of slavery in a way that might upset people reading about it.

Since you appear to agree that's what is happening, why is it a Christian issue? Where is the theological argument that Christians should oppose mentioning slavery in a way that might upset people?

 

[Merrill]

I wrote:
The irony is that the school boards in some states where slavery was practiced, have banned mentions of slavery in a way that might upset people reading about it.

It's a law that mentioning anything that might upset people in public schools is banned:
This summer, the board will consider updates to social studies instruction a year after lawmakers passed a law to keep topics that make students “feel discomfort” out of Texas classrooms. The board will have a final vote on the curriculum in November.

By law. You just edited what I said a bit, for obvious reasons.

Nice try, though.

As you just learned, that's the law in Texas. And yes, it's vague enough to do that. Would you like me to show you?

This summer, the board will consider updates to social studies instruction a year after lawmakers passed a law to keep topics that make students “feel discomfort” out of Texas classrooms

OK, so

1. They haven't done anything yet
2. They didn't say they were going to ban the entire subject of slavery from the curriculum

I don't have to "try" anything. You are making false claims.

Now if Texas school districts start banning any mention of slavery in school curriculums (which would be very wrong indeed), I will revisit this

 

[Merrill]

Since you appear to agree that's what is happening, why is it a Christian issue? Where is the theological argument that Christians should oppose mentioning slavery in a way that might upset people?

What is happening?

This idea that conservative school districts in the south are banning the subject of slavery from school curriculums is a a wild exaggeration at best, and a fake, left-wing talking-point at worst

It's like something Rachael Maddow would promote (probably where it originally came from)

Obviously, no school district should ban the study of slavery, or the term. That isn't happening.

Digging up a couple school board members in some rural Texas district who suggested changing terminology is not evidence.

 

[BCP1928]

This summer, the board will consider updates to social studies instruction a year after lawmakers passed a law to keep topics that make students “feel discomfort” out of Texas classrooms

OK, so

1. They haven't done anything yet
2. They didn't say they were going to ban the entire subject of slavery from the curriculum

I don't have to "try" anything. You are making false claims.

Now if Texas school districts start banning any mention of slavery in school curriculums (which would be very wrong indeed), I will revisit this

You still haven't explained why it is a Christian issue or why, at least, a Christian should feel obliged to defend the legislation.

 

[Merrill]

You still haven't explained why it is a Christian issue or why, at least, a Christian should feel obliged to defend the legislation.

I didn't say it was a Christian issue, or that Christians should defend this legislation

I was merely responding to Barbarian's claim above the Republicans were banning slavery from being discussed in schools

 

[BCP1928]

I didn't say it was a Christian issue, or that Christians should defend this legislation

I was merely responding to Barbarian's claim above the Republicans were banning slavery from being discussed in schools

But we are talking about the Christian Right in general, not just you. There is no doubt that various efforts are being made across the country to "tone down" the discussion of slavery in various ways and, as far as I am aware those efforts are coming from the Christian Right. Why?

 

[Merrill]

But we are talking about the Christian Right in general, not just you. There is no doubt that various efforts are being made across the country to "tone down" the discussion of slavery in various ways and, as far as I am aware those efforts are coming from the Christian Right. Why?

I think you are mistaking a couple things

From what I have seen and read, virtually no Christians, even conservative ones, are seeking to abolish the discussion of slavery in schools, or even to "tone it down" (mislead)

What some Christians are doing, is seeking to prevent radical, leftist ideologies from hijacking history and social studies curriculums, in order to push political, and ideological agendas.

As James Lindsay accurately points out "Leftist activism is happy to take direct wins whenever it can get them, but that’s not always possible. When it can’t get direct wins through the front door, it is also more than happy to get its wins through the back door by exploiting what we can call an action-reaction dynamic. As an act of dialectical political warfare, which is their battle logic, Leftist agitators will provoke a reaction, control the framing around that reaction to a watching audience, and use the reaction as justification to advance their cause. This strategy was articulated by Saul Alinsky as “your enemy’s reaction is your real action,”

Action: In this instance, leftists push CRT-adjacent, Neo-Marxist concepts in schools (the oppressor-oppressed dynamic, that whites are inherently racist, that the country is "systemically racist", that historical record or empirical truth is secondary to 'lived truth', that the country was actually founded on slavery [1619 Project], that whites need to feel shame, guilt, and humiliation for their 'crimes', and that reparations and punishment are justified, etc.)

Reaction: Parents, other educators, and even politicians object to this. They try to pass measures in school boards, or even enact legislation to prevent radical ideology from getting pushed in classrooms.

The leftists then frame the reaction as "you just want to prevent kids from learning about slavery"!, or "you just want to promote right-wing ideas in the classroom"!!!!

I suggest watching this lecture

 

[The Barbarian]

OK, so

1. They haven't done anything yet

Lawmakers passed a law to keep topics that make students “feel discomfort” out of Texas classrooms. That seems like "something" to me.

2. They didn't say they were going to ban the entire subject of slavery from the curriculum

I suppose we should be grateful for that. Until, of course, some right wing flapdoodler claims that the mere mention of slavery will make students "feel discomfort." And then the intentionally-vague law kicks in.

This idea that conservative school districts in the south are banning the subject of slavery from school curriculums

Just parts of it that might make students "feel discomfort." Which could be anything, including the mere reminder that conservatives once enslaved people. I suppose eventually the law itself would be illegal to teach. As you see, some conservatives think that "involuntary relocation" is a much nicer term than "slavery." Governor Ron in Florida thinks that it's important to tell children about the many benefits of being enslaved, such as learning a trade. That's now an educational standard in that former slave state.

Digging up a couple school board members in some rural Texas district who suggested changing terminology is not evidence.

It merely demonstrates that they are working on conservative Newspeak for their planned corrections to history.

 

[BCP1928]

"you just want to promote right-wing ideas in the classroom"!!!!

And you do. You even listed the right-wing ideas you are trying to promote for our convenience.

I suggest watching this lecture

Lindsay is an atheist, but he has been endorsed by the Southern Baptist Convention. Why do you suppose they would do that?

 

[RileyG]

Reads a lot like "everyone who agrees with me agrees with me, and those who don't have something wrong with them". Not exactly a compelling argument.

The EO is against same-sex marriage. That's. a fact, sir. Those are faithful are opposed to it.