The heart of the Florida Parental rights in Education Act. A.k.a don’t say gay.

Bradskii said:

You might not need an understanding of Australian religious beliefs to understand Australia. But to ignore religion if you want to understand the US is to ignore one of the main forces that makes it tick.

Click to expand...

Religion does not drive the US. It can't because of the constitution. And the fact that there are so many different religions and religious beliefs in America. Even among denominations. The laws here are secular. We are not nor do we want a theocracy. Sure there may be some that do, just like there are some that want communism and some that want anarchy and some that want a white supremacist society and others that want a socialist one. There are religious people who want communism and socialism. There are religious people who are liberals and conservatives. Why even churches today are split on LGBT issues.

The thing is EVERYONE has a say. No matter who you are. And they have a say in the voting booth. They all have a say in their state on how it's run as long as it doesn't violate the constitution.

And all the states have a say in how the federal government is run politically by their votes for Congress and the president. If you think America is a country run by a monolithic Christian group you are in great error.

Bradskii said:

Read my post. I said 'have been argued...'. Most of the problems are in the recent past. But all argued from a religious viewpoint. But not all in the past. Homosexuality, ssm, gender equality, gender transitioning, the contents of libraries, what can and cannot be taught...you can plainly see that all arguments in this forum that are not specifically theological, are argued on the basis of scripture. Even politics aligns with belief and so informs opinions.

Click to expand...

I don’t remember when birth control was being argued, but I do remember when homosexuality was considered perverse; and it wasn’t only the religious people who disagreed with it; they were the loudest voices because practically everybody was religious back then, but the objection was based on a lot more than just religious grounds.

Bradskii said:

You might not need an understanding of Australian religious beliefs to understand Australia. But to ignore religion if you want to understand the US is to ignore one of the main forces that makes it tick.

Click to expand...

If we assume you are right, what is it about the US that can’t be learned when you ignore religion? Please be specific.

Bradskii said:

And what did those supporting slavery use to support it?

Click to expand...

In the US, Christianity was used to justify slavery. Slavery was seen as a way of converting them to Christianity thus saving their souls

Bradskii said:

Ask any member of congress where they get their guidance from and what do you honestly think they'd say?

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt many in today’s congress would mention their religion.

Bradskii said:

Here's Bush from 2003:

'President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it." '

You even go to war on God's instructions.

Click to expand...

Congress declares war; not the President. Any politician speaking that way today would likely have ruined his political career.

rjs330 said:

Do you actually think all those that supported it did so on religious grounds? I believe economics is what drove it, not religion.

Click to expand...

I don't think there was any doubt that the morality of it was discounted on biblical grounds. Likewise the bible was quoted to support miscegenation. Likewise to denigrate homosexuality. Likewise SSM. Likewise abortion. And where do we find the most vociferous arguments for the first two and against the others?

It's not called the bible belt for nothing.

rjs330 said:

Or any of the Muslim countries.

Click to expand...

Luckily we were talking specifically about Christianity.

rjs330 said:

If you think America is a country run by a monolithic Christian group you are in great error.

Click to expand...

If I'd have said that you might have had a point. But I didn't. So you don't.

Ken-1122 said:

If we assume you are right, what is it about the US that can’t be learned when you ignore religion? Please be specific.

Click to expand...

I've just given a half dozen or so socially critical topics that are invariably argued either for or against on biblical grounds.

Ken-1122 said:

I seriously doubt many in today’s congress would mention their religion.

Click to expand...

Ooh, look...


OK, he's not in congress. Thankfully not anywhere near government. But this shows the mentality. I can go through each congressman or woman alphabetically and give a religious quote that references their job if you like? Nah, I have better things to do than prove that members of the US senate are religious...

Aldebaran said:

We were talking about the United states supposedly being the most religious country in the world. But when it comes to religions, Muslims might just have a larger majority.

Click to expand...

You can talk about whatever you want. I've been talking specifically about Christianity. And you have even responded to two posts on that basis.

rjs330 said:

Or any of the Muslim countries.

Click to expand...

No. Muslim countries aren't nearly as religious as India, or even the US. It's a stereotype of some uninformed Americans that most Muslims are very religious, for instance, but it's not true, and it exoticises Muslims needlessly.

Bradskii said:

I've just given a half dozen or so socially critical topics that are invariably argued either for or against on biblical grounds.

Click to expand...

The stuff you mentioned happened a long time ago; not today. Yeah; we had slavery a long time ago as well! You gonna bring that up to?

Bradskii said:

Ooh, look...

Holding It Aloft, He Incited a Backlash. What Does the Bible Mean to Trump? (Published 2020)

The president has a long history of contradictory remarks about the book he held up after forcibly clearing protesters for a photo op on Monday.

www.nytimes.com

OK, he's not in congress. Thankfully not anywhere near government. But this shows the mentality. I can go through each congressman or woman alphabetically and give a religious quote that references their job if you like? Nah, I have better things to do than prove that members of the US senate are religious...

Click to expand...

Trump was not a religious man. There were people protesting the Capital and he wanted an excuse to clear them out so he pretended interest in a religious photo shoot as an excuse to do it, it's not like he started a war claiming God told him to as you were claiming.

Bradskii said:

Religions are an integral part of the way society operates. I'm most definitely not talking about kids being taught a specific religion. But about religions in general. Both my children did Comparative Religion in school.

Click to expand...

That certainly does not or should not apply to lower grades. As far as taking people's land, and slavery, that as well could be taught in a comparative sense. What nation throughout history did not war against an "other"? No people or tribe, group chieftan, kings, etc. sometime in history was without that. So when you teach these things to older classes or grades do so in an honest historical, (comparative) way, perhaps even taking some solace, or pride in our nations history, to change such things from continuing. The awful things done among peoples to other peoples is not confined to whites, nor americans and british. The same can be said of the nations destroyed in scripture. Their practices were awful. Burning their children alive, in a horrible death. One tribe, scalping etc, another into submission, or being wiped out entirely. When these things are taught, teach it all honestly. Perhaps a new sense of appreciation, for all men are created equally wil take on anew facet for even the atheist. Even if we as a nation did not in our youth live up to that perfection.

Bradskii said:

I don't think there was any doubt that the morality of it was discounted on biblical grounds. Likewise the bible was quoted to support miscegenation. Likewise to denigrate homosexuality. Likewise SSM. Likewise abortion. And where do we find the most vociferous arguments for the first two and against the others?

It's not called the bible belt for nothing.

Click to expand...

Oh I don't doubt that some used the bible as a discriminatory issue. I know it was used to not wanting whites and blacks to marry. But slavery was not done because "the bible says so". Slavery was all around the world and not because people said the bible says so. It's was the times.
But the reason they wanted it was economic.

And while Christians generally are pro-life not everyone that is pro-life is a Christian.

And Homosexuality is a sin just like adultery and lying. Yet we don't see you guys all saying we denegrate adulterers and liars cause you think it's okay to do that. Just cause your morality is different. If our beliefs are aligned you are fine with it, but if not then we'll the Christians are just haters.

rjs330 said:

And Homosexuality is a sin just like adultery and lying. Yet we don't see you guys all saying we denegrate adulterers and liars cause you think it's okay to do that. Just cause your morality is different. If our beliefs are aligned you are fine with it, but if not then we'll the Christians are just haters.

Click to expand...

I have a couple problems with that. First, I don't really see Christians making public religious objections to adultery and lying. I know they're in the Bible, but they don't seem to carry nearly as much weight with Christians as homosexuality for some reason.

Second, don't assume us non-Christians think that adultery and lying are okay. Both are unethical behavior. Outside of Christianity, homosexual acts are not necessarily considered unethical behavior. I, for example, see no reason to consider homosexual acts to be unethical.

ralliann said:

That certainly does not or should not apply to lower grades.

Click to expand...

Comparative religion starts about age 11. But in Australia specific teaching of Christianity is allowed in schools by any church that volunteers to do it. One period a week. Over which there has been a gradual backlash, because if you opt out, the pupils who do the lessons aren't allowed to do anything else educational. It would 'disadvantage' those learning about Noah's arc and burning bushes. So a few years ago, some concerned parents pushed for an optional ethics class to be made available. It now is.

And wouldn't you believe it, the religious classes are shrinking rapidly. And the ethics classes are increasing in direct contrast.

And as for teaching history in a comparative sense, yeah. It's done with Australian history. We look at the comparison between those who were here back in the day and those who arrived. And compare it to what we have now. It's not sugar coated. It's not glossed over.

Ken-1122 said:

Trump was not a religious man. There were people protesting the Capital and he wanted an excuse to clear them out so he pretended interest in a religious photo shoot as an excuse to do it...

Click to expand...

You bet he's not a religious man. So he didn't do it for his own good. So why do you think he did? Well, to save you typing, I'll tell you. It was to pamper to the religious right, because they were the base that got him into power. I'll type that again: 'the religious right, because they were the base that got him into power'.

rjs330 said:

Oh I don't doubt that some used the bible as a discriminatory issue. I know it was used to not wanting whites and blacks to marry. But slavery was not done because "the bible says so". Slavery was all around the world and not because people said the bible says so. It's was the times.
But the reason they wanted it was economic.

And while Christians generally are pro-life not everyone that is pro-life is a Christian.

And Homosexuality is a sin just like adultery and lying. Yet we don't see you guys all saying we denegrate adulterers and liars cause you think it's okay to do that. Just cause your morality is different. If our beliefs are aligned you are fine with it, but if not then we'll the Christians are just haters.

Click to expand...

Are you actually reading my posts? Did I say, or have I said, that people kept slaves just because it says it was ok in the bible? Of COURSE people kept slaves because of the finances involved. Good grief...the clue is in the name. Slavery: forcing somone to work for no wages. But they JUSTIFIED slavery and other behaviour by reference to the bible. Like banning inter-racial marriages. And just as they do so now for homosexuality and same sex marriages.

So no, we don't throw a party and celebrate when someone announces that they lied or they cheated on someone. We don't congratulate them. We don't feel happy for them. But if two people want to get married then neither do we check the KJV to see if it's allowed. But you do. You use the bible to justify your position.

Bradskii said:

You bet he's not a religious man. So he didn't do it for his own good. So why do you think he did?

Click to expand...

No; he did do it for his own good. There were a bunch of people protesting against him and the capital and he wanted to break it up. This was an excuse to break it up

Bradskii said:

Well, to save you typing, I'll tell you. It was to pamper to the religious right, because they were the base that got him into power. I'll type that again: 'the religious right, because they were the base that got him into power'.

Click to expand...

A lot of people got Trump into power; not just the religious right. As a matter of fact, as a Republican, more black people voted for Trump than any other Republican since Reagan. It wasn’t only the religious right that liked him

Ken-1122 said:

No; he did do it for his own good. There were a bunch of people protesting against him and the capital and he wanted to break it up. This was an excuse to break it up

A lot of people got Trump into power; not just the religious right. As a matter of fact, as a Republican, more black people voted for Trump than any other Republican since Reagan. It wasn’t only the religious right that liked him

Click to expand...

I obviously mean not for his own spiritual benefit. Well, I thought it was obvious...

And let's run some numbers on evangelical voters:

'More than eight-in-ten White evangelical Protestant voters who attend religious services frequently (85%) voted for Trump in the most recent election...' Most White Americans who regularly attend worship services voted for Trump in 2020

And about 25% of Americans are white evangelicals. So that 8 in 10 represents 20%. Which is nearly 15 million votes. And you want examples of how religion defines the US?

No wonder he was waving a bible around...