If you want to make the case that election security measures are a worthwhile discussion, you (the gop leadership you) would be appear more genuine if you applied the same concerns everyone and not just in districts with high minority populations. if you want to have a discussion about what age appropriate in school you would appear more genuine if quite literally every criticism didn’t target an lgbqtia book. If you want to have a discussion about what’s best for kids you would appear more genuine if you didn’t attempt to bring back conversion therapy, which has long been concluded to be dangerous. Until then, I’m calling bullshit on the fake concern for discussion and calling it what it is.
Someone gets to decide what narrative is taught in schools to the exclusion of all others. The "book banning" is a rare example of the left getting a taste of it's own medicine and having it's narrative cancelled in favour of another. The Bible and prayer have been banned for decades. What is and is not a "protected class" seems arbitrary. Today gender identity, tomorrow left handedness. Get enough self-interested lawmakers together and you could make anything "protected".
What Desantis has done is pass a vague law with penalties that has a chilling effect on speech--such that teachers are taking books out of libraries just to be safe. I do think it's appropriate to focus on specific books and to cite the passages deemed offensive. As a parent, I once complained about a book my son took out of the middle school library: Anton LaVey's The Satanic Bible. I was particularly concerned by the ritual involving carnal knowledge of a swan. I've seen no nuanced discussions from DeSantis, his hip pocket legislature, nor the parents he caters to in his bills. What would you consider an appropriate characterization of a law banning a woman's right to an abortion after conception, or a ban on abortion pills sold in interstate commerce? Or requiring a pregnant child to deliver the baby of her rapist? Yes,Ohio passed such a law! How would you characterize actions by state officials closing polling places in African-American neighborhoods, or banning the provision of water to voters in long lines waiting to vote, etc.? Each of these cases are examples of aggressive right wing Republicans' efforts to restrict political suffrage for their opponents, and/or to impose their minority views on the rest of us. Speaking of being "disingenuous", your characterization of these efforts seems to fit that definition. Are you even a U.S. citizen?
What is a protected class is thus far decided in our country by Congress in legislation. So far, LGBTQs don't qualify. Each of these categories was supported by an evidentiary record showing they suffered from discriminatory treatment, and the judgment call is left to Congress. So not ''arbitrary".The decision to include women was supported by evidence that they were indeed experiencing discrimination in employment based on their gender. Our Constitution has a provision in the First Amendment called the Establishment clause which says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It was the opinion of a majority of our Supreme Court that this included prayer in schools and required Bible readings. Seems reasonable to me. Are you thinking it should be reinstated? That would have to be done by the Supreme Court. Interesting that religion in the U.S., despite recent declines, is still going strong, when in countries with established churches it seems to be on its last legs.
I grew up in a family with a father who openly despised minorities of all kinds….race, gender, even tho none of the minorities he so despised ever impacted him one iota. As I became an adult his hate seemed even more assinine….but then things like the Civil Rights act seemed like a promise of better times to come in America. Unfortunately progress has been glacially slow. In my working career I saw frequent examples of sexual harassment, racism, and gender discrimination with accountability for the perpetrators never in evidence. This in spite of the fact I worked in a Federal natural resource agency where there was lip service to the laws and every reason to expect better. People were hurt by those actions and I firmly believe they continue. With the State acceptance of despicable conduct in places like Florida, Montana, Missouri, Texas, Mississippi…….we are moving backwards at an increasingly rapid pace in America. The GOP and the righteous bigots are not changing. No discussions of hate using a jargon of CRT and Woke or legal innuendos can cover up the continuing fact that real people are being hurt…on purpose. It’s not complicated, our Nation needs to end racism, gender and sex discrimination……NOW. Oh, by the way,The “flat earth” discussion could serve as a textbook example of a “red herring”.
It matters who the someone is. i get concerned when it's a politician with presidential aspirations courting right wing parents who want to shield their kids from the facts of history.
If flat earthers try to ban books in schools that say round earth is wrong, I think it would be time to challenge that action in strong terms--assuming there are enough of them to make it credible. That's why your analogy seems lame. It's not just a question of "differing opinions". We've had a similar debate over the teaching of evolution in schools. Some state legislatures tried to ban it. Others to require teaching the pseudoscience of "creation science" in its place. Most scientists outside the evangelical Christian community think evolution is an established fact. The Supreme Court held in both cases that the state laws were unconstitutional because they were based on religion. Unfortunately, we can't count on the Supreme Court to protect itself anymore, after three "religious" Reptrumplicans perjured their way onto it, subsequently showing disregard for long-established precedent.
Honestly I think a debate where minority protections are compared to crazy flat earth conspiracy theories is appalling. They’re not the same at all. People’s rights are being taken away. Comparing that experience to a false theory is not nuanced discussion it’s dismissive. It tells me you’re not willing to acknowledge people are losing rights and laws are targeted and not applied equally (why only lgbqtia books - why only election integrity concerns in minority districts etc etc etc). If you’re not able or more likely willing to acknowledge that there’s no point to the conversation. At that point it’s just being an apologist for the discrimination
Is this a matter of opinion that deserves a nuanced conversation or is it straight up bigotry? Ban On Library Books Depicting ‘Homosexuality,’ ‘Lesbianism’ Passes Mississippi House Here’s Utah’s voting laws btw - among the most progressive in the entire country. Literally no one complains about election integrity or raises security concerns in Utah, coincidentally 94% white and rock solid Republican. Why do you suppose the concerns exist in Georgia, highly racially diverse, only immediately after a surge in minority voters pushed the state blue? How would you explain the difference in “concern?” Should African Americans, who within one lifetime had to attend segregated schools and drink form separate water fountains, and who perform worse statistically in health, crime, education, poverty, etc, just assume the best intentions in people regarding the very sudden voting rule changes? Voting in Utah
Here's an example of "differing opinions", and yeah; it actually does make them "awful people". House Republicans refuse to join Democrats in denouncing white supremacy
The banning of books is an effort to control the thought process of individuals and groups. It comes about out of fear that a particular group's outlook of the world will be compromised if people are exposed to a set of ideas different from their own. Books are banned in an effort to control the minds of others. Books have been banned by both the left and the right for various reasons, usually obscenities, sex, or racism, however recently the right has been using book banning to promote political ideals and garner votes and they are going overboard. In March 2022 DeSantos mandated that all books in any library or school must be reviewed by a "media specialist". Of right wing leanings I would guess. That's about 1.5 million titles. The Bible and prayer has not been banned anywhere in the United States that I know of. Now, the government is prohibited from establishing a state religion or favoring one religion over another and public schools as an arm of the government are prohibited from proselytizing, therefore school sponsored prayer or the reading of any religious document is prohibited. But any student or employee may pray or read religious documents on their own during appropriate school hours (not in the middle of a math lesson) and religious clubs may be formed and practice during appropriate school hours.
The question of the Bible in schools is a good example of not getting it. How many people who misunderstand the very first amendment and believe the Bible should be in schools would also accept the Quran or Tao Te Ching or a Satanic (yes they are an officially recognized religion) text or atheists manifesto get equal treatment? None - they mean just the Bible and use that “nuanced” question without any understanding of the illogical irony. Not supporting your religion is not an example of discrimination, it’s an example of the specific freedom the nation was founded on.
Before school prayer was banned in the earl;y 1960s, the compulsory prayers took two general forms: the bland "to whom it may concern" type, designed to appeal to everybody except atheists, such as the Regents Prayer at issue in Engle v. Vitale; and the "Lord's Prayer"(Abington School District v. Schempp), which the Jewish kids didn't say, the Catholics dropped off before the end, and the die hard Protestants carried to conclusion. It was assumed the Almighty was okay with this, despite Jesus' admonitions against public prayer (Matthew 6:6). But what exactly did it accomplish? I think the idea is that it would make the kids better people and citizens (and conformists). The Romans seem to have pretty much the same idea by requiring perfunctory rituals honoring the gods of Rome and the genius of the emperor. Just dropping a pinch of incense into the fire was good enough. And when those $#%^& Christians wouldn't do even that, they were called "atheists" and some put to death. It was like not standing for the flag salute. Justice Hugo Black, who authored the first of the school prayer opinions in Engle v. Vitale (himself a Bible-believing Baptist) read his constitution the way he read his Bible and concluded, in light of the language and history of the First Amendment, that the Framers meant to prohibit the State from dictating the words to be used in praying to God. The Court did allow a moment of silence, which some states have adopted. My state of Oklahoma is one of a dozen states that require it, while others allow it at the teacher's discretion. As for the Bible, some states required reading of so many versus of that to open each school day. But the question was always which one? The one specified in the Schempp case was the King James Version, cherished by many for its flowery English. But Catholics didn't accept it. (Today, they and Protestants agree on the RSV, which has a Catholic version containing the "Apocrypha"), but which one was up to the legislature. Actually, the Supreme Court , while disapproving of the Bible readings exercise, indicated that objective study of the Bible would be okay. As Justice Clark said in the majority opinion in Schempp: “It might well be said that one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment." While that may sound good in principle, I shudder at the thought of how it might work out, given the controversies over which history texts should be used. So MexxiSteve, what do you think was lost by the prayers and what should be done about it?
The "book banning" and "Jim Crow on steroids" claims are two of the most unbelievably exaggerated claims I've ever heard. Anyone who bothers to look at each more closely can see the staggering degree to which they've been lied to about these just to take two examples. Here's a left leaning source (the BBC) explaining the actual impact of the Georgia voting law that was apparently so egregious the MLB all star game had to be moved to Denver. Fact-checking claims about new US election law - BBC News Most people who already have their minds made up don't bother to read the bill or investigate further they just accept the media narrative and it confirms what they already think. The "Don't say gay bill" is another case in point. Molly I was surprised you didn't even want to have a discussion about the topics I suggested above having been so fair and reasonable up until that point. I've come with an open mind, learned from you and begun to reconsider many of the things I took for granted. I don't see the same willingness from you, Tishomingo or Pio. Your minds are made up and you seem to be experts on everything so it feels pointless to try to refute any of your arguments.
I don't know whether or not this is the most appropriate thread for the question, but I was reading about Republican governor Youngkin's town hall, and his feeble efforts to defend his policies of requirng transgender students in the state to use school facilities and participate in programs matching the sex they were assigned at birth, as well as making it more difficult to change their name and gender at school. Why the gender assigned at birth for bathrooms? This makes no sense to me. If anything, I think it should be the gender one has between one's legs at the time using the facility. What do you think, MexxiSteve? And do you think that a party that purports to be about freedom from government interference should be messing with this?
Thanks I appreciate you asking me what I think and being willing to have a discussion. I'd agree that one should probably go to the bathroom according to what parts one has at the time. Any claim about freedom from government interference obviously needs to be taken with a huge chunk of salt. Obviously they want power, both sides do and they say whatever they have to say to get it.
When it comes to the trans question there are two possibilities. There's a thread on this forum called "the war on trans people" so clearly they see only one possible narrative: hatred, bigotry and persecution. There are of course those who do hate trans people but can you even entertain the possibility that there are those who care and are concerned for the well being of gender confused individuals? If so there could be discussion of how best to treat people suffering from gender dysphoria which I, for one, accept is a genuine condition. As soon as it's assumed there's no goodwill on one side or the other progress is impossible and the solutions that remain amount to tyranny.
I am absolutely not interested in having a conversation about wether anti-lgbqtia laws are discriminatory. They are. What’s going on in Florida is blatantly discriminatory by design. I’m not interested in debating that. If you want to talk about the balance between access to voting and security im up for that conversation but only if we’re applying it evenly and not based on race, which is exactly how the gop applied it. I’m not surprised interested in debating wether that last part is true or not. It is.
Interesting article. What does it say? Well, minimum voting hours are from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. While voting may be extended past that limit by certain polling places any polling place may limit the hours to 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Of course no one would ever think to do that in certain areas to influence the outcome of an election. Strange that the minimum hours aren't something like 9 A.M. to 7 or 9 P.M. Here in PA mandatory hours are from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. The number of drop boxes have been reduced. In Fulton County for example it has gone from 38 to 8. Fulton county has the largest population of any county in Georgia and interestingly 44.1% of the population is black, 40.3% white. In addition the boxes will only be in buildings where entrance is limited to the mandatory hours of 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. although they may extend the hours until 7. Why not just make it 7 P.M.? See above.The old law allowed drop boxes outside for 24 hours a day until the evening of the election. Sunday voting is eliminated, a time known for large turnouts of black voters who vote after church services. Supplying water to those at polling places has been restricted with a year in jail and $1,000 fine possible. In addition no water may be handed out to any person waiting in line to vote by anybody, even EMTs! Long lines at polling places mostly seem to happen at black polling sites for some reason. Want water after waiting in line for 8 hours? Just get out of line and start all over again. Mail in ballot request days have been reduced by 20 days. Fact Check reports a reduction of 102 days and also reports that absentee ballots must be requested whereas before they could be mass mailed. Voter I.D. in the form of driver's licenses or SS numbers is now mandatory for mail in ballots. Fewer blacks than whites have driver's licenses. In PA a signature is fine. So it seems to me there is some cause for concern.
