AGC said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

What I'm proposing is equal rights under the law regardless of beliefs. You can raise your children how you like. You shouldn't get to tell me how I have to raise my children.

---

Except you guys won't let me raise my children how I like. You are increasingly taking away parental rights over children to fit your worldview dogma. You won't allow Christians to teach Christianity in public schools, yet you blanket those schools with secular propaganda.

---

Can you expand on the things that secularists are doing that restrict how you raise your children?

---

The wrong assumption is that "not religion" is practically different than anti-religion. Leaving children to their own devices when it comes to first principles: how did the world come to exist? Where do our rights come from? Questions about the nature of the human person and epistemological questions. The most basic questions that are the foundation for even just our ability to know anything at all. It's anti Christian. Our entire reason for existing is to love God and serve God. But just pretend God doesn't exist while at school. My kid's not allowed to sing a Marian antiphon in a school talent show but, if she wanted to sing a Miley Cyrus song about how she doesn't need a man and she can love herself better, that's a-okay.

---

I find it odd that people equate a secular setting with an anti-Christian setting.

School is not church, and simply acknowledging that is not forcing anyone to "pretend God does not exist." Individual prayers and other religious acts by students are protected. What's not protected is school sponsored prayer or endorsement of any religion. There are Christian student groups, moments of silence, and See You At The Pole. There are even some schools that teach the Bible as literature in English class.

Yet again, you seem to think the lack of special treatment is the same as oppression.

---

Secularism requires the removal of religion. That's what it is. How can it be anything but anti-religious?

---

Do you fly at airports? Get your car repaired at auto shops? Go to a department store to buy clothes? Go to Aggie football games? Drive on highways?

All of these are secular settings. Does that make them all hostile to religion?

Oh wait, we now pray before Aggie football games and a lot of airports have chapels. So even those may not be great examples because this country is so accommodating to religion.

---

If my kid prays the liturgy of the hours, should she be allowed to leave class without being made to feel like some kind of mutant outcast? Or the parents made to feel like a burden on the school? You want to see what genuine disgust looks like? Take your kid out of school every holy day of obligation for mass and adoration, and tell them that's why you're doing it. The idea that religion is separate from education or education is separate from religion doesn't even make sense. And schools are purportedly FOR education. Eradicating institutions so intertwined with our history and legal tradition from all our schools' curriculum everywhere takes real effort and contempt. It's not that easy to do, and we've actually done it.

You fundamentally don't understand, because you have a distorted view of what Christianity IS, and how it's practiced. You think it's something you do in a Church building on Sunday.

---

This is correct. That's 'separation of church and state' isn't a Christian concept but a secular one.

There's a lot of irony in pointing out football - it is religious with rituals, liturgies, vestments, history and tradition, etc. Highways were built with purpose and change how people live - they influence belief 100% (some cities intentionally reject them, like Vancouver), airports are the same. Auto shops are run by people - they're not autonomous. Materialism is a facade.

Everyone's religious, everyone serves something; it's just a question of what they worship.

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

The type of society that Sapper proposes, for example, I find extremely offensive. It is an imposition of his moral values on me and my children. His proposal is to allow only secular views and the relativistic moral values that are incorporated in secularism

---

What I'm proposing is equal rights under the law regardless of beliefs. You can raise your children how you like. You shouldn't get to tell me how I have to raise my children.

---

This doesn't exist; laws by their nature limit practice of belief. No one actually wants it anyways: surely you don't want child brides married off in smaller mormon sects, for example. Hence the idea of 'neutral' preferences non-theists when they propose it.

---

At least you admit you want me to have fewer rights than you.

---

It's a zero sum game bud. Christians that are middle aged have grown up knowing that. The irony is that you feel the same way but you keep calling it 'neutral'.

---

It's not zero sum unless you intrinsically believe me having equal rights is a harm to you. In which case, representative government is not what you believe in.

---

What rights of yours would be taken away?

---

In a state that privileges your faith, my ability to pursue happiness no longer becomes whether it harms another but rather whether it offends your specific moral code.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

I think, Kurt, there's an important distinction between RCC, Anglican, and other deep liturgical traditions that are totalizing, as compared to more prevalent evangelicalism. We have multiple prayer hours or times, our own calendar distinct from the Julian, and our social lives revolve around this place rather than work or home. It permeates everything we do when we take it seriously and reorders our lives entirely - some communities make a serious effort to live physically near their church instead of a suburb with the best 'amenities' or 'schools'. So yes, if we can't afford a private school, our children are taught these things are not important and live sanitized lives with general moral echoes of historical America. There is no accommodation that offsets that without minimizing it - the school is paid for attendance as a funding mechanism. How do you get around that?

There are already Muslim schools. Y'all seem to think we would be offended or hostile to this. Satanist schools would probably fold quick because they don't present a distinct option to what's already out there.

---

My initial reaction was a bit of a scoff at 'sanitized lives with general moral echoes. . . ' When your children wake up in the morning, they can pray. Then they can go have breakfast and say grace and thanks God. On the bus ride to school they can close their eyes and pray. They can meet up with their friends before school and discuss the Bible chapters they all read last night. And in between classes and during lunch they can take a few minutes to reflect. And then after school you can take them to church or mass or Bible study or you and sit down with them and provide them with hours of religious education every night. And then over the weekends, your children can spend 24 hours a day praying or reading the Bible.

While I recognize this does not solve for the 'permeates everything' clause in your post above, I think it is overreaction to state that because we do not want public school teachers preaching the Bible that your children are being forced to live sanitized lives. Are you not their parent? And do they not have a church community? Is their only form of instruction and education state issued?

I don't mean to be dismissive, I do recognize a serious concern that you've brought up. But, like you said, there are important distinctions in every liturgical tradition. If we are to agree that education is a general public concern, then there is no pragmatic way of accommodating everyone. Every school district cannot build a thousand schools to adequately capture the religious preferences of its citizens. So what are our options?

* Try to accommodate everyone and build a school for every child?
* Pick our favorite religion and force all kids to receive state-led religious indoctrination. Maybe fine if we pick your religion - otherwise, it sucks.
* Try to accommodate no one and make it the responsibility of the parents to provide their child with a religious education?

Any option here is going to have its dissenters. You might claim that option 3 is effectively secular indoctrination. I have boys in 9th and 6th grade now. They've never come home with homework assignments regarding why secular humanism is preferable to religious morality, or why there is probably no God, or how materialism offers a better consistent worldview than religion. In other words, I assure you that my specific values and beliefs are not being taught in public school in any organized widespread manner. Schools have to teach some basic values about treatment and kindness and respect purely for the pragmatic purposes of maintaining civility among students and between students and teachers. My experience is that public schools do not really touch the question of God, or the meaning of life, or purpose, or religious philosophy or epistemology on any significant level.

You can provide anecdotal stories of how this school or that school shunned a Christian student. And I can provide anecdotal stories on how this school or that teacher openly teaches Christianity in class. There are 3 million public school teachers in this country, that some go rogue and cross a line is unfortunate, but I don't see how its avoidable. Inevitably, some teacher is going to say something you don't like.

At the end of the day, again assuming we agree that education is a public concern, are you seriously asking a $40k a year state employee that you don't get to pick and you don't know to teach your child the most important lessons and information that they will ever learn? The idea that Christians would want public school teachers to provide their kid's religious education is absolutely baffling to me. . .

I have to also scoff at your description of current public schools as being indistinguishable from Satanist schools. How can I take this seriously? You believe that public schools teachers (80% of whom are Christian) are actively teaching children to worship Satan?

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Schools have to teach some basic values about treatment and kindness and respect purely for the pragmatic purposes of maintaining civility among students and between students and teachers. My experience is that public schools do not really touch the question of God, or the meaning of life, or purpose, or religious philosophy or epistemology on any significant level.

---

The bolded is the entire point. That's rational materialism / humanism. General morality to be happy but get along and avoid harm. Religion, transcendence, and more have been scrubbed from the school for that. And the school monopolizes that time so they dictate the hours students can participate (you've mistakenly treated praying the hours as praying in someone's head any time they want; they're different) because they get paid based on attendance. You've omitted homework that will reinforce these things and take place outside the school in addition to extracurricular activities. It is precisely value substitution in this context that we're talking about AND that all things religious are relegated and treated as separate (they cannot be present in some instances and must be hidden), a complete rejection of the sacramental worldview that the material and immaterial are inherently connected, reinforcing further statements like 'separation of church and state'. This is what relegates religion to a building on Sunday mornings.

Scoff away at my description of satanist schools. Zero people are concerned with them because most satanists who sue over religious liberty are political cosplayers seeking to enshrine things like abortion as a right into a thin veneer of religion. We saw how Sunday morning gatherings tapered away - they offered nothing that couldn't be gained in a TED talk or government schooling.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Do you want to be able to commit adultery, steal, lie, murder, etc.?

---

This is the wrong question. It is not about what 'sins' others want to commit. Its about what government's role 'ought' to be. Why is it government's business who I sleep with? (assuming we are talking about consenting adults).

I remember a time when conservatives wanted smaller government, what happened?

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Do you want to be able to commit adultery, steal, lie, murder, etc.?

---

This is the wrong question. It is not about what 'sins' others want to commit. Its about what government's role 'ought' to be. Why is it government's business who I sleep with? (assuming we are talking about consenting adults).

I remember a time when conservatives wanted smaller government, what happened?

---

Bob Lee said:

---

You know children don't behave that way. If no one is doing that, and the alternative is to chat with their friend on the bus, kids aren't going to choose a decade of the rosary. I asked myself this question before removing our children from the public school. How are saints formed, and what is the likelihood they'll get what they need in the public schools. Like, is it even possible to do it? Of course catechesis at home is imperative, but when there's tension between catechesis, and the life they're subjected to at school, at best it's a constant battle. Basically all kids have phones with unfettered access to the internet. Enough of them are promiscuous or don't dress modestly to make things difficult. They love gossip. Can you even imagine what it would be like for kids who genuinely tried to live their faith in a public school? It's too much to ask of a child. I don't think it's possible. Look at secularist's reaction to Harrison Butker's speech at a school where the peer pressure is all directed toward good behavior. You just aren't allowed to believe the things that we believe without being ostracized. How can we expect children to survive into adulthood with their faith intact?

---

dermdoc said:

---

It all comes down to 2 issues, LGBT and abortion.

No one is questioning that basic morals should be taught and enforced by laws. Nobody is arguing that murder, theft, etc.should be okay.

From my standpoint, I could care less who one sleeps with. That is between them and God.

And if an adult (over 18) decides they want to change their gender I feel the same.

I believe life begins at conception and therefore that abortion is murder. As a Christian, I can not support murder.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Schools have to teach some basic values about treatment and kindness and respect purely for the pragmatic purposes of maintaining civility among students and between students and teachers. My experience is that public schools do not really touch the question of God, or the meaning of life, or purpose, or religious philosophy or epistemology on any significant level.

---

The bolded is the entire point. That's rational materialism / humanism. General morality to be happy but get along and avoid harm. Religion, transcendence, and more have been scrubbed from the school for that. And the school monopolizes that time so they dictate the hours students can participate (you've mistakenly treated praying the hours as praying in someone's head any time they want; they're different) because they get paid based on attendance. You've omitted homework that will reinforce these things and take place outside the school in addition to extracurricular activities. It is precisely value substitution in this context that we're talking about AND that all things religious are relegated and treated as separate (they cannot be present in some instances and must be hidden), a complete rejection of the sacramental worldview that the material and immaterial are inherently connected, reinforcing further statements like 'separation of church and state'. This is what relegates religion to a building on Sunday mornings.

Scoff away at my description of satanist schools. Zero people are concerned with them because most satanists who sue over religious liberty are political cosplayers seeking to enshrine things like abortion as a right into a thin veneer of religion. We saw how Sunday morning gatherings tapered away - they offered nothing that couldn't be gained in a TED talk or government schooling.

---

Okay, so to solve the issue: what you want is to enable a state employee to teach your child their religious morality, the nature of existence, the nature of God, and their purpose in life?

---

Quote:

---

Christian nationalism is the right and proper response of Christians who see problems with how the government operates and the idea that it is the source of rights and basic morality. We want moral leaders and moral institutions and we aren't getting it as things are. The status quo is not tenable.

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Can you even imagine what it would be like for kids who genuinely tried to live their faith in a public school?

---

Yes, I can. I've spent the last 21 years or so putting my kids through public school in Texas.

Their schools were inundated with religious kids.


I feel like you're describing some bizzaro opposite world.

---

this. the victim mentality i'm seeing in this thread is really ridiculous. Christianity is alive and well in Texas schools, public or private. If anything, it's the nonreligious kids who are more marginalized, unless you live in a heavily liberal area.

And yet, we're told that not allowing school-led prayer and the display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms, both textbook violations of the First Amendment, constitute oppression of Christians.

---

Bob Lee said:

---

I would settle for letting me keep the money the government takes from me to fund secular schools, and maybe some kind of crack down on lewdness in public. Those would be huge for my family.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

I would settle for letting me keep the money the government takes from me to fund secular schools, and maybe some kind of crack down on lewdness in public. Those would be huge for my family.

---

In this scenario, can I stop funding religion and religious groups?

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Schools are free to teach courses on "how to be a communist" or "how to be an existentialist", but not "how to be a Christian", and that's out of balance to me.

---

I'm not aware of any schools teaching courses on this. Are you referring to something specific?

---

Macarthur said:

---

You know, Bob, these issues you point to are not unique to the "secular world". I know this will come across as snarky but I really don't mean for it to…

I would have much more sympathy for your cause if those of faith would clean up their own yard before they condemn the rest of us.

With all the attention given to the abuses by the church and its people, you would think things would calm down but it only appears to be getting worse.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

I would settle for letting me keep the money the government takes from me to fund secular schools, and maybe some kind of crack down on lewdness in public. Those would be huge for my family.

---

In this scenario, can I stop funding religion and religious groups?

---

Can you give me an example of a religion or religious group you fund?

---

Sure -

1. Start with the big one. If religious organizations are going to operate as businesses accumulating wealth, land, openly supporting political candidates, utilizing tax payer infrastructure, police and fire services, and legally support political lobbies . . . then they need to pay taxes like everyone else.

2. No more money for faith based community initiatives.

3. 10 billion dollars of PPP dollars in 2020 went directly into funding churches.

4. State funded school vouchers for religious schools (not all states have this). If you don't have to pay for public education, why should I pay for your religious education?

5. Military chaplains.

6. Prison chaplains.

7. Historic preservation grants.

8. Use of public schools and other public venues as meeting places for religious activities.

Good enough for now?

---

Macarthur said:

---

You know, Bob, these issues you point to are not unique to the "secular world". I know this will come across as snarky but I really don't mean for it to…

I would have much more sympathy for your cause if those of faith would clean up their own yard before they condemn the rest of us.

With all the attention given to the abuses by the church and its people, you would think things would calm down but it only appears to be getting worse.

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Oh heck yeah! You're saying you'd be okay with letting Christians use the tax money we contribute to fund all of those things, and they'll be Christian institutions as such? Christian firehouses and police stations? I didn't ask for anyone to fund my children's education. I'm paying for other people's children's education as well as my 6 children (or I will be once they're all school aged). I'm asking not to have to do that.

I think people would be beating down our doors to access the public goods that belong to our communities. They wouldn't be able to convert fast enough.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Oh heck yeah! You're saying you'd be okay with letting Christians use the tax money we contribute to fund all of those things, and they'll be Christian institutions as such? Christian firehouses and police stations? I didn't ask for anyone to fund my children's education. I'm paying for other people's children's education as well as my 6 children (or I will be once they're all school aged). I'm asking not to have to do that.

I think people would be beating down our doors to access the public goods that belong to our communities. They wouldn't be able to convert fast enough.

---

Huh? No, I'm saying that Christian organizations don't get access to those public services unless they are willing to pay regular taxes on revenue and property. If your church isn't paying taxes, why should the fire department come to put out a fire there?

---

AGC said:

---

"Revenue". Does not compute. Most churches are not mega churches and pastors live on limited salaries. If you're worried about politics in church, I assume you really have it in for African American churches because that's where most of it is, outside of some nebulous idea that anything that makes its way into politics, like abortion, doesn't actually belong in the spiritual square. What's the appropriate assessed value of a church for property taxes? Nobody knows (they don't trade hands frequently and most can't be repurposed - sure there's contributory value of the buildings but that's a stretch outside of land value). You also don't want PPP funds for non-profits that employee people? Isn't that the purpose, to keep people employed? Some of those chaplains are atheists (wish I was joking). We could go on down the list but by and large it's not going to be a material amount to anyone's budget. It's only big in the minds of non-theists who don't deal in it day to day.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

"Revenue". Does not compute. Most churches are not mega churches and pastors live on limited salaries. If you're worried about politics in church, I assume you really have it in for African American churches because that's where most of it is, outside of some nebulous idea that anything that makes its way into politics, like abortion, doesn't actually belong in the spiritual square. What's the appropriate assessed value of a church for property taxes? Nobody knows (they don't trade hands frequently and most can't be repurposed - sure there's contributory value of the buildings but that's a stretch outside of land value). You also don't want PPP funds for non-profits that employee people? Isn't that the purpose, to keep people employed? Some of those chaplains are atheists (wish I was joking). We could go on down the list but by and large it's not going to be a material amount to anyone's budget. It's only big in the minds of non-theists who don't deal in it day to day.

---

None of that is really the point. Anyone who pays taxes is inevitably funding something that they don't agree with. In most cases, we accept this as a consequence of living in a diverse society with competing interests. Religion has always had existed in a place of privilege in this country. And given our origins and given how important it is to so many people, I find it perfectly reasonable for me to not object to some of that privilege. I think its petty for Christians to want to not pay school taxes because public schools are not Christian indoctrination factories.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Oh heck yeah! You're saying you'd be okay with letting Christians use the tax money we contribute to fund all of those things, and they'll be Christian institutions as such? Christian firehouses and police stations? I didn't ask for anyone to fund my children's education. I'm paying for other people's children's education as well as my 6 children (or I will be once they're all school aged). I'm asking not to have to do that.

I think people would be beating down our doors to access the public goods that belong to our communities. They wouldn't be able to convert fast enough.

---

Huh? No, I'm saying that Christian organizations don't get access to those public services unless they are willing to pay regular taxes on revenue and property. If your church isn't paying taxes, why should the fire department come to put out a fire there?

---