The Texas State Board of Education approved a new curriculum that will incorporate stories from the Bible into elementary school education.
In an eight-to-seven vote on Tuesday, the board approved the state-written “Bluebonnet” curriculum, which infuses Bible stories into language arts materials for students in kindergarten through fifth grade. All four Democrats on the board were joined by three Republicans in voting unsuccessfully against the curriculum.
Do the adults pushing this even know and understand the Bible stories? Nothing they do ever suggests it.
You can pick and choose any side you want. That’s an insane book. It’s like using Led Zeppelin lyrics and life choices as a guide.
They had a communication breakdown
Just like their precious founding fathers intended in the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
oh.
“Ah but you see the constitution didn’t say anything about state boards promoting one religion over others”- those fuckers
First rule of fascism - rules, laws, traditions and norms exist for 2 reasons:
-
Protect the in-group (the fascists)
-
Subjugate the out group (literally everyone else)
It’s like playing poker with a toddler - the rules are irrelevant - it’s just “I win”
-
Except it seems to violate section 6 “Freedom of Worship” of the Texas Constitution.
All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship. (Feb. 15, 1876.)
This is what happens when you only read part of the 1st Amendment.
Seems to be their thing. They completely ignore the “well regulated” part of the 2nd Amendment as well.
Well in the context of the time “well regulated” meant something completely different. You have to be careful not to make the same mistake.
I keep hearing this, but “regulated” has meant basically the same thing since we first took the word from Latin. If by “the context of the time” you mean “as defined in contemporary dictionaries”, then the meaning is basically the same.
Despite the popularity of the claim, I have yet to see an actual piece of evidence that “well-regulated” was universally understood to mean “well-organized and well-stocked”, and not “directed by rules”.
Interpreting language from a legal document on any other basis but contemporary dictionary definitions is disingenuous at best, and at minimum requires substantially more evidence than I’ve ever been presented.
1A has a lot of big words, i doubt they even got that far.
Absolutely insane
So it begins!
