Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,152
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
But ZiprHead is hardly the only one who implied the bill makes uncomfortableness actionable. JH said 'The bill is aiming to create gray area for cover in order for "rights groups" and individuals to sue schools in order to prevent them from teaching history.' Elixir offered as an objection to the bill, 'Even ultra-sensitive right wing snowflakes have no right to be protected from factual history, NO MATTER HOW IT MAKES THEM FEEL.' Politesse said 'There's a reason these bills focus so much on feelings and emotions; it's easy to prove that someone did not say that Whites are an inferior race. It's much harder to prove that they didn't "make a child feel inferior for being White".' So I used a plural "you" to address the purveyors of such comments. So sue me.You made a sweeping comment "Did any of you folks even read the bill before you decided you knew what it allows to be actionable?"The comment to which I responded claimed the bill allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law. It doesn't. Why do you object to me pointing that out?A better question is do you even read the comments to which you respond?
Enlighten me. What legal prohibition is not intended to intimidate?Nonsense.All legal prohibitions are intended to intimidate.
Quite possibly. For example,This law is an example of people in power using their power to establish a state religion.These ones are intended to intimidate people in power from using their power to establish a state religion. The reason so many people object to these laws is because they anticipate that in the absence of such prohibition, the state religion that will be established is their own. But if the Florida public schools were in the habit of indoctrinating children with Mormonism, so the Florida legislature introduced a law banning teachers from promoting Mormonism in class, you guys would totally support it.
124 (d) Flag education, including proper flag display and flag
125 salute.
...
134 .... American history...
136 ... shall be defined as the creation of a new nation
137 based largely on the universal principles stated in the
138 Declaration of Independence.
...
263 (t) In order to encourage patriotism, the sacrifices that
264 veterans and Medal of Honor recipients have made in serving our
265 country and protecting democratic values worldwide."
125 salute.
...
134 .... American history...
136 ... shall be defined as the creation of a new nation
137 based largely on the universal principles stated in the
138 Declaration of Independence.
...
263 (t) In order to encourage patriotism, the sacrifices that
264 veterans and Medal of Honor recipients have made in serving our
265 country and protecting democratic values worldwide."
But those are not the sort of provisions anybody here has so far shown an interest in debating. If you want to change the subject from the new state religion SB 148 is trying to disestablish and instead talk about the old state religion it's trying to reestablish, please yourself. But I doubt anybody here is going to argue for such reestablishment.
I would see no reason to take for granted that Mormonism is not being promoted in Utah public schools merely on the say-so of a Mormon. Why would I give any more credence to your assurance that the practices SB 148 is preventing are "imagined", when you give every outward indication of being a believer?The law in question is preventing an imagined practice that will intimidate valid instruction.
As for whether it will intimidate valid instruction, it looks to me like the Florida legislators carefully drafted their bill in order to prevent that outcome.
79 (b) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to prohibit
80 discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a course of
81 training or instruction, provided such training or instruction
82 is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the
83 concepts.
80 discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a course of
81 training or instruction, provided such training or instruction
82 is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the
83 concepts.
What more could they have reasonably done in that direction, other than to abandon the attempt entirely and permit public education to be used for preaching the new religion whenever its adherents in the public education system see fit?
You have exhibited no examples of religious bigotry or stupidity on my part.I have to give you credit - I invited you to continue your silly defense of their (and apparently your) religious bigotry and you doubled down with a stupider ationale.