Backintheday544

That’s like 40 people? Cops need to do their jobs and arrest these asses. If you break the law, you go to jail. Cops shouldn’t be judges. They should say hey is this illegal? Yes. Then my job is to arrest them and throw them in jail.

want to point out @RaoulDuke79 does not back the blue with his thumbs down on my comment on how we need to back the blue.

Is that something Trump digested too? Real conspiracy… trump didn’t have covid he was just shitting this out.

Dude back the blue. They can’t do anything wrong. If they move them then they move them and we support the blue. If our blue need to use lethal force against these people then I’m sure we will all support that because we back the blue here on two bills drive.

I think a big problem the left has is how much free thought is in the party. It makes it hard to band together. Trump did it well to the point a record number of Americans said no to him. The right on the other hand seem to have indoctrination as part of themselves. So them being fooled just happens and they never realize it’s happening over and over again.

Prolly the same as the Whiskey Rebellion as a minor footnote on the wrong side of history. If anyone here is supporting this while complaining about inflation in the other thread is something else. They are disrupting our economy now. All fun and games are over. Sanction Canada until they throw them all in jail. The loud minority are something.

Don’t blame me, blame the Supreme Court. The Edwards case specifically. Question Did the Louisiana law, which mandated the teaching of "creation science" along with the theory of evolution, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment? Conclusion: Yes. The Court held that the law violated the Constitution. Using the three-pronged test that the Court had developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) to evaluate potential violations of the Establishment Clause, Justice Brennan argued that Louisiana's law failed on all three prongs of the test. First, it was not enacted to further a clear secular purpose. Second, the primary effect of the law was to advance the viewpoint that a "supernatural being created humankind," a doctrine central to the dogmas of certain religious denominations. Third, the law significantly entangled the interests of church and state by seeking "the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose." https://www.oyez.org/cases/1986/85-1513

Except it is. We’ve had several major cases on it such as Edwards v Aguilard and most recently Kitzmiller (Edwards looked at creationism whereas Kitzmiller looked at the new name for creationism post Edwards, intelligent design). Kitzmiller is over 100 pages long, but a good summary: The district contended that ID is not a religious theory; it is a theory independent of creationism that does not specifically promote God as the creator, though it does provide that some unidentified force created humankind. The Pennsylvania District Court disagreed and found that the district’s policy impermissibly advanced religion. First, the court applied the Endorsement Test, which asks whether government action conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval to a reasonable, objective observer. The court surveyed the history of ID and creationism and found the content of both theories so similar that an objective adult or student in the Dover school system would perceive the district’s promotion of ID to be overtly religious. Further, the court found that since ID is basically the theory of creationism under different terms, it was not a science, but a religious belief. Thus, the policy failed the Endorsement Test. Next, the court applied the test developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which asks whether the purpose and effect of government action is to advance religion. The court found numerous instances in which individuals indicated that the purpose of the policy was to explicitly advance religion; the superintendent of the board and its members had repeatedly discussed ways to teach creationism, and the board contacted certain proponents of creationism who ultimately suggested ID as a viable alternative. Regarding the effect of the policy, since the court already concluded that ID was not a science but a religious belief, the only possible effect of the disclaimer could be to advance that religious belief. Because the disclaimer policy failed both the Endorsement Test and the Lemon test, the court concluded the policy violated the Establishment Clause. https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/cases/kitzmiller-v-dover-area-school-district

No goal posts moved, from one of our first discussions I point out that creationism has an effect in other religions. “Further, to tie this to VA. VA has an email where you can tell on teachers for teaching divisive topics. You can see the executive order for what exactly divisive is, but it’s main target is CRT. I’d say creationism also falls under divisive theory as it puts Christians and other religions with a Supreme Being thinking they are better than religions that do not have a Supreme Being” That is a clear violation of the EO.

Yes, thanks! Also any other ideology that violates the EO like CRT.

Again, creationism doesn’t need to be linked to just Christianity for it to violate the EO. Creationism is linked to a supreme being creating everything. That means you must have a faith that believes in a Supreme Being such as Christians, Muslims, Jewish, etc. It puts any faith that has a Supreme Being above any faith that doesn’t believe in a Supreme Being.

No argument is falling apart. Your stance as schools shouldn’t teach ideology. We discussed how Christian ideology is being discussed or offered as an opinion in schools now. We then took that into context of the VA Executive Order and found that teaching faith based ideology such as creationism is a clear violation of the Executive order as it puts faiths that have a Supreme being to spur the creation in creationism above faiths that do not have a supreme being. The EO explicitly says we can’t do that. So if you want to get rid of ideology such as CRT in VA, we need to get rid of all ideological studies that even if they’re things that you or the others on the right support.

Religion is a thing here because it’s specifically mentioned in the EO. If it wasn’t mentioned in the EO then you would have a point. Unfortunately, it is, so we need to view concepts with religious based backing as divisive. You with your response calling me a Godless liberal yet again proved its divisive. If you were a VA teacher, I’d have no other option but then to report you under the VA EO. For the purposes of this Executive order “inherently divisive concepts” means advancing any ideas in violation of Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including, but not limited to of the following concepts (i) one race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith is inherently superior to another race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith; (ii) an individual, by virtue of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex or faith, is racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously, (iii) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex or faith, (iv) members of one race, ethnicity, sex or faith cannot and should not attempt to treat others as individuals without respect to race, sex or faith, (v) an individual's moral character is inherently determined by his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith, (vi) an individual, by virtue of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, ethnicity, sex or faith, (vii) meritocracy or traits, such as a hard work ethic, are racist or sexist or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. Then you go the definition of taught. A teacher bringing it up in a classroom setting to me seems like teaching. If it’s just brought up as an option, what happens in the classroom? Does the teach say, hey everyone I’m not teaching right now so this isn’t being taught to you, but there is this thing called creationism that I want to mention. Creationism means blah blah blah. Ok done not teaching you students, I will go back to teaching you other things now. In the same token, CRT isn’t being taught. And I’d say if it does come up it’s just mentioned as an option along with other theories on race.

Then your opinion means even more than others here. If you sub in a VA science class where that day they ask you to teach creationism, 1) would you do it now that an argument is made it violates the VA EO, 2) would you report yourself to the VA education board?, 3) would you be worried about teaching it knowing that some Karen will report you to the VA education board?

Yes, abstinence education has historically been pushed by evangelicals. The issue of religion is coming up due to an EO signed by Youngkin. I understand that reading isn’t your forte but in the EO which has been quoted several times, you cannot teach any idea that puts one faith above another. Faith deals with religion so religion is a topic that should be discussed as right wing teachers violate the EO.

Except it won’t. 1. There is a massive teacher shortage and the far right is making it worse. The ability to fire a teacher at the call of any right wing Karen is a terrible idea. 2. Our education system should expose our kids to many ideas. Creating a school that is just an echo chamber of ideas will further decline public discourse similar to what biased media already has. You bring up sex Ed. Great point that we can tie to the creationism argument as well. Any teacher teaching abstinence should be fired under your argument. Surveys show sex Ed is actually pretty popular. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/7a/ac/7aacf0ad-fd1c-4dcc-b65f-47e3c3754e0d/sex_education_-_a_national_survey_on_support_among_likely_voters_logo.pdf The idea of teaching abstinence is actually religious based. Going back to the VA EO, that means this teaching is divisive and we should email the VA education department to report any teacher teaching abstinence.

Creationism is not taught as an option. It’s part of the curriculum. So if that’s your opinion you have 2 stances to take in VA. Allow CRT and creationism or say no to creationism and CRT.

But we just defined theories such as creationism as divisive under the wording of the governor. So you care that creationism and other Christian centric education is divisive per the EO and you’re against them per you. So you’re anti-creationism being taught. You’re anti-any God/Supreme based being being taught in public schools. great! Please spread your beliefs to other Virginians.

Great! So after this discussion if you think something like CRT shouldn’t be taught in schools then Christian ideologies such as creationism shouldn’t be either (yes creationism is in other religions but there are religions where creationism isn’t a thing) Or say you’re a liberal and the free exchange of ideas is a cool thing!

Yea he nixed CRT which wasn’t taught in schools anyways with the EO and the crux of this argument is his EO also nixes Creationism from being taught in VA. We can start with creationism but what other Christian ideology is also being taught in schools that we should nix? The theory promotes a Supreme being to do the creating. There are religions that do not have a supreme being concept. Teaching such ideology makes people of a faith without a supreme being concept feel inferior and thus violates the governors EO.

So let’s teach CRT in VA Beach (love the Cavalier btw) as something that’s offered as an option to theories. (Again, it’s not taught in VA anyways but for sale of argument) And the EO doesn’t have an exclusion for options to theories on there.

With the news coming out about Trump and tearing up documents he shouldn’t, it could be a great time to revisit the Trump-DeSantis ticket. The main is if they are a ticket, the Dems automatically won Florida under the constitution. In order for the Dems not to win, Trump would need to pay NY taxes as a resident or DeSantis would need to leave Florida and then no be governor if they lose (looking back at the last election the Dems ran the Cryptkeeper and kicked Trumps ass so it’s a great possibility) So, if an org so inept they didn’t know don’t tear up documents, would they even think of this? The Trump team has shown before they don’t care about the constitution but if it’s in a national election can they ignore it?

What part of creationism doesn’t imply some Supreme Being that created everything?

No. The outcome is fine. Here’s the wording from the EO: For the purposes of this Executive order “inherently divisive concepts” means advancing any ideas in violation of Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including, but not limited to of the following concepts (i) one race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith is inherently superior to another race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith; (ii) an individual, by virtue of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex or faith, is racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously, (iii) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex or faith, (iv) members of one race, ethnicity, sex or faith cannot and should not attempt to treat others as individuals without respect to race, sex or faith, (v) an individual's moral character is inherently determined by his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith, (vi) an individual, by virtue of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, ethnicity, sex or faith, (vii) meritocracy or traits, such as a hard work ethic, are racist or sexist or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. - Creationism assumes what? A Devine being. - do all religions have a Devine being? No. - Per the EO - “advancing any ideas in violation of Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including, but not limited to of the following concepts (i) one race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith is inherently superior to another race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith;” - If a teacher is teaching some Devine entity created everything, wouldn’t that advance the idea that a faith with a Supreme Being is superior to a faith without a Supreme Being?

I didn’t say I had an issue with creationism. I said creationism is an ideology that is being taught. If you are against ideology being taught such as CRT, then you should also be against teaching an ideology like creationism. Why should one party pick and choose which ideology is taught? Further, to tie this to VA. VA has an email where you can tell on teachers for teaching divisive topics. You can see the executive order for what exactly divisive is, but it’s main target is CRT. I’d say creationism also falls under divisive theory as it puts Christians and other religions with a Supreme Being thinking they are better than religions that do not have a Supreme Being. Then you shouldn’t design the curriculum if CRT is taught or not either. (Even though to tie this back to VA, it’s not taught)