Can’t we just agree that religions that teach women are subservient to men should be opposed? A concept of religious freedom that gives parents/fathers the right to compel observance on their children under threat of beatings or death is a fucked up sense of freedom. I don’t blame France for trying to protect their secular society by banning religiously-derived garb in public schools - removing the power of parents to dictate such garb gives kids a chance early on to make up their own mind - do they like the freedom from family-mandated othering they experience at school, or do they like displaying that they are subserviant to men when compelled by their family?
People keep saying this edgy take but that’s impossible. As long as strong beliefs are held true by many individuals, there will always be a religion. Pastafarianism is a great example of an “anti-religion” that promotes the positive morals without the need for a deity (or the flying spaghetti monster as a joke), but in doing so, it ironically became a religion in itself.
Your take is edgy and divisive, despite intent. Even religions accept deity independent good depending on interpretation (God commands good because he or she observes it is good, the good isn’t arbitrarily good because he or she commands it). But I agree, folks don’t like to acknowledge the good religion has historically done in equal measure with the bad. Nuance matters. History is not black and white. So let’s not be black and white on religion generally being good or bad.
Yea, I’m an atheist myself, but I only choose to be this way after learning about the world and other religions. I’m not about to shatter my grandma’s reality that there’s no God. It’s all about respect at the end of the day.
Exactly. At the end of the day do we care why someone agrees to do something or that something should be permissible, or just that they agree to do something or that something is permissible. I don’t care whether or not someone thinks rape or murder is wrong because God commands it or because they have a different moral basis. It’s important that we agree that behavior is wrong.
Do they do it BECAUSE they lack religion? Or is that an irrelevant detail you’re cherrypicking because it suits your argument?
People commit terrible acts because of their belief in sky fairies. Do people commit terrible acts because they don’t believe in sky fairies? (Hint: no)
A concept of religious freedom that gives parents/fathers the right to compel observance on their children under threat of beatings or death is a fucked up sense of freedom. I don’t blame France for trying to protect their secular society by banning religiously-derived garb in public schools
Parents telling their daughters what to wear is wrong, so the state must intervene and tell the daughters to wear something that I personally find more agreeable.
How about we all just stop telling women what they can and can’t wear?
Because school children are not adults, religious parents that believe females are subservient to men will continue to compel their children to comply. Then, suddenly, instead of the Catholic Church impinging on all aspects of society, you have islamic groups impinging on all aspects of society - same game, different religion. France is a secular society and fought hard to get that way.
So what about the grown adult women that want to wear a hijab? You take away their agency with laws ‘to protect the children’ (where have I heard that excuse to control people before?)
I actually went to school with girls that wore the hijab. I asked them why they wore it, some said because their dad made them and others said it kept grown adult men from trying to hit on them on the bus.
If you want to help the girls who’s fathers or husbands are forcing them to wear a hijab, then you should create a society where women don’t have to be dependent on financial support from family members and they can make the decision themselves, rather then forcing them to dress like you personally want.
Grown adult women aren’t allowed to wear a hijab in public school either. Girls and women are perfectly free to wear whatever they want/are forced to wear by the men in their lives, outside of public schools.
Blaming religion is not the answer. In fact Islam came to erase the practice of killing girls that was prominent in the region. Additionally, both Quran and Islamic teaching makes it very clear that killing any soul is a no no except for war or crimes.
So where this killing came from ? I am not sure but considering it exists in many countries and between religious and non-religious groups sugget it is something else. I would assume it is the tribal culture and poor living conditions.
I’m sorry, but this is incredibly misleading. Islam’s definition of crimes that are punnishable by death includes things like apostasy. We shouldn’t pretend that changing one’s mind or disagreeing with a religion that was chosen for you is a crime.
I dated a non-observant Muslim girl who in college who kept my existence a secret because she was terrified of her father finding out she was dating a non-Muslim. Her father was “traditional” basically went to mosque on big holidays. But she was still absolutely madly panicked about him finding out about me.
Things I learned: a lot of ex-Muslims keep calling themselves Muslims because they’re afraid; a lot of “cultural Muslims” exist that are sort of like cultural Catholics — all the guilt, none of the belief; and that there isn’t really “progressive Islam” the way there is “progressive Christianity”—all flavors of modern islam that have enough adherents to matter are fundamentalist, it’s just a matter of degree. There’s no group of consequence that thinks the Koran is just a revered book or thinks that their way is but one of many to connect with the divine, etc.
I’ve known many tolerant Muslims. I’ve also known how afraid they have been of their families finding out how there tolerance informs their behavior, and how badly it works out for them when their families do find out.
Oppose behaviors and actions. Religion is messy. There are so many different interpretations with differences of denomination and sect. Don’t oppose religion. Oppose the concrete human actions and the people that support and promote those actions. If those people are religious leaders, so be it.
What he is not free to do is require (or pressure) players on his team to take part in the prayer, or make it seem as though it is an officially endorsed action by the public school system. But he absolutely has the freedom to pray whenever he wants for whatever he wants.
I believe I can best continue to advocate for constitutional freedom and religious liberty by working from outside the school system so that is what I will do
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
That’s from the Bible though Matthew 6:5. All churches were called synagogues back then. It’s not anti-Semitic. The commenter above is quoting this to show that the Bible frowns upon performative praying as this coach is doing.
Early Christians prayed in synagogues since they were Jews who recognized Jesus as their savior. So the person who said that was a Jew, he is known as Jesus. Also the quote is not calling everyone who prays in a synagogue a hypocrite. But people who stand up praying loudly. Asshole
This dude is obviously showboating as the scripture describes. There’s no reason to go out on the middle of the field and kneel other than “look at me!”
It also doesn’t help that he peer pressured his students into doing the same.
It may not be a prohibition against public prayer (though Jesus goes on to say that when you pray you should do so in an inner room of your own home), but it is absolutely an admonition about exactly the behavior of this coach, who would go kneel in the middle of the field and pray for show.
We probably want to avoid government-mandated dress codes right? Seems like an easy first amendment case.
Limiting drag SHOWS to a certain age range seems like it would be in the state’s jurisdiction, maybe difficult to say what the compelling state interest is without leaning into some baseless talking points but states generally get the benefit of the doubt there.
Limiting drag SHOWS to a certain age range seems like it would be in the state’s jurisdiction
I disagree, because there is no real difference between drag “shows” and other “shows”, other than the presence of men in flamboyant outfits that do not fit gender norms. Some drag shows may be explicit and not fit for children, but there are plenty of other shows that fit this category, and existing laws cover all of them, no matter what the participants wear (or don’t wear, as the case may be).
But there is nothing prurient with regard to a man in an evening gown reading to children at a library. All it does is normalize the fact that wearing an evening gown is an acceptable choice for a man. That’s what conservatives see as rhe real danger here: that forms of expression they see as “abnormal” are now normalized. So they make up this fiction that anything that defies gender norms is now unfit for children, no matter what the content really is.
Don’t forget the aspect that seeing drag shows will turn a child lgbqt+ just from seeing it. Or the fact that all lgbtq+ are pedophiles.
Conservatives have absolutely no idea what they are talking about on this. “Oh the horror. They’re indoctrinating our kids by dressing like that and telling them a story.”
These idiots need to realize this is America and we have undeniable rights to our freedom. Government overreach at its finest. Conservatives are afraid of the truth that everyone has a right to be themselves.
No, they understand perfectly well what’s happening. Many of their kids are rejecting their ideologies, which these conservatives have been working for years to instill in their kids. The kids understand, though, that the guy in the dress is a lot more tolerant and empathetic than their parents are.
So these clueless parents have to insist the problem is with the gays, and if the gays just weren’t so gay out in public all the time, their kids would never have caught it. Because the alternative is that the parents have been teaching the wrong things all this time, and they would never admit that.
Yeah I wouldn’t be surprised if my ex father blamed queer media for me transitioning. And like yeah it contributed to the decision to choose to transition instead of trying whatever it took to dull the pain of dysphoria in a self destructive spiral. I prefer the college degree and happy marriage to the drug addiction I could’ve had personally
Exactly it becomes a government mandated dress code for performance. And based on gender no less.
Doing this you wind up banning Shakespeare and not just the whole “every role is played by a man” style, but no matter the casting some of his comedies contain drag.
And from there you have bio drag. There are cis women performing as queens who are indistinguishable from the cis men they perform alongside when on stage.
Now certain forms of sexually provocative dancing sure fight it out but it needs to be equally illegal for Beyoncé at the Super Bowl.
Saying drag is sexually explicit is like saying stand up comedy is sexually explicit. Yeah a lot of it is but not the stuff for kids at a library unless someone is displaying poor judgement.
Its interesting how if the boy shot and murdered someone else, the mother would be the one responsible for it, due to leaving the gun somewhere the boy could access it and shoot it.
But now that she specifically is the one who got shot, with her own gun, now the boy is the one responsible.
It doesnt seem logical that you can have both, who gets shot with the gun shouldnt shift responsibility. She left an extremely dangerous and lethal weapon laying around where the 11 year old boy could just get his hands on it. She is responsible for her own death through her own negligence.
It’s actually insane that this literal child is being tried for an adult, a threshold he is barely half way towards hitting. This kid literally is still in elementary school and has only just started to be taught basics of multiplication. His brain isn’t even remotely close to done developing, and he hasnt even really started puberty yet.
If he was, say, 16 or 17, sure I could see it. But fucking eleven? Insane, ludicrous, actually crazy. That is not an adult, and anyone trying to try the kid as an adult is a fucking lunatic.
So by your logic and reasoning this poor woman apparently committed suicide(?)!
Yes he's a kid but he also resides in a state where anyone committing this crime is tried as an adult - that doesn't mean that he'll go to an adult prison if the outcome is prison time. If you read anything about it you'll know he's a straight-up psychopath and needs serious mental help!
If you read anything about it you’ll know he’s a straight-up psychopath and needs serious mental help!
So he needs help and not to be tried as an adult making decisions with a clear mind. I love it when people disagree with themselves in 3 sentences or less.
I think the OP was under the impression the child would not be charged but the parent would if they had shot anyone else. In that circumstance he made it would not really be suicide as much as an accident I think. Like accidentally shooting yourself due to negligence in handling the firearm but here the negligence is allowing access to a child.
So by your logic and reasoning this poor woman apparently committed suicide(?)!
Lol, what?
Negligence is not Suicide. Suicide is intentional. If she put the gun in the childs hand and forced him to shoot her with her own hands, that would be suicide.
But negligence is what its name implies… Neglect.
If you are an idiot and accidently kill yourself, do you think that is suicide? Obviously not, right? You are of course still responsible for having done it, but an accident != suicide.
She would be responsible for an unsecured firearm and child endangerment, but I don’t think they’re usually charged with the actual murder (unless it would be a felony murder rule).
But this kid certainly shouldn’t be tried as an adult.
In any case, I’d like to back waaaaay up and ask how this kid got access to a loaded gun in the first place.
I think it’s more often an involuntary manslaughter charge due to the gross negligence of allowing a child access to a gun. But sometimes it can be counted as murder even if it was unintentional if you were doing something so reckless and stupid you should have realized it would likely result in someone’s death. There’s an argument to be made that keeping a gun somewhere a child could access it would count.
But sometimes it can be counted as murder even if it was unintentional if you were doing something so reckless and stupid you should have realized it
Just depends on the state. So you have to look at the definitions. State A might have Murder and Manslaughter, State B might have Murder and Negligent Homicide and State C might have Murder-I and Murder-II or first and second degree.
I've seen a bunch where charges will come out of Texas for Assault and people freak out thinking it's being played down despite Texas Assault being the same as Battery in their state. Or Aggravated Assault being the same as Attempted Murder in their state.
This has no baring on the issue and is orthogonal.
At 11 years old, their brain is not even remotely close to fully developed. They havent even started puberty yet. It is unhinged and ridiculous to try an eleven year old as an adult.
They literally are only just barely halfway in their development to adulthood.
I don’t know about you but I was long past knowing whether or not to point a loaded gun at my parents and then immediately go online with their account to buy a nice VR headset.
Well see the neato thing is, you weren’t raised by that kids mother.
You might be able to, hopefully, connect the dots that the kid who perhaps struggles with the concept of whether to point a loaded gun at their mother is also going to be the same kid who has a mother… who leaves a loaded gun lying around accessible to a child…
“can best continue to advocate for constitutional freedom and religious liberty by” ostracizing other religious beliefs and making those students feel uncomfortable
It wasn't him just going out and saying a little, quiet prayer to himself. I wouldn't give a shit about that, I don't think anybody would. You do you.
He was bringing a ton of students into the fold. The whole team was praying with him.
He claimed that it wasn't required or expected but come on. You know damn well if you were a player on the team and you're the only guy not praying, you're gonna have a bad time.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.