Task force to eradicate anti-Christian bias

[Ohio Guy]

I just saw the announcement to form a task force to eradicate anti-Christian bias. And supposedly it's going to be a priority for our new Attorney General.

I'll be honest, I sincerely have no idea what this even means. This is the golden age for conversative, Christian speech. They can literally say and do whatever they want with little to no legal ramifications.

Does this mean we have to start liking the Kirk Cameron Left Behind movies? Do we need to upnod when we read Jim Caviezel's crazy QANON/Christian-like conspiracies? Do I need to bold and italicize Merry Christmas in my email signature?

I'm not really mad about this - I genuinely don't know what the hell this about.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

I just saw the announcement to form a task force to eradicate anti-Christian bias. And supposedly it's going to be a priority for our new Attorney General.

I'll be honest, I sincerely have no idea what this even means. This is the golden age for conversative, Christian speech. They can literally say and do whatever they want with little to no legal ramifications.

Does this mean we have to start liking the Kirk Cameron Left Behind movies? Do we need to upnod when we read Jim Caviezel's crazy QANON/Christian-like conspiracies? Do I need to bold and italicize Merry Christmas in my email signature?

I'm not really mad about this - I genuinely don't know what the hell this about.

When I was young, if I got up too early on Saturday, sometimes I'd have to watch strange religious programming before cartoons came on. One has always stuck with me. It was a bunch of kids praying outside before school, and the teachers, admins, and school cops breaking up the prayer circle and arresting them. As if it were necessary, of course, in small print was "Dramatic Reenactment" or something similar at the bottom. Reenactment of what? Of a fantasy that Evangelicals have been thriving on for decades. The fantasy is that America has become so lost that they - Christians - are actually being actively oppressed.

That said, I'm guessing in this case, they won't actually be trying to eradicate any bias at all. Rather, they will be using it as an excuse to justify and institutionalize bias against others that their particular brand of Christianity very much approves of. I hope I'm wrong. But I'm not.

 

[IUclover]

Sounds like cancel culture to me. More wokeness from the right. When will it end...

 

[mcmurtry66]

Sounds like cancel culture to me. More wokeness from the right. When will it end...

Like tennis

 

[IUclover]

Like tennis

Or pickleball.

 

[Bowlmania]

I just saw the announcement to form a task force to eradicate anti-Christian bias. And supposedly it's going to be a priority for our new Attorney General.

I'll be honest, I sincerely have no idea what this even means. This is the golden age for conversative, Christian speech. They can literally say and do whatever they want with little to no legal ramifications.

Does this mean we have to start liking the Kirk Cameron Left Behind movies? Do we need to upnod when we read Jim Caviezel's crazy QANON/Christian-like conspiracies? Do I need to bold and italicize Merry Christmas in my email signature?

I'm not really mad about this - I genuinely don't know what the hell this about.

There's no anti-Christian bias. There have been some incidents outside abortion clinics that weren't handled well, and an FBI memo out of Richmond VA (precipitated by some nut from a breakaway, Latin Mass only, "the Second Vatican Council was heresy" Catholic church unaffiliated with any diocese) that the far-right has blown out of proportion.

I've been a church-going Christian my entire life and have never experienced a scintilla of bias related to my faith, nor have my wife and kids.

Finally, you don't have to bold and italicize "Merry Christmas" in December, but be sure as hell not to say "Happy Holidays" to anyone. Stop the war on Christmas!

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

This is the golden age for conversative, Christian speech. They can literally say and do whatever they want with little to no legal ramifications.

Isn't that the idea (the "say" part, not the "do" part)? And not just for Christians or conservatives. But for anybody.

That said, I don't think that government suppression of protected speech is any kind of a major problem in the country. We have the odd instance of a public school football coach doing prayers after football games and getting pushback on it. But that's been dealt with by the courts.

We have much more pressing concerns that the DOJ should be focusing their attention on.

 

[IUclover]

Isn't that the idea (the "say" part, not the "do" part)? And not just for Christians or conservatives. But for anybody.

That said, I don't think that government suppression of protected speech is any kind of a major problem in the country. We have the odd instance of a public school football coach doing prayers after football games and getting pushback on it. But that's been dealt with by the courts.

We have much more pressing concerns that the DOJ should be focusing their attention on.

Step 1: Make up problem
Step 2: Keep talking about problem over a period of time
Step 3: "Fix" made up problem and declare victory

I assume Indiana and Braun will follow suit with similar types of language/efforts.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Great, we need to stop the discrimination against liberal Christians.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Trying to erase the separation of church and state.

All hail Lord Trump, our orange savior

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

When I was young, if I got up too early on Saturday, sometimes I'd have to watch strange religious programming before cartoons came on. One has always stuck with me. It was a bunch of kids praying outside before school, and the teachers, admins, and school cops breaking up the prayer circle and arresting them. As if it were necessary, of course, in small print was "Dramatic Reenactment" or something similar at the bottom. Reenactment of what? Of a fantasy that Evangelicals have been thriving on for decades. The fantasy is that America has become so lost that they - Christians - are actually being actively oppressed.

That said, I'm guessing in this case, they won't actually be trying to eradicate any bias at all. Rather, they will be using it as an excuse to justify and institutionalize bias against others that their particular brand of Christianity very much approves of. I hope I'm wrong. But I'm not.

I agree with you. But it is true that the coach up in the Seattle area ran into flak from his administrators for having prayers after games -- to the point where both sides fought it all the way to the Supreme Court.

For the life of me, I couldn't understand why those administrators would even press the issue. To me, the notion that a coach praying (with students or otherwise) at a game would constitute an establishment of religion is absurd.

The defenders of the school administrators said "What if he was a Muslim?" and I'd say "Well, then I guess he'd be engaging in Islamic prayer" -- as if the issue was the specific religion being exercised.

 

[Bowlmania]

Trying to erase the separation of church and state.

All hail Lord Trump, our orange savior

Man, who's doing his makeup these days? It's worse than ever.

 

[IUclover]

I agree with you. But it is true that the coach up in the Seattle area ran into flak from his administrators for having prayers after games -- to the point where both sides fought it all the way to the Supreme Court.

For the life of me, I couldn't understand why those administrators would even press the issue. To me, the notion that a coach praying (with students or otherwise) at a game would constitute an establishment of religion is absurd.

The defenders of the school administrators said "What if he was a Muslim?" and I'd say "Well, then I guess he'd be engaging in Islamic prayer" -- as if the issue was the specific religion being exercised.

While I don't think prayer in your scenario is the end of the world, I can understand the push back. Let's say 15 players are on the team and one or more of the players aren't religious. In this case, those non-religious players feel either excluded from the team or feel like they need to comply with something they don't practice.

I can realistically see a scenario where a coach shows favoritism to those players who participate in the prayer circle. Sounds crazy but there's lots of crazy out there.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Great, we need to stop the discrimination against liberal Christians.

Haven't you heard...there's no such people.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

While I don't think prayer in your scenario is the end of the world, I can understand the push back. Let's say 15 players are on the team and one or more of the players aren't religious. In this case, those non-religious players feel either excluded from the team or feel like they need to comply with something they don't practice.

Yeah, but the specific restriction is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." IMO, the notion that a coach holding a voluntary prayer with players and others in attendance amounts such an establishment is absurd.

Let me put it this way: I seriously doubt that Madison etal would've seen this as an establishment. And I also don't think Jefferson would have either. And he was the one who coined the term "wall of separation between church and State."

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

I agree with you. But it is true that the coach up in the Seattle area ran into flak from his administrators for having prayers after games -- to the point where both sides fought it all the way to the Supreme Court.

For the life of me, I couldn't understand why those administrators would even press the issue. To me, the notion that a coach praying (with students or otherwise) at a game would constitute an establishment of religion is absurd.

The defenders of the school administrators said "What if he was a Muslim?" and I'd say "Well, then I guess he'd be engaging in Islamic prayer" -- as if the issue was the specific religion being exercised.

If that coach was Muslim and pressing his players to pray to Allah before the game, then would it still be alright?

Trying to put Christianity in public school or corresponding sports could make those of other religions uncomfortable.

I think religion should remain in church and people's personal lives. Not in public schools or events

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Yeah, but the specific restriction is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." IMO, the notion that a coach holding a voluntary prayer with players and others in attendance amounts such an establishment is absurd.

Let me put it this way: I seriously doubt that Madison etal would've seen this as an establishment. And I also don't think Jefferson would have either. And he was the one who coined the term "wall of separation between church and State."

If it is truly voluntary I have zero problems. Sometimes things appear voluntary and aren't.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

If that coach was Muslim and pressing his players to pray to Allah before the game, then would it still be alright?

This is hilarious. Here...I'll just paste what I typed above about this.

The defenders of the school administrators said "What if he was a Muslim?" and I'd say "Well, then I guess he'd be engaging in Islamic prayer" -- as if the issue was the specific religion being exercised.​

​

Trying to put religion in public school or corresponding sports could make those of other religions uncomfortable.

But the restriction has nothing to do with anybody's comfort. Congress can't pass a law respecting the establishment of religion. That's it, that's the restriction. The failure to include anybody's comfort wasn't some kind of oversight.

I think religion should remain in church and people's personal lives. Not in public schools or events

Well the other clause is the free exercise clause. And it reads "(Congress shall make no law)...prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)". What's the argument that somebody has to suspend their right to free exercise of religion when they're at a public school event?

Now, if somebody is doing this or anything else excessively, to the point where it's precluding the performance of their duties, then that would be one thing.

"Coach, we're paying you to coach our football team and instead you spent 2/3 of the game on your knees with your eyes closed" sounds like a reasonable argument for termination. Not because his doing so would constitute an establishment of religion, but because he wasn't performing his job assignment.

That wasn't the case here. The coach maintained his right to free exercise, as did the players and others who voluntarily participated. The fact that they were at a public school event when they did it is neither here nor there.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

This is hilarious. Here...I'll just paste what I typed above about this.

The defenders of the school administrators said "What if he was a Muslim?" and I'd say "Well, then I guess he'd be engaging in Islamic prayer" -- as if the issue was the specific religion being exercised.​

​

But the restriction has nothing to do with anybody's comfort. Congress can't pass a law respecting the establishment of religion. That's it, that's the restriction. The failure to include anybody's comfort wasn't some kind of oversight.



Well the other clause is the free exercise clause. And it reads "(Congress shall make no law)...prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)". What's the argument that somebody has to suspend their right to free exercise of religion when they're at a public school event?

Now, if somebody is doing this or anything else excessively, to the point where it's precluding the performance of their duties, then that would be one thing.

"Coach, we're paying you to coach our football team and instead you spent 2/3 of the game on your knees with your eyes closed" sounds like a reasonable argument for termination. Not because his doing so would constitute an establishment of religion, but because he wasn't performing his job assignment.

That wasn't the case here. The coach maintained his right to free exercise, as did the players and others who voluntarily participated. The fact that they were at a public school event when they did it is neither here nor there.

There is no right to prayer at school. If by administrators you mean school administrators..aka the boss, then coach should have obliged. I don't see where it is illegal to say no prayer at school

 

[GooglyMooglyWooglyBoogly]

The last administration was likely the most anti-Christian in history. Particularly Catholic. A warranted move by Trump to be sure.

Maybe so, but her extensive history of anti-Christian (particularly anti-Catholic) bias is there for all to see. I believe she went after Catholic Crisis pregnancy centers while in CA and she once questioned a Judicial nominee over his affiliation with the extremist group the "Knights of Columbus". And then she skips the Al Smith dinner and sends in a sketch mocking Catholics instead.

Kamala Harris’s Anti-Catholic Animus | National Review

The Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee seems downright antagonistic toward Catholic beliefs, institutions, and people.

www.nationalreview.com

Can we allow someone with this kind of prejudice anywhere near the oval?

 

[PhyloeBedoe]

Does this mean VPM is going to start getting special privileges around here?

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

I agree with you. But it is true that the coach up in the Seattle area ran into flak from his administrators for having prayers after games -- to the point where both sides fought it all the way to the Supreme Court.

For the life of me, I couldn't understand why those administrators would even press the issue. To me, the notion that a coach praying (with students or otherwise) at a game would constitute an establishment of religion is absurd.

The defenders of the school administrators said "What if he was a Muslim?" and I'd say "Well, then I guess he'd be engaging in Islamic prayer" -- as if the issue was the specific religion being exercised.

I agree the school wasted valuable time and resources on that. But it worked out the way it always works out for Christians in this country (and quite frankly, at least in modern history, for practitioners of all religions, as the courts have been very consistent on this): the coach pressed his case and won.

Of course, I don't want to belittle the real harm and inconvenience he suffered in the meantime. But that's why the courts do what they do. People make wrong decisions, and those decisions have to be fixed. All we can ask is that after the fix, the parties who suffered harm are made whole.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

Trying to erase the separation of church and state.

All hail Lord Trump, our orange savior

No such thing.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

If it is truly voluntary I have zero problems. Sometimes things appear voluntary and aren't.

I agree with both sentiments. But numerous players took part in his prayer, numerous players didn't.

There is no right to prayer at school. If by administrators you mean school administrators..aka the boss, then coach should have obliged. I don't see where it is illegal to say no prayer at school

Well, it is. Because such a prohibition would constitute an infringement on the right of free exercise.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I agree the school wasted valuable time and resources on that. But it worked out the way it always works out for Christians in this country (and quite frankly, at least in modern history, for practitioners of all religions, as the courts have been very consistent on this): the coach pressed his case and won.

Of course, I don't want to belittle the real harm and inconvenience he suffered in the meantime. But that's why the courts do what they do. People make wrong decisions, and those decisions have to be fixed. All we can ask is that after the fix, the parties who suffered harm are made whole.

And I just think that, especially with that being settled, we really aren’t suffering any kind of anti-Christian oppression in the country.

Besides, we have some actual big fish to fry.

 

[hookyIU1990]

There is no right to prayer at school.

For example, "nothing in the Constitution . . . prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the schoolday," [ 11 ] and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech.

Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer and Religious Expression in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools

Updated guidance on constitutionally protected prayer and religious expression

www.ed.gov

 

[snarlcakes]

Does this mean VPM is going to start getting special privileges around here?

A few suggestions. At the annual in Auburn @VanPastorMan gets front of the line privileges at the pitch ins and potlucks. He also gets preferred parking and 1st pick on cabin assignments.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

For example, "nothing in the Constitution . . . prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the schoolday," [ 11 ] and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech.

Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer and Religious Expression in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools

Updated guidance on constitutionally protected prayer and religious expression

www.ed.gov

What does it say about being led in such a prayer by an authority figure? . Students doing it on their own and on their own time is a bit different than the topic at hand

And is there any rule against an administration prohibiting authority figures, like coaches, from leading group prayer?

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

I agree with both sentiments. But numerous players took part in his prayer, numerous players didn't.

Well, it is. Because such a prohibition would constitute an infringement on the right of free exercise.

Right to not get thrown in jail sure.

Are you suggesting schools can not place any rules? Students shall be allowed to talk over the teachers instructions as they please, use any language they please, start a prayer circle in middle of math class, etc. doubt it because limitations on when and where is appropriate is necessary

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

And is there any rule against an administration prohibiting authority figures, like coaches, from leading group prayer?

As long as the prayer is voluntary, yes, there is a rule against that. It's called the First Amendment.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'll be honest, I sincerely have no idea what this even means. This is the golden age for conversative, Christian speech. They can literally say and do whatever they want with little to no legal ramifications.

Why should there be any legal ramifications for Christian speech?

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

Why should there be any ramifications for Christian speech?

Wow did you ever miss the point.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

When I was young, if I got up too early on Saturday, sometimes I'd have to watch strange religious programming before cartoons came on. One has always stuck with me. It was a bunch of kids praying outside before school, and the teachers, admins, and school cops breaking up the prayer circle and arresting them. As if it were necessary, of course, in small print was "Dramatic Reenactment" or something similar at the bottom. Reenactment of what? Of a fantasy that Evangelicals have been thriving on for decades. The fantasy is that America has become so lost that they - Christians - are actually being actively oppressed.

That said, I'm guessing in this case, they won't actually be trying to eradicate any bias at all. Rather, they will be using it as an excuse to justify and institutionalize bias against others that their particular brand of Christianity very much approves of. I hope I'm wrong. But I'm not.

Years ago on this forum Buzz and I had mod than one exchange about “doing something” about the religious right. The something wasn’t just arguing with them, it was taking measures to quiet them. Buzz certainly wasn’t alone. Yeah, there was pretty strong movement to oppress them. They were seen as a danger in many ways.

 

[hoosboot]

As long as the prayer is voluntary, yes, there is a rule against that. It's called the First Amendment.

Isn't this like most cases where the devil is in the details and how the details are parsed? Can a teacher lead a voluntary prayer in their third period classroom for the first 20 minutes of class everyday? Probably not. Can they be part of a voluntary prayer that occurs more spontaneously? Sure. My understanding is that the courts have ruled that sometimes extracurricular activities function like a classroom and must operate under the same rules...but sometimes they do not. That's why we have lawyers and courts and ways to work this stuff out...and to your point, there isn't and has never really been some grand bias against Christians in it.