The January 6th Commission To Investigate The Insurrection

[Doc]

Just now, Beach said:

ok i understand the assignment now.  as an occasional sub teacher i will make sure creationism is no longer mentioned as a belief in the schools of Virginia.  the students are safe now.  we good?

 

When you mentioned creationism in the past, did kids or their parents get all upset?

[Backintheday544]

Just now, Beach said:

ok i understand the assignment now.  as an occasional sub teacher i will make sure creationism is no longer mentioned as a belief in the schools of Virginia.  the students are safe now.  we good?

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

[Beach]

Just now, Doc said:

 

When you mentioned creationism in the past, did kids or their parents get all upset?

no, i imagine because its not taught but merely given as a theory that some people believe.  

[SoCal Deek]

4 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

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.

Oh I see. A few minutes ago creation was all about Christianity and now …it’s not. Care to move the goal posts any further? 

[Doc]

4 hours ago, Beach said:

no, i imagine because its not taught but merely given as a theory that some people believe.  

 

Yeah.  Not much to "teach" where that is concerned. 

[Buffarukus]

10 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

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.

 

 i gave a straight answer that had no particular viewpoints besides 1) a parent should have say in what their students should be taught. period. nobody should care whether that is the right or wrong way to look at it because...YOUR NOT THE PARENT. you adding in examples of certain people or viewpoints or wants means nothing.

 

2) teachers should have a good enough grasp over their curriculum that they can create a standard syllabus. i got one at the start of most my semesters. new teachers it may be difficult for but not where subjects get integrated out of nowhere. for the most part nothing was a surprise to me. what does that have to do with teacher shortages or "karens" calling for firings for not abiding by them in a malicious way? 

 

if you cant help yourself but to introduce controversial subject and won't allow parents a opt out option. that's a hard stance for no reason then we are the ones in charge not you, the people who pay our salaries and raise the children in our classes?? what!? what exactly is the school board in charge of? are they there to be just a barrier to protect teachers so they can do as they please or are they there to listen to concerns and oversee it serves the public? watching these meetings it seems like the former. 

 

so i dont care how shorthanded teachers are, you obviously can't be trusted with children or act like a professional where you don't have the self control to just teach standard subjects you can openly put on a syllabus. teachers are human and can talk freely but forcing things into curriculums with grading incentives is different, especially if they are not exposing students to a equal counter argument regardless if they personally agree with them. if they cant do this they are BAD TEACHERS creating the echo chamber that your talking about. wanna teach CRT put it in syllabus including the topics that oppose its viewpoints. 

 

finally if you want to take your kid out of a class that teaches abstinence. go ahead! right or left view if you'd rather teach YOUR CHILD about a subject in your own way then good on you for being involved parent and crazy on those who want to assert control on children against the parents wishes.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by Buffarukus

[SoCal Deek]

So now the problem is we can't have a say in what teachers are teaching America's kids because there's a teacher shortage? I guess we should allow teachers to give instruction in pornography and witchcraft then.  We've officially entered Bizarro World.

 

Question: Why has ANY of this even come up recently? 

Answer: Because after over a year of kitchen table Zoom instruction parents got to see what's been passing for an education in their kids schools...and the customers are pissed off! 

[Backintheday544]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Oh I see. A few minutes ago creation was all about Christianity and now …it’s not. Care to move the goal posts any further? 

 

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.

[Beach]

3 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

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.

yup, you have that hotline to report that creationism whenever you need it.  i dont sub in high schools much in the last couple years so i cant help ya.

[SoCal Deek]

8 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

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.

Let me try this another way. Creationist theory is not taught from a religious perspective. At least it wasn't when I was in public school. I even did a science fair project about it. It's really a simple science-based discussion about "Where did everything come from?" Before the beginning something must have started it. Keep your shirt on. God isn't going to smite you for asking good questions. This line of instruction doesn't pit people of faith against pagans. It's science class! 

[B-Man]

 

Hey, it's been a couple of pages,

 

You guys don't mind if I post something about the Jan. 6th Commission do you ?

 

 

 

Jan. 6 panel weighing prime-time televised hearings ... - TheHill

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/588329-jan-6-panel-weighing-prime-time-televised-hearings-chairman-says

told the news outlet those hearings may be scheduled for late March or early April. 

 

 

"Must see tv"

😆

 

 

 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

 

Hey, it's been a couple of pages,

 

You guys don't mind if I post something about the Jan. 6th Commission do you ?

 

 

 

Jan. 6 panel weighing prime-time televised hearings ... - TheHill

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/588329-jan-6-panel-weighing-prime-time-televised-hearings-chairman-says

told the news outlet those hearings may be scheduled for late March or early April. 

 

 

"Must see tv"

😆

 

 

 

 

 

Yes we do mind. The more and the longer we can distract BillStime from posting everything he's seen on Twitter...the better. 😉

[Beach]

10 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Hey, it's been a couple of pages,

 

You guys don't mind if I post something about the Jan. 6th Commission do you ?

 

 

 

Jan. 6 panel weighing prime-time televised hearings ... - TheHill

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/588329-jan-6-panel-weighing-prime-time-televised-hearings-chairman-says

told the news outlet those hearings may be scheduled for late March or early April. 

 

 

"Must see tv"

😆

 

 

 

 

 

just rename this thread VA school curriculum

[Backintheday544]

13 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Let me try this another way. Creationist theory is not taught from a religious perspective. At least it wasn't when I was in public school. I even did a science fair project about it. It's really a simple science-based discussion about "Where did everything come from?" Before the beginning something must have started it. Keep your shirt on. God isn't going to smite you for asking good questions. This line of instruction doesn't pit people of faith against pagans. It's science class! 

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
 

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Backintheday544 said:

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
 

Well that school district was apparently wrong then. Creationism wasn’t taught from a religious point of view when I was in school. But, I also don’t agree with the inference that you’re leaping to. Teaching that there may be a creator is not against the law or in conflict with the Constitution. In fact the Constitution mentions a Creator as from where we get our human rights. This is NOT a separation of Church and State issue. 

[Backintheday544]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Well that school district was apparently wrong then. Creationism wasn’t taught from a religious point of view when I was in school. But, I also don’t agree with the inference that you’re leaping to. Teaching that there may be a creator is not against the law or in conflict with the Constitution. In fact the Constitution mentions a Creator as from where we get our human rights. This is NOT a separation of Church and State issue. 

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

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Backintheday544 said:

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

 

 

I’m not blaming you. I’m disagreeing with you. 

[Albwan]

This lady is talking about the "real" insurrectionists.

[B-Man]

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

 

 

[Albwan]

30 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

 

 

It's like they're losing Joseph Goebbels.