This is a matter which needs a rational discussion. Thank you for starting us in the right direction. I will add something that is basically a footnote. In the 1960's we had poverty pimps who would claim to represent some "oppressed groups." In contrast, by consensus, we had men like MLK and later the SF Gays had Harvey Milk who were bona fide leaders, but there is no MLK or Harvey Milk flag. Why? Because both were promoting inalienable rights and not turning civil rights into a business. The people who push these specialty flags upon us are the current day poverty pimps (PP). PPs are people who falsely claim to represent some group and they want to stick their brand on the entire group. Why? Follow the money! The poverty pimps like BLM and Gay groups often do not represent the values of the people for whom they chose to speak. This is especially true for Gays whose rights are solidly based on inalienable rights, especially Liberty, and not on some ersatz non-inalienable right like equality or equity. see Lawrence vs. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Even people with pure hearts who promote such flags miss the point. In America everyone has freedom of association and self-identification, but in the government area, ascriptive groups do not exist. The prototype for the difference between individual right of association and the government's being free of such groups is the First Amendment with it two religious clauses: (1) non-establishment and (2) non-interference. Non-establishment means the government is secular and no aspect of religion should be in government. The Founding Fathers should have been stricter, and Tommy J should not have said "all men are endowed by their creator", but "all men have the same inalienable rights . . . " But, let's not allow the obsessive pursuit of the perfect interfere with the really good. When it comes to government, there is zero Diversity. We are all the same; legally, we are fungible.
That is why the first motto was "E Pluribus Unum." In government, there is one group, the American People, and it is formed from the many in society. While the government should not have a Pride Flag (I'm Gay), all non-government entities may have Gay, or BLM, or Knights of Columbus flags or what every they wish.
You are ignorant of the topic you are addressing. At the time the Constitution was ratified, most of the states had state religions that were various protestant Christian denominations. Some of their state constitutions demanded that to hold government office, one had to profess Christ. The First Amendment was demanded because they did not want the federal government to favor one Christian sect over the others. They were proficient writers. They almost universally believed Christianity was the foundation of our Republic. The federal government is to have no power to interfere with religion in any way. The Bill of Rights does not restrict the people. It restricts the government. The founders never believed that the federal government was secular. They wanted a very small and un-powerful federal government.
You are, of course, correct about the situation at the time the Constitution was ratified. Still, we must acknowledge that, in 1947, the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment's freedom of religion principle to the states in Everson v. Board of Education, which incorporated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and established a precedent that the government cannot assist religion in a way that promotes or establishes it, which includes prohibiting the teaching of Christianity or any specific religion in public schools.
Too many of the founders were not Christian to hae such an exulted view of Christianity and none of them believed that Christianity was the foundation of the Republic. Where did Jesus say he would build a republic on Peter. Jesus started the Vatican. So you believe that the pope is the head of a republic. I seriously doubt you understand American constitutional law.
Perhaps you are not just ignorant and are just stupid. Your response is so ridiculous that it is hard to believe that you are serious. You managed to interpret my statement to mean I believe the pope is the head of a Republic. Amazing. The majority of the founders proclaimed themselves to be members of various sects of Christianity. They often wrote about it. On 9/11/1777 Congress authorized the purchase of 20,000 Bibles to be paid for by the federal government for the important benefit of our nation. In September of 1782, Congress authorized the first American printing of the Bible, an act that was illegal under British control. The state of Pennsylvania paid for the printing. So much for the secular state.
Perhaps, I am both stupid and uneducated, but I've taught law, won cases before the US Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court in addition to publishing more than one hundred articles on law focusing on role of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Thus, it seems more likely that I am qualified in my opinions. People need not agree with me, but that does not make me stupid or uneducated.
Remove "under god" and it is OK. The schools are run by the government. The government cannot order churches or Boy Scout Troops to say it or stop them.
Teachers in public schools cannot compel children to cite the Pledge of Allegiance. The 1943 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette established that the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits public schools from forcing students to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance. The 47 states that require the Pledge of Allegiance allow students to opt-out. I’m OK with this accommodation.
THANK YOU!! This issue is a crisis in schools right now and there are so few voices of reason. After decades of teaching, I'm being ostracized by younger colleagues because I say the pledge with my students (some of whom abstain which is their right I staunchly defend) and refuse to be compelled to sport rainbow stickers and ally statements or "confess" that all white people are inherently racist. Such a false and sickening message to children in a multiracial society. There seems to be nowhere to turn since many conservatives want public schools to fail anyway, and the unions are captured by DEI. I would love to join a centrist movement against this takeover, but everyone is afraid of being labeled and cancelled. Meanwhile innocent children are being caught in the crossfire of these culture wars. This brilliant post should be made into a manifesto (translated into multiple languages!) to be sent to every PTO and school superintendent and read at school board meetings. The majority is being silenced by extremists and we must find our voice. Too many died for our democracy for us to let it die without a fight. Please keep up this good work!
I was student in rural TN in the 70's, quite close to today's Dollywood. There was also a gay campground less than an hour's drive which started up in a hollow near Greenvile in 1978.
We actually had Bible class in public school once a week in 5th and 6th grade and dramatic readings from "The Hiding Place" and other Christian focused writing (annoying me to no end).
At no time were we told homosexuality was "wrong" by educators; students were the origin of any painful issues.
We were clearly educated about the civil war, and its origin in slavery, and the history of the local region in the conflict, down to our county.
By the time I had long gone and finishes college at Caltech, my old.high school had a gay-straight alliance student group, but no other activity. Mostly to provide respite from bullies.
The entire vanity-virtue thing would seem to be counterproductive in such a low-key place.
We had similar childhoods! Me: middle TN in the 1970's. Bible camp at Short Mountain (close to a Radical Faerie commune). And I got no anti-gay messages in Bible camp or Sunday school. But I do recall a story from a Sunday school teacher (the class was all adolescent boys) on resisting the temptation to take a heifer from behind while waiting on the school bus.
Interestint - marching band contest in Cookville and Murfreesboro nearby. I fondly remember escaping honor society "conferences" in Nashville to a nearby adult bookstore...
"Public schools should teach the children of Evangelical Christians to respect LGBTQ+ children just as they respect all people in general, and to understand that our system of government and laws do not and should not favor their Evangelical values over the values of LGBTQ+ children and their families."
What does the above sentence mean in practice? Doesn't the above mean that public schools should teach children that the LGBTQ+ community should be able to get married and raise a family just like Evangelical Christians? Yes, this is the law now, but some still oppose it. Does this mean that public schools should teach children that it is okay for a woman to terminate her pregnancy? Or should public schools just say that laws should not favor any one group's values, without digging into the reality that historically and currently that is not the case? And what should we do when that is not the case?
The next sentence says that public schools should not compel children to become allies. How would you define "ally"? Elsewhere it says: "quit trying to indoctrinate [children] to become activists." Isn't an ally simply someone who believes in equal treatment under the law for all, and protections under the law for those who face oppression and discrimination? Do we teach children to believe this without speaking out about it at home, in school, or in life? Are we saying they should believe the right thing, but keep it to themselves? That they shouldn't advocate for laws to not favor anyone's values for fear that we are turning them into "activists"? How does society evolve if not for people speaking up about unjust laws and practices?
Evangelical students should be taught that LGBTQ+ people have the same marriage and family rights as anyone else. Public schools should explain (at an appropriate grade level) the constitutional history of abortion and current state law, but they shouldn’t take a stand on the issue. Public schools should teach the history of civil rights struggles and emphasize that individuals belonging to all groups deserve equal protection under the law—if this is all that’s meant by “allyship” we shouldn't object—but they shouldn’t compel speech by pushing students to revere flags or wear insignia.
It's not hard to do at all. I've done it for years with extremely diverse student groups. You stick to what's in the Constitution, the law of the land, and for pretty much anything else you say "That's something to discuss with your family."
There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes federal involvement in schooling. We need a complete separation of school and state. Teach your children whatever you want to teach them. Join groups of like-minded people if you desire. Create your private schools if you want. The best is to home-school them with the help of other like-minded people. Government schools were specifically established to incrementally indoctrinate our children generation by generation to become pliable slaves of the God and liberty-hating leftist humanists who want total power over us.
"Government schools" were originally established to instill biblical and religious values in students. Later they were championed by industrialists for their value in developing a compliant, obedient workforce.
Sadly, in today’s world, people don’t know how to mind their own business, so “ham-fisted “ laws such as this are necessary. You can either do things by the book, or you can use common sense. You can’t have both.
Well stated and I might add supported. Yet here’s what I consider a contribution to the whole which may raise the anti when it comes to public education throughout the U.S.
If I may well say so it may be high time that we conveniently move away from the emphasis of the boxed classrooms and the presupposed teacher at the helm of all things worthy of being said. In favor of something more inclusive like circles where everyone exists visually in the circle which would of course include said teacher or group leader etcetera. The once delivered the goods past model is rather antiquated don’t you think? Teaching methodology and an environment of learning should not just be in a box or just a circle. In fact it should actually embrace all things that exist to in the surrounding world environs.
What’s in existence that’s growing by leaps and bounds are Charter Schools andHome Schools who understand the regulatory laws in meeting state standards as it relates to Reading, Mathematics and Science requirements. Religious institutions have done their share of properly educating the masses. However they to could use an upgrade. Concluding, in the wake of AI, if we are not more than careful we may end up with a completely adulterated education model that destroys all of what we have achieved even with their challenges going forward.
When it comes to the notion of a All Inclusive Curriculum in Public Education, that always sounded nice but when you cannot get grownups in room to agree on just what that consist of we end up with exactly what we have now which is chaos
This is a matter which needs a rational discussion. Thank you for starting us in the right direction. I will add something that is basically a footnote. In the 1960's we had poverty pimps who would claim to represent some "oppressed groups." In contrast, by consensus, we had men like MLK and later the SF Gays had Harvey Milk who were bona fide leaders, but there is no MLK or Harvey Milk flag. Why? Because both were promoting inalienable rights and not turning civil rights into a business. The people who push these specialty flags upon us are the current day poverty pimps (PP). PPs are people who falsely claim to represent some group and they want to stick their brand on the entire group. Why? Follow the money! The poverty pimps like BLM and Gay groups often do not represent the values of the people for whom they chose to speak. This is especially true for Gays whose rights are solidly based on inalienable rights, especially Liberty, and not on some ersatz non-inalienable right like equality or equity. see Lawrence vs. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Even people with pure hearts who promote such flags miss the point. In America everyone has freedom of association and self-identification, but in the government area, ascriptive groups do not exist. The prototype for the difference between individual right of association and the government's being free of such groups is the First Amendment with it two religious clauses: (1) non-establishment and (2) non-interference. Non-establishment means the government is secular and no aspect of religion should be in government. The Founding Fathers should have been stricter, and Tommy J should not have said "all men are endowed by their creator", but "all men have the same inalienable rights . . . " But, let's not allow the obsessive pursuit of the perfect interfere with the really good. When it comes to government, there is zero Diversity. We are all the same; legally, we are fungible.
That is why the first motto was "E Pluribus Unum." In government, there is one group, the American People, and it is formed from the many in society. While the government should not have a Pride Flag (I'm Gay), all non-government entities may have Gay, or BLM, or Knights of Columbus flags or what every they wish.
You are ignorant of the topic you are addressing. At the time the Constitution was ratified, most of the states had state religions that were various protestant Christian denominations. Some of their state constitutions demanded that to hold government office, one had to profess Christ. The First Amendment was demanded because they did not want the federal government to favor one Christian sect over the others. They were proficient writers. They almost universally believed Christianity was the foundation of our Republic. The federal government is to have no power to interfere with religion in any way. The Bill of Rights does not restrict the people. It restricts the government. The founders never believed that the federal government was secular. They wanted a very small and un-powerful federal government.
You are, of course, correct about the situation at the time the Constitution was ratified. Still, we must acknowledge that, in 1947, the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment's freedom of religion principle to the states in Everson v. Board of Education, which incorporated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and established a precedent that the government cannot assist religion in a way that promotes or establishes it, which includes prohibiting the teaching of Christianity or any specific religion in public schools.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education
Too many of the founders were not Christian to hae such an exulted view of Christianity and none of them believed that Christianity was the foundation of the Republic. Where did Jesus say he would build a republic on Peter. Jesus started the Vatican. So you believe that the pope is the head of a republic. I seriously doubt you understand American constitutional law.
Perhaps you are not just ignorant and are just stupid. Your response is so ridiculous that it is hard to believe that you are serious. You managed to interpret my statement to mean I believe the pope is the head of a Republic. Amazing. The majority of the founders proclaimed themselves to be members of various sects of Christianity. They often wrote about it. On 9/11/1777 Congress authorized the purchase of 20,000 Bibles to be paid for by the federal government for the important benefit of our nation. In September of 1782, Congress authorized the first American printing of the Bible, an act that was illegal under British control. The state of Pennsylvania paid for the printing. So much for the secular state.
Perhaps, I am both stupid and uneducated, but I've taught law, won cases before the US Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court in addition to publishing more than one hundred articles on law focusing on role of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Thus, it seems more likely that I am qualified in my opinions. People need not agree with me, but that does not make me stupid or uneducated.
Then re-read your response to my posting and explain how you could reply as you did.
Love this! So well said. It's really just a call to TRUE tolerance and pluralism in the schools -- which the Left used to say it wanted. 😉
Balanced viewpoint. How would you view the pledge of allegiance to the American flag being mandated in schools?
Remove "under god" and it is OK. The schools are run by the government. The government cannot order churches or Boy Scout Troops to say it or stop them.
Teachers in public schools cannot compel children to cite the Pledge of Allegiance. The 1943 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette established that the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits public schools from forcing students to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance. The 47 states that require the Pledge of Allegiance allow students to opt-out. I’m OK with this accommodation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette
THANK YOU!! This issue is a crisis in schools right now and there are so few voices of reason. After decades of teaching, I'm being ostracized by younger colleagues because I say the pledge with my students (some of whom abstain which is their right I staunchly defend) and refuse to be compelled to sport rainbow stickers and ally statements or "confess" that all white people are inherently racist. Such a false and sickening message to children in a multiracial society. There seems to be nowhere to turn since many conservatives want public schools to fail anyway, and the unions are captured by DEI. I would love to join a centrist movement against this takeover, but everyone is afraid of being labeled and cancelled. Meanwhile innocent children are being caught in the crossfire of these culture wars. This brilliant post should be made into a manifesto (translated into multiple languages!) to be sent to every PTO and school superintendent and read at school board meetings. The majority is being silenced by extremists and we must find our voice. Too many died for our democracy for us to let it die without a fight. Please keep up this good work!
Bless you and I wish you the best of luck! Hold the line!
So clear, concise, correct. Thank you.
It would cure many ills if you could turn your thoughts into a mind-virus and send it everywhere.
I was student in rural TN in the 70's, quite close to today's Dollywood. There was also a gay campground less than an hour's drive which started up in a hollow near Greenvile in 1978.
We actually had Bible class in public school once a week in 5th and 6th grade and dramatic readings from "The Hiding Place" and other Christian focused writing (annoying me to no end).
At no time were we told homosexuality was "wrong" by educators; students were the origin of any painful issues.
We were clearly educated about the civil war, and its origin in slavery, and the history of the local region in the conflict, down to our county.
By the time I had long gone and finishes college at Caltech, my old.high school had a gay-straight alliance student group, but no other activity. Mostly to provide respite from bullies.
The entire vanity-virtue thing would seem to be counterproductive in such a low-key place.
We had similar childhoods! Me: middle TN in the 1970's. Bible camp at Short Mountain (close to a Radical Faerie commune). And I got no anti-gay messages in Bible camp or Sunday school. But I do recall a story from a Sunday school teacher (the class was all adolescent boys) on resisting the temptation to take a heifer from behind while waiting on the school bus.
Interestint - marching band contest in Cookville and Murfreesboro nearby. I fondly remember escaping honor society "conferences" in Nashville to a nearby adult bookstore...
"Public schools should teach the children of Evangelical Christians to respect LGBTQ+ children just as they respect all people in general, and to understand that our system of government and laws do not and should not favor their Evangelical values over the values of LGBTQ+ children and their families."
What does the above sentence mean in practice? Doesn't the above mean that public schools should teach children that the LGBTQ+ community should be able to get married and raise a family just like Evangelical Christians? Yes, this is the law now, but some still oppose it. Does this mean that public schools should teach children that it is okay for a woman to terminate her pregnancy? Or should public schools just say that laws should not favor any one group's values, without digging into the reality that historically and currently that is not the case? And what should we do when that is not the case?
The next sentence says that public schools should not compel children to become allies. How would you define "ally"? Elsewhere it says: "quit trying to indoctrinate [children] to become activists." Isn't an ally simply someone who believes in equal treatment under the law for all, and protections under the law for those who face oppression and discrimination? Do we teach children to believe this without speaking out about it at home, in school, or in life? Are we saying they should believe the right thing, but keep it to themselves? That they shouldn't advocate for laws to not favor anyone's values for fear that we are turning them into "activists"? How does society evolve if not for people speaking up about unjust laws and practices?
Evangelical students should be taught that LGBTQ+ people have the same marriage and family rights as anyone else. Public schools should explain (at an appropriate grade level) the constitutional history of abortion and current state law, but they shouldn’t take a stand on the issue. Public schools should teach the history of civil rights struggles and emphasize that individuals belonging to all groups deserve equal protection under the law—if this is all that’s meant by “allyship” we shouldn't object—but they shouldn’t compel speech by pushing students to revere flags or wear insignia.
It's not hard to do at all. I've done it for years with extremely diverse student groups. You stick to what's in the Constitution, the law of the land, and for pretty much anything else you say "That's something to discuss with your family."
There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes federal involvement in schooling. We need a complete separation of school and state. Teach your children whatever you want to teach them. Join groups of like-minded people if you desire. Create your private schools if you want. The best is to home-school them with the help of other like-minded people. Government schools were specifically established to incrementally indoctrinate our children generation by generation to become pliable slaves of the God and liberty-hating leftist humanists who want total power over us.
"Government schools" were originally established to instill biblical and religious values in students. Later they were championed by industrialists for their value in developing a compliant, obedient workforce.
I see no evidence for that. The 'father' of government schools, John Dewey, was an atheist and signer of the Humanist Manifesto. The other major promoter was Horace Mann. Another atheist. https://illinoisfamily.org/education/john-deweys-public-schools-replaced-christianity-with-collectivist-humanism/
Sadly, in today’s world, people don’t know how to mind their own business, so “ham-fisted “ laws such as this are necessary. You can either do things by the book, or you can use common sense. You can’t have both.
Well stated and I might add supported. Yet here’s what I consider a contribution to the whole which may raise the anti when it comes to public education throughout the U.S.
If I may well say so it may be high time that we conveniently move away from the emphasis of the boxed classrooms and the presupposed teacher at the helm of all things worthy of being said. In favor of something more inclusive like circles where everyone exists visually in the circle which would of course include said teacher or group leader etcetera. The once delivered the goods past model is rather antiquated don’t you think? Teaching methodology and an environment of learning should not just be in a box or just a circle. In fact it should actually embrace all things that exist to in the surrounding world environs.
What’s in existence that’s growing by leaps and bounds are Charter Schools andHome Schools who understand the regulatory laws in meeting state standards as it relates to Reading, Mathematics and Science requirements. Religious institutions have done their share of properly educating the masses. However they to could use an upgrade. Concluding, in the wake of AI, if we are not more than careful we may end up with a completely adulterated education model that destroys all of what we have achieved even with their challenges going forward.
When it comes to the notion of a All Inclusive Curriculum in Public Education, that always sounded nice but when you cannot get grownups in room to agree on just what that consist of we end up with exactly what we have now which is chaos
You wanna call yourself a professional—you must carry yourself and act professionally.