So, my tax money can't go to legal abortions because of the religious objections of a few. Now my tax dollars are going to religious organizations that I abhor.

---- conservatism, may the conservative justices receive a healthy dose of ---- warts

Why do I think that this will become a problem when tax dollars go to Islamic madaras.

In those districts why should kids lose their tax dollar funding should their parents choose to send them to a Catholic-based school?
SCOTUS got this one right. Apparently Truthhurts thinks the government should fully fund slaughter of the unborn but should deny school choice districts the opportunity to allow high quality religious based schools to be available.

#24 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Because choices should have consequences, you infantile turd. You want to send your child to a regressive disfunction factory called a catholic school that is your choice to harm your child. I should have ZERO of my tax dollars go to religious organizations that I abhor.

Period full stop

You obviously miss my point you ignorant lying piece of ----. My tax money is prevented from going to entities that I support because of the "religious" beliefs of a childish psychotic group of religious whackos. The SC now says that I, an avowed athiest, am not permitted the same right or consideration.

Well, again, ---- conservatives. they are, as a group, the worst of human kind.

Laura Mohr is profoundly ignorant on almost everything she weighs in on.

#25 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Every

Single

Comment

You

Post

is

a

Lie

Truth Hurts Donut

I'm an atheist who abhors anything religious. But this ruling isn't about religion. It is about making schools accessible to those wo don't have access to public schools. I guess Lauramohr would rather that a multi-million dollar school be built in a rural area for a handful os students. Well, Lauramohr, who will pay for this school? The local taxpayers, who are most likely to be agrarians who in no way can come up with the money to build this school, and if forced to to so would go bankrupt. The only alternative is for the farmers' kids to go uneducated. Since an education is guaranteed to all children by law, this obviously isn't an option.

POSTED BY JAKESTER

Yet they have the $ to build a religious school.

Does your brain hurt from the stupidity?

hahaha

billjohnson, by his own admission, does not represent "gay" people

Or so it seems to me

Citizens can go to public school board meetings to voice their opinions. They can vote on their district's annual budget as well as school board members. The same cannot be said for private religious schools. They can get tax payer money without any accompanying accountability. Bottom line: No taxation without representation.

#35 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

When you can rape children like the catholic church did/does without consequence, representation, as you describe, is small potatoes

Yet they have the $ to build a religious school.
Does your brain hurt from the stupidity?"
Religious schools are built with private funds. Public schools aren't.
Does your brain hurt from the stupidituy?

POSTED BY JAKESTER

You're the moron arguing that they don't have money to build schools, or did you forget?

stupidituy? Gee, you're dumb!

#44 - sorry, I don't do ad hominem. I'm here for informed debate. If "you're dumb" is all you have, I think a reassessment on what dumb is is necessary on your part.
#45 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

Maybe you could explain how rural/agrarian communities don't have money to build public schools, but you advocate that religious schools take their place. Wouldn't those religious schools need to have buildings to educate the kids?

It's YOUR argument, I'm just trying to understand it.

Isn't it an irony that someone who implies they know what's best for education can't come up with anything more intellectual than "You're dumb"? I find that really funny.

#46 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

Given the logic of your arguments, you were probably educated in a religious school.

truth hurts

psychosis

a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.

ignore for a moment the concept that psychosis is a "severe mental disorder" as that is an applied definition of a condition.

"contact is lost with external reality"

Religion is, by definition, losing contact with external reality.

Religion can be defined 3 things-god, god's imposition of morality and a human's relationship to the former 2

Yet, the ONLY evidence of god is our existence. And THAT requires a hierarchy of power (i.e. god, humans, everything else), of which there is zero evidence.

I have bad news for you. There is no objective, universal morality. None, nada, zilch. Meaning an objective morality separate from the individual There are impulses that are the result of interior instincts-generally the instinct for self preservation and procreation.

Religion plays on these instincts to fool people into community, but religions are playing on ignorance and fear.

Our founding fathers were wise to separate church and state, because the state can easily use religion to enact injustice (and vice versa).

Religion should be a personal thing. With that I have zero problem as human's need things to get through life-comfort, support, value. Let people get these things from religions.

AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT IMPOSED ON OTHERS. Period full stop.

Because, here is a hard fact for you. There are many people to whom religion is a great "evil". And these people have rights. They have the inherent, inalienable right to not be subjected to the imposition of "evil" upon them.

So, TLDR, ---- off with your religion you psychotic nutbags

The problem with the atheists zealots is they refuse to accommodate any exposure to religious beliefs.
Religious beliefs are only permitted to e shared at home, in churches or whispering in corners to them
That's just unAmerican.

#246 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Jesus ------- christ, do you realize how prevalent religion is in our society? I can't handle money without seeing In God we Trust, I can't listen to the pledge of allegiance (which you hear at every public meeting) without hearing UNDER GOD, I can't listen to a political speak without hearing references to faith and god-even the 1/6 hearing yesterday I was subjected to the Az governor touting how he believes the Constitution was ordained by god and his faith guided his decision making progress. I am subjected to religionists arguments over abortion, the SC is making what is supposed to be objective decisions based on religious beliefs. I can't turn on the tv without hearing arguments about a war on christmas, all the time I hear celebrities and athletes thanking god for this that or the other thing, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a church in this country, all but 1 (I believe) politician is a theist

You have zero concept of how intrusive and wide spread religion is in our society.

When they reach an age where it's appropriate, of course.
Introducing these things to first graders is wrong and it's why the groomer label gets tossed around.

#255 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I could argue that indoctrinating children into religion also does harm and introducing it to first graders is, likewise wrong.

----- or dicks, or something in between

The taint?

This ruling applies to school choice. Why should parents who choose to send their child to a Catholic High School that has the highest college admission rate in the district be denied funds but if they send their child to a nearby public school it's free?
#268 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Simple, because Americans should not have to fund religious institutions with public money. It really is that simple.

Then why in the heck was there a massive freak out on the left when Florida signed into law a prohibition of introducing these issues in K-3?
You've hitched your cart to the wrong horse, son.

#270 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You lying POS, you KNOW the reason. The law goes WAY beyond preventing what you say it prevents. Period Full Stop.

But you know this, it has been explained to you ad nauseum, thus making you, wait for it, a lying piece of ----.

#272. Yes, they did. The put "age appropriate" after third grade. It's certainly subjective but it's a concept that has been around for centuries. An overwhelming majority would agree that Penthouse magazine has no place in an elementary school library.

#275 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER A

christ you are a ------- lying piece of ----.

Here is the ACTUAL law:

#269 School "choice". Unless that choice offends Truthhurts and then it's eff you?

#273 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Don't like it? then revoke the 1st amendment you lying hack

#284. It's not a first amendment issue, you miserable sack.

#288 | POSTED BY BELLRINGE

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Gee, you're dumb.

How is FORCING taxpayers to fund religious schools NOT respecting an establishment of religion?

BTW choice does not mean free, choice means you get to choose between 2 options-each option having pros and cons.

You lying hack piece of ----

#287. That it doesn't occur solidifies my point.
Truthhurts is beside himself with anger that in Florida parents have recourse of it were to occur.

#289 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Is the lying piece of ---- aware that Florida passed a law last year allowing parents to remove their child from any class that they disagreed on the curriculum?

So, why pass the law other than to humiliate and harm LGBTQ people?

And can you explain how it is logical or legal to prohibit a public school from teaching about a legally allowed institution like same-sex marriage?

#283. I'm reading it the same as you are.
Is the concept of age appropriateness completely foreign to you?
Movie theaters won't let a 16 year old watch an R rated movie unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. Are you enraged about that too?

#292 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You do realize that you are changing your argument, right? Before you were arguing that age appropriate applied to K-3. Now it is 16 year olds.

you dumb ----

The lying piece of ---- disingenuous hack refuses to acknowledge that individual parents can now dictate what is taught in schools

#294. You are a very dumb man. " You are in more dire need of a ------- than any white man in history"
Seriously. Go find a hooker. No adult male should be as miserable as you are.

#297 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

The level of lying and cognitive dissonance you vomit on a daily basis reveals you to be a sociopath of the highest order.

Seriously check yourself into a mental health hospital, for the good of society

#296. Again. The concept of age appropriateness is lost on you. Further, I kinda thought school was about teaching things like reading, writing and math.
You're pissed that one state put a couple of roadblocks on public schools being left wing indoctrination factories.

#299 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

so, in other words, you cannot justify or explain how a public school can legally or logically be prohibited from teaching about a legal public institution like same-sex marriage.

Because the law does that you know. At a minimum, no K-3 grade teacher can discuss same-sex marriage, but they CAN discuss heterosexual marriage.

#298. Please provide a PO Box so I can send you a carton of tissue. You need a good cry.

#301 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Disingenuous, lying, non-sequitur spewing, piece of ---- hack says what?

"signed into law a prohibition of introducing these issues in K-3"
They signed a lot more than that. As was explained to you repeatedly.

#272 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

#272. Yes, they did. The put "age appropriate" after third grade. It's certainly subjective but it's a concept that has been around for centuries. An overwhelming majority would agree that Penthouse magazine has no place in an elementary school library.

#275 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

#283. I'm reading it the same as you are.
Is the concept of age appropriateness completely foreign to you?
Movie theaters won't let a 16 year old watch an R rated movie unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. Are you enraged about that too?

#292 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

" You do realize that you are changing your argument, right?"
I did no such thing. You are just so blinded by hatred and rage that your reading comprehension vanishes when you see: Posted by Bellringer.

#303 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

so, age appropriateness is about MORE than K-3
IOW you change your argument, you lying piece of ----.

Ballsucker, can you explain why a public school teacher in Florida is prohibited from teaching about a legal institution?

#308. They are not prohibited from that. Quit erecting a straw man.

#311 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Here is the language from the law:
"3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards"

Explain how a teacher can teach/discuss/instruct about same-sex marriage without touching on sexual orientation?

You dumb ----

And I do want to point out that it is a fairly common (and appropriate) method to teach family trees in K-3. Kids learn about different cultures, varying family dynamics, varying family structures which promotes healthy empathy.

#310. I thought you had me killfiled. Truthhurts is a d-bag but he isn't a coward who is scared of opposing viewpoints, like yourself.

#313 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

He can see me copying and pasting your posts you dumb lying ----

#312. I'm struggling to come up with a scenario where a teacher would feel compelled to broach the issue in K-3 when the curriculum is focused on the basics like arithmetic, reading and writing, basic science and basic history.
1st grade teacher: Tomorrow I need to instruct my class on butt sex between two men.
That is absurd yet you seem to want it to happen.

#317 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Do you know/understand the value of teaching family trees to young children?

basic science and basic history

You do understand that something like a family tree introduces the concepts of genealogy (science) and history in a manner that children can easily understand and relate to, right?

" 1st grade teacher: Tomorrow I need to instruct my class on butt sex between two men."
The only person making that suggestion, ever, is YOU.
I thought you'd be more circumspect after your groomer debacle.

#320 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

He does spend alot time thinking about adults talking to young children about that sort of thing. One could call that a tell

#319. Yes. It was never the focus of anything g when I was in school. Certainly not K-3.
{{SNIP}}

#324 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Perhaps that explains your lack of empathy, you lying piece of ---- hack

In fact, i would argue that teaching young children the different family dynamics is critical. Obviously hate filled parents are not teaching their children properly about the existence of LGBTQ people. It seems to me that the appropriate fallback for that is to assure that children are taught that in school-that their friend and classmate who is the child of two gay men or is expressing gender non-conforming behavior is not the spawn of the devil or sin. But that may be the dreamer in me

Yet that's what the law prevents, among other things, and y'all are beside yourselves with anger over codifying "age appropriateness ".

#327 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

yet, those "other things" are sort of the point you lying piece of ---- hack

Moder8 is a coward. Truthhurts has a different problem - he simply cannot abide anyone disagreeing with him.

#330 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Wrong again, liar. I only point out that you, in particular, are a lying piece of ----. IOW it is not the disagreement I take umbrage with, but your constant lying.

And you being a piece of ----.

Child:
"whats a vagina?"
#333 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

You have an issue with teaching children about biology?

#329. What you are seeking is to impose your own personal values onto other people's children via government. That is not a "good guy" position.

#335 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Leaving aside the objective truth that LGBTQ people are both normal and subject to harassment/harm (you know personal values), you have yet to explain how the government can prohibit a teacher from teaching about a legal and government sanctioned institution.

#329. What you are seeking is to impose your own personal values onto other people's children via government. That is not a "good guy" position.

#335 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

BTW, that is done ALL the time

In kindergarten? Yes, moron.

#338 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

You don't think kindergarten teachers deal, on a daily basis, with questions regarding penises and vaginas?
WOW

They shouldn't. And they shouldn't be talking about sexuality either. The whole point.

#343 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Here in the real world, kindergarteners regularly ask questions, express curiosity about "sexuality". Teachers instruct them in an age-appropriate manner.

Here in the real world same-sex and trans people exist and operate in legally sanctioned manners (i.e. same sex marriage). You advocate that teachers not be permitted to operate in the real world and prohibit them from teaching legally sanctioned things like same-sex marriage.

NO ONE is advocating talking to young children about butt sex-that only exists in Jeffj's fevered imagination.

#329. In Florida that can start as early as 4th grade. Age sensitive material goes through a review process with PTA input and normally involves a permission slip from parents in order for their child to be a participant.
Do you honestly have a problem with that, Truthurts?

#346 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I advocate that public schools teach children to be good people and citizens. that includes teaching them age-appropriate lessons in family dynamics and teaching them about legally sanctioned things like same-sex marriage. As an aside, since same-sex marriage is a right confirmed by the Supreme Court, I don't know how the don't say gay law can be constitutional.

Of course, the Fl law doesn't limit that to 4th grade or late, you lying hack

Keep in mind, liar, that now the parents can CHOOSE to take their children out of public schools and put them in tax payer funded religious schools where they can learn their bigotry to the parent's hearts' content.

#347. It's why lefties are beside themselves over the " don't say gay" law.

#348 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Your assertion is that "lefties" are upset over the don't say gay bill is because they want teachers of young children to instruct kids in butt sex.

You really have gone off the deep end you lying piece of ----.

And you wonder why I consider you a piece of ----.

" I advocate that public schools teach children to be good people and citizens. that includes teaching them age-appropriate lessons in family dynamics and teaching them about legally sanctioned things like same-sex marriage. As an aside, since same-sex marriage is a right confirmed by the Supreme Court, I don't know how the don't say gay law can be constitutional."
Age appropriate. You actually grasp the concept. So what in the hell are we arguing about?

#352 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Even YOU admitted that the law does more than that.

" The only person making that suggestion, ever, is YOU"
Yet that's what the law prevents, among other things, and y'all are beside yourselves with anger over codifying "age appropriateness ".

#327 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Again, gee, you're dumb

Now you are the one contradicting yourself. You finally not only acknowledged the concept of age appropriate material in school but support the notion but have lost your feces over a law that codifies it.

#355 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

AAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDD we come full circle.

The law does more than that. And, oh btw, noone was teaching the kids in an non-age appropriate manner

#357 unless you discount books targeted to young teens that explicitly talk about butt sex and has graphic drawings of --------.

#362 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Young teens shouldnt be taught about sexuality?

"And can you explain how it is logical or legal to prohibit a public school from teaching about a legally allowed institution like same-sex marriage?"
You're half conceding his point by limiting the discussion to marriage.

#364 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE

Not really, I am targeting a specific example.

Jeff is just sad he doesn't get to participate in butt sex

Given the age demographic that jeffj is so worried about, same sex marriage is more likely to come u p

Catholic high schools tout their college prep prowess.

#395 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Since they are concurrently indoctrinating them in religion, I would argue that is a net evil.

This is a difficult concept for liberals but most parents actually care about the wellbeing of their children and seek to put them into an environment where they can thrive.

#402 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

A significant number of parents raise sociopaths and society needs to train them to protect us from them.

This is a difficult concept for liberals but most parents actually care about the wellbeing of their children and seek to put them into an environment where they can thrive.

#402 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

BTW no one is preventing parents from putting their children in the religious indoctrination factories if they so choose. What is objectionable is using tax payer money for that purpose, because, you know, the whole alleged separation of church and state thing.

Since taxpayer money is going to the religious institutions, should not the public now have the right/responsibility/authority to dictate how that money is spent?

You know, as in, don't teach kids nonsense!