Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Doesn’t this open the way for a parent to sue the school over Christian symbolism? A parent could should take that school to court over a Christmas tree.
yes and you know it doesn't work that way
In Massachusetts it might.
It's Heads-I-Win and Tails-You-Lose in the Trump-stacked court system.
You're looking at the judiciary as some kind of impartial machine, but you need to see it as a Vegas Casino, where you can maybe win a hand or two here or there but the game is stacked against you by design.
There is no world in which a conservative court bans Christmas Trees or Crosses or any other Christian iconography, because these courts are run by evangelical Christians for the benefit of evangelical Christians. You might as well ask a Chinese court to remove images of Mao from the classroom or an Iranian court to outlaw the Koran.
I mean yes but also You're out of touch if you think the judges value internal consistency like that.
Amazing they enroll someone in school to not learn things. Devout ignorance.
well they identify as christians, and devout ignorance is literally what they subscribe to so it checks out
Also worshipping a callous, narsiscistic bully lest they torture you for eternity, so it is really weird when people say someone like Trump is unchristian. He's actually godlike as he appears in the book, no wonder so many fall in line.
Kid is going to have a rude awakening when he runs a web query on his dad and everything that comes up has “gay” in the title.
Dad vs Reality lawsuit incoming.
As a Christian, I object to books featuring rich people, people who don't help poor people, people who don't heal the sick, and people who are mean to foreigners. Unless the perpetrators of those unChristian acts get their comeuppance, of course. Can I now demand from schools that my kid doesn't get exposed to those kinds of books?
Ban books that show people wearing clothes with mixed fabrics! Its against mah religion!
Why do fundamentalist Christians choose homosexuality specifically as their hill to die on?
Leviticus 19:19
“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.”
Deuteronomy 22:11
“You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together.”
Why do fundamentalist Christians choose homosexuality specifically as their hill to die on?
It's an easy out-group to identify and target.
That's very interesting. So much of culture often comes back to biology or geography. It's funny how an evolutionary advantageous biological instinct of forming an in-group vs out-group to manage resource scarcity eventually led to fundamentalist Christians hating gays.
This guy is probably one of two types: a) He's a culture warrior who gets a little thrill if he makes life a bit harder for the gays because he was told they are the enemy or b) he needs to uphold his current cultural zeitgeist because if people are allowed to do the things that make them happy then what's stopping him from banging his hot neighbor Greg and if he can do that he's wasted his life married to a person he's not actually attracted to and it was all a lie. So he goes super hard on being anti-gay to stop those intrusive thoughts. Stay occupied. Don't think about it. Hate hate hate.
As the Boston Herald reported, the father, identified in court documents as Alan L., is described as a “devout Christian” who objects to the inclusion of certain children’s books featuring LGBTQ+ characters in the kindergarten curriculum of Joseph Estabrook Elementary School, where his son, identified as J.L., is enrolled.
is never exposed to books featuring LGBTQ+ characters
Bad news on that Bible, buddy
Nothing inspires curiosity more than making something forbidden.
That kid is gonna find out ALL KINDS of information that his dad doesn’t want him to know about from his peers. Some of it good, most of it inaccurate, but you go ahead, dad.
Dad is setting his son up for not talking to him when he's an adult.
We should all be so proud of Dad already preparing a life of dying alone. Bless.
The case isn't finished yet, I see, so maybe sanity can yet prevail. So far it's just a preliminary injunction.
“The question presented here is not whether the viewpoints of plaintiff, or those of the school officials, are ‘correct’ as a matter of religious faith or political or social belief. Nor is it whether the materials should be part of the kindergarten curriculum for other students,” Saylor, a George W. Bush appointee, explained. “Instead, this case presents a narrow question: whether these specific defendants have provided the required notice and opportunity to review materials that this specific plaintiff may find objectionable, so that he may opt his child out of classroom instruction that violates his religious beliefs.”
In granting Alan L.’s request for a preliminary injunction, which will remain in place while the case proceeds, Saylor ordered the school and district to “make reasonable efforts to ensure that J.L. is not taught or otherwise exposed to the content of the Identified Books, whether in the classroom or any other school setting” and to ensure J.L. receives “reasonable age-appropriate alternative instruction.”
Lawyers for Lexington Public Schools, however, said the district looks forward to “aggressively defending against these claims.” In a statement, attorneys Douglas I. Louison and Alexandra M. Gill noted the district’s existing religious-based opt-out program and that the Supreme Court’s Mahmoud decision “made it clear that depicting the mere existence of potentially-offensive values or lifestyles is not enough to warrant an opt-out, and that it is the messaging associated with those potentially-offensive materials that determines whether an opt-out is warranted.”
“In this case, the materials are not associated with any LGBTQ+-focused curriculum or paired instruction, nor was the student even exposed to the two books at issue,” Louison and Gill added, according to the Herald.
Louison and Gill also noted the burden opt-out demands like Alan L.’s place on schools.
“This is not like a student with a peanut allergy, where the implementation of an accommodation to protect the student is reasonably clear,” they wrote. “Schools are burdened enough without having to scour the pages of a storybook for potentially gay-appearing characters. At what point, for instance, is a character’s haircut too short to presume they are a woman? Are two men sitting together at a restaurant presumed to be gay, or might they just be friends? There are innumerable scenarios like these, and schools are now being forced to make near-impossible judgments.”
I remember sanity. That was like in 2010 when there was talk about Universal Healthcare.
Oh my I dropped my dentures.
If there's a gilod, this guy's kid will be gay, and not shy about it.
As jesus preached "Don't be a bag of dicks!", and it's never stopped one one of these bigoted fuckers from cherry picking the message of their god. May his sons loafers be so light he floats.
$20 says this fuck rubs it to gay porn.
You honestly think its more likely that he's gay than just the standard kind of homophobic christian??
He'll find out when his dad is the bad guy in the documentary.
That dude is probably on Grindr
To think, if we'd had this kind of majority 20 years ago, we could have removed the entire study of evolution from high school criteria.
If he cares that much about giving his kid a warped view of reality, he should be homeschooling.
Morons just won the Morons vs Reality case
I really hope that kid comes out as LGBTQ in the future. I can just imagine them as Columbia at a Rocky Horror shadowcast midnight screening. Seriously!
This seems a lot like "schools have to participate in santa claus kayfabe" and it seems stupid and unworkable.
What if your belief is that sun orbits the earth? That germ theory isn't real?
The supreme court should be in jail for making a ruling this stupid.
Edit: On the funnier side this suggests schools cannot legally mention marriage and it would be perfectly fine for them to ban things like wedding bands to prevent children from learning about sexuality. Malicious compliance needs to be done here.