NBC News: Inside the Anti-LGBT Effort To Put Christianity Back In Public Schools

[Carolyn Marie]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/christianity-evangelical-schools-anti-lgbtq-grapevine-podcast-rcna118114

 

 

Yes, our community has become the lynch pin in conservative efforts to advance their anti-LGBT agenda.  They don't hide it.  They wish to make America an authoritarian Christian dominion.  With our current SCOTUS make up, it's anyone's guess how far this will go.

 

Carolyn Marie

 

[Vidanjali]

"...put God and prayer back in schools..."

 

Don't they realize there is nowhere God is not? If the God in whose name they claim to do battle can truly be ousted or banished or require defense, then that God is not really God. Anywhere students are treated with kindness and compassion, there is prayer in school - prayer in action. 

[VickySGV]

It seems that their god is not a creative spirit for all the world. Their god is only in the limits of their own minds which are terrified of their own existence and their neighbors who are different.  😭😭😭

[Ivy]

"They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." (John 16:2 KJV)

 

This is supposed to be referring to Christian persecution.  But when I hear what these people are saying…   I have to wonder.

Some people seem to think that "eradicating" us is "doing God service."

 

I realize that many of my trans siblings have no problem with their own christianity.  And that's okay.  But for me personally, for years evangelical christianity kept me from having the freedom to even consider the possibility that being transgender was a thing, and it might even be me.

 

These people complain about "indoctrination", but that is exactly what they feel entitled to do themselves.

 

 

[Lelouch vi Ushiromiya]

On 10/5/2023 at 1:07 PM, Ivy said:

These people complain about "indoctrination", but that is exactly what they feel entitled to do themselves.

 

 

This part right here is so very absolutely correct. I notice a lot of these so called "Christians" like to complain about us supposedly "indoctrinating" them or their kids just by us simply existing and being out there living our life. They're a bunch of bloody hypocrites! 

 

This is why we have such unprecedented censoring/banning of any book they deem is "pornography" or whatever nonsense that has gotten in their heads. It's a bloody cult with how these radicals act and it's disgusting how they justify hating LGBT+ people and other minorities or anyone who believe differently as a "service to the Lord" or the oldy but goody(sarcasm) "hate the sin not the sinner." 

 

At the end of the day, they're hypocrites. I don't put any salt into anything they say...I am so over organized religion because these people have used Christianity to discriminate in the "name of God." I'm over it...I'm tired of the hypocrisy...I feel bad for the kids growing up in today's school system having their education censored all for so called "parent's rights" and other similar dog whistles.

 

[awkward-yet-sweet]

I'm fine with prayer in schools, and some generic "cultural" Christianity.  That conforms to the nature of things during the founding of our country.  It is consistent with the principles on which the nation was based, and generally good for kids.  "Don't steal, don't hurt each other, don't lie, respect your elders, God cares about you, you're one big family."  Most kids aren't learning specific doctrine beyond this even in many faith-based schools. 

 

However, what I'm not fine with is implementing a very *specific* form of Christianity.  (The right wing seems particularly enamored of a form of the Evangelical movement.)  Since Christianity comes in different forms which vary widely in how they accept people's sexualities and genders, I don't think the using it as a tool for discrimination is consistent with the Founders' intent. 

 

The whole reason for freedom of religion in our First Amendment wasn't to have no faith in public, or even all faiths in public.  It was specifically intended to avoid the Christian religious persecutions that happened in Europe, from which many of the people living in the Colonies had recently fled.  It was intended to prevent the establishment of a State church like the Church of England.  They were mostly concerned about Protestant vs. Catholic, Lutheran vs. Baptist, Anglican vs. Methodist.  Endorsing a specific interpretation of Christianity demonstrably goes against the history of our nation's founding. 

[Lelouch vi Ushiromiya]

On 10/14/2023 at 9:14 PM, awkward-yet-sweet said:

The whole reason for freedom of religion in our First Amendment wasn't to have no faith in public, or even all faiths in public.  It was specifically intended to avoid the Christian religious persecutions that happened in Europe, from which many of the people living in the Colonies had recently fled.  It was intended to prevent the establishment of a State church like the Church of England.  They were mostly concerned about Protestant vs. Catholic, Lutheran vs. Baptist, Anglican vs. Methodist.  Endorsing a specific interpretation of Christianity demonstrably goes against the history of our nation's founding. 

Honestly just this. this is so good. 

[Ivy]

It is a mistake to hold New England up as a paragon of religious liberty.

 

For example take the founding of Rhode Island.

"Rhode Island was founded by Roger Williams in 1636, who had been banished from the Massachusetts colony for his advocacy of religious tolerance and the separation of church and state."

(https://www.history.com/topics/us-states/rhode-island)

 

I will also mention the treatment of supposed "witches" as well.

 

Question; does religious freedom only apply to Christian sects?

 

I find the concept of "Christian Nationalism" frightening.  It puts me in mind of Margret Atwood's Gilead.

[MaeBe]

Can anyone not see that the intention of all of this is to consolidate power? Theocratic power requires control of all aspect of life to ensure its maintenance. The "follower" willfully subjects themselves because they are fooled into believing in their righteousness. However, there will be a day when the jaguar eats their face off. They will be bewildered. Their short-sightedness counted on and their demise celebrated by the jaguars the follower took to be godly.

 

Some of them will think, as the teeth sink in, that this is god's plan...as god looks on and shakes their head crying.

[emeraldmountain]

55 minutes ago, Ivy said:

It is a mistake to hold New England up as a paragon of religious liberty.

Perhaps true way back then, but now to find religious liberty (and freedom from religion) in the US (and especially trans liberty and liberation), New England is absolutely the place to be.

 

55 minutes ago, Ivy said:

I find the concept of "Christian Nationalism" frightening.  It puts me in mind of Margret Atwood's Gilead.

Absolutely, positively, 100%, without a doubt frightening, bone-chilling, nauseating, and utterly dangerous. Like it or not, we are pluralistic society with all of the religions under the sun!

 

No, I do not think prayer in school is okay. Whose prayer? What religion? People should keep their religion to themselves and mind their own business.

 

As for the founding fathers, how much weight can you really give to the opinions of men who lived centuries ago? I am forever grateful to those men who founded our nation and am a patriot descendant, but I will not let the inferred mindset of 1700's men negatively affect my life and my liberty from the state asserting a religious agenda over me. After all, what do you think the founding fathers would have thought about transgender people?

[Ivy]

30 minutes ago, emeraldmountain said:

After all, what do you think the founding fathers would have thought about transgender people?

I suppose we're about to find out since trans rights are not specifically enumerated in the constitution.

I actually think they most likely would have shook their heads, and gone on with their lives.

[emeraldmountain]

7 minutes ago, Ivy said:

I suppose we're about to find out since trans rights are not specifically enumerated in the constitution.

I actually think they most likely would have shook their heads, and gone on with their lives.

We'll find out what the Supreme Court thinks the founding fathers thought, not what they thought. Given the current ideological imbalance on the Court, I'm not holding my breath for a favorable decision.

[emeraldmountain]

1 minute ago, emeraldmountain said:

Given the current ideological imbalance on the Court, I'm not holding my breath for a favorable decision.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of trans rights, so perhaps not all hope is lost.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

6 hours ago, MaeBe said:

Can anyone not see that the intention of all of this is to consolidate power?

 

Power is pretty much the one and only aim of government.  So, the right is consolidating power?  The left is too.  Unfortunately, I think most people assume that to oppose one you have to join the other.  Its what keeps both big parties going. 

 

 

6 hours ago, emeraldmountain said:

As for the founding fathers, how much weight can you really give to the opinions of men who lived centuries ago? I am forever grateful to those men who founded our nation and am a patriot descendant, but I will not let the inferred mindset of 1700's men negatively affect my life and my liberty from the state asserting a religious agenda over me. After all, what do you think the founding fathers would have thought about transgender people?

 

I give A LOT of weight to the opinions of those 1700s men.  They were wise, well-read, forward-thinking, and set us up with what could have been a really great Republic.  Benjamin Franklin warned us that keeping it would be the big challenge - and he was correct.  Now we don't have a Republic, we have a massive oligarchy/gerontocracy/kleptocracy that those 1700s men never would have approved of.  Just look at the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence....many of the taxes and problems they complained about are small potatoes compared to what we deal with today.  Regarding the British system and their King, it says:

 

"He has erected a multitude of new Offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."

 

I can't think of a more fitting description of the modern Federal government.  Tax and spend and regulate until the last vestige of liberty is choked to death.  What would the Founders have thought of transgender people?  Some might have taken the view that we're not what God intended.  But I suspect that many would have said that who we are and what we do is our own business.  They certainly wouldn't have tried to use the power of the Federal government as a bludgeon against individuals.  Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats bear much resemblance to the views of the Founders in that regard. 

 

[Ivy]

7 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

I give A LOT of weight to the opinions of those 1700s men.  They were wise, well-read, forward-thinking, and set us up with what could have been a really great Republic. 

The founders did an excellent job with what they had to work with at the time.  But even they realized things would change as the country grew and technology changed.  That's why they allowed for amendments to be added when necessary.  

 

To them "freedom" included the freedom to own slaves.  Most Americans feel differently about that now.  And considering guns - I do own a couple - but there is a world of difference between a Brown Bess musket and a M 16 (and it's variations) with full auto - high capacity mags.  Mass shootings with the musket were probably somewhat rare.

 

Politicians have always wanted to increase their personal power, both on the left and the right.  Our three branches of government were an attempt to control this with varying levels of success.  Unfortunately, with the rise of computer fueled gerrymandering, the politicians can now pick their voters rather than the other way around.

 

I could go on, but this is probably too big a subject for this thread, and not a transgender issue in itself.

[MaeBe]

8 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

Power is pretty much the one and only aim of government.  So, the right is consolidating power?  The left is too.  Unfortunately, I think most people assume that to oppose one you have to join the other.  Its what keeps both big parties going. 

I did not reference the right, the topic was regarding Christian theocrats. Most of those in the news today are portrayed as being on the right, but my post was not partisan.

 

The Christian theocrats state they are losing power, or have ultimately lost it, and use that as a rallying cry to the (mostly white) disenfranchised, racist, and bigoted to bolster their ranks. They paint themselves as victims and their push to control aspects of public life as the rebuilding of their God-given right to a theocratic America, but they make bedfellows of people that are antithetical to Christian ideals.

 

They start at the school level, because if you control the way children think you own the future. Banning books, purging curriculum of "disagreeable" topics, pushing for focused networks of content, casting aspersions that existing content networks are riddled with bias (or worst, 'controlled by the deep state'), etc. are all tactics to program Americans to think a certain way--or at least to sedate them into not challenging their agenda. No part of their information strategy is to teach critical thinking, acknowledging diversity, or debate. It's a pretty obvious strategy. It's worked in organized religion throughout history, they're just expanding it outside of their churches into broader public life.

[emeraldmountain]

9 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

Benjamin Franklin warned us that keeping it would be the big challenge - and he was correct. 

I can see maybe, just maybe, Franklin being okay with trans people, considering his openness, curiosity, and intellect.

 

@IvyGood points, Ivy!

 

@MaeBeExcellent and spot on!

[MaeBe]

This is an interview of a married couple raised within the homeschooling who have deprogrammed and have very frank statements about Christian theocratic indoctrination that they experienced. At 26:39 you hear the husband state, "critical thinking skills had quite deliberately been robbed from me", going to my previous post. The interview is related to this conversation, though the interview is regarding homeschooling, because you see the ideology of the people peddling "bringing God back into schools" aired in what this couple experienced.

 

 

[awkward-yet-sweet]

10 hours ago, MaeBe said:

They start at the school level, because if you control the way children think you own the future. Banning books, purging curriculum of "disagreeable" topics, pushing for focused networks of content, casting aspersions that existing content networks are riddled with bias (or worst, 'controlled by the deep state'), etc. are all tactics to program Americans to think a certain way--or at least to sedate them into not challenging their agenda. No part of their information strategy is to teach critical thinking, acknowledging diversity, or debate. It's a pretty obvious strategy. It's worked in organized religion throughout history, they're just expanding it outside of their churches into broader public life.

 

Well, there's a lot to unpack in this one.  😏  And while you may not have mentioned the Left-Right paradigm, it is definitely part and parcel of the issue here. 

 

I believe that one of the reasons the Theocracy advocates have experienced so much success is that there is an undercurrent of truth to what they're saying.  I believe existing networks ARE riddled with bias and controlled by the deep state.  The power structure has been very good at programming Americans to think a certain way - a left-leaning way, generally, I've noticed.  I went to public school all the way from kindergarten to my senior year, and I can say for sure I was NEVER taught or encouraged to think critically.  There was no diversity or debate...just information handed down from on high - sterile, agnostic, unquestioning, and generically pro-establishment.  I had no idea how to evaluate any political issues until I met my GF in my 20's and started getting exposed to other views.  I barely understood the 3 branches of government or the reasons for the founding of our Republic.  I was a very unqualified voter, that's for sure.  

 

My issue with the Theocracy advocates is how they react to the true issues they bring up.  They react to a leftward slant by wanting to impose a rightward slant.  They react to a lack of critical thinking and information by imposing a different sort of deprivation.  They quote the Founding Fathers, but only partially, without noticing the interplay of ideas.  The Great Awakening and the Protestant revivals of the 18th century happened at the same time as the Age of Enlightenment - one wouldn't have happened without the other. 

 

Unfortunately, one result is that folks who adhere to the general "Left" look at the behavior of the Theocracy advocates and make assumptions about the rest of us.  The homeschooling video is one example - I hope people on this forum don't assume that experience is the norm.  Yes, there's people out there who have experienced something like that, and I probably know one or two families in my own community like that.  But for every negative example, there's families like mine.  We send our kids to a homeschool group run by parents from several households.  One of the big reasons is so they can learn critical thinking before finishing their education in a public high school.  My husband volunteers and evening or two each week teaching politics, military history, and strategy to our county's cadets.  That's partly where I've learned some of my views, as the presentations are open to the community in general.  It amazes me to see young people reading, investigating, and discussing various perspectives - analyzing history rather than memorizing it.  My husband plays "devil's advocate" a lot of the time, challenging each student to defend their beliefs. 

 

To me, the Left-Right paradigm is like a set of chains that binds many aspects of life in the USA.  The opposite of blue is not necessarily red.  A vote against fascism doesn't have to be a vote for socialism.  Christianity is not necessarily the enemy of LGBTQ+ people.  The Founders mostly opposed the ideas of political parties - they recognized that there are multiple perspectives and not everything is a set of opposites.  Of course, they failed almost immediately and political parties showed up within their lifetimes...I wonder if perhaps there's something in human nature that craves the conflict that opposites create?  

 

 

[Birdie]

I tend to ignore American media to the best of my ability. The bias is too dramatic. 

 

I 'live stream' Israeli news on Youtube. I have noticed however that sometimes the live stream gets broken and Youtube will send me straight to an NBC broadcast calling Israel just short of a warmonger. Always the same one, and condemning Israel for not accepting a ceasefire. 

 

I know there are some that align with Pink Floyd's Rodger Waters believing that the entire thing is Israeli lies and propaganda, but I have family there attending several funerals every week of friends that perished in both the slaughter and the fighting.

 

Youtube I believe cuts my live stream on purpose to reeducate me into a view more inline with theirs. 

 

One way or another, the USA is just way too polarized. 

[Davie]

People and large institutions CAN change: 
On Wednesday, the Pope and the Vatican made public a sharply contrasting statement, saying it’s permissible, under certain circumstances, for trans Catholics to be baptized and serve as godparents.

“It is a major step for trans inclusion … it is big and good news,” said Francis DeBernardo, executive director of Maryland-based New Ways Ministry, which advocates for greater LGBTQ acceptance in the church.

https://apnews.com/article/vatican-transgender-catholic-baptism-godparents-82120d853570ec92f4db1cbf11ebc2f1

 

[Ivy]

It's nice that some christians might be willing to entertain the thought that being transgender is not necessarily the same thing as making a pact with the devil.

[VickySGV]

6 hours ago, Ivy said:

It's nice that some christians might be willing to entertain the thought that being transgender is not necessarily the same thing as making a pact with the devil.

The Episcopal Church in the U.S. has actually initiated a special office for the Affirmation of all LGBTQ people in its headquarters in New York, and we have a special service in place for allowing Trans people to change their names on Church Records much to the disgust of some further right denominations. 

[Davie]

5 hours ago, VickySGV said:

The Episcopal Church in the U.S. has actually initiated a special office for the Affirmation of all LGBTQ people in its headquarters in New York, and we have a special service in place for allowing Trans people to change their names on Church Records much to the disgust of some further right denominations. 

There you go—actual spiritual leadership from a major denomination. Way to go, Episcopal Church. And thanks for the good news, @VickySGV.