So, the authors of the article irresponsibly chose not to include this guy’s very public extremist rhetoric, but here’s a quote directly from the press release:
"Today, Oklahomans are being compelled to fund Catholicism. Because of the legal precedent created by the Board’s actions, tomorrow we may be forced to fund radical Muslim teachings like Sharia law. In fact, Governor Stitt has already indicated that he would welcome a Muslim charter school funded by our tax dollars. That is a gross violation of our religious liberty. "
Honestly, I feel more conservatives would be against religion in schools if it was pointed out more often that implies their tax dollars supporting religion in general. Why should some teacher lead prayers on our dime?
This doesn’t really show his preference for any other religion, though. In fact, he specifically used the word “compelled” when talking about Catholicism. Which seems to indicate he believes the way I described above: He doesn’t want any religion because he knows doing so means all those brown people can have religious schools too, and we can’t have any of that…
He probably would be OK with it if he wasn’t worried about Muslims opening up their own school. His fears are deeply entrenched in prejudice. That’s obvious. But if his paranoia over Muslims is enough to get him to keep all religion out of schools, I’ll take small victories any way I can get them.
I mean, he’s a protestant evangelical, so he’s not a big fan of catholicism, but alongside his fearmongering about muslims, he definitely shows plenty of preference for his particular religion. Here’s another quote from the press release:
“I would prefer we focus on reading proficiency so they can read the Bible at home with their family. That’s where religion is best taught: in homes and in churches, with the loving guidance of parents and pastors”
I’m certainly glad he’s fighting these religious charter schools, for whatever reason, but I think it’s silly to pretend his motivations are anything but bigotry and bias toward his favorite sect.
In fact, he specifically says the opposite: Religion is best taught at homes and churches. So what if he only wants reading proficiency so kids “can read the bible at home with their family.”? Bigotry aside, he’s doing what he’s supposed to be doing. Keeping the schools focused on education, keeping religion at home. He could be the (whatever the evangelical equivalent of the Pope is) on his own time, and the bigotry certainly has no place anywhere. But at the very least, he does at least seem to be trying to keep religion (including his own) out of schools. I’m OK with that, even if we have completely different reasons why.
The language he uses definitely shows a preference for a specific religion. He’s clearly keeping his religion out of school only because it would allow the religions he doesn’t like in too, which is the entire point of the post you first responded to.
The language he uses definitely shows a preference for a specific religion.
So? He’s not trying to jam that religion into classrooms. In fact, he’s trying to keep it out.
He’s clearly keeping his religion out of school only because it would allow the religions he doesn’t like in too, which is the entire point of the post you first responded to.
It’s also a point I’ve been making the entire time. Yes, he’s clearly keeping his own religion out because his hatred/fear/bigotry of other religions is that deep. But as long as the end result is him continuing to keep all religion out of schools, I’m OK with that. When he joins most of the other members of his party and tries to jam Bible study in the classroom, then we’ll talk.
Apparently that’s not what he’s standing up for. They’re not the right religion. When Republicans make decisions, [that seem] irrational or against their normal behavior. Always assume there’s bigotry tied to it.
In your first response you wrote:
Not saying you’re wrong, but the article gives absolutely no evidence that this is the case.
So I provided a press release quoting the AG’s anti-muslim bigotry as evidence.
Your response:
This doesn’t really show his preference for any other religion, though. In fact, he specifically used the word “compelled” when talking about Catholicism.
So I provided further evidence of his religious preferences.
Your response:
So what if he only wants reading proficiency so kids “can read the bible at home with their family.”? Bigotry aside, he’s doing what he’s supposed to be doing.
I indicated that the point in the post you originally responded to is pretty well supported by the evidence…
Your response:
So? He’s not trying to jam that religion into classrooms.
I’m done, please keep better track of your point in the future
You said: “Apparently that’s not what he’s standing up for. They’re not the right religion.”.
I agreed; he’s clearly biased against Muslims but your statement showed no evidence that he was trying to push said “right religion” into schools either. In fact, he was going out of his way to keep even his own religion out of schools, out of fear that it would set precedent for others to establish religious schools he doesn’t like.
Then you posted a quote where he blatantly stated his fear of a Muslim school being established, and I asked you to still provide evidence of where he’s trying to force his own religion anywhere.
You then replied with a post where he TWICE said that any religion belongs at home as somehow proof that he’s favoring one religion over another.
And then you said “The language he uses definitely shows a preference for a specific religion.”, seemingly failing to understand that he absolutely has a right to prefer a specific religion, so long as he keeps that religious preference out of the government and out of our schools. You have continued to show no evidence that he is attempting to force his own religious views into the issue. In fact, you’ve provided plenty of evidence contradicting your own talking point.
There is nothing wrong with this guy having his own religious preferences. You have provided no evidence he’s trying to force his own or any other religion on anybody. Everything you yourself have shown so far points to him wanting all religion out of schools, even if those wants are itself based in bigotry. As long as he continues to support keeping all religion out of schools, I’m not really all that concerned over why.
Lol, ok dude. I never said he was trying to force his religion into anything, you’re just making stuff up. I supported the OPs statement that bigotry against the wrong religions was the motivator here, not high-minded ideals about the separation of church and state, and I think that’s been substantiated by the evidence.
So, the authors of the article irresponsibly chose not to include this guy’s very public extremist rhetoric, but here’s a quote directly from the press release:
Honestly, I feel more conservatives would be against religion in schools if it was pointed out more often that implies their tax dollars supporting religion in general. Why should some teacher lead prayers on our dime?
This doesn’t really show his preference for any other religion, though. In fact, he specifically used the word “compelled” when talking about Catholicism. Which seems to indicate he believes the way I described above: He doesn’t want any religion because he knows doing so means all those brown people can have religious schools too, and we can’t have any of that…
He probably would be OK with it if he wasn’t worried about Muslims opening up their own school. His fears are deeply entrenched in prejudice. That’s obvious. But if his paranoia over Muslims is enough to get him to keep all religion out of schools, I’ll take small victories any way I can get them.
I mean, he’s a protestant evangelical, so he’s not a big fan of catholicism, but alongside his fearmongering about muslims, he definitely shows plenty of preference for his particular religion. Here’s another quote from the press release:
I’m certainly glad he’s fighting these religious charter schools, for whatever reason, but I think it’s silly to pretend his motivations are anything but bigotry and bias toward his favorite sect.
This still doesn’t show that, though.
In fact, he specifically says the opposite: Religion is best taught at homes and churches. So what if he only wants reading proficiency so kids “can read the bible at home with their family.”? Bigotry aside, he’s doing what he’s supposed to be doing. Keeping the schools focused on education, keeping religion at home. He could be the (whatever the evangelical equivalent of the Pope is) on his own time, and the bigotry certainly has no place anywhere. But at the very least, he does at least seem to be trying to keep religion (including his own) out of schools. I’m OK with that, even if we have completely different reasons why.
The language he uses definitely shows a preference for a specific religion. He’s clearly keeping his religion out of school only because it would allow the religions he doesn’t like in too, which is the entire point of the post you first responded to.
So? He’s not trying to jam that religion into classrooms. In fact, he’s trying to keep it out.
It’s also a point I’ve been making the entire time. Yes, he’s clearly keeping his own religion out because his hatred/fear/bigotry of other religions is that deep. But as long as the end result is him continuing to keep all religion out of schools, I’m OK with that. When he joins most of the other members of his party and tries to jam Bible study in the classroom, then we’ll talk.
Holy moving goalposts batman!
OP:
In your first response you wrote:
So I provided a press release quoting the AG’s anti-muslim bigotry as evidence.
Your response:
So I provided further evidence of his religious preferences.
Your response:
I indicated that the point in the post you originally responded to is pretty well supported by the evidence…
Your response:
I’m done, please keep better track of your point in the future
This is completely incorrect.
You said: “Apparently that’s not what he’s standing up for. They’re not the right religion.”.
I agreed; he’s clearly biased against Muslims but your statement showed no evidence that he was trying to push said “right religion” into schools either. In fact, he was going out of his way to keep even his own religion out of schools, out of fear that it would set precedent for others to establish religious schools he doesn’t like.
Then you posted a quote where he blatantly stated his fear of a Muslim school being established, and I asked you to still provide evidence of where he’s trying to force his own religion anywhere.
You then replied with a post where he TWICE said that any religion belongs at home as somehow proof that he’s favoring one religion over another.
And then you said “The language he uses definitely shows a preference for a specific religion.”, seemingly failing to understand that he absolutely has a right to prefer a specific religion, so long as he keeps that religious preference out of the government and out of our schools. You have continued to show no evidence that he is attempting to force his own religious views into the issue. In fact, you’ve provided plenty of evidence contradicting your own talking point.
There is nothing wrong with this guy having his own religious preferences. You have provided no evidence he’s trying to force his own or any other religion on anybody. Everything you yourself have shown so far points to him wanting all religion out of schools, even if those wants are itself based in bigotry. As long as he continues to support keeping all religion out of schools, I’m not really all that concerned over why.
Lol, ok dude. I never said he was trying to force his religion into anything, you’re just making stuff up. I supported the OPs statement that bigotry against the wrong religions was the motivator here, not high-minded ideals about the separation of church and state, and I think that’s been substantiated by the evidence.
deleted by creator