Opting out of specific curriculum items in public education for religious reasons is nothing new. In the 1950s and 60s my fundamentalist Christian family (like many others across the USA) opted us kids out of our public school's physical education curriculum when it included square dancing - hard to believe, I know! Ironically, my family then and now have been unabashedly supportive of public education with multiple public school teachers and principals among every generation of our family since the late 1800s. While I would argue there is a proper place for distinctively religious education to exist that prepares their adherents to engage adult life in the world effectively from that perspective (spent over forty years teaching in such a college), I am dismayed by fellow Christians (or other religious groups) who withdraw completely from public education due to disagreements with specific curricular issues. Instead, I see the Opt Out option as a positive compromise that encourages students from very different religious or moral beliefs to continue to participate together in public education classrooms, rather than (literally) moving away from each other into "enemy" Tribal groups such as exist in our current political/social arenas.
When I was in middle and high school (back in ye olden times) parents had to Opt In to allow their child to take sex ed classes. So this will be more of the same blue law bullshit, but at a national level.
Except that it isn’t a blue law. It just gives parents the option of opting out, which was exactly the policy that was in place when the books were introduced into the curriculum a mere three years ago. Yeah, I know, the parents are vile hate filled bigots, so why should they be accommodated? But if their demands are so unreasonable, then why were they given the option to refrain initially? To recap, the school board introduces a few gay themed books into the reading curriculum of K-5th grade, tells the parents that if they object that they can opt their kids out of having to read them, and then….tells them that they can’t, making the board look like they’re trying to get away with something. Who are really the unreasonable ones here?
If the requests for opting out are making things too cumbersome, then maybe the books shouldn’t have been assigned in the first place, so just pull them. What’s the big deal? Much is made about the supposed hang ups of parents who wouldn’t want their (very young) kids to read the books in question, but progressives have hang ups and neuroses of their own that they really should confront. Kindergarten is way too young to be reading sexually charged material. Bill Maher (not exactly a Christian nationalist) put it brilliantly when he said that the Florida policy that liberals sneeringly referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” law could more accurately be called the “Let’s Go Back to Teaching School the Way We Did Five Years Ago” law.
The reason they were initially given the choice to opt out was because as soon as the story revolves around a same-sex relationship, people start clutching their pearls. As Joanie said elsewhere, if these stories were cis-hetero tales nobody would have objected. The fact you keep insisting they are “sexually charged material” shows the disconnect — a story with a boy and a girl in the exact same situation would be perfectly fine. Snow White was the example Joanie used to illustrate that point.
The real issue is parents who don’t want their kids having to face the reality we live in, where same-sex relationships exist.
Again, if the school board thought that it was reasonable to let parents opt out at the outset of the program, why did it suddenly become unreasonable? Did the board state at the outset that the opt out option would be for a limited time only? You seem to be content to ignore this question, but it’s kind of pertinent. To make this about how awful the parents are is just a diversion.
While we’re at it, which school districts are mandating the reading of Snow White, or any of the other Grimm tales? They certainly weren’t when I attended school, or when my son attended. At that age we were reading things like “Tootle”, “The Little Red Caboose”, “Poky the Puppy” and “Scuffy the Tugboat”, and if there were any sexual subtexts or allegories buried within those stories, they were so deep as to be indecipherable. Let’s let kids be kids. Why is that so much to ask?
No, but if there are parents who object to “Prince and Knight” and “Love Violet” on religious grounds, they would probably also object to “Snow White” due to its occult trappings.
The school board is made up of human beings who might have the same biases and prejudices as anyone else, so to say it was reasonable to have allowed parents to opt out isn't necessarily true. Those board members might have thought that any messaging about same-sex couples is automatically "dirty" or "sexually-charged," or maybe they were expecting blowback from parents who feel that way. Maybe they were voted out and the new board decided it was a nothing-burger. I don't know why they decided one way and then reversed course later.
As for why it's too much to ask that we just go ahead and censor books because they depict same-sex relationships (in a non-explicit manner) while allowing similar books depicting cis-hetero relationships should be obvious. If you're upset about a book where two girls hold hands, but not one where a girl marries a prince and lives happily ever after, I don't think the book is the problem.
Except that they’re not censoring the books. Any parent who wants their kid to read them can either purchase a copy or check them out from the library. The only thing that the court ruling mandates is that parents retain the right to opt their kids out of the requirement to read them, which, again, was the exact same policy that was in place when they were introduced into the curriculum, a cosmic two and a half years ago.
I'd be careful about your use of the word neuroses. That could very be easily applied to MAGAs who seem to want to ban anything that makes them nervous, whether it be about sex or anything that seems to be negative about American history. I have seen porn. It doesn't seem to have made me into a raging beast or child sex pervert. I have read and researched some of the worst instances of American history. It hasn't made me move to another country or incited me to armed rebellion. The truth is the truth no matter how hard we try to cover it up.
I think that I am pretty careful about the words I use, and I think that fanatical Trump supporters are obviously neurotic (and a goodly number psychotic).
When I was in high school in the mid-90's we had to dissect a frog in biology and one kid was able to get out of it by claiming some kind of religious or moral objection. He got to do it on a plastic model. We all thought he was a weasel and a wuss for doing it. I think the slippery slope is that parents will get to decide their kids' curriculum and school will become just a glorified daycare for homeschooled (read: uneducated) kids.
I think history has shown that your slippery slope concern will not come to pass. Instead what has happened is that when families found "many" curricular items with which they disagree, they leave the public education sphere instead and join a religiously affiliate private school or choose homeschooling for their own kids.
That was true before, but what seems to be happening now is Christian fundamentalists have become emboldened by Trump and his SCOTUS picks and have decided to just force public schools to fit their ideals rather than continuing to pay for private school or home schooling their kids.
Actually, I see those as two independent movements. You are correct that the Christian Nationalists (not just the fundamentalists) have embraced Trump as their power-source to try and remake society as well as schools in their flawed vision of an earthly Christian Kingdom (in contrast to Jesus' true Kingdom "not of this world"). I do not think it is likely that the current home/private school believers will abandon those institutions for a foray back into public schools. However, you may be correct that if (a Big IF) public education is co-opted by Christian Nationalism there may be fewer religious families abandoning public schools moving forward.
Being intimately familiar with intra-Christian denominational disagreements over many specific theological/behavioral issues, I don't see Trump's Christian Nationalists coming to a great number of agreements on the specifics of a "Republican" religious curriculum for all public schools.
It’s sad, really, Jon. People leave the public schools because they don’t want their children to learn about same sex attraction or transgender people. Why? Because they think that, by preventing their children from learning about those things, their children will not turn out to be gay or transgender. Which is absurd. Because being gay or transgender is something that certain people are born with. You can’t prevent children from being gay or transgender by making sure that they are not exposed to those concepts. Those parents, if the child at issue is gay or transgender, are just making their kids life more difficult.
Actually, there are a variety of different reasons for leaving public schools including the boogeyman of secular humanism in the 70s. I agree with you Joanie, that isolationism does not "protect" your kids from gay or trans being or any of the "liberal agenda" items that many of those parents fear. They will find those same children exist in their private schools and church youth groups anyway, so unless they take the homeschool protectionist agenda to its logical conclusion and do homechurch, homeplay, homeeverything, homeemployment their children will still gain exposure to them.
“Uneducated” I think is a better descriptor of your characterisation of homeschooled kids. They do much better on test scores than school-schooled kids, and they are far more inquisitive. My retired physics professor aunt told me that, whenever she had students that were unusually attentive, keenly interested in what was being taught, asked lots of questions and scored superlatively on exams, she was surprised (at first, later unsurprised) to discover that they were homeschooled. She came to recognize it as a kind of “secret sauce”.
There are many homeschooled kids who exactly as you describe. There are also many homeschooled" kids simply not educated by their parents, don't follow any sort of curriculum, are not properly socialized, and our society will have to live with the results. The internet has made it MUCH easier for families to claim to homeschool their children when they actually do nothing of the kind.
I have never paid serious attention to this argument. There are lots of reasons that the public schools lag behind. But the plain truth is that the public schools accept all. They accept students from good families and bad families. They accept kids from families where parents started reading books to them when the kids were three and families where the parents don't care if they graduate. They accept students who never ever present discipline problems in school and children who are looking to cause trouble the moment they are on school grounds. There are kids that could probably teach themselves and kids that will probably be fortunate if they ever learn to write their own names. This is going to troublesome enough without throwing in all the politics and other BS that enters the education formula. I attended the dreaded CPS system until 11th grade. I somehow survived to become a teacher and get a master's degree. I understand the desire of many parents to get a better education for their kids than they think can be earned in public schools. But I fail to see how mere avoidance of real life and different kinds of people and ideas benefits anyone. Furthermore, with the right kind of support, especially from home, kids will survive public schools and end up just fine. I once again provide myself as an example. We had troublemakers in school. I knew more than a few on the street. I have never committed a felony or created any other sort of trouble. I'm quite sure I am not the only one in that category. So if parents want to homeschool or send their kids to private schools, go for it. I'm in no position to argue, having graduated from Mendel Catholic. But public schools too often catch garbage for things that don't happen as much as people think and kids are not going to turn out warped and perverted unless they and ther parents allow it to hapoen.
In the recent Supreme Court case, from what I understand, the school district in question initially did allow parents to opt out when the gay themed books were first introduced, but then just decided that they couldn’t, so the district sort of opened a can of worms.
It seems to me that the obvious solution would be to just pull the books from the curriculum (after all, the district’s educational system seemed to be perfectly functional and productive for all the decades prior to the books’ inclusion, which was just a couple of years ago). I know, this would amount to an outrageous capitulation to bigoted totalitarian whims, but really, how necessary are they? I haven’t read them, but it seems a bit gratuitous to require sexually themed books for kindergarteners and early grade schoolers.
Again, there are two debates regardless of the specific curriculum. There are both religious and non-religious parents who would insist upon a proper "child-development" age policy that determines when certain topics such as sex-education are included in the public school classrooms regardless of whether they agree with what is included in that curriculum. I would say this should be left to the profession educational experts to decide, but even with their decision I believe that Opt-Out is necessary since not every child in those age specific classrooms would be at the level of social/emotional maturity to handle the topic.
The other debate is of course what the actual curriculum (such as sex-ed) should/can include and that conflict has been ongoing for 60 years or more and is not going to be solved anytime soon. Again, I believe this also supports the value to Opt-Out.
The books at issue in the Supreme Court’s decision were not about coitus. They were not about sex any more than Snow White is about sex in that it ends with the prince kissing Snow White and the prince and Snow White marrying. Kid’s books are full of stories about heterosexual love, like Snow White, and no one objects to that. But when stories end with two men getting married or two women getting married, all of a sudden the cis-hetero normies say they are sexually themed books inappropriate for children.
Are you saying that the Christian nationalists and cringing cowards that run the public schools are hypocrites? Shame on you!(LOL) I am so glad to be retired from the public schools. It's not even just about sex. It's about hypersensitivity to anything that might upset just one parent in a school district and bring on the lawyers. If I were still teaching junior high social studies, I'd be sorely tempted to hang the Ten Commandments- along with the religious fundamentals of every other religion I could get my hands on and watch how fair the righteous Christians are. Teach young children about love and compassion for others? What a ridiculous idea! Let's instead clothe them in brownshirts and teach them how to shoot.
Similarly to your other post, Joanie, the isolationism to avoid types of people and families that are "not like my religion" fuels the censorship. In my youth, my church groups railed against depictions of divorce, single mothers, etc. lest those be considered "valid" ways of living. Lot of good it did the church then to prevent such family lives from happening.
Here’s the description of a couple of the books at issue taken from the Supreme Court opinion (I am so proud that I finally figured out how to copy from a PDF on my iPhone):
“Prince & Knight tells the story of a coming-of-age prince whose parents wish to match him with “a kind and worthy bride.” Id., at 397a. After meeting with “many ladies,” the prince tells his parents that he is “‘looking for something different in a partner by [his] side.’” Id., at 398a, 400a. Later in the book, the prince falls into the “embrace” of a knight after the two finish battling a fearsome dragon. Id., at 415a. After the knight takes off his helmet, the prince and knight “gaz[e] into each other’s eyes, [and] their hearts beg[in] to race.” Id., at 418a–419a. The whole kingdom later applauds “on the two men’s wedding day.” Id., at 424a.
Love Violet follows a young girl named Violet who has a crush on her female classmate, Mira. Mira makes Violet’s “heart skip” and “thunde[r] like a hundred galloping horses.” Id., at 431a, 436a. Although Violet is initially too afraid to interact with Mira, the two end up exchanging gifts on Valentine’s Day. Afterwards, the two girls are seen holding hands and “galloping over snowy drifts to see what they might find. Together.” Id., at 446a.”
What about the one where Penelope, of "Born Ready: The Story of a Boy Named Penelope," insists she's really a boy because she likes "skateboarding, 'baggy blue jeans, button-front shirts, math, science, and getting straight A’s,' and 'most of all' wants a 'Mohawk haircut'"? (Dissent at 5.) That one sent a chill down my spine. It reminded me of the talking Barbie who averred that "Math class is tough!"
In neither description of the book (not in the majority opinion nor in the dissent) does it say that Penelope insists she is a boy *because* she likes “skateboarding, 'baggy blue jeans, button-front shirts, math, science, and getting straight A’s,' and 'most of all' wants a 'Mohawk haircut.’” Phrasing it that way makes it sound like she wanted to transition in order to meet our culture’s misogynistic gender expectations, a false idea promoted by TERFs and other transphobes in order to discredit transgender people and our life experiences. As if we embrace our culture’s misogynistic gender expectations and as if we don’t understand that men can be nurturing and empathetic, and women can be aggressive, strong, and confrontational. The TERF/transphobe theory is that people don’t need to transition; they just need to learn that they don’t need to meet our culture’s gender expectations. Which would be true if we transitioned *because* we wanted to meet those expectations. But that’s not why people transition.
“Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope tells the story of Penelope, a child who is initially treated as a girl. The story is told from the perspective of Penelope, who at one point says “If they’d all stop and listen, I’d tell them about me. Inside I’m a boy.” Id., at 454a. When Penelope’s mother later assures her that “‘If you feel like a
boy, that’s okay,’” Penelope responds: “‘No, Mama, I don’t feel like a boy. I AM a boy.’” Id., at 458a. Penelope tells
her mother:
“‘I love you, Mama, but I don’t want to be you. I want to be Papa. I don’t want tomorrow to come because tomorrow I’ll look like you. Please help me, Mama. Help me to be a boy.’” Id., at 459a.
Penelope’s mother then agrees that she is a boy, and Penelope says: “For the first time, my insides don’t feel like fire. They feel like warm, golden love.” Id., at 462a. Later, after the family starts treating Penelope as a boy, Penelope’s brother complains that “‘You can’t become a boy. You have to be born one.’” Id., at 465a. This comment draws a rebuke from Penelope’s mother: “‘Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.’” Ibid.”
“Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope tells the story of a child who likes skateboarding, “baggy blue jeans, button-front shirts, math, science, and getting straight A’s,” and “most of all” wants a “Mohawk haircut.” Id., at 452a. When Penelope tells his mother that he is a boy, she accepts him: “‘However you feel is fine, baby,’” she says. Id., at 458a. When Penelope’s brother expresses skepticism, his mother says, “‘Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.’” Id., at 465a (emphasis in original).”
My friend used the term “Alligator Auschwitz” for the detention camp in Florida, which is probably not as accurate as the right’s preferred term, and certainly diminishes the true horror of the Holocaust. But I can understand the sentiment.
Auschwitz was not about dying from indifference or neglect; it was about intentional killing on a MASSIVE scale. Occasional or even frequent deaths at the detention facility won't justify a comparison with Auschwitz.
There were two kinds of German Nazi camps: concentration camps (Konzentrationslager) and death camps (Vernichtungslager). Auschwitz was both. So I agree with Eric that referring to Alligator Alcatraz as Alligator Auschwitz is probably inappropriate. But it is entirely appropriate to refer to Alligator Alcatraz as a concentration camp.
Auschwitz was originally an Austro-Hungarian military base. The Nazi's first use of it was to house prisoners of war (Poles, Russians), very few of whom survived. They were worked to death (maximum output, minimum input) rather than being killed on arrival (extermination). Nothing like that is going to happen at the detention facility, no matter how reprehensible it may be. It will not be a Konzentrationslager.
Analogously, referring to the relocation camps run by the WRA (Wartime Relocation Authority) during World War II as concentration camps reveals a lack of historical understanding.
It might be over the top for the moment, but Laura Loomer's comment about "65 million meals" is not to be taken lightly. That's not just immigrants, legal or not, that's the entire Latino population of the US, about 20% of the total. How long until the conditions at that place do start claiming lives? Then your term for it won't be so far off.
any bets on how long until we find a pit full of corpses at one of these Alligator Alcatrazes and then the what constitutes a "mass grave" debate begins?
As to Paramount settling the bullshit lawsuit in order to facilitate their merger with Skydance, they should remember that extortion rarely ends after the first capitulation. There is little keeping Trump from squeezing them for more and more concessions until CBS is nothing more than a mouthpiece for his propaganda.
I’m livid over this! Paramount is the one streaming service that is a constant for me - mainly because I can’t stay up late enough to watch Colbert, and am not always home for CBS Sunday Morning or 60 Minutes. Giving it up would be hard for me, but this capitulation to The Don makes it much easier.
I agree that this is a tough one, but an option (at least for Colbert) is to watch the segments on YouTube for free (which I do, even though I also subscribe to P+).
I know there is often a short sketch piece at the beginning of the show that I often miss because I start with the monologue, but each successive segment after that is usually the first link at the end of the video, with the previous day’s monologue as the second link.
I also record 60 Minutes along with CBS Sunday Morning every week. Or I used to until the parent company’s capitulation to the thief in chief. I wonder if any of the fair minded correspondents of those two shows (Steve Hartman, Lee Cowan, Mo Rocca, Martha Teichner et al) will comment on or leave over this situation. I know they all have high paying jobs, but at what point does someone say “enough.”
The Oxford dictionary defines extortion as:
“the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats”
I’ll add whether the threats are spoken or implied.
So we can add extortioner to the list of ways to describe the orange idiot.
I don't get why you'd boycott CBS News. They didn't make the decision to pay off Trump, and I'm sure they're plenty steamed about it. It's Paramount and Shari Redstone who are to blame. If the point of the boycott is to punish Paramount, you should really boycott everything Paramount (and Skydance, Paramount's merger partner) produces *except* CBS News, with which you stand in solidarity. Unfortunately, that would include Colbert, the Daily Show, an excellent film catalogue, and every single CSI.
I don’t support the CBS decision to pay off Trump, but I gave it some thought, and figure that it is possible to change the meaning of an interview with selective editing. So we do have to be discerning. Fox and MSNBC can both take the same interview and edit it into two different views of any issue. Just look at the videos of Biden from last year.
Does that rise to the level of election tampering, though? Not really.
And if the new standard is "no editing of interviews with politicians," then I say release ALL of the recorded interview footage of every politician currently in office. Especially Trump. CBS News should take the lead, since it was their parent company that gave us this new precedent.
Except he's not a lawyer, far too stupid to be one. remember, one professor at Wharton called him, the exact quote: "The dumbest fucking student I ever had!"
He never took any tests, he paid others to take the tests for him.
Just to be clear, political coverage favorable to an opponent, even when cast as "election interference" or whatever, cannot be the basis in itself of any sort of lawsuit. Editing an interview in a certain way, even if arguably misleading, cannot be the basis of any sort of lawsuit, unless it's for defamation and that is very difficult to establish for a public figure. If Trump's lawsuit were lent credence, it would mean the end of Fox News and any political coverage. It's insane.
Trump didn't even allege defamation. His theory was that CBS violated a Texas consumer protection law that punishes false advertising. The (asinine) idea is that CBS was tyring to "sell" Harris in the marketplace and lying about its product. It's a total joke and would not have withstood scrutiny under the law itself and certainly not under the First Amendment, which is at its most protective when it comes to political matters and protects coverage that is slanted or even arguably misleading. The lawsuit should have been seen as sanctionable as frivolous, a very high bar. This story quotes two outstanding scholars laying out the bogusness of the case.
Yes, but then so is sending a mob to storm the Capitol to prevent vote certification. We're way past that point. SCOTUS out front should have told you.
The “opt-out” ruling for schools is going to accelerate the exodus of good teachers. It’s becoming nearly impossible to just stand in front of a classroom and teach kids.
You are partially correct. Mary Beth was correct. It is definitely tougher to stand in front of kids and talk. I've been there. As a retired substitute, I have conditioned myself to follow certain rules. I never praise female students on anything physical. I do not address students by gender. I do not so much as tease male students about anything physical. I do not have students pass out graded papers. When taking attendance, I immediately apologize for accidentally mispronouncing student names. I never hug students or so much as put a hand on their shoulders to console them or get their attention. Discipline when necessary, does not involve raising my voice or criticizing them in any way. School is a constant battle of trying not to antagonize students in any way. And I teach in a rural area. I hate to even think about what it's like in the city.
Thank you for mentioning Joyce White Vance's coverage of the denaturalization initiative at the DOJ. As a naturalized citizen, it's very close to home for me and I've been following it. She highlights how the DOJ memo is very vague on guidelines for referring cases for denaturalization:
"Further, the Civil Division retains the discretion to pursue cases outside of these categories as it determines appropriate. The assignment of denaturalization cases may be made across sections or units based on experience, subject-matter expertise, and the overall needs of the Civil Division.”
Vance draws an apt parallel to 1930's Germany. Jews had been made full German citizens there by the Constitution of 1919, but in 1933 a new law allowed to strip citizenship from people whose "conduct violated the duty of loyalty toward Germany or harmed German interests."
The vagueness of the language in both cases allows the respective regime to take away citizenship and corresponding rights from anyone they don't like. I sure hope ICE doesn't look through my Facebook and PS comments.
The question raised about the "LGBTQ opt out" decision is the same question I had -- at first. But then I remembered that courts have been dealing with these kinds of claims from prisoners (e.g., "the prison is violating my first amendment rights by not giving me chocolate cake at every meal because I belong to the Holy Church of Chocolate") for years. So there is an established body of law on the subject that can give guidance. (Not saying I agree with the decision, only that Mr. Zorn's "where does it stop" point doesn't hold as much water as he thinks.)
Can you cite some real examples? I am not in favor of having the government decide which religious views are valid, sincere and must be accommodated and which are simply opportunistic claims. I'd be curious to read the rulings and the claims. And I serious about, say, racial intermarriage -- PLENTY of religious conservatives were against that back in the 1960s at least, and all you have to do is read the arguments that led up to the Loving v. Virginia case. So what if a family wanted to opt their kid out of studying a book where a Black person fell in love with a white person? What would a judge say? What would Judge Ben say? I have more hypotheticals if you'd like!
On what basis could the government say that one religion is valid and other religions are not valid? It seems to me that any decision by the government along those lines would run afoul of the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. I think the defense against the chocolate cake scenario is Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), which held that laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause as long as their purpose is not directed at a religion. The Smith case involved the use of peyote in indigenous religion practices. So a decision not to serve chocolate cake (or to provide peyote) in prisons would not run afoul of the Free Exercise Clause even if it affected the ability of the prisoner to practice his religion. Theoretically, the government could ban alcohol, including its use for Holy Communion, without violating the Free Exercise Clause. Now, things have been complicated a little since the Smith decision by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law by President Clinton in 1993.
Joanie, you're a good person. You obviously know the law. You used "basis" ( I assume you meant legal basis) and government in the same sentence. With the present government and Inferior Court, what do the two have to do with each other?
I'm a retired lawyer and no longer have access to the legal research tools that would let me come up with examples. But I have plenty of experience in prisoner litigation, and I can assure you prisoners have often made dubious demands of prison authorities based on equally dubious claims that refusing those demands would violate their supposed religious beliefs. Prisoners have plenty of time on their hands and are endlessly creative that way.
As for Ms. Wimmer's post below questioning what business the government has deciding what is and is not a legitimate religious belief, the law governing prisons not only allows but requires courts to decide which beliefs are "religious" in nature and whether those beliefs are "sincerely held." (See the helpful description of the extensive legal framework at https://jlm.law.columbia.edu/files/2017/05/39.-Ch.-27.pdf).
Now, whether that law (some of which is Constitutional and some statutory) might apply to schools, as I suggested earlier, is another matter. Schools aren't prisons (though some schoolkids might disagree), and case law developed under statutes specifically applicable to prisons might well be irrelevant.
I’m always happy to learn new things, Ben. Where in the law review article does it say that the government can decide which beliefs are “religious” in nature? I understand that the government may inquire as to whether someone’s beliefs are “sincerely held,” but I’m quite confident that the First Amendment prohibits the government from deciding which religions are valid religions and which are not.
The relevant statute is the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000cc et seq. More easily digested than the statute itself is the Seventh Circuit's decision applying it in West v. Radtke, No. 20-1570 (7th Cir. Sept. 16, 2022). Under the Act, the West decision explains, "courts are authorized to decide—indeed, must decide—whether a request for a faith-based exemption [from a prison regulation] is in fact religious in nature and sincere." Id. at 16.
The Columbia "Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual" at jlm.law.columbia.edu/files/2017/05/39.-Ch.-27.pdf, which I cited above, has a thorough description of the law in this area. The description appears to be current, though I make no guarantees!
Ben, I read West v Radke, and I don’t believe that it contradicts anything that I have said twice: that the First Amendment prohibits the government from deciding which religions are valid, and which are not. The case does have dicta that says, “courts are authorized to decide—indeed, must decide—whether a request for a faith-based exemption [from a prison regulation] is in fact religious in nature and sincere.” So, for example, if I were a prisoner and I said that I did not want to be served lamb for supper because I didn’t like its taste, the prison could conclude that my request for an exemption was not religious in nature. But if I were a prisoner, and I said that I did not want to be served lamb for supper because I believe in a God who prohibits the eating of lamb, the prison could not conclude that my request for an exemption was not religious in nature. And once it is determined that my request is religious in nature, the prison cannot determine that my religion is not a valid religion. In other words, the prison cannot say that the religion practiced by Malcom X, which prohibited the eating of pork, is a valid religion, but my religion which prohibits the eating of lamb is not. Once the prisoner says that their belief is related somehow to God or the divine, that ends the inquiry as to whether it’s religious. And if the belief is sincerely held, then we get into Employment Division v. Smith, and the statute you cited, which is basically the Religious Freedom Restoration Act for prisons.
You’re quite right that neither the Act nor West says a court can decide whether a “religion is valid” — meaning that a set of religious beliefs is true. But a court can certainly decide (West says “must” decide) whether a set of beliefs is “religious in nature,” a question that doesn’t involve getting into the beliefs’ “validity.” And even if a prisoner’s beliefs are religious in nature, under the Act a court can (in fact, must) decide whether those beliefs are “sincerely held.” There’s case law on what constitutes a “religion” (though I’ve not read any of it in ages), and I have to assume there are also cases on what it means to “sincerely hold” religious beliefs.
Would my chocolate cake hypothetical meet either criterion? Before we could say, we’d probably need more information both about the religion and about the prisoner who claimed he was one of its adherents.
The IRS has stupidly & cowardly decided the money grubbing cult of $cientology is a religion, which it definitely is not & never has been. It's crackpot founder said around 1949-50 "If a fellow really wants to make a lot of money, he'd start his own religion", which is exactly what that failed science fiction writer did!
I'm not sure you can avoid the question of when to accommodate unless you believe that freedom of religion includes no rights to accommodation whatsoever. Take public school dress codes that generally ban headwear indoors. A student who has usually worn a hijab wants to wear a hijab in school. It's clear the school may make an exception for the hijab (so long as it also makes exceptions for turbans or yarmulkes and the like, in order to remain religiously neutral). Must it make such exceptions? What would Judge Eric say?
Congrats EZ on 200 publications. I’ve read (nearly because if I’m on vacation I sometimes forget) every one of them. Tuesdays and Thursdays are my favorite days to check my email.
I can’t get past the practical problem with the Trump lawsuit against CBS before I can consider any First Amendment issues. Where are the damages? He won the election. To win a civil suit for monetary damages you must suffer a loss and the other party must be responsible (non-lawyer). There was no loss. The case should have been thrown out at the first hearing.
This is actually an interesting and telling aspect of this nonsense. He sued under the Texas Deceptive Practices and Consumer Protection law, the same law that guards against false advertising and such. He claimed that the aired interview inflicted economic harm on his media businesses by fraudulently diverting attention from them or distorting his reputation or something of that sort, to many millions of viewers.
This is a "novel", unprecedented application of the law, framing a news interview as commercial speech.
The reason it was not immediately tossed is it was filed in Northern District of Texas, where the only judge is Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee who is the current darling of all the most cruel conservative causes, like the Plan B pill being ordered through mail. He would have ruled in favor of Trump regardless. It's possible (but not very likely) SCOTUS would have overruled him, but it would have taken a very long time and as EZ points out it would have delayed Paramount's merger plans.
To sum up, we no longer live in a country under the rule of law and common sense. Oligarchs and a cruel petty tyrant have the run of the place.
Here’s a description (direct quote) from the Supreme Court opinion of two of the books parents want to opt their children out of:
“Prince & Knight tells the story of a coming-of-age prince whose parents wish to match him with “a kind and worthy bride.” Id., at 397a. After meeting with “many ladies,” the prince tells his parents that he is “‘looking for something different in a partner by [his] side.’” Id., at 398a, 400a. Later in the book, the prince falls into the “embrace” of a knight after the two finish battling a fearsome dragon. Id., at 415a. After the knight takes off his helmet, the prince and knight “gaz[e] into each other’s eyes, [and] their hearts beg[in] to race.” Id., at 418a–419a. The whole kingdom later applauds “on the two men’s wedding day.” Id., at 424a.
Love Violet follows a young girl named Violet who has a crush on her female classmate, Mira. Mira makes Violet’s “heart skip” and “thunde[r] like a hundred galloping horses.” Id., at 431a, 436a. Although Violet is initially too afraid to interact with Mira, the two end up exchanging gifts on Valentine’s Day. Afterwards, the two girls are seen holding hands and “galloping over snowy drifts to see what they might find. Together.” Id., at 446a.”
don't forget to turn off your Wi-Fi on your printer if you do!
Not going to let that word in, sorry G. Try again?
Why? It's a perfect description of her!
What word? Can you give a hint? Just want to know what the rules are.
See U next Tuesday!
At least you’re polite in your hypocrisy. 😉
Opting out of specific curriculum items in public education for religious reasons is nothing new. In the 1950s and 60s my fundamentalist Christian family (like many others across the USA) opted us kids out of our public school's physical education curriculum when it included square dancing - hard to believe, I know! Ironically, my family then and now have been unabashedly supportive of public education with multiple public school teachers and principals among every generation of our family since the late 1800s. While I would argue there is a proper place for distinctively religious education to exist that prepares their adherents to engage adult life in the world effectively from that perspective (spent over forty years teaching in such a college), I am dismayed by fellow Christians (or other religious groups) who withdraw completely from public education due to disagreements with specific curricular issues. Instead, I see the Opt Out option as a positive compromise that encourages students from very different religious or moral beliefs to continue to participate together in public education classrooms, rather than (literally) moving away from each other into "enemy" Tribal groups such as exist in our current political/social arenas.
When I was in middle and high school (back in ye olden times) parents had to Opt In to allow their child to take sex ed classes. So this will be more of the same blue law bullshit, but at a national level.
Except that it isn’t a blue law. It just gives parents the option of opting out, which was exactly the policy that was in place when the books were introduced into the curriculum a mere three years ago. Yeah, I know, the parents are vile hate filled bigots, so why should they be accommodated? But if their demands are so unreasonable, then why were they given the option to refrain initially? To recap, the school board introduces a few gay themed books into the reading curriculum of K-5th grade, tells the parents that if they object that they can opt their kids out of having to read them, and then….tells them that they can’t, making the board look like they’re trying to get away with something. Who are really the unreasonable ones here?
If the requests for opting out are making things too cumbersome, then maybe the books shouldn’t have been assigned in the first place, so just pull them. What’s the big deal? Much is made about the supposed hang ups of parents who wouldn’t want their (very young) kids to read the books in question, but progressives have hang ups and neuroses of their own that they really should confront. Kindergarten is way too young to be reading sexually charged material. Bill Maher (not exactly a Christian nationalist) put it brilliantly when he said that the Florida policy that liberals sneeringly referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” law could more accurately be called the “Let’s Go Back to Teaching School the Way We Did Five Years Ago” law.
The reason they were initially given the choice to opt out was because as soon as the story revolves around a same-sex relationship, people start clutching their pearls. As Joanie said elsewhere, if these stories were cis-hetero tales nobody would have objected. The fact you keep insisting they are “sexually charged material” shows the disconnect — a story with a boy and a girl in the exact same situation would be perfectly fine. Snow White was the example Joanie used to illustrate that point.
The real issue is parents who don’t want their kids having to face the reality we live in, where same-sex relationships exist.
Again, if the school board thought that it was reasonable to let parents opt out at the outset of the program, why did it suddenly become unreasonable? Did the board state at the outset that the opt out option would be for a limited time only? You seem to be content to ignore this question, but it’s kind of pertinent. To make this about how awful the parents are is just a diversion.
While we’re at it, which school districts are mandating the reading of Snow White, or any of the other Grimm tales? They certainly weren’t when I attended school, or when my son attended. At that age we were reading things like “Tootle”, “The Little Red Caboose”, “Poky the Puppy” and “Scuffy the Tugboat”, and if there were any sexual subtexts or allegories buried within those stories, they were so deep as to be indecipherable. Let’s let kids be kids. Why is that so much to ask?
Do you think Snow White prevents kids from being kids. Come on, Steve K, get real.
No, but if there are parents who object to “Prince and Knight” and “Love Violet” on religious grounds, they would probably also object to “Snow White” due to its occult trappings.
The school board is made up of human beings who might have the same biases and prejudices as anyone else, so to say it was reasonable to have allowed parents to opt out isn't necessarily true. Those board members might have thought that any messaging about same-sex couples is automatically "dirty" or "sexually-charged," or maybe they were expecting blowback from parents who feel that way. Maybe they were voted out and the new board decided it was a nothing-burger. I don't know why they decided one way and then reversed course later.
As for why it's too much to ask that we just go ahead and censor books because they depict same-sex relationships (in a non-explicit manner) while allowing similar books depicting cis-hetero relationships should be obvious. If you're upset about a book where two girls hold hands, but not one where a girl marries a prince and lives happily ever after, I don't think the book is the problem.
Except that they’re not censoring the books. Any parent who wants their kid to read them can either purchase a copy or check them out from the library. The only thing that the court ruling mandates is that parents retain the right to opt their kids out of the requirement to read them, which, again, was the exact same policy that was in place when they were introduced into the curriculum, a cosmic two and a half years ago.
The books didn’t have anything to do with sex.
I'd be careful about your use of the word neuroses. That could very be easily applied to MAGAs who seem to want to ban anything that makes them nervous, whether it be about sex or anything that seems to be negative about American history. I have seen porn. It doesn't seem to have made me into a raging beast or child sex pervert. I have read and researched some of the worst instances of American history. It hasn't made me move to another country or incited me to armed rebellion. The truth is the truth no matter how hard we try to cover it up.
I think that I am pretty careful about the words I use, and I think that fanatical Trump supporters are obviously neurotic (and a goodly number psychotic).
When I was in high school in the mid-90's we had to dissect a frog in biology and one kid was able to get out of it by claiming some kind of religious or moral objection. He got to do it on a plastic model. We all thought he was a weasel and a wuss for doing it. I think the slippery slope is that parents will get to decide their kids' curriculum and school will become just a glorified daycare for homeschooled (read: uneducated) kids.
I think history has shown that your slippery slope concern will not come to pass. Instead what has happened is that when families found "many" curricular items with which they disagree, they leave the public education sphere instead and join a religiously affiliate private school or choose homeschooling for their own kids.
That was true before, but what seems to be happening now is Christian fundamentalists have become emboldened by Trump and his SCOTUS picks and have decided to just force public schools to fit their ideals rather than continuing to pay for private school or home schooling their kids.
Actually, I see those as two independent movements. You are correct that the Christian Nationalists (not just the fundamentalists) have embraced Trump as their power-source to try and remake society as well as schools in their flawed vision of an earthly Christian Kingdom (in contrast to Jesus' true Kingdom "not of this world"). I do not think it is likely that the current home/private school believers will abandon those institutions for a foray back into public schools. However, you may be correct that if (a Big IF) public education is co-opted by Christian Nationalism there may be fewer religious families abandoning public schools moving forward.
Being intimately familiar with intra-Christian denominational disagreements over many specific theological/behavioral issues, I don't see Trump's Christian Nationalists coming to a great number of agreements on the specifics of a "Republican" religious curriculum for all public schools.
It’s sad, really, Jon. People leave the public schools because they don’t want their children to learn about same sex attraction or transgender people. Why? Because they think that, by preventing their children from learning about those things, their children will not turn out to be gay or transgender. Which is absurd. Because being gay or transgender is something that certain people are born with. You can’t prevent children from being gay or transgender by making sure that they are not exposed to those concepts. Those parents, if the child at issue is gay or transgender, are just making their kids life more difficult.
Actually, there are a variety of different reasons for leaving public schools including the boogeyman of secular humanism in the 70s. I agree with you Joanie, that isolationism does not "protect" your kids from gay or trans being or any of the "liberal agenda" items that many of those parents fear. They will find those same children exist in their private schools and church youth groups anyway, so unless they take the homeschool protectionist agenda to its logical conclusion and do homechurch, homeplay, homeeverything, homeemployment their children will still gain exposure to them.
“Uneducated” I think is a better descriptor of your characterisation of homeschooled kids. They do much better on test scores than school-schooled kids, and they are far more inquisitive. My retired physics professor aunt told me that, whenever she had students that were unusually attentive, keenly interested in what was being taught, asked lots of questions and scored superlatively on exams, she was surprised (at first, later unsurprised) to discover that they were homeschooled. She came to recognize it as a kind of “secret sauce”.
Point taken, thanks.
There are many homeschooled kids who exactly as you describe. There are also many homeschooled" kids simply not educated by their parents, don't follow any sort of curriculum, are not properly socialized, and our society will have to live with the results. The internet has made it MUCH easier for families to claim to homeschool their children when they actually do nothing of the kind.
I think what you’re describing there is more an issue of child neglect, which sadly, I’m sure, does occur.
I have never paid serious attention to this argument. There are lots of reasons that the public schools lag behind. But the plain truth is that the public schools accept all. They accept students from good families and bad families. They accept kids from families where parents started reading books to them when the kids were three and families where the parents don't care if they graduate. They accept students who never ever present discipline problems in school and children who are looking to cause trouble the moment they are on school grounds. There are kids that could probably teach themselves and kids that will probably be fortunate if they ever learn to write their own names. This is going to troublesome enough without throwing in all the politics and other BS that enters the education formula. I attended the dreaded CPS system until 11th grade. I somehow survived to become a teacher and get a master's degree. I understand the desire of many parents to get a better education for their kids than they think can be earned in public schools. But I fail to see how mere avoidance of real life and different kinds of people and ideas benefits anyone. Furthermore, with the right kind of support, especially from home, kids will survive public schools and end up just fine. I once again provide myself as an example. We had troublemakers in school. I knew more than a few on the street. I have never committed a felony or created any other sort of trouble. I'm quite sure I am not the only one in that category. So if parents want to homeschool or send their kids to private schools, go for it. I'm in no position to argue, having graduated from Mendel Catholic. But public schools too often catch garbage for things that don't happen as much as people think and kids are not going to turn out warped and perverted unless they and ther parents allow it to hapoen.
In the recent Supreme Court case, from what I understand, the school district in question initially did allow parents to opt out when the gay themed books were first introduced, but then just decided that they couldn’t, so the district sort of opened a can of worms.
It seems to me that the obvious solution would be to just pull the books from the curriculum (after all, the district’s educational system seemed to be perfectly functional and productive for all the decades prior to the books’ inclusion, which was just a couple of years ago). I know, this would amount to an outrageous capitulation to bigoted totalitarian whims, but really, how necessary are they? I haven’t read them, but it seems a bit gratuitous to require sexually themed books for kindergarteners and early grade schoolers.
Again, there are two debates regardless of the specific curriculum. There are both religious and non-religious parents who would insist upon a proper "child-development" age policy that determines when certain topics such as sex-education are included in the public school classrooms regardless of whether they agree with what is included in that curriculum. I would say this should be left to the profession educational experts to decide, but even with their decision I believe that Opt-Out is necessary since not every child in those age specific classrooms would be at the level of social/emotional maturity to handle the topic.
The other debate is of course what the actual curriculum (such as sex-ed) should/can include and that conflict has been ongoing for 60 years or more and is not going to be solved anytime soon. Again, I believe this also supports the value to Opt-Out.
The books at issue in the Supreme Court’s decision were not about coitus. They were not about sex any more than Snow White is about sex in that it ends with the prince kissing Snow White and the prince and Snow White marrying. Kid’s books are full of stories about heterosexual love, like Snow White, and no one objects to that. But when stories end with two men getting married or two women getting married, all of a sudden the cis-hetero normies say they are sexually themed books inappropriate for children.
Are you saying that the Christian nationalists and cringing cowards that run the public schools are hypocrites? Shame on you!(LOL) I am so glad to be retired from the public schools. It's not even just about sex. It's about hypersensitivity to anything that might upset just one parent in a school district and bring on the lawyers. If I were still teaching junior high social studies, I'd be sorely tempted to hang the Ten Commandments- along with the religious fundamentals of every other religion I could get my hands on and watch how fair the righteous Christians are. Teach young children about love and compassion for others? What a ridiculous idea! Let's instead clothe them in brownshirts and teach them how to shoot.
Similarly to your other post, Joanie, the isolationism to avoid types of people and families that are "not like my religion" fuels the censorship. In my youth, my church groups railed against depictions of divorce, single mothers, etc. lest those be considered "valid" ways of living. Lot of good it did the church then to prevent such family lives from happening.
And since The Big Lebowski is relevant to all these issues:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AV_0PzeZRs8&pp=ygUXVGhlIGJpZyBsZWJvd3NraSBjb2l0dXM%3D
Then why did the school district initially allow the cis-hetero normie parents to opt out, but then changed its mind?
If you want to know about the books at issue, you can read the Supreme Court opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf
Here’s the description of a couple of the books at issue taken from the Supreme Court opinion (I am so proud that I finally figured out how to copy from a PDF on my iPhone):
“Prince & Knight tells the story of a coming-of-age prince whose parents wish to match him with “a kind and worthy bride.” Id., at 397a. After meeting with “many ladies,” the prince tells his parents that he is “‘looking for something different in a partner by [his] side.’” Id., at 398a, 400a. Later in the book, the prince falls into the “embrace” of a knight after the two finish battling a fearsome dragon. Id., at 415a. After the knight takes off his helmet, the prince and knight “gaz[e] into each other’s eyes, [and] their hearts beg[in] to race.” Id., at 418a–419a. The whole kingdom later applauds “on the two men’s wedding day.” Id., at 424a.
Love Violet follows a young girl named Violet who has a crush on her female classmate, Mira. Mira makes Violet’s “heart skip” and “thunde[r] like a hundred galloping horses.” Id., at 431a, 436a. Although Violet is initially too afraid to interact with Mira, the two end up exchanging gifts on Valentine’s Day. Afterwards, the two girls are seen holding hands and “galloping over snowy drifts to see what they might find. Together.” Id., at 446a.”
Thanks for the spoilers.
What about the one where Penelope, of "Born Ready: The Story of a Boy Named Penelope," insists she's really a boy because she likes "skateboarding, 'baggy blue jeans, button-front shirts, math, science, and getting straight A’s,' and 'most of all' wants a 'Mohawk haircut'"? (Dissent at 5.) That one sent a chill down my spine. It reminded me of the talking Barbie who averred that "Math class is tough!"
In neither description of the book (not in the majority opinion nor in the dissent) does it say that Penelope insists she is a boy *because* she likes “skateboarding, 'baggy blue jeans, button-front shirts, math, science, and getting straight A’s,' and 'most of all' wants a 'Mohawk haircut.’” Phrasing it that way makes it sound like she wanted to transition in order to meet our culture’s misogynistic gender expectations, a false idea promoted by TERFs and other transphobes in order to discredit transgender people and our life experiences. As if we embrace our culture’s misogynistic gender expectations and as if we don’t understand that men can be nurturing and empathetic, and women can be aggressive, strong, and confrontational. The TERF/transphobe theory is that people don’t need to transition; they just need to learn that they don’t need to meet our culture’s gender expectations. Which would be true if we transitioned *because* we wanted to meet those expectations. But that’s not why people transition.
The majority opinion said this about the book:
“Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope tells the story of Penelope, a child who is initially treated as a girl. The story is told from the perspective of Penelope, who at one point says “If they’d all stop and listen, I’d tell them about me. Inside I’m a boy.” Id., at 454a. When Penelope’s mother later assures her that “‘If you feel like a
boy, that’s okay,’” Penelope responds: “‘No, Mama, I don’t feel like a boy. I AM a boy.’” Id., at 458a. Penelope tells
her mother:
“‘I love you, Mama, but I don’t want to be you. I want to be Papa. I don’t want tomorrow to come because tomorrow I’ll look like you. Please help me, Mama. Help me to be a boy.’” Id., at 459a.
Penelope’s mother then agrees that she is a boy, and Penelope says: “For the first time, my insides don’t feel like fire. They feel like warm, golden love.” Id., at 462a. Later, after the family starts treating Penelope as a boy, Penelope’s brother complains that “‘You can’t become a boy. You have to be born one.’” Id., at 465a. This comment draws a rebuke from Penelope’s mother: “‘Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.’” Ibid.”
And the dissent says this about the book:
“Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope tells the story of a child who likes skateboarding, “baggy blue jeans, button-front shirts, math, science, and getting straight A’s,” and “most of all” wants a “Mohawk haircut.” Id., at 452a. When Penelope tells his mother that he is a boy, she accepts him: “‘However you feel is fine, baby,’” she says. Id., at 458a. When Penelope’s brother expresses skepticism, his mother says, “‘Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.’” Id., at 465a (emphasis in original).”
My friend used the term “Alligator Auschwitz” for the detention camp in Florida, which is probably not as accurate as the right’s preferred term, and certainly diminishes the true horror of the Holocaust. But I can understand the sentiment.
Yes, until people start literally dying at that camp and others the Auschwitz reference is over the top
Auschwitz was not about dying from indifference or neglect; it was about intentional killing on a MASSIVE scale. Occasional or even frequent deaths at the detention facility won't justify a comparison with Auschwitz.
There were two kinds of German Nazi camps: concentration camps (Konzentrationslager) and death camps (Vernichtungslager). Auschwitz was both. So I agree with Eric that referring to Alligator Alcatraz as Alligator Auschwitz is probably inappropriate. But it is entirely appropriate to refer to Alligator Alcatraz as a concentration camp.
Auschwitz was originally an Austro-Hungarian military base. The Nazi's first use of it was to house prisoners of war (Poles, Russians), very few of whom survived. They were worked to death (maximum output, minimum input) rather than being killed on arrival (extermination). Nothing like that is going to happen at the detention facility, no matter how reprehensible it may be. It will not be a Konzentrationslager.
Analogously, referring to the relocation camps run by the WRA (Wartime Relocation Authority) during World War II as concentration camps reveals a lack of historical understanding.
You missed something, EZ. The orange stain has already stated he wants to feed them to the alligators. Classy guy!
It might be over the top for the moment, but Laura Loomer's comment about "65 million meals" is not to be taken lightly. That's not just immigrants, legal or not, that's the entire Latino population of the US, about 20% of the total. How long until the conditions at that place do start claiming lives? Then your term for it won't be so far off.
any bets on how long until we find a pit full of corpses at one of these Alligator Alcatrazes and then the what constitutes a "mass grave" debate begins?
If you put a date on “how long” and a number on “pit full” I may take you up on it!
As to Paramount settling the bullshit lawsuit in order to facilitate their merger with Skydance, they should remember that extortion rarely ends after the first capitulation. There is little keeping Trump from squeezing them for more and more concessions until CBS is nothing more than a mouthpiece for his propaganda.
I’m livid over this! Paramount is the one streaming service that is a constant for me - mainly because I can’t stay up late enough to watch Colbert, and am not always home for CBS Sunday Morning or 60 Minutes. Giving it up would be hard for me, but this capitulation to The Don makes it much easier.
I agree that this is a tough one, but an option (at least for Colbert) is to watch the segments on YouTube for free (which I do, even though I also subscribe to P+).
True, John, thank you. It won’t be the same, but first-world problems, right?
I know there is often a short sketch piece at the beginning of the show that I often miss because I start with the monologue, but each successive segment after that is usually the first link at the end of the video, with the previous day’s monologue as the second link.
Thank you!
I also record 60 Minutes along with CBS Sunday Morning every week. Or I used to until the parent company’s capitulation to the thief in chief. I wonder if any of the fair minded correspondents of those two shows (Steve Hartman, Lee Cowan, Mo Rocca, Martha Teichner et al) will comment on or leave over this situation. I know they all have high paying jobs, but at what point does someone say “enough.”
The Oxford dictionary defines extortion as:
“the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats”
I’ll add whether the threats are spoken or implied.
So we can add extortioner to the list of ways to describe the orange idiot.
I don't get why you'd boycott CBS News. They didn't make the decision to pay off Trump, and I'm sure they're plenty steamed about it. It's Paramount and Shari Redstone who are to blame. If the point of the boycott is to punish Paramount, you should really boycott everything Paramount (and Skydance, Paramount's merger partner) produces *except* CBS News, with which you stand in solidarity. Unfortunately, that would include Colbert, the Daily Show, an excellent film catalogue, and every single CSI.
I don’t support the CBS decision to pay off Trump, but I gave it some thought, and figure that it is possible to change the meaning of an interview with selective editing. So we do have to be discerning. Fox and MSNBC can both take the same interview and edit it into two different views of any issue. Just look at the videos of Biden from last year.
Does that rise to the level of election tampering, though? Not really.
And if the new standard is "no editing of interviews with politicians," then I say release ALL of the recorded interview footage of every politician currently in office. Especially Trump. CBS News should take the lead, since it was their parent company that gave us this new precedent.
This is extortion pure and simple. Make it more expensive to defend than to pay. It’s like we have an ambulance chasing lawyer for president.
Except he's not a lawyer, far too stupid to be one. remember, one professor at Wharton called him, the exact quote: "The dumbest fucking student I ever had!"
He never took any tests, he paid others to take the tests for him.
Wharton should rescind Trump's degree.
Just to be clear, political coverage favorable to an opponent, even when cast as "election interference" or whatever, cannot be the basis in itself of any sort of lawsuit. Editing an interview in a certain way, even if arguably misleading, cannot be the basis of any sort of lawsuit, unless it's for defamation and that is very difficult to establish for a public figure. If Trump's lawsuit were lent credence, it would mean the end of Fox News and any political coverage. It's insane.
Trump didn't even allege defamation. His theory was that CBS violated a Texas consumer protection law that punishes false advertising. The (asinine) idea is that CBS was tyring to "sell" Harris in the marketplace and lying about its product. It's a total joke and would not have withstood scrutiny under the law itself and certainly not under the First Amendment, which is at its most protective when it comes to political matters and protects coverage that is slanted or even arguably misleading. The lawsuit should have been seen as sanctionable as frivolous, a very high bar. This story quotes two outstanding scholars laying out the bogusness of the case.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-sues-cbs-news-60-minutes-interview/
Just curious, but isn't threatening a political candidate (the one running for mayor of New York) with arrest and deportation election interference?
Yes, but then so is sending a mob to storm the Capitol to prevent vote certification. We're way past that point. SCOTUS out front should have told you.
The “opt-out” ruling for schools is going to accelerate the exodus of good teachers. It’s becoming nearly impossible to just stand in front of a classroom and teach kids.
Yes, but that’s not because of “opt-out” options. It’s because of phones, which, for some strange reason, are not federally banned in all schools.
You are partially correct. Mary Beth was correct. It is definitely tougher to stand in front of kids and talk. I've been there. As a retired substitute, I have conditioned myself to follow certain rules. I never praise female students on anything physical. I do not address students by gender. I do not so much as tease male students about anything physical. I do not have students pass out graded papers. When taking attendance, I immediately apologize for accidentally mispronouncing student names. I never hug students or so much as put a hand on their shoulders to console them or get their attention. Discipline when necessary, does not involve raising my voice or criticizing them in any way. School is a constant battle of trying not to antagonize students in any way. And I teach in a rural area. I hate to even think about what it's like in the city.
It’s a combination of MANY things - just saying this won’t help...
Thank you for mentioning Joyce White Vance's coverage of the denaturalization initiative at the DOJ. As a naturalized citizen, it's very close to home for me and I've been following it. She highlights how the DOJ memo is very vague on guidelines for referring cases for denaturalization:
"Further, the Civil Division retains the discretion to pursue cases outside of these categories as it determines appropriate. The assignment of denaturalization cases may be made across sections or units based on experience, subject-matter expertise, and the overall needs of the Civil Division.”
Vance draws an apt parallel to 1930's Germany. Jews had been made full German citizens there by the Constitution of 1919, but in 1933 a new law allowed to strip citizenship from people whose "conduct violated the duty of loyalty toward Germany or harmed German interests."
The vagueness of the language in both cases allows the respective regime to take away citizenship and corresponding rights from anyone they don't like. I sure hope ICE doesn't look through my Facebook and PS comments.
The question raised about the "LGBTQ opt out" decision is the same question I had -- at first. But then I remembered that courts have been dealing with these kinds of claims from prisoners (e.g., "the prison is violating my first amendment rights by not giving me chocolate cake at every meal because I belong to the Holy Church of Chocolate") for years. So there is an established body of law on the subject that can give guidance. (Not saying I agree with the decision, only that Mr. Zorn's "where does it stop" point doesn't hold as much water as he thinks.)
Can you cite some real examples? I am not in favor of having the government decide which religious views are valid, sincere and must be accommodated and which are simply opportunistic claims. I'd be curious to read the rulings and the claims. And I serious about, say, racial intermarriage -- PLENTY of religious conservatives were against that back in the 1960s at least, and all you have to do is read the arguments that led up to the Loving v. Virginia case. So what if a family wanted to opt their kid out of studying a book where a Black person fell in love with a white person? What would a judge say? What would Judge Ben say? I have more hypotheticals if you'd like!
On what basis could the government say that one religion is valid and other religions are not valid? It seems to me that any decision by the government along those lines would run afoul of the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. I think the defense against the chocolate cake scenario is Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), which held that laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause as long as their purpose is not directed at a religion. The Smith case involved the use of peyote in indigenous religion practices. So a decision not to serve chocolate cake (or to provide peyote) in prisons would not run afoul of the Free Exercise Clause even if it affected the ability of the prisoner to practice his religion. Theoretically, the government could ban alcohol, including its use for Holy Communion, without violating the Free Exercise Clause. Now, things have been complicated a little since the Smith decision by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law by President Clinton in 1993.
Joanie, you're a good person. You obviously know the law. You used "basis" ( I assume you meant legal basis) and government in the same sentence. With the present government and Inferior Court, what do the two have to do with each other?
I'm a retired lawyer and no longer have access to the legal research tools that would let me come up with examples. But I have plenty of experience in prisoner litigation, and I can assure you prisoners have often made dubious demands of prison authorities based on equally dubious claims that refusing those demands would violate their supposed religious beliefs. Prisoners have plenty of time on their hands and are endlessly creative that way.
As for Ms. Wimmer's post below questioning what business the government has deciding what is and is not a legitimate religious belief, the law governing prisons not only allows but requires courts to decide which beliefs are "religious" in nature and whether those beliefs are "sincerely held." (See the helpful description of the extensive legal framework at https://jlm.law.columbia.edu/files/2017/05/39.-Ch.-27.pdf).
Now, whether that law (some of which is Constitutional and some statutory) might apply to schools, as I suggested earlier, is another matter. Schools aren't prisons (though some schoolkids might disagree), and case law developed under statutes specifically applicable to prisons might well be irrelevant.
I’m always happy to learn new things, Ben. Where in the law review article does it say that the government can decide which beliefs are “religious” in nature? I understand that the government may inquire as to whether someone’s beliefs are “sincerely held,” but I’m quite confident that the First Amendment prohibits the government from deciding which religions are valid religions and which are not.
The relevant statute is the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000cc et seq. More easily digested than the statute itself is the Seventh Circuit's decision applying it in West v. Radtke, No. 20-1570 (7th Cir. Sept. 16, 2022). Under the Act, the West decision explains, "courts are authorized to decide—indeed, must decide—whether a request for a faith-based exemption [from a prison regulation] is in fact religious in nature and sincere." Id. at 16.
The Columbia "Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual" at jlm.law.columbia.edu/files/2017/05/39.-Ch.-27.pdf, which I cited above, has a thorough description of the law in this area. The description appears to be current, though I make no guarantees!
Ben, I read West v Radke, and I don’t believe that it contradicts anything that I have said twice: that the First Amendment prohibits the government from deciding which religions are valid, and which are not. The case does have dicta that says, “courts are authorized to decide—indeed, must decide—whether a request for a faith-based exemption [from a prison regulation] is in fact religious in nature and sincere.” So, for example, if I were a prisoner and I said that I did not want to be served lamb for supper because I didn’t like its taste, the prison could conclude that my request for an exemption was not religious in nature. But if I were a prisoner, and I said that I did not want to be served lamb for supper because I believe in a God who prohibits the eating of lamb, the prison could not conclude that my request for an exemption was not religious in nature. And once it is determined that my request is religious in nature, the prison cannot determine that my religion is not a valid religion. In other words, the prison cannot say that the religion practiced by Malcom X, which prohibited the eating of pork, is a valid religion, but my religion which prohibits the eating of lamb is not. Once the prisoner says that their belief is related somehow to God or the divine, that ends the inquiry as to whether it’s religious. And if the belief is sincerely held, then we get into Employment Division v. Smith, and the statute you cited, which is basically the Religious Freedom Restoration Act for prisons.
You’re quite right that neither the Act nor West says a court can decide whether a “religion is valid” — meaning that a set of religious beliefs is true. But a court can certainly decide (West says “must” decide) whether a set of beliefs is “religious in nature,” a question that doesn’t involve getting into the beliefs’ “validity.” And even if a prisoner’s beliefs are religious in nature, under the Act a court can (in fact, must) decide whether those beliefs are “sincerely held.” There’s case law on what constitutes a “religion” (though I’ve not read any of it in ages), and I have to assume there are also cases on what it means to “sincerely hold” religious beliefs.
Would my chocolate cake hypothetical meet either criterion? Before we could say, we’d probably need more information both about the religion and about the prisoner who claimed he was one of its adherents.
The IRS has stupidly & cowardly decided the money grubbing cult of $cientology is a religion, which it definitely is not & never has been. It's crackpot founder said around 1949-50 "If a fellow really wants to make a lot of money, he'd start his own religion", which is exactly what that failed science fiction writer did!
I'm not sure you can avoid the question of when to accommodate unless you believe that freedom of religion includes no rights to accommodation whatsoever. Take public school dress codes that generally ban headwear indoors. A student who has usually worn a hijab wants to wear a hijab in school. It's clear the school may make an exception for the hijab (so long as it also makes exceptions for turbans or yarmulkes and the like, in order to remain religiously neutral). Must it make such exceptions? What would Judge Eric say?
Censorship?
Congrats EZ on 200 publications. I’ve read (nearly because if I’m on vacation I sometimes forget) every one of them. Tuesdays and Thursdays are my favorite days to check my email.
I can’t get past the practical problem with the Trump lawsuit against CBS before I can consider any First Amendment issues. Where are the damages? He won the election. To win a civil suit for monetary damages you must suffer a loss and the other party must be responsible (non-lawyer). There was no loss. The case should have been thrown out at the first hearing.
This is actually an interesting and telling aspect of this nonsense. He sued under the Texas Deceptive Practices and Consumer Protection law, the same law that guards against false advertising and such. He claimed that the aired interview inflicted economic harm on his media businesses by fraudulently diverting attention from them or distorting his reputation or something of that sort, to many millions of viewers.
This is a "novel", unprecedented application of the law, framing a news interview as commercial speech.
The reason it was not immediately tossed is it was filed in Northern District of Texas, where the only judge is Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee who is the current darling of all the most cruel conservative causes, like the Plan B pill being ordered through mail. He would have ruled in favor of Trump regardless. It's possible (but not very likely) SCOTUS would have overruled him, but it would have taken a very long time and as EZ points out it would have delayed Paramount's merger plans.
To sum up, we no longer live in a country under the rule of law and common sense. Oligarchs and a cruel petty tyrant have the run of the place.
Mark, thanks for the background info....
It's amazing how it's okay for GOP/MAGA/Righties to Judge shop but when liberals do it, it's a sin.
Here’s a description (direct quote) from the Supreme Court opinion of two of the books parents want to opt their children out of:
“Prince & Knight tells the story of a coming-of-age prince whose parents wish to match him with “a kind and worthy bride.” Id., at 397a. After meeting with “many ladies,” the prince tells his parents that he is “‘looking for something different in a partner by [his] side.’” Id., at 398a, 400a. Later in the book, the prince falls into the “embrace” of a knight after the two finish battling a fearsome dragon. Id., at 415a. After the knight takes off his helmet, the prince and knight “gaz[e] into each other’s eyes, [and] their hearts beg[in] to race.” Id., at 418a–419a. The whole kingdom later applauds “on the two men’s wedding day.” Id., at 424a.
Love Violet follows a young girl named Violet who has a crush on her female classmate, Mira. Mira makes Violet’s “heart skip” and “thunde[r] like a hundred galloping horses.” Id., at 431a, 436a. Although Violet is initially too afraid to interact with Mira, the two end up exchanging gifts on Valentine’s Day. Afterwards, the two girls are seen holding hands and “galloping over snowy drifts to see what they might find. Together.” Id., at 446a.”
Eric, could not agree more about Paramount's craven behavior. Will be avoiding their stations, other than to let advertisers know I am.
The only way I would watch 60 Minutes in the future is if they did a segment on the how and why of this debacle.