╌>

Amid constitutional concerns, Florida House OKs bill allowing chaplains in schools | WUSF

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  kavika  •  one month ago  •  169 comments

By:   Ryan Dailey (WUSF)

Amid constitutional concerns, Florida House OKs bill allowing chaplains in schools | WUSF
Supporters of the measure say allowing chaplains would add another tool to help schools address children's mental health issues. The bill would need approval from the Senate.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


WUSF | By Ryan Dailey - News Service of Florida Published February 25, 2024 at 5:01 AM EST

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Email

?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnpr-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F34%2F38%2Fe1ec62ad4245aa5d3bf6a1107779%2Fanna-esakmani.jpg

Supporters of the measure say allowing chaplains would add another tool to help schools address children's mental health issues. The bill would need approval from the Senate.


The Florida House on Thursday passed a measure that would allow school districts to authorize volunteer chaplains to provide "support, services and programs" to students in public schools, amid a debate about whether the bill would be constitutional.

Under the proposal (HB 931) chaplains would have to meet background screening requirements, and school districts or charter schools would have to get parental consent before students could receive chaplains' services.

Supporters of the measure say allowing chaplains would add another tool to help schools address children's mental-health issues.

"I think all of us agree that our children are in crisis, we agree that parents need help. We agree that there are a lot of spiritual needs that people could meet if a parent felt it was necessary for their child," bill sponsor Stan McClain, R-Ocala, said.

The Republican-controlled House voted 89-25 to pass the measure, with some Democrats questioning whether allowing chaplains in schools would be constitutional.

"Can you point to me, in your bill, what lines and language will prevent religious proselytization and coercion of students as well as other violations of the U.S. Constitution?" Rep. Ashley Gantt, a Miami Democrat who is a lawyer, asked during a floor discussion Wednesday.

"There are none in the bill," McClain replied.

Rep. Anna Eskamani, D-Orlando, pointed to the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"At the end of the day, when we put into place any type of established religion in a public school setting, it does raise those flags. And I don't want to put our school districts in a situation where they're going to be faced with litigation on these issues," Eskamani said during a debate Thursday.


"Can you point to me, in your bill, what lines and language will prevent religious proselytization and coercion of students as well as other violations of the U.S. Constitution?"

Rep. Ashley Gantt, D-Miami

A House staff analysis of the bill said that, in "general, the Establishment Clause prevents public schools from engaging in activities which could be construed as sponsoring or endorsing religion. Prayer and Bible readings in public schools during school hours are impermissible."

The ACLU of Florida has argued the bill is unconstitutional.

"Courts have repeatedly ruled that it is unconstitutional for public schools to invite religious leaders onto campus to engage in religious activities, such as prayer and religious counseling, with students," Kara Gross, legislative director and senior policy counsel for the ACLU of Florida, said in a prepared statement.

"If passed, this bill will likely create public education environments ripe for religious coercion and indoctrination of students," Gross added.

School districts and principals that want to allow chaplains would have to meet various requirements. For example, principals would be required to inform parents about the availability of chaplains. Parents would have to be able to choose chaplains from lists provided by school districts, with the lists including "the chaplain's religious affiliation, if any."

Critics of the bill have also questioned why the bill would not mandate training or credentials for chaplains.

"Now we are saying that, first, we don't have to have any qualifications for these chaplains. So any Joe Schmo who says, 'Hey, I'm a chaplain, I want to go into these schools,' all they need to do is a background check and claim to be a chaplain without any verification," Gantt said during debate Thursday.

Rep. Robin Bartleman, a Weston Democrat who is a former educator, asked Wednesday if parents would be informed about chaplains' levels of experience.

"Since you're mandating the information be posted on a website, and this is really important, are you mandating a disclaimer to let them know that these chaplains may or may not have experience or be licensed health-care professionals?" Bartleman asked.

"The school boards would have the authority to do that if they so choose," McClain replied.

Rep. Adam Anderson, R-Palm Harbor, argued that faith-based mentors are a valuable part of providing services to young people and families.

"Just like there's no replacement for a licensed mental-health professional or a doctor who can write prescriptions, there's never going to be a replacement for what a faith-based counselor — a chaplain, a pastor or a rabbi — can add to a child or to a family," Anderson said.

The measure would need approval from the Senate before it could go to Gov. Ron DeSantis. Senate President Kathleen Passidomo, R-Naples, and Senate bill sponsor Erin Grall, R-Vero Beach, said Thursday they think the bill would pass constitutional muster.

"Anytime somebody doesn't like a bill … the first thing they say is, it's unconstitutional. That's their default objection," Passidomo told reporters.

"I think that it actually is squarely within the Constitution. Not only would parents have to consent to the consultation with a specific chaplain. But there's also, they can't prevent any specific chaplain from being a part of the program either based on religion. So, these are the bare minimum guidelines to participate," Grall said.


Red Box Rules

OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT WARNING.


 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Kavika     one month ago
Critics of the bill have also questioned why the bill would not mandate training or credentials for chaplains.

"Now we are saying that, first, we don't have to have any qualifications for these chaplains. So any Joe Schmo who says, 'Hey, I'm a chaplain, I want to go into these schools,' all they need to do is a background check and claim to be a chaplain without any verification," Gantt said during debate Thursday.

Rep. Robin Bartleman, a Weston Democrat who is a former educator, asked Wednesday if parents would be informed about chaplains' levels of experience.

"Since you're mandating the information be posted on a website, and this is really important, are you mandating a disclaimer to let them know that these chaplains may or may not have experience or be licensed health-care professionals?" Bartleman asked.

The perfect example of PANDORA'S BOX.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1  Gsquared  replied to  Kavika @1    one month ago

It does seem like it could open a Pandora's Box and have some really undesirable consequences, but think of the joke possibilities:  A priest, a minister and a rabbi walk into a school...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Kavika   replied to  Gsquared @1.1    one month ago
A priest, a minister and a rabbi walk into a school...

Perfect.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @1    one month ago

oh goody, I like the odds of more xtian rwnj child sex scandals hitting the news in florida real soon. what was the name of their last rwnj thumper sex club? liberties with moms or something like that?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Gsquared  replied to  devangelical @1.2    one month ago
liberties with moms

Hilarious.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.2.2  seeder  Kavika   replied to  devangelical @1.2    one month ago

Liberties with moms, AKA ''Threesomes sometimes anonymous''.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.2    one month ago

lololol

it's only their 'liberties' that they're concerned about and the first ones caught with their pants down

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.4  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.3    one month ago

almost always. their preoccupation with everyone else's sex lives originates with the old testament.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.2.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @1.2.4    one month ago
their preoccupation with everyone else's sex lives originates with the old testament.

Hardly, the Old Testament is around 4,000 years old.  Interest in the tribes sex life certainly predates that. Our primate cousins enjoy sex in the open. Early man living in communal houses likely did the same.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.2.4    one month ago

yup, what was the group, or was it just a gqp/gop'r spouting family values who was doing threesomes with his wife and someone else - and a threesome where the wife wasn't participating and the family values guy raped the other threesome member after she said she didn't want to participate in a twosome with him?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.7  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.6    one month ago

maybe she didn't like the concept of plugging in the carpet cleaner if it wasn't going to be turned on.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.2.7    one month ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.9  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.8    one month ago

comedy gold.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2.10  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @1.2    one month ago

Have never been able to wrap my mind around organized mythology and superstition. What a huge lie it all is.

Have never been OK with the continued indoctrination of children. My brothers and sisters all fell for the lies and to this day are still hard core bible thumping believers.

I managed to see through it all. All of the lies!

Made me a very unpopular person whenever I mentioned it.

Folk don't like being told that their belief system is a lie.

Thankfully, eventually met free thinkers in larger towns.

All religion is mythology and superstition to me.

Maybe because I started reading sci-fi at an early age.

Heinlein told me to believe in 7 impossible things before breakfast.

So glad I met quality writers at an early age.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.11  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @1.2.10    one month ago

thumpers were put on earth to appease the god of hypocrisy by being sacrificed.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.12  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.2.11    4 weeks ago

prepare the altar...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2  sandy-2021492    one month ago

Oh, great.  The Founding Fathers did every thing they could to prevent this country from being a theocracy, because they knew the pitfalls, but some folks here forgot those lessons, and are stupidly determined to make the same mistakes all over again.  Just so long as it's their theocracy.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.1  Gsquared  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2    one month ago

Can you image the outcry from the theocrats if there was a muslim chaplain or a wiccan?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.1  CB  replied to  Gsquared @2.1    one month ago

So yes, it is a "mixed bag" situation for the public school system. I can't remember if chaplains have been in schools before now in this country.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gsquared @2.1    one month ago

Wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.3  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.2    one month ago

leave my divorce out of this ...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.2  seeder  Kavika   replied to  sandy-2021492 @2    one month ago

We don't need no stinking ''Founding Fathers'' we have a theocracy.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @2.2    one month ago

church law. did you do something wrong? you need to go to church, ask an inanimate object for forgiveness, say you won't do it again, and then empty your pockets, and only then will everything be okay...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2    one month ago

the threat to america posed by religious extremists is way understated. the rhetoric coming from them now is very disturbing.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3.1  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @2.3    one month ago

I caught a program on thumper radio a few months ago where the basic message was godless liberals are commies that want to takeover and outlaw religion, and please don't forget to send your tax deductible contribution to blah, blah, blah...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.3.2  seeder  Kavika   replied to  devangelical @2.3.1    one month ago

That sounds about par for the course with them.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3.3  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @2.3.2    one month ago

the thumper constitution would fit on one side of a business card...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.3.4  seeder  Kavika   replied to  devangelical @2.3.3    one month ago

LOL, and printed in crayon.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.3.5  bugsy  replied to  devangelical @2.3.3    one month ago

However untrue, if it were, it would begin and end with one word leftists hate the most....

Freedom

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.3.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  bugsy @2.3.5    one month ago

Freedom does not include the freedom to force one's religion on others.  They have the freedom to be free of it.  This law does not recognize that.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.3.7  bugsy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.3.6    one month ago

Don't know where you got all of that from. I just stated what I believe a "MAGA" constitution would consist of.

Religion is not on the top of my list for things I worry about.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.3.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  bugsy @2.3.7    one month ago
eligion is not on the top of my list for things I worry about

It's all just silly stereotypes and imagination. The more often a Republican voter  goes to church, the less likely he is to support Trump. But that's doesn't fit their simple stereotypical world view, so they pretend its the opposite.  They need an imaginary "theocracy" to feed their oppression fetish. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.3.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  bugsy @2.3.7    one month ago

You also made a false statement about the beliefs of leftists.  It's not leftists trying to indoctrinate children when they're a captive audience here.  It's conservatives.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.3.10  bugsy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.3.9    one month ago

I didn't say anything about the beliefs of leftists. I made a statement of the one word leftists hate the most. Freedom comes in many, many forms, not just religion.

Having a religious person in a school is not indoctrination. That person is there for support if someone requests them. They don't walk around schools and preach outside of classrooms. To think anything different shows the inaccuracy of leftist thinking.

 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.3.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  bugsy @2.3.10    one month ago

A distinction without a difference.

They don't walk around schools and preach outside of classrooms. To think anything different shows the inaccuracy of leftist thinking

There is nothing in the law to prevent proselytization, according to its sponsor, who is not a leftist.

If parents want their children to have religious counselling, churches abound in this nation.  They are free to take them to one.  Or to a mosque.  Will you try to convince us that there will be imams included in this chaplaincy?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3.12  devangelical  replied to  bugsy @2.3.10    one month ago

where's my freedom from religious bullshit and my freedom from thumper morons?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.13  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @2.3.12    one month ago

you are free not to listen.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
2.3.14  Right Down the Center  replied to  devangelical @2.3.12    one month ago

Vietnam would be a good choice

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.3.15  Gsquared  replied to  bugsy @2.3.5    one month ago

You have that completely ass backwards, of course.  Reactionary right wingers hate freedom with a passion.

A woman's freedom of choice.  OUT. 

The freedom of the American people to choose their own elected leaders.  GETTING RID OF THAT.

The freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.  Their Dear Leader Trump says he wants to terminate the Constitution.   

Looking internationally, the freedom of the Ukrainian people.  NO WAY.

The freedom of the people of Europe.  "Let Russia do whatever the hell they want."

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.3.16  CB  replied to  devangelical @2.3    one month ago

You know, . . .I can understand about an "entity" such as the church not wanting to lose (any of) its place, status, privilege in the world. . . everything 'living' wants to survive and continue. . . but, it should not be at the expense of other peoples place, status, privileges, and freedoms. I can never support that kind of activity.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.3.17  CB  replied to  devangelical @2.3.1    one month ago

You are so right. They are doing this in earnest nowadays. Even TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network owned by the Crouch Family) has opened up a new network, Merit Street Media (MSM. Not to be confused with Main Stream Media?) And guess who is the 'big honcho' if not just a 'big honcho' on it: Dr. Phil.

(I can't tell if Dr. Phil McGraw 'owns' the network or is just its 'flagship' show right now.)

Dr. Phil Primetime and MERIT STREET MEDIA™ 
 

Dear Dr. Phil Viewers, Fans, and Followers, 

I am thrilled to share exciting news about a significant project that my team and I have been diligently working on since our last live daytime taping this past spring. I can only hope that you share my enthusiasm as I am delighted to announce that I will soon be returning to the airwaves with an all-new series of original episodes, airing nightly in prime time on our very own network, MERIT STREET MEDIA  (MSM)  . "Dr. Phil Primetime" is set to premiere on Monday, February 26th, 2024, and will air every evening at 8 PM Eastern Time. The name of our new network, Merit Street Media, holds a special significance. I chose "Merit" to honor the meritocracy upon which our amazing country was built, and "Street" to represent "Main Street" America. We are now headquartered in the heart of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, where a brand-new, state-of-the-art broadcast center, spanning over 5 acres, is near completion. Many dedicated "Dr. Phil" team members have made the transition with me, relocating their families to Texas, so we can continue working together, alongside all of you at home.

It seems he, Dr. Phil is 'hitching,' his star to TBN's future and maybe, just maybe unhitching his star from OWN (Oprah Network) . . remains to be seen if politics will heavily partisan formatted on the new network. It will have daily news-hour shows (24/7 and 365 days a year).

TBN is a religious non-profit and should not have preachers and teachers of religion opining and doing stories about politics on a regular basis: But, it does do so and all one has to do is watch it to catch the preachers and teachers in the 'act' of making political statements and "choice" remarks!

We will have to see what Dr. Phil does. . . and if he goes to far off his usual brand by being on MSM .

 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.3.18  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.8    one month ago

Well, it is about time Pence, that 'saintly' man if you will, cut Trump loose and he has done so. It took long enough and his association with Trump has not served him well either. May be churches can sterilize themselves from the foulness of Donald Trump with a spiritual 'power-washing,' but "Lordy" it is going to take time. For Donald Trump gives off one foul long-lasting stench!

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.3.19  seeder  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.8    one month ago

Nice deflection, you might want to talk to Evangelicals about your conclusion.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.3.20  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.13    one month ago

Ok, well then you’re free not to listen to the teacher talk about the great time she had the pride parade.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.21  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.20    one month ago

Exactly!!

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.3.22  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.21    one month ago

But not exactly.

If the teacher does that, she goes to jail. On the other hand, if the chaplain starts preaching the gospel, nothing happens.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.3.23  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.22    one month ago

Texan is also conveniently ignoring the fact that children in school do NOT have a choice to not listen, if these chaplains choose to proselytize to them.  They have to sit there in their desks and listen.  No leaving the classroom.  No noise-cancelling headphones.

No freedom of religion.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.24  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.3.23    one month ago
Texan is also conveniently ignoring the fact that children in school do NOT have a choice to not listen, if these chaplains choose to proselytize to them.

Please stop telling tales about me.

Thank you.

I have ignored absolutely nothing.

My understanding of this bill is that allows for chaplains in schools.  And probably like school counselors, participation is probably voluntary, especially with a chaplain.

I won't worry incessantly over what MIGHT happen, I find it unproductive and a monumental waste of time.

No freedom of religion.

Maybe we read different articles, I see nothing about anyone's freedom of religion being denied or curtailed in any way.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.3.25  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.24    one month ago
"Can you point to me, in your bill, what lines and language will prevent religious proselytization and coercion of students as well as other violations of the U.S. Constitution?" Rep. Ashley Gantt, a Miami Democrat who is a lawyer, asked during a floor discussion Wednesday. "There are none in the bill," McClain replied.

McClain, by the way, is the bill's sponsor.

The bill contains no preventative agains religious coercion, according to its sponsor.

If you don't see the danger to a student's civil rights in that, that's a problem.  I don't need to tell tales about you.  You're telling them about yourself.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.26  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.3.25    one month ago
McClain, by the way, is the bill's sponsor.

Yes, I told you, I read the article.

The bill contains no preventative agains religious coercion, according to its sponsor.

In the article I read, too.

If you don't see the danger to a student's civil rights in that, that's a problem. 

Not a problem for me at all. I can't and won't speak for others, they may or may not have a problem with it, but it isn't my problem. I don't see any threat to their civil rights at all.

I don't need to tell tales about you.

Then I suggest respectfully that you don't.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3.27  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.13    one month ago
you are free not to listen.

they shouldn't need to be constantly reminded to keep it in their church or home, and out of my face...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.28  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @2.3.27    one month ago
they shouldn't need to be constantly reminded to keep it in their church or home.

Yeah, but I am a proponent of free speech, so there's that preventing me from restricting people talking about religion because a handful of folks may get upset hearing about it.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.3.29  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.22    one month ago

Nice!

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.3.30  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.28    one month ago
Yeah, but I am a proponent of free speech, so there's that preventing me from restricting people talking about religion because a handful of folks may get upset hearing about it.

I'm a proponent of free speech too. There's a whole bunch of new red state laws preventing some  from making a living entertaining people because a handful of folks may get upset seeing a man dressed up as a woman lip synching to pop songs. I don't see you taking up their cause.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3.31  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.28    one month ago
I am a proponent of free speech

me too, but some thumpers don't handle public ridicule very well while testifying and may turn violent...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.32  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @2.3.15    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.33  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @2.3.31    one month ago
me too, but some thumpers don't handle public ridicule very well while testifying and may turn violent...

I never would have guessed, based solely on your grousing about religion and religious folks at every turn!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.34  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @2.3.30    one month ago
I don't see you taking up their cause.

Kind of like I don't see you taking up the cause of religious people being able to talk about religion in public, eh?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3.35  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.34    one month ago

those attempting to remove the rights of others by incorporating their religious dogma into government policy are already violating the 1st amendment, and they negate their protection by the 1st amendment with their hypocrisy.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.3.36  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.34    one month ago
Kind of like I don't see you taking up the cause of religious people being able to talk about religion in public, eh?

Except I do. I also support the ACLU where they have gone to court to protect those rights. The religious have the very same right as everyone else to talk about whatever they want in public. It's when they want exclusive access to the public that I have issues. It's where they want to encroach into areas they don't belong like schools that I have an issue. I would not support a law forcing Humanists have equal time in churches, so why would it make sense to support priests in schools?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.37  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @2.3.35    one month ago

Almost believable!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3.38  devangelical  replied to  bugsy @2.3.7    one month ago
I just stated what I believe a "MAGA" constitution would consist of.

too bad I was talking about a thumper constitution. a maga constitution is the bible with a maga sticker on it.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.4  cjcold  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2    one month ago

Pretty sure we came to the new world to escape the papists.

The settlers brought Anglicanism, Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, Baptists, Calvinism, Lutheranism, Quakerism, Anabaptism, Moravian.

How the hell did we survive all of those religions when our protestant ancestors were just trying to escape the one?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
2.4.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  cjcold @2.4    one month ago

We let the Irish and Italians in.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.4.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  cjcold @2.4    one month ago
retty sure we came to the new world to escape the papists.

You sure know your history. If nothing else, England is known as a catholic power. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3  CB    one month ago

This is conservatives wanting what they want and DENYING compelling what LGBTQ people and Others who are liberals see as right for them. (For example: banning books; forcing drag queens to stay out of schools.)

On its face, the chaplain situation could do some good in schools as many kids do come from religious homes (and can certainly use the "attention" in moments of deep stress). Pragmatically-speaking, I would like to 'stand' for what can work.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.1  cjcold  replied to  CB @3    one month ago

Don't even get me started on the Spanish inquisition or the burning of anybody accused of being a witch.

Pretty sure the concept of religion will always be an evil thing to me.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4  JBB    one month ago

Not Good...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Kavika   replied to  JBB @4    one month ago

That is a big understatement.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @4    one month ago

and yet, not bad!

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5  seeder  Kavika     one month ago

Reverand Ike from the Church of What's Happin' Now is the first in line to offer his services.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1  Tessylo  replied to  Kavika @5    one month ago

Wait a minute!!!!  Wasn't that Flip Wilson in drag, if I'm not mistaken?  Burn him at the stake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.1  CB  replied to  Tessylo @5.1    one month ago

Well, "Reverend Leroy" was in-charge of Flip Wilson's church and "Geraldine" was the fiancé of an unseen man named, "Killer." Sadly, they all 'died' with Flip Wilson!

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
5.2  cjcold  replied to  Kavika @5    one month ago

Send me all of your money and I promise you a very nice fluffy cloud in heaven! BUT WAIT! If you pray hard and send me your car and stereo system your robe will be whiter and much more comfy than anybody else's! As an added benefit you can be next to your family in heaven or as far away from them as possible! BUT WAIT! Send me everything and you might not have to even die at all!!!!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6  Texan1211    one month ago

Does anyone think the chaplains are going to be forcing students to come to them?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @6    one month ago

Something wrong with hiring secular counselors who have actually been trained and certified in treating the mental health of children? Something wrong with just going to church if you want spiritual counseling?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @6.1    one month ago
Something wrong with hiring secular counselors who have actually been trained and certified in treating the mental health of children? 

Not at all anywhere near what I said.

Something wrong with just going to church if you want spiritual counseling?

Again, no way related to my comment.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.1    one month ago

I see you aren’t answering the questions again. SOP.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.2    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.2    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.4    one month ago
Maybe you just overlooked the fact that I asked a question first, one which you have conveniently ignored while chastising me for not answering yours.

You posed a general question. I asked a question of you specifically. That’s fine. I’ll answer it.

I think 1) the chaplains will go to them, and/or 2) the chaplains will be the only option at school.

Now answer my questions.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.5    one month ago
You posed a general question.

Yes, I did. One you ignored while chastising me for not answering you.

Now answer my questions.

Sure thing, but not because you are demanding I do so.

Something wrong with hiring secular counselors who have actually been trained and certified in treating the mental health of children? Something wrong with just going to church if you want spiritual counseling?

Nope, nothing whatsoever wrong about either scenario.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.7  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.6    one month ago
One you ignored while chastising me for not answering you.

Aww. Would you like a hug?

Sure thing, but not because you are demanding I do so.

Damn, there goes the ego boost I was hoping for.

Nope, nothing whatsoever wrong about either scenario.

Good. Then there’s no need for untrained, unqualified, unrestricted chaplains in the schools. Is there? 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @6.1    one month ago
Something wrong with hiring secular counselors who have actually been trained

They're not volunteers like the "chaplains"

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.7    one month ago

Have it your way, I see what is happening here.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6    one month ago
Does anyone think the chaplains are going to be forcing students to come to them?

I do not know what others think.   I personally do not think the chaplains will be forcing students to come to them.   Certainly not at first.

But, as Tacos! asked, why have chaplains in the first place?   Why not have professionally trained counselors?   After all, this is not a religious venue —these are public schools— so why have individuals whose primary training is religious?   Those who want religious-based spiritual counseling can always go to the church of their choice.

Also, will there be a chaplain for every religion?

This is very likely unconstitutional and is almost certainly a can of worms.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.2    one month ago
I do not know what others think. 

[deleted]

 I personally do not think the chaplains will be forcing students to come to them.

That is reasonable, sane and logical.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
6.3  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @6    one month ago

Kids will get suggestions to go to chaplains. 

When chaplains get involved with school activities and sports there will be coercion  

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.4  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @6    one month ago

I think it's called peer pressure.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7  Tacos!    one month ago
"I think all of us agree that our children are in crisis, we agree that parents need help. We agree that there are a lot of spiritual needs that people could meet if a parent felt it was necessary for their child,"

WTAbsoluteF is wrong with legislators in the South?! Stop trying to turn schools into churches! You bitch night and day that teachers and schools should get back to teaching academics and then you legislate religion into the schools. If parents feel their children need to have their spiritual needs attended to, they should Go…To…Church! How fucking hard is that?

Critics of the bill have also questioned why the bill would not mandate training or credentials for chaplains.

Sure, because what could possibly go wrong if someone with zero training in mental health sets out to counsel children on their mental health?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @7    one month ago

They're using the excuse that it's for the mental health of the students.

It's almost like they don't know that school counselors exist.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
7.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1    one month ago

Considering the sorry state of education in the US and the total lack of discipline in most schools these days plus the increase in violence against teachers and other students....those counselors are not doing a very good job.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Greg Jones @7.1.1    one month ago

Are there enough of them in schools?

Or are they the counterparts of overworked social workers, with far too many students needing their help, and not enough counselors or hours in the day to meet those needs?

Will diverting funds to nonqualified religious personnel likely help that situation?  Will each school hire one chaplain trained to counsel students of all religions?  Or will each school have to hire one chaplain for each religion represented among the student body?  How many counselors could be hired for those salaries?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
7.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.2    one month ago
Are there enough of them in schools?

Like our medical care, the US pays much more per student with poorer outcomes thatr many other countries.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.1.4  evilone  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.2    one month ago

This bill has no prayer becoming law. Pun intended. 

Will each school hire one chaplain trained to counsel students of all religions?  Or will each school have to hire one chaplain for each religion represented among the student body?

If this becomes law ^ this ^ will be one of many law suits. Can you imaging the howling to take place if the Satanic Church won a law suite requiring all FL schools hire a satanic priest councilor? I'd probably die of laughter.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.5  CB  replied to  evilone @7.1.4    one month ago

The 'dread' of the satanic church 'prospering' and finding its footing in  main-stream of society has shut-down a great many instances of some conservative over-reach in the public sphere.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  evilone @7.1.4    one month ago

They know that's the next step, right?  Every time some Christian nationalist wants to put the Ten Commandments on public property, and a Baphomet goes up alongside it, they howl, but they don't seem to learn anything.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.6    one month ago

They probably look at the fact that Roe v Wade was finally overturned after decades of trying.   Thus persistence can pay off.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.8  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.6    one month ago

thumpers hate that our constitution makes all religions equal, and especially that they're equal to no religion...

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.1.9  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.7    one month ago

Check out Project_2025

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.10  devangelical  replied to  evilone @7.1.9    one month ago

>sigh< ... that is the wrong type of reading material to put in front of me. thumpers cannot compromise to legislate, cannot accept any defeat, and refuse to recognize or adapt to changing social, cultural, or public opinions. those fuckers aren't religious, they're just using a warped extremist version as the justification for future violence to accomplish the fascist autocracy they really desire.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.1.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.7    one month ago

Their actions regarding abortion are precisely why I expect this to be abused by way of proselytization, if it passes.  They do not operate in good faith.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.12  CB  replied to  evilone @7.1.9    one month ago

Project 2025 is the MAGAs' plan (and conservative think tanks) to take over the whole of government by throwing out career government professionals (and a myriad years of government experience) for MAGAs who plan to "f-up" the whole system and void every line or nearly every line of liberal and progressive government GROWTH they, MAGAs, can grab by the shorthairs or stab deep into the heart of government to pull out !

Now then, we can see why Trump right now NEEDS, literally NEEDS presidential immunity, because a great many people are going to get hurt by MAGAs in the next Trump Administration and that bastard don't want to have to to 'pay' for what evil he plans to wrought on persons, families, and careers.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Some of your family members will end up homeless and penniless because of MAGAs and the country will suffer severe shock!

Read and/or scan with your eyes  Project_2025 it is a 'monstrously' long document. . . it will affect nearly 'EVERYTHING' in the federal system all at once!

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7.1.13  cjcold  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1    one month ago

Had a school counselor in junior high who told me I should be a hippie musician but that I had already missed Woodstock. So I should cut my hair and why bother.

Don't think she liked me. Hadn't even heard of Woodstock.

Came back a couple days later with my 12 string and played and sang her a song I had written (she was very pretty). 

She said I should have played at Woodstock.

Best compliment I've ever had. Good counselor.

Have been playing in rock bands off and on ever since.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8  CB    one month ago

The 'situation' presenting itself it this: Diversification enhancement of our school community. The operative word being, "community." That is, we have no choice but to allow for diversity of the conservative 'order' and fashion even as we 'demand' a place for more liberal and progressive ideas to flow into schools. As long as the kids get to choose to hear the advice from a chaplain or chaplains and no demand is made that students be placed in 'stress' or 'distress' to listen to chaplains. The emphasis being placed where it should on the students' overall mental health and not any religious 'side' agendas.

When. . .something. . .in our society that needs to work. . .stops working or is not working efficiently as it should, we should seek out and apply a workable solution and not poo-poo the solution simply because of what it is. That is, it is well past time for conservatives, religions, and liberals and the sciences to STOP/END/DESIST in fighting and striving against each other where kids are concerned. Anything that makes them better as 'model' and 'better' humans and citizens of this country should be given 'voice' and choice for the individual and collective.

We are a diverse nation of people from around the world, packed together, and suited for 'this.' Time we remember to act: as One. And each give the other space to 'be.' As long as it is conducive to our shared humanity; survival; advancement; mental health.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
9  seeder  Kavika     one month ago

Simply put the school districts will have untrained, unlicensed ''chaplins'' wandering around ready to help support kids in their time of need, what could go wrong?

If people can't see the danger and fallacy in this program their blinders are on very tight.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
9.1  evilone  replied to  Kavika @9    one month ago
If people can't see the danger and fallacy in this program their blinders are on very tight.

They don't have blinders. They are fully aware of what they do in their war against "liberals".

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2  CB  replied to  Kavika @9    one month ago
The Florida House on Thursday passed a measure that would allow school districts to authorize volunteer chaplains to provide "support, services and programs" to students in public schools, amid a debate about whether the bill would be constitutional. Under the proposal (HB 931) chaplains would have to meet background screening requirements. . . .

Friend Kavika, point of clarification: Chaplain is an actual cleric or layperson (with training in the counseling of others). . . according to the two words in bold the mental picture I get is of some professional cleric who is otherwise retired, or looking to volunteer to add to his or her resume accepting a school position.

Someone vetted.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
9.3  cjcold  replied to  Kavika @9    one month ago

Have been an atheist since I first understood religion as a kid.

I was the only one of 5 children who didn't get it.

So glad I never fell for a belief in mythology and superstition.

Ended up being a scientist. Go figure.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
10  mocowgirl    one month ago

What is the message of Christianity?

That people are disgusting vermin that really deserve to be tormented in the fires of Hell for Eternity.

However, if they "confess" their sins and become a minion of the "loving" God that created them and even killed itself for them (although it didn't really die because it is eternal so not really a sacrifice).

I am not understanding how this message is helpful to anyone's life, but I find it appalling that children should ever be taught that they are "sinful", deserve torment, or are redeemable only by a god's blood sacrifice.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
10.1  evilone  replied to  mocowgirl @10    one month ago
What is the message of Christianity?

The problem I have with Christianity is that meaning and message varies by who give it.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
10.1.1  mocowgirl  replied to  evilone @10.1    one month ago
Hate anything that doesn't look, sound or act like them?

Exactly.  That is why there is no one and only, truer than true Christian denomination.  There has been continually splintering since the 1500s as men seek to dominate a group of deluded sheeple with their personal opinion of what a fictional supernatural being wants, needs or expects of them so they will be rewarded with a blissful eternity after a life of suffering by financially supporting and being obedient to the will of their priest, pastor, preacher, pope, etc.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
10.1.2  evilone  replied to  mocowgirl @10.1.1    one month ago

I edited my comment. It's was flippant and boarding "taunting". It's actually only a small amount of people who do that. It's just that they have an outsized reach into politics these days. They ruin it for everyone else.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
10.1.3  mocowgirl  replied to  evilone @10.1.2    one month ago
I edited my comment.

Sorry.  I did not see it in time to edit my reply.  

Although I found your first comment to be more accurate than the second one.

I don't know of anyone who has read the Bible from cover to cover who can defend it as being anything other than a weirdly edited history book with a lot of inane rules and pretty much the same kind of fictious deeds attributed to the previous 30,000+ gods that were worshipped and discarded as people became smarter - or were forced to worship their current king's god or be tortured or executed.

The history of the Christian religion is barbaric and oppressive.  Children should never be subjected to this type of mind and body control.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
10.1.4  evilone  replied to  mocowgirl @10.1.3    one month ago
I don't know of anyone who has read the Bible from cover to cover who can defend it as being anything other than a weirdly edited history book with a lot of inane rules and...

The Bible is several books by different authors at different times and then badly translated another half dozen times. 

The history of the Christian religion is barbaric and oppressive.

The history of humanity is barbaric and oppressive, religion (Christian or other) was just one path of control.  There are also many stories of strength, beauty, compassion and innovation to be found if one looks. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
10.1.5  mocowgirl  replied to  evilone @10.1.4    one month ago
There are also many stories of strength, beauty, compassion and innovation to be found if one looks. 

There is no amount of "good" that wipes out the historical or current harm to the world of the Abrahamic religions.

People don't need a religion to be strong, compassionate or innovative.  In fact, it is largely a hindrance to live a full, pleasurable life because of all the conflicting rules imposed on a sect's adherents whether they can dance, drink alcohol, have access to birth control, how to dress, etc.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
10.1.6  mocowgirl  replied to  evilone @10.1.4    one month ago
The Bible is several books by different authors at different times and then badly translated another half dozen times. 

Yes.  I learned about the history of the people of the Bible by watching the course taught at Yale on youtube.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
10.1.7  evilone  replied to  mocowgirl @10.1.5    one month ago
There is no amount of "good" that wipes out the historical or current harm to the world of the Abrahamic religions.

History isn't a contest. Nor am I sticking up for religion. It's just history.

People don't need a religion to be strong, compassionate or innovative.

True. People often need inspiration and will find it wherever they look. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
10.2  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @10    one month ago
What is the message of Christianity?

What's next?  A return to the Catholic Church's guidance on proper sex? 

Sex is for procreation only - shouldn't be fun, should be avoided before church attendance, should be done partially clothed, etc.  This begins around the 9:33 minute mark.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
10.3  cjcold  replied to  mocowgirl @10    one month ago

"And if I die before I wake I pray my soul for god to take."

Became an insomniac at a very early age due to that one.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
11  MrFrost    one month ago

Wait until someone shows up with a prayer rug and the Nutters will suddenly lose interest. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
11.1  cjcold  replied to  MrFrost @11    one month ago

The very concept of prayer I can't grasp.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
11.1.1  mocowgirl  replied to  cjcold @11.1    one month ago
The very concept of prayer I can't grasp.

I agree.  Prayer is illogical.  

The all-knowing god has a plan.  Why would prayer change the plan?  So whatever happens will happen because the plan cannot be altered to the whims of someone whining about their role in god's plan.

Why does a perfect god go on vengeful tangents and destroy its imperfect creations when they don't praise it properly?  This god is highly sadistic, narcissistic and psychotic.  Why would anyone worship it unless they are also sadistic, narcissistic, psychotic, masochistic or gullible?  Isn't this akin to worshipping a human like Stalin, Hitler, Ted Bundy or Jim Jones?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  mocowgirl @11.1.1    one month ago
So whatever happens will happen because the plan cannot be altered to the whims of someone whining about their role in god's plan.

Those who believe in God also believe that God allows for free will and it is free will that dictates what happens.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
11.1.3  mocowgirl  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1.2    one month ago
Those who believe in God also believe that God allows for free will and it is free will that dictates what happens.

Does that mean that their God does not know what will happen and is surprised by people's thoughts and actions?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  mocowgirl @11.1.3    one month ago
their God

There is no doubt. How do you explain bad things happening to good people?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
11.1.5  mocowgirl  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1.4    one month ago
How do you explain bad things happening to good people?

Randomness.  No different than a fly being in reach of someone wielding a flyswatter.

I must leave due to an appointment.  Will hopefully be back later if something bad does not happen to me.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  mocowgirl @11.1.5    one month ago
Randomness.

And free will.

  Will hopefully be back.

Very good.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1.4    one month ago
There is no doubt.

It there is no doubt that "God does not know what will happen and is surprised by people's thoughts and actions" then that means God is not omniscient.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.7    one month ago

That's my opinion....If there is one.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
11.1.9  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.7    one month ago
It there is no doubt that "God does not know what will happen and is surprised by people's thoughts and actions" then that means God is not omniscient.

or responsible for anyone in any way after "creating" them?

Then how does God "bless" people if it is just a bystander and never a participant?

I am trying to understand how any of this could be logical.  

I usually only get word salad/weasel words from people who believe in Yahweh.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @11.1.9    one month ago

 (as you know)  Logic is not a prerequisite for belief, be it religious or political.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.1.11  CB  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.10    one month ago

And as it relates to politics, its about likes and dislikes, feelings (emotions) are involved. Which belies the statements from our contributors to daily discussions that they check their feelings at the door to this site! Politics has always been about likes and dislikes, and logic may come in second.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  CB @11.1.11    one month ago

Especially nowadays, CB.   Seems that logic has been entirely discarded (the poster child right now is the GOP, by far) from political reasoning — along with any semblance of integrity and responsibility.

To wit, the D party has its usual flaws.   But the current GOP has lost its collective mind.   I no longer recognize the GOP and I suspect both Reagan and Bush would state that their GOP would never kowtow to a scoundrel like Trump.   Ike (and even Nixon) would likely have stronger words.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
11.1.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @11.1.11    one month ago
And as it relates to politics, its about likes and dislikes, feelings (emotions) are involved.

It shouldn't be.  Politics as it relates to governance involves processes by which a group of people reach collective decisions generally regarded as binding on the group, and enforced as common policy.  Governance, of course, is the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented)  .Good governance has some common, major characteristics: participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
11.1.14  evilone  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1.2    one month ago
Those who believe in God also believe that God allows for free will and it is free will that dictates what happens.

The Puritans don't believe in free will. They have splintered into 4 different modern day groups - 

  1. Unitarian Universalist Church

  2. United Church of Christ

  3. National Association of Congregationalist Christian Churches

  4. Conservative Congregational Christian Churches

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  evilone @11.1.14    4 weeks ago

In addition, there are plenty of people who believe in God, believe in free will, and believe in God's omniscience (which would mean free will would be impossible because God knowing all means the future is knowable and if the future is knowable, free will is impossible).

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
11.1.16  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.15    4 weeks ago
(which would mean free will would be impossible because God knowing all means the future is knowable and if the future is knowable, free will is impossible).

Only if God acted upon what he knew, if not, it’s like a movie with multiple endings.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11.1.16    4 weeks ago
Only if God acted upon what he knew, if not, it’s like a movie with multiple endings.

No, that is not correct.   This is what always trips people up.   They think that it is God's actions that would prevent free will when the factor that matters is whether or not the future is knowable.

If God (or anything, really) is omniscient that simply means that the future is knowable.  

If the future is knowable (even if no entity actually knows the future) then free will is impossible.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.1.18  CB  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.12    4 weeks ago

Agreed. The inflexibility to compromise (for MAGAs it's a filthy word), the blatant lying, the so-called inverse "purity tests" (looking for carbon copies of MAGAs), the dismissiveness of truth and the open invitation to truth as measured on a spectrum.

The GOP/MAGA partying is repackaging and rebranding itself right before our faces, respectively. Stealthily, yet in plain sight of us all, the GOP/MAGAs have taken over state governments and whole states—politically. They have now "properly" stacked the courts with conservative-leaning (and philosophically-minded) men and women to the tune of six justices and if Trump gets the presidency additional conservative justices will be highly probable, and the big-headline is GOP/MAGAs are wanting to take over Congress and the White House. . . and begin the 'doom-ish' acts of firing all so-called, "deep-state" officials, careerists, and staffers and this time around shut and board up an array of government departments. In other words, Trump and his 'forces' will the aid of a republican House and Senate (and the courts) intend to redesign our government as we know it from "top to bottom" (see "Project 2025 (GOP/MAGA plan)) in the manner of MAGA/Conservatism—and run the government without any significant compromise feature.

The D party has its usual flaws. None of which is to willingly and deliberately experiment with shaking up the whole of government offices, staffs, permanent positions and careerists professionals. . .all for the sake of politics!

The GOP/MAGAS known for labeling and demonizing those they plan to exploit have taken to calling government workers, "elitists," as a pejorative, because doing so takes away their humanity and that way it won't be 'felt' when they are fired and displaced. Of course, government will soundly suffer from their attack upon it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.1.19  CB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11.1.13    4 weeks ago

My comment at 11.1.11 is in regard to 11.1.10 and touching on political beliefs. People, at the end of the day, for any variety of reasons like the person they vote for or they dislike the person they vote for. . . and vote for him or her all the same. Very few of us in this country can vote for a fellow human being we simply can't stand and outright hate (feelings) their political views.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.1.20  CB  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.17    4 weeks ago

TiG, I don't think anybody is (or should try) to rationalize what is free will on the level of God., because God is not informing us of the realms under God's authority. If God is all-knowing then according to this: 

If the future is knowable. . . then free will is impossible.

This in regards to God, states God has no free will. . . and that is difficult to fathom, eh? And we can't conclude God has no free will to do what God wishes out of ignorance.

Therefore, I think. . . the "free-will" that is of interest to humanity. . . down here where we live. . . should be something we 'ponder.'

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  CB @11.1.20    4 weeks ago
This in regards to God, states God has no free will. . . and that is difficult to fathom, eh?

God is not really necessary in a discussion of free will.

Ultimately the only question is if the future is knowable.  Not if it is known, but if it is knowable.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.1.22  CB  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.21    4 weeks ago
Ultimately the only question is if the future is knowable

Let's take an example of an immediate 'knowable' future: An individual has a dental appointment at 12 Noon on Thursday set and planned for and knows medical professionals balk at cancellations inside 24 hours of the appointment. The individual decides to cancel anyway and does. Is it an exercise of his or her (free) will? Or is this an over-simplification of your point? If so, do elaborate.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.23  TᵢG  replied to  CB @11.1.22    4 weeks ago

In a knowable reality, it is possible for a third party to know that the individual would extemporaneously cancel at the last minute.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.1.24  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilone @11.1.14    4 weeks ago

Except for that last one, those churches are fairly liberal

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
11.1.25  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.17    4 weeks ago
If God (or anything, really) is omniscient that simply means that the future is knowable.  

It's beyond the scope of this article but there is a growing idea in physics that agrees that we have no free will. The complete timeline of existence was crystalized at the moment of the big bang. We will never know for sure because it would require observation from outside the system, which of course is impossible. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
11.1.26  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.15    4 weeks ago
In addition, there are plenty of people who believe in God, believe in free will, and believe in God's omniscience...

Of course. Consistency in logic is not a prerequisite of faith.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
11.1.27  evilone  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.24    4 weeks ago
Except for that last one, those churches are fairly liberal

One would think an omnipotent deity could communicate it's message more effectively to its followers.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.1.28  CB  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.23    4 weeks ago

Sure. But is it an exercise of the will of the individual to go or to not go?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.29  TᵢG  replied to  CB @11.1.28    4 weeks ago
But is it an exercise of the will of the individual to go or to not go?

It is clearly an exercise of will.   The question is if the individual was free to make that last minute decision or if that willful decision was going to happen (knowable) due to a deterministic reality (cause and effect).

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.1.30  CB  replied to  evilone @11.1.26    4 weeks ago

You are correct. Specifically, people of faith are INSTRUCTED/DIRECTED to STAND on their faith (which ever one it is) even when other scientific and reasonable developments in the world under other circumstances would make certain features of their faith null. (And, that does appear to be a matter of an individual's (free) will.)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.1.31  CB  replied to  evilone @11.1.25    4 weeks ago

Agreed. Of course, there is no such thing as total freewill for humanity or 'Earthlings.' It kind of goes without needing to be stated. We, earth-dwellers, are members of 'captured' species locked and immersed in the existence of something much larger and 'clearly' we do not know what exactly.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.1.32  CB  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.29    4 weeks ago

What say you? Your opinion on it, please. (Let's put some meat on the bone.) And, no, I for my part, do not need to see that (free will) professor's video again! Additionally, at 11.1.31 I indicate that do not believe humans have total free will for obvious reasons. For though humanity considers itself a mature class of beings. . .we are children yet searching to find our way in a world full of knowledge and a universe of unknowns in a larger scheme of things.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  CB @11.1.32    4 weeks ago

We do not know if reality is deterministic (i.e. the future is knowable).   From what we can tell, the reality that we experience (at the atomic level upward) is entirely deterministic.   Cause and effect rules.   It is, however, extremely complex.   So complex that we intuitively feel it unfathomable that reality is a large deterministic machine.    

But it appears to be just that.   Stay tuned.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.1.34  CB  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.33    4 weeks ago

On a different level of thought: What is your perspective on free will that is not 'total and complete' control over reality? That is, what do or would you call 'partial' free-will?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.35  TᵢG  replied to  CB @11.1.34    4 weeks ago

If there is a partial free will then that is free will by any definition.

At the absolute best, we have partial free will (as you are implicitly defining it).   We cannot control much of our behavior.   Our behavior is not strictly a cognitive directive from the frontal lobe.  It is an extremely complex interaction of chemical, biological, and genetic factors.  

Consider the impact on behavior of drugs or alcohol.   That demonstrates how chemistry (largely from our environment) affects our behavior.

But even on a simpler scale, minor things such as if we are hungry affect our decisions.   One of the studies presented by Robert Sapolsky in his book Behave (and in Determined too) is of judges.   It found that judges are less lenient the longer it has been since their last meal.

So if we have free will, it would mean that we have at least some tiny ability to create a new causal chain.   That we can extemporaneously break free of a strict cause-effect mechanism and create a chain that could never be known until the time it happens.   Our free will, if it exists, need only be the most insignificant of effects.   Any tiny behavior that is not knowable before it occurs would mean that we technically have free will (even if it is quite far from 'total free will').

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11.1.36  CB  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.35    4 weeks ago

Thank you. We do, if only at the appearance level, have partial free-will over certain aspects of our short-term and long-term decision-making. It is the only point needing to be made at this juncture. Of course, total and complete free will. . . is denied every living thing on this planet (known to humanity). And to be even clearer, from 'cradle to grave' humanity is in the 'hands' of larger forces throughout.

I recommend a discussion of partial free-will and its aspects going forward. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
12  Greg Jones    one month ago

What exactly is a chaplain? The Senate has a chaplain and they are common in the military and other groups. What's the beef?

Chaplains serve by offering emotional and spiritual support and understanding, regardless of religious dogma 

Chaplain - Wikipedia

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
12.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Greg Jones @12    one month ago
The Senate has a chaplain and they are common in the military

No way, A dem controlled Senate believes in the separation of church and state.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
12.1.1  cjcold  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @12.1    one month ago

The prayer breakfasts in congress bother me.

Don't want those who believe in mythology and superstition governing me in any way, shape or form.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
12.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  cjcold @12.1.1    one month ago
Don't want those who believe in mythology and superstition governing me in any way, shape or form.

Yet you will vote for Biden.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
12.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @12.1.2    4 weeks ago

who are you voting for?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
12.1.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @12.1.3    4 weeks ago

I have never voted for Trump.  In 2016, the voted third Party.  I was certain the Hillary would take VA so I made a protest vote.  That might be harder to do in 24 as Biden's margin here will likely be narrow.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
12.1.5  devangelical  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @12.1.4    4 weeks ago

was my question too difficult?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
12.1.6  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @12.1.5    4 weeks ago

I guess so...

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
12.2  mocowgirl  replied to  Greg Jones @12    one month ago
The Senate has a chaplain and they are common in the military and other groups. What's the beef?

The difference between an adult knowing what religion is and choosing to interact with a representative of the religion and a child not being educated on world religions and being offered one without proper education on the fine print.

Even adults are duped into following "spiritual" leaders who use and abuse them and even lead them to their deaths.  Children, especially troubled/lonely children, are the most susceptible to indoctrination into a religion or gang.  There is no reason to allow even the possibility of potential abuse by religious indoctrination into our public schools.

I will cite a small portion on an article that explains the potential dangers of allowing religious indoctrination of children in public schools.

How—and Why—Americans Become Susceptible to the Toxic Allure of Cults ‹ Literary Hub (lithub.com)

AM:   Well, I think most fundamentally when a white, middle-aged, seemingly educated man speaks confidently about God and government, a lot of us are likely to listen by default. That sort of voice is just the default sound of authority in our culture. I sometimes joke that cult leaders like David Koresh and Keith Raniere (the leader of NXIVM) all the way to “cult leaders” like Elon Musk and Greg Glassman (the founder of CrossFit) could be first cousins because they look so much alike. This is just this type of guy who matches our perceptions of power and who we think deserves it. It has little to do with charm or some kind of magical charisma, actually. It’s a question of, who are we willing to listen to by default?

Now, Jim Jones was a little bit special because he was able to appeal to such a wide range of different people from different backgrounds. And this had everything to do with his diabolical style of code switching. He learned to master the sociolect of so many different groups, from countercultural college kids who could be smitten by him waxing Socialist all the way to older Black women active in the church. Consistently, survivors told me that the first conversation they ever had with Jim Jones, it felt like he was “speaking their language.”

He was widely read, well-studied. And he had ties to all the “right” people in San Francisco: Angela Davis, the Black Panthers, and others, so he seemed quite trustworthy. But his bottom line was always power, so he didn’t learn to quote Nietzsche or preach like Father Divine for any other reason than to exchange these skills for something pernicious later. I just think we’re all conditioned to trust a confident white man speaking from a position of authority saying, “I have the answers to single-handedly pull you out of suffering.”

KG:   There are often a lot of women in cults. Can you talk about that?

AM:   Again, I think it depends on your definition of the word “cult,” but what I’ll say is this: it’s not that women are simply easier to hoodwink. For example, in the Jonestown massacre, Black women died in disproportionate numbers (and by the way, Jonestown was more of a murder/coerced suicide, not really a suicide as it’s been painted), but—and I’m quoting the feminist Jonestown scholar Sikivu Hutchinson here—that happened mostly because Black women were especially vulnerable due to their history of sexist and racist exploitation.

One of the reasons why so many of these women remained loyal and ultimately perished was because they had so much to gain from a movement that promised them something better, which of course turned out to be a lie. And I think that’s true of women of all kinds of different backgrounds—traditional religion and patriarchy, in general, have not been too kind to them. So when someone else comes in and tells you, “Hey, I have a different way,” that sounds really promising. Especially if you’re young and being love-bombed by this older man, and you’re college-educated and full of hope.

KG:   In the cult where I grew up, there was a group that was recruited from elite colleges in the Northeast; they were really just looking for a solution. And my father said to me later about my mother, “she needed to believe in something.” Her dad taught at Cornell. Her ex-husband went on to become a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. She was in college when she was recruited, but she desperately needed something to believe in. You talk about that in your book—this whole idea of the person who needs something to believe in, but is smart and alert and imaginative, which pushes back against this theory that people who wind up in cults are just not smart enough to figure out life for themselves.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
12.2.1  cjcold  replied to  mocowgirl @12.2    one month ago
are just not smart enough to figure out life

Couldn't have put it better. 

Was in a band once and the manager was a Charlie Manson wannabe. A control freak. I quit and the band went insane.

The lead singer went on to write and record one hit song that was the theme for a hit movie. Last I heard he had a huge mansion in LA and had retired from music. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13  devangelical    4 weeks ago

hey hey, ho ho, those fucking fascists have got to go...

 
 

Who is online

zuksam


79 visitors