Ryan Walters has caused many headlines since becoming superintendent of schools in Oklahoma. This time there are some consequences to him tweaking the curriculum. Jonathan has the story.
Ryan Waters is the Oklahoma state Supervisor of Elections and he's trying his best to lie about the performance of the Oklahoma schools. First, he claimed he had nothing to do with lowering the standard's on state testing, boosting scores by thirty three percent, basically falsely. His under and lings admitted that they closely supervised the revision process and did not allow any public comment, did not inform the school districts, and sought no public input Sadly, the boost and proficiency
was a lie. When tested by the standards set to comply before the change that were set to comply with the federal standards, it is lower than ever Oklahoma's forty ninth in education in the United States. They're only better than New Mexico and Alabama's actually better than THEMS like not a good seat, not a good site, not a good look for them. And this is an indirect attempt to destroy public education in Oklahoma and do it without
anybody noticing they're meeting their objective. As I said, they are forty ninth and the K through twelve, and not just overall education, but also in K through twelve. So a lot of times the universities bring that number up, but not but not in the K through twelve.
Here.
So this story is by Noria Martinez Kiel the Oklahoma Voice and printed in the Oklahoma on eight twenty three, twenty twenty four. I yield to the panel for discussion.
Well, actually I was going to come to you, Jonathan, and first, since you introduced the story, how does the lack of transparency in the changes to the test scoring effect public trust in educational assessments and government agents.
Well, it obviously isn't good. But the problems, you know, the problem of life. Saying this much about it and this on the heels of his story, we also already cover about his putting a Bible in every classroom kind of puts his and as we know, conservatives hate public education. It doesn't serve their needs at all. It tends to teach people how to think, and they don't want anybody to think. They want them to just follow the propaganda
and not actually think for themselves. But this is that attempt but it's fraudulent and it's going to end up really irritating a lot of parents who now have to contend with a school system that is not working for their children because they're deliberately trying to sabotage it. They're in a related move that we're not covering necessarily. But there's another action that mister Walters did was to tie the school's accreditation to the state to the test scores. Oh,
this will help them with their accreditation. There are a lot of new rules underneath all these that well, let's just say, is backed by churches but opposed by teachers. So the checklist that they of these items is mandatory, or the school gets a deficiency on their accreditation, many deficiencies, and the school can be closed or taken over by the state. So this is setting up local school districts to fail, and they want them to fail because they'd
rather have them all going to religious schools privately. So this is really a serious issue that we kind of cover in a lot of our stories. But how long are the parents of these kids going to tolerate this kind of stuff. Eventually it's going to reach critical mass, and I don't think they're going to like the results of that. And that's kind of what I have to say on it.
Yeah.
Well, you know, I'm always like a person that supports a critical mass to make chain, but I don't know if Oklahoma, or maybe the constituency there is really organizing to do that. I but then again, you know, I'm just expressing my ignorance because I really don't know what the advocacy and the activism on the ground to push back against some of the policies that Ryan Walters is pushing.
But you know, Scott, I'm coming to you because you're an educator and you've been an educator for quite some time, and you know, I would like for you just to, you know, answer, what are the implications of lowering performance standards on long term educational outcomes for students that happen to be in Oklahoma.
Well, I mean, if he had gotten away with it, the short term impact would have been to artificially inflate the effectiveness of their current policies.
Scott, I have to say it.
I do apologize he would gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids.
Those kids.
It's old man Mahoney at the Haunted not good amusement park.
Right.
Exactly, go ahead continue.
So he's artificially I mean, it's it's a misrepresentation obviously, but it's a it's a deceit at the at the deepest level. He's you know, Jonathan was talking about how he's deceiving the public.
Right.
They they they lower the standard to make it look like they're being more effective. And and I think I'm presuming here. I don't know this for a fact, but I'm presuming that it's to prop up the other changes that they're doing to say, Look how effective we are now. Look how effective book banning is doing. Look how effective it is now that we have the Ten Commandments in the in the classrooms. Look how effective we are now that we're incorporating Bible stories into our day to day
lessons and that kind of thing. And so it's just artificial inflation. What does the effect that What effect does that have on the education? It gives it. First of all, it guts one of the main tools that educators have to assess themselves and to assess how effective they are
with their students, and that is assessments. Right, It's it's responses from testing whether it be standardized testing, whether it be testing in the classroom, whether it be written paper tests, or whether it be activities or you know, it's just totally invalidating all all of those.
Efforts to improve.
I think I don't think I'm going out on a limb here when I say that educators generally go into the field because they care, because.
They want to do well.
They want to do They want to help children, they want to empower children, they want to you know, teach them things. They want them to be enlightened and educated. Citizenry. Right, it's good for the country, it's good for the individuals, it's good for the neighborhoods, it's good for the local government, it's good for it's good for everybody. And so so what this is doing is it's just taking away the effectiveness of those of those methods. As teachers, we like
to talk about critical reflection. We want we want to look back at ourselves. We want to look back at what we're doing, and if we can change things to make them better then we can't, then we do that. And so this is not only is this covering up a problem that was there. I think Jonathan said they were forty ninth in the state. Yeah, rah rah right. And so it's covering up a problem that was there, but it's also making the problem look like it's a good thing.
And so it's kind of giving them a.
Free path, or it would have, if it had worked, given him a pass to incorporate more of these changes that will also undermine the educational system even further. And and like you both mentioned, I would have to assume that part of the goal at least is to get
rid of public education. And so it's it's a I mean, it's it's very callous, and it's very devious, and you know, it's almost almost too cruel to imagine to do something like to to take away a child's ability to become a better human being, to learn how to become a more productive member of society, to take away their their power to make their lives better.
And that's really what it's doing.
That's the ultimate cost that education can pay can pay here is we will lose the effectiveness of the educational system we have, and we will in fact even roll back even further and make it even less effective.
Well, Cindy, you are on the outside looking in, all safe and tucked away in a different country, but I know that you definitely pay attention to a lot of the things that are going on here in the good old us of a American apple pie.
Four by four.
So anyway, don't forget the guns.
We got guns, yeah, Jesus guns and babies.
Right, Yeah, gotta get that straight, my bad guys.
But you know, Cindy, I'm just wondering because, like you know, since you like pay attention to a lot of these things that's going on, what do you really think I think that you know, Scott alluded to it a bit, but can you expand on really what the motivation is behind the I call the Shenanigans in O Colahoma. I'm not going to send the rest of the song because I don't know the rest of the words, so I'm
just not going to do it and embarrass myself. But what is the motivation behind, you know, doing the things that they are doing when it's quite obvious that well, I guess to us that happens to be on the other side of the looking glass that this is detrimental and harmful to the kid.
Yeah.
On top of everything that Scott said, and I think was very very much one point, there's another side of this.
Let's say that this worked and nobody.
Noticed what happens to the students Once they leave those schools and go to university. They will be behind everyone else because they think they did very good and they think they have the level to be in a university and they don't. And what happens They feel like they don't belong here, and they feel bad about themselves, and then they feel like they're stupid and not deserving of more education. And I'm wondering if it's an intended purpose
or if it's just a sad consequence. But I think that's something we need to take a look at, because if this keeps going in the future, whether it's this specific action or any other that the Republican r are taking, the United States is going to be very very much behind in terms of workforce. In terms of education, of course, which is already the case, but yeah, workforce economics, because economics are linked to the workforce, which is linked to
the education. And so I think it was a couple of years ago that China took the first place in terms of scientific publications, and I don't see that specific story helping in this situation. So yeah, I think as as Scott said, the Repulican survive on an uneducated base. That's how they've been surviving in the last twenty years, and so they do everything they can to keep that going.
Last fifty years.
Yeah, I was pretty much I would say that's even longer. Well, you know, guys, this is not in my notes, but I did read this little document called Project.
And one are nine and twenty five pages.
Well, I'm not going to say that I read through all nine hundred and twenty five pages, but I did go through the contents, and I would go back and forth and skip and skim and things of that nature. But you know, one of the things that is in Project twenty twenty five, and it's also on you know, on the on the darket as far as like you know, platform items for people who happen to be conservative on the right is to get rid of the Department of Education.
And I'm always like concerned because like one of the talking points is let's get rid of the Department of Education on the federal level and leave the decisions on how to run schools to the state, including having parents be able to utilize I guess text dollars to do school choice but you know, I'm curious to know, and especially since we're looking at stories like this from a person the superintendent that has clearly demonstrated and said out of his mouth that he is a Christian national, what
type of really horrible, horrendous implications could this have if there is no oversight or regulatory body over education on the federal level.
And do you all see.
His actions kind of fulfilling that that wishless that the that the project has implicated. Jonathan, I'm going to start with you, and then Scott and then Cindy.
I would like to hear your thoughts.
Well, first off, this is this is a process that they've been already implementing. As we see here, the uh the accredit accreditation changes I look through kind of indicate this. So it would penalize districts that maintain active employment of teachers under investigation for certificate or vocation. That's one thing. There's quite a few.
I'm going to skip some of them.
But the the other thing it would do is districts would not be able to receive state funding if they support or maintain certain diversity you know, DEI programs, And so that means that kind of tells you where they're going with this moment.
John, I just want to actually tell the audience for those who do not know what DEI means, that needs diversity, equity and inclusion continue.
Please, Yes, my brain had a hole for that and would subject teachers to potential dismissal for sexual acts and this is not in school. This is Uh. If sexual acts or acts that appeal to the period interest in sex as found by the average person applying contemporary community standards, or acts that excessively promote sexuality, they can be refused. Employment critics say it could be used as grounds to terminate teachers who engage in after hours activities like drag performances,
if those performances were recorded and put online. And uh, there are some people who say that that you know, in my comments, I said, you know, this could mean that if somebody happens to catch you at home watching Rupe Paul's drag race, they could fire, you know, if they could twist this to make it fireable.
New America, Welcome to America.
To do what you want in your own time, or they watching a porn channel or something. You know, it's none of those things.
I lived in Oklahoma, they would have fired me a long time ago because I love that damn show. But but you know, Johnathan, can you spend this a little bit, because it almost sounds like that what you're saying is that they're trying to penalize you for either being allied or being part of the LGBTQ community and also living your truth out lot.
Is that what? That's what I'm That's what.
I'm they want to they want to suppress that, I'm quite sure because these rules are rather draconian if you think about it, And if districts fail to comply after receiving notice from the department, they will receive an accreditation deficiency as well. So it's like, you know, it would strike from existing rules on local school boards that board members shall refrain from involvement or interference with the administrative
functions of the school. That means the school boards could come around and say you can't do that, No, we want it this way, take the power out of the principle and the teachers and start micromanaging what's going on. And so, yeah, well I think.
You should this right? Do you want to follow what gets worth? Sure? Sure?
Yeah?
Okay, So let me give me a second here, I gotta catch my breath.
Okay, all right, So so you were asking about I'm sorry, could you repeat the question.
Yeah, bas I was asking, you know, with Project twenty twenty five and the right basically allowing themselves to get rid of the Department of Education on the federal level. Great, what kind of implications could this have? Like detrimental implications could this have, you know, on kids, you know, especially who happened to attend public schools.
I think that attacking the indirectly attacking the Department of Education, I think I'm not entirely convinced that that's either the main goal or even one of the main goals here. That might just be you know, gravy, right, that's just
a fringe benefit. I think what's really happening here, and again this is my opinion, but what I think is happening is that Oklahoma lawmakers they just want to operate in this fictional world, and they want to dictate how things operate, and they want to enforce that perception of that fictional world onto others as well. Gas Lighting. That's I mean, this is really just high stakes gas lighting. And so the problem is the drawback to that is effectiveness.
Educational effectiveness be damned, right, I mean it's like, that's not it's hard to imagine that that would be a consideration at all. It's all about how do we look and what can we do with it? And you know that is just misguided leadership right there. You know, it's it would be hard to make up something worse than that.
I mean, it's just sacrificing the kid's futures in order to enforce this story that you know, they they can't back it up themselves there, you know, their their religious stories. They can't justify that kind of belief and so but what they can do is they can kind of morph the rest of the world back into their viewpoint. And you know, like I said, education be damned, and it's it's it's really infuriating and asinine.
Well, I'm going to give the semi last word to Cindy. Cindy, say what say you?
I remember in twenty sixteen, after Trump was elected, I read this fascinating article explaining how and why Trump won back then in red states and mostly rural areas. It's because but by destroying the education system in these places, the only source of information the public has is the church. And so if you don't have enough information about why you are in a bad situation, then the only source of information again comes becomes the church. And that's the
point of Christophacism. It's to give back central place to the church, not in terms of not only in terms of society and community and everything else, but also information. Because when you control information, of course, you control uh the entire population. And I think it's uh, it's basically what's what's happening here again, it's just more and more of the same stuff. Just control information from uh, from the people you want to uh to to not to lead,
but to control. And so that's that's the only way to do it.
To destroy education, yeah, I definitely i'dhere exactly what you guys are saying, especially when it comes to if you want to control the minds of the people who happen to be under you destroy the institutions that educate them. And when test scores suddenly improve, but it's due to alter benchmarks rather than real student gains, it's a red flag.
Even covering up actual student losses. It's not just false gains, it's covering up losses.
And it's so it's even worse.
Yeah, exactly, it's it's covering up the losses that happen to know, come to those who are not getting the proper education that they're supposed to get, oftentimes because the curricula and also the benchmarks for them for their achievements are being altered. But schools, parents and lawmakers deserve clear and upfront information because when it comes to education, the only thing worse than Perer performance is a lack of
honesty about what the numbers really mean. So let's remember if something sounds too good to be true, it might just be a change in the rules. Always ask what's the real score? And if you dear viewer and listener want to ask what the real score is, or if you want more nonprofits, click here.
In a familiar tale of Florida High school has concerned parents reporting that a math teacher's sugary attempt at divine indoctrination has been occurring. The teacher, armed with Christmas pamphlets, leads students on a divine journey involving candy canes, questionable biblical interpretations, and downright nonsense the Freedom from Religion foundations. Chris Line steps in reminding the school district of the establishment clause and the fine line between education and indoctrination.
With a dash of humor, co president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Laurie glor equipped public schools exists to educate, not to discriminate or indoctrinate into religion. It's up to parents, not math teachers to decide religious upbringings. Unwrapping the absurdity, FFRF calls for divine discipline in the classroom. This story is from the Freedom From Religion Foundation on the fourth of January twenty twenty.
Four, and unfortunately there isn't a whole lot to this story, but as always, kudos to the FFRL for being on the forefront of the battle against religion in our public schools. It's an important job and I'm glad they're there. They are, they're doing it. Toy boat, toy boat, toy boat. It really bothers me that in today's day and age, that there's still people, still still people that have the idea that this ardent a parent preaching is going to be legal.
Somehow in a public school.
I have no idea how they think it's going to be They're going to be able to get away with it. And it makes me wonder where these people have been living at and so that they still have these nineteenth century ideals instead of living in the modern day. They have to know what they're doing is wrong legally, So why do they keep doing it? What is it that keeps driving them to keep going? Do they think their God is going to protect them from prosecution? I said prosecution,
not persecution. Their God hasn't been able to protect them from the constitution yet, so why would they think this is going to be any different?
Why?
In fact, why is the constitution stronger than their God? What's going on there? Why do they think? What's the mindset of these people that they have no idea that they're going to get stomped by this? I just don't get it, Jimmy, do you want to add something to that.
I think they think that repetition is key here, and they're probably just trying to nudge their little plan along to maybe kind of I don't know, pull up the big fish one day and get away with it. This is not really something we are unfamiliar with, right we see? I guess I'm going to use the word attacks on children or victimization on children when it comes to this
kind of behavior. People in positions of authority that are able to corner the children, and then children, you know, not knowing how to respond to that authority or thinking they might face some kind of reprisal. So the people in this position have kind of identified their target and they just kind of push along, push along, to see how far they can get. Now, as far as the establishment clause going, it should certainly apply here, considering that
public funds are being used to run this operation. Theoretically it's a little bit of a stretch, but public school, public servant, public teacher, the kids in that environment should be free from this kind of prosselyization. But what I found interesting is that the Florida Constitution and its Free Exercise Law states that religious freedom shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace or safety. And I have to ask myself, what are the public morals in this area?
I mean, this is Florida. Now, typically in this area it's a little bit of a I guess left leaning area where there isn't so much would I would say the traditional or the wave of Christian nationalism picking up, But it's still Florida. It's heavy with you know, Latin roots, which is typically very strongly Christian and can be conservative
in that respect. So you know, maybe these people think that, well, their own are going to look out for them, a good old boy system, if you will, So Infidel, what do you have to say about that.
Kelly, when you were talking, I have to say that I think I know exactly what they were thinking. They're they're they're in Florida, and that is a hotbed of backwards thinking, and it starts literally from the top.
You know.
Admittedly, if if if I were a parent of a student in that classroom, I want their heads on the proverbial John the Baptist platter. But the reality is this is just a symptom of the blue whale in the room Florida and a very backwards mentality. I mean, they've they claim to reject material that indoctrinate students, but you know they've They've made one of their required courses now is a financial responsibility class. And then that's fine, but
it's this guy. Dave Ramsey is the is the author of the textbook, and he even includes proverbs inside the textbook are using in the classroom to promote this type of thinking and of course it teaches that you know, debts for losers and and things like that, that just really a whole nother story. I mean, Florida's even welcomed
Prager you into their classrooms. So I mean what we're seeing is, and I believe Phoebe may have mentioned this on a previous episode, about how we just kind of whittle away at a law and before too long, we're building precedent up on something that never was what the original intent was. And I think that's what they're wanting to do, like they've done with other issues like that, attempted for for decades with abortion, They're wanting to just
whittle away at these protections. They think that over time, if they just you know, push a little further, each test will continue to allow them to get more latitude in what they're trying to achieve. So for me seeing Florida, you know, being the state of education by right wing talking heads Dave Ramsey and Dennis Prager, you know, they both literally want their dogma taught to everyone's children. They're
in the indoctrination business. So the idea that a mad teacher would take that and go, hey, let's run with this and let's see, you know where this can go. I think also, we have a very friendly Supreme Court right now for all the wrong reasons. And I think we have people who say, let's see what what our
money got us? Where's this going to end up? And so I guess the one good thing is is that, uh, you know, I did notice the tired old story about the origin of the candy cane was included in the pamphlet. You know, it's a good thing it wasn't a history teacher, because that would be an even poorer reflection considering the inaccuracy of what they're talking about. But I just want
to go on record and say one thing. If there's ever a special candy made for me, say an eye and made in my honor, make sure it tastes better than a candy cane.
Damn you.
You are a real true heat You are a proper nonprofit you bloody heathen. You you get you get from me for the rest of this segment. You and this episode, you get you know, downgrade at the other two. They're they're nice people. You are a heathen. And you know we can't have that kind of nonsense spouted around. You know what, you Are you secretly a true Florida man like this Florida lunatic? Are you secretly a true Florida lunatic?
You men expose?
You do know that candy currant canes come in all flavors?
Now right?
Yeah, this is what I'm saying.
You can get.
You didn't have just mint. You can have a whole range of flavors. You can have cinnamon, you can have any flavor that you're like. Now, I mean, the twenty first century has been good for a lot of things. It's been good at it's been good at debunking, you know, Young Earth creationism, and it's been really good. They're giving us flavored candy canes.
I must enter, I must enter, Jack Phoebe, you talk about me being a bad person. Why I'm not the one who doesn't believe in the one true candy Cane. Kelly over here was talking about different flavors. So you want to talk about heathen heretic? You handle your own house over there, but.
Own this panel has sin. The TV show.
Murderville, Oh what a great show.
Who's in the Christmas special? And I want to know when that candy cane is being put on trial for murdering Santa Candy canees a dangerous and I think we're seeing how dangerous they are when they are put in the hands of proselytizing teachers in classrooms. This is just how absurd we have got in this day. It's Florida. Florida has forgotten the one thing that teachers are supposed to be doing. Teachers are supposed to do what the
name says. They fail at. What we say in England is the one Seal Test One Seal for those of you who don't know, it's a brand of varnish for outdoor fencing and the advertising One Seal does exactly what it's says on the tin. Florida teaching does nothing what the title suggests. It's absolute nonsense. You have these people who are spouting complete and utter rubbish. I mean, I want to go and take this pamphlet and I want to go and shove it up this teacher's backside, but
I get done for assaultant battery. But I can't go and prosecute this teacher for committing a Sultan battery on the senses of the poor children that sat through the classroom. They had to listen to this waffle and listen to this waste of paper. All I hope is that every student in that classroom at least recycled the pamphlet they would give they didn't cause more environmental damage. I mean, we have Florida passing nonsense after nonsense after nonsense, complete
crap coming out of Florida. When it comes to education. You have Florida teachers that can't get pay rises because the Florida Standardized Attainment Test metric means that they need to have their students have a higher AVERATAN the max the score available for the teachers to pass the teacher assessments. This is how absurd Florida has become, and they have
become detactual reality. I mean, you've got bans on what teachers can and cannot say, which auld federal judge recently in another state said, these laws that prevent you from talking about gender unerthy sexuality means you can't talk about any gender identity and sexuality. You can't use any pronouns whatsoever, even when it comes to cisgender heteronormative pronouns. This is how absurd and how far off the deepend Florida has
fallen into the Gulf of Mexico. I mean, I've got a real serious question for the three of you here. Do you think what Florida is doing at the moment and what these people in Florida, such as this lunatic, nonsense, candy cane loving teacher, he's actually pushing the envelope in their favor. Or do you think people are getting so fed up that let us go, we don't want this crep and it's pushing in the other direction.
That's easy.
Yeah, Yeah, I think you're right. I think you know, when the pendulum swings swing so far in one direction, it's bound to come back. And the farther you bring it into the one direction, the faster and harder it's going to swing back. And I think we're seeing that. I think we've been seeing that over the last few years now. This is why these people have lost in
the elections in the last three election cycles. It started out real slow, but it's really building up momentum, and I really it makes me not as worried about the future as I have been recently, so I have a lot of hope for the future that people are finally waking up. Unfortunately, I've had that feeling before, like I got that in the nineties. I really thought we were starting to wake up in the nineteen nineties, and I don't know what happened somewhere along the way, it just
kind of died off. But I think the kids today seem to be a little more aware of what's happening in the world socially and politically, and that gives me a lot of hope. So I'm hoping that as that pendulum does swing back, it does swing back harder and we're seeing a more balanced society instead of one that's swinging so far to the to the right with these Christian ideals. Jimmy, what do you think, Well.
I think there are enclaves that are not really moving at all, such as maybe Florida being a good example, or or specific maybe governmental or or localities on the on the state and local government level that are probably
just going to dig their heels at even further. Something that I think was disturbing about this story was that only one parent complained, right, I mean, this is a Florida school, uh that was you know, had had religious pamphlets being passed out and one only one parent spoke up.
And I think that that reflects maybe the society at large around in that specific area, which is and that also speaks to the idea that Florida's Constitution, like I mentioned earlier, states that nothing shall I don't remember exactly the wording I used. I think it was here we go so free exercise. You know, freedom shall not religious, freedom shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals. Well, the public morals are defined differently in certain areas than
they are for the rest of us. And so while children might be aware, there's still not in any more of a position to kind of fight back.
You know.
It really takes their parents to kind of step up and do their bidding for them, and that I don't see happening enough.
Yeah, I would have to say that I think most of the children in that classroom are so readily indoctrinated in other areas of their lives that I don't think, for the most part, that it even triggered. It wasn't even a thought of Wow, this should this be happening here. It was just another day in the life of a person in Florida. Without a doubt, we've seen repeated attacks and integration of religion into the schools, creeping in and
Florida has welcomed it with open arms. So for someone to go, hey, this is outside the norm, I agree. It is an unfortunate reflection of what's going on in Florida when we have one parent saying this is a problem.
And I only hope that when something like this continues, because I don't think this is just a one off, and as I said earlier, this is just you know, this is ignoring the blue whale in the room as far as this one incident, because this is a pattern, and this is something that I agree with Kelly answering his question about whether there's been a backlash to it, I absolutely do think that we have seen that backlash now, But is it going to happen in a place like Florida.
Maybe an isolated pockets, but those isolated pockets are still going to be under the thumb of the state government. So how far what control they have is ultimately going to be decided more by the state. With some attitude with them, I wish them luck. I hope that this
does change and we don't see this again. But I think that in Florida, I don't think we can be surprised if we see round two, round three, and ultimately a lot of things like this are going to need to be decided and with a generous US Supreme Court if it ever ended up in a court system. Well, I just don't know.
But I think you've all written Florida off. I think that's a problem here. I think you've written off the students. I think you've written off the parents here.
Because the way you've got.
To understand here is that whilst one parent complain, how many students didn't even bother to tell their parents and they just ignored it. Majority How many these students do we think actually took this seriously? It only takes one student to complain. It only has one parent. Why do we not have mandatory pledges of allegiances in America in schools? Because one Jehovah's witness family stood up and said we do not agree with this, it violates the establishment clause.
That's why the pledge of allegiance is not mandatory in schools in America. The case of Barnett, it took one Jehovah's witness family, who were chased out of their town that they lived in, for standing up. It takes one parent to complain about a pamphlet like this. It takes one parent to say I will not allow my right to be trampled upon. And the fact that there was one parent makes me smile, because somebody actually turned round to the educational establishment.
In Florida and went.
To a lot of you. And I think that that is what we should be applauding here, not the fact that it was only one somebody actually stood up and turned round to Florida and went, well, you bloody how are you doing in this classroom now? Dare you instead of teaching mathematics to my children, you're teaching sugar based nonsense.
Yeah, that's absolutely right. I think the they deserve commendation. But to get the fact that it gets to that point, it's because there's so many parents that are following this trend of not doing anything. And yes, that one domino, right, that one domino seems to have fallen over, So I can't write off all of them. And you bring up a very good point, but I think I I think I've written off the speed at which these enclaves will turn toward doing the right thing.
One is certainly promising.
Let's turn that into two to four to eight, and so on.
Here's a question. Here's a question, in all seriousness, to the three of you here, would you have the time and inclination to complain if your child had told you the story that is this story? Would you have actually stood up, taken the time and followed through with a complaint? Would you have in all honesty actually done that yes, and said that this is rubbish, I can't do anything.
I've done it.
But you got to remember, look at the three people you're asking. We're sitting here and doing this, so we're the kind of people that would stand up for something like that.
But my bigg that the.
Audience out there, and more important, if your answer to that question is actually no, I wouldn't actually bother to stand up. Ask yourself?
Why?
Ask yourself what machts to you? And ask yourself, are you comfortable with what happened in Florida potentially happening in a child's classroom near you.
Or in your child's classroom? Even more importantly, and that's the all three of us here are that you asked or we're all parents, so it is it's a question that does hit home for us, right, And that's why, because I am a parent, I would stand up for it.
So yeah, and one of my biggest concerns is the fact that, yes, one parent standing up change things. I just have a much greater concern about how politicized our court system is. So admittedly it's beyond It's not the lack of confidence in Florida, because yes, it only takes one person to stand up. My problem is is I lack confidence in many aspects of our court system right now making the right decision.
I also want to point out it wasn't just one parent standing up. It was one parent standing up and getting the f F fire up involved in it.
And I think that ultimately, if you see things like this and you're a parent, do something. Don't just allow the envelope to keep pushing. Don't keep pushing that envelope. Make a complaint to your school if this was happening near you, If you want to hear me complaints and more more nonprofits is available here.
Well, Dicky Doc is at it again, spreading misinformation and downright lives because of his bigotry and get off my lawnness while wearing Bermuda shorts, open told BIRKENSX and Arga socks, Yes, Argas socks Rob has the story Rob Yeah so.
Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion in two thousand and six, posted on Twitter or x if you're nasty. He said, quote two men masquerading as women were allowed to box in the Olympics against real women. The problem with this is that he's simply wrong. Iman Khilif from Algeria, who won gold in boxing in the Olympics, was assigned female at birth and identifies as a woman. She's not trans, she's not intersex. She has always identified as a woman.
Then later after this, his Facebook page was taken down. He jumped the gun and accused Facebook of deleting his page for what he said on Twitter. That claim was also incorrect. He eventually apologized to Facebook, but not to Kalif. This story, which has really big old man yells at cloud's energy, is from the Friendly Atheists by Hamant Metta, published on August eleventh, four.
Yes, we were all remarking on how we feel big boomer energy coming from the story right now. But I'm coming to you, Phil. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind us talking about the main accusations that Dicky Doc made about the female boxer in Mark Khalif in money Heali and how were they actually debunked?
Well, yeah, so the acquisition is that Calif or Halife will pronounce it was actually a trans woman and do you want to do reasons given for that statement was that she that she during the IDEA the International Boxing Association We're championship tournament the year before, which I think will be in plenty twenty three, was in the finals after she won on the finals against a Russian woman, right,
she was disqualified. And the reason given by and get this, the Russian the IDEA director who is Russian, claimed that the certain test results showed that Caliph was x y and.
Not x X.
Sorry, was x y and not xx. But yeah, he did not present any medical evidence.
So based on that, apparently it seems as if people brought that backup as.
A means of saying, no.
She is a transwoman, but there was no evidence at all for such. And to make it matters worse or better, the IOSC, the the International Olympic Committee actually banned the idea because the claims were not substantiated and there were other issues with the ideas, some other onhand issues apart from those, so and also calif she she.
Actually did not. She did not. She actually passed.
The the the conditions, the conditions for the Olympics, all the conditions, so there was no reason for her to be exempted at all.
And in addition to that, there was another woman who decided to was trans women from Taiwan at the same time. Right, but that lady also was shown to fit the conditions for the for the Olympics. So it is it is strange that person's the way people were behaving. Is it because she was Algerian? Was it because the other person was Chinese?
I don't know. I think I saw, yeah, racism, Rob, What you have to say about that.
I don't know.
If yoube tell me about racism, Yeah, about racism.
As the Whitish person on here, racism.
Exactly, because that's how this works.
That's somebody who does have some Algerian Berber heritage. This is something that you know does feel very odd because I don't feel safe going to Algeria, and I don't think Himanic would feel safe going to Algeria if this was true. Because you know, what is femininity in this case, short white Italian woman who is a stereotype of Western European centric white femininity defeated by tall, non white woman who she complained hit her too hard and she'd never
felt a punch like it in a boxing match. It's a boxing contest.
Right, she did.
She didn't apologize for that after.
I gat to apologize afterwards, but it don't make any difference when you've been such a sore idiot in the ring. I've never been a boxing match before, because boxing shouldn't be like seriously.
The problem is that she apologized for it, right, which is better than Darwkins, because Darkens didn't apologize for that. So even the person who got punched said that they did regret saying anything that could be misconstrued with misidentifying their gender, and then headspin.
That prunch probably made her head spin. Maybe Dawkins should have had his head spin a few times and then come back to rationality. But here's the thing. When you get to you know old Richie d. He is not a specialist in sports biology, sociology, ethnographic studies, or anything similar. He's just a bloke on the internet screaming into the void. As George W. Bush said, when someone throws their food on the floor and you run over and pick it up.
You're giving them what they want. Twkins threw his food on the floor, everyone ran over to him, and he got what he wanted. He got the attention he wanted. We should stop doing that, and we should stop doing it to all of these idiots, and we should just go well.
I well, let's let's talk about that. Rob, what do you what do you think the best way to tell these people to f off would be? Should we actually pay attention to what they say just because of who they are, or should we just say nah, I don't I'm not going to happen anymore.
Well, I mean a little bit.
Yes, you should pay attention, partly because they have said things that are useful and smart in the past, things that you know that doesn't mean that they're going to be useful or smart in the future, broken clocks. But also because if we want people to not fall victim to fallacies like appealing to authority, then we do need to give them the option for appeal to expertise. That does not say that he is an expert in the case. I'm just pointing out appeal to expertise is a thing
that can occur. The reason why this whole thing really messes with me is not like what he said on Twitter, which is awful, right, It's specifically that after he said it on Twitter, his Facebook page was taken down for completely unrelated reasons which I can.
Bring up in a moment.
And then he connected he said what I said a thing on Twitter which caught me backlash, and then my Facebook went down. Clearly, these unrelated companies are conspiring against me, which is frustrating because that level of persecution complex is something that I'm used to getting from like Christians, which.
Is like must appetizers lawsuit.
So like that.
That blew my mind that he went from Twitter to Facebook and said I'm being persecuted because of that. Then later what happened was he got a hold of the Facebook's security experts. I forget her name, but she said that the reason why they locked down his page is because they had reason to believe that it was hacked into and that they wanted to stop any damage before
it occurred. And then that makes sense, right, because they're going to do that and then tell him what goes on, But it doesn't matter because old old man thought a thing, so therefore they took down his page and he's going to get real upset about it. He then apologized to Facebook for going sorry, you're right, I see that you did not delete my page, and he ain't said shit, well.
He's not going to.
I think that the most disappointing thing specifically about Richard Dawkins that I think that a lot of us, well I will speak for myself, is that, you know, I read The God Delusion, and Richard Dawkins was one of the people that I listened to when I was coming out of religion that really kind of helped me think about evolution, how to separate reality from fantasy, and some of the arguments for the and how to de monk them, you know, really, you know, kind of helped me on the straight and arrow.
I would say.
But as of late, it seems like that he just has this this like vendetta that he's going to stick it to trans people as best as possible, and and and and just to to clarify, he's a biologist, but he's an evolutionary biologist. It's when it comes to the science, especially when it comes to the medical science, that is even behind you know, sex, it's quite obvious that he is completely inept and and even when uh, because we covered him, according to Phoebe one too many times for
saying something gaffy. He would just mention to say that, well, you know, someone who identifies as trans, I I do respect their pronouns just because I'm being nice, not necessarily because I agree with and and and it's and it's very disheartening that we're here to the point where this man is running along with a lot of these other uh, misinformation buffs when it comes to something that should never
have been politicized. A boxing match that is on the Olympics, you know, for on the women's division, should have never been a political event. It is a sports event that people can look at and if they enjoy boxing and and say, oh wow, don't don't they look great? And then as like you you mentioned Rob, the Italian boxer, I've never been hit so hard in my life. I'm like, well, honey, why are you in the hell in the Olympics fight in a boxing match?
Contest? Right exactly? You know, that's just a boxing match. I'm like, you know the point.
I'm not a boxer, but I've watched a few boxing matches in my life.
You're not a student at the ancient art of fugionism.
No I am not, do you know, with the Queens Queens Queensberry rules.
Yes, I am not that.
But I have watched a few my boxing matches in my life, and I believe that the object is to hit the other person hard.
Am I wrong?
The gloves and the head make contact, and the gloves and the body they're supposed to make contact as well, and then judges sit there and go that person did better with the gloves making contact.
With the other person.
Yeah, that's how it works and.
In hitting is what I'm saying. So let me let me come back to the conversation though, because I really want to talk about the role of media and how media has really played in this whole scenario of making what Dawkins said even relevant. You know, Phoebe, What does the role of media or us even play in correcting misinformation is actually when it comes to high profile individuals like Dickie Duck.
So you have to take into consideration is why is this person still being covered? What is this person's reason for being covered? I mean, is this person in any way other than somebody who just shouted a lot and somebody went, oh, that person shouted a lot on something. That's the problem that you have here because if I was started walk down the street and go to Speaker's Corner and Hyde Park, you don't see those people getting media coverage and they're saying similar things. The media has
a responsibility to actually report the news. This is not the neoves because, for the love of Jesus Christ, the news media has stopped reporting the news. The news is something that's gone out of fashion. It went out of fashion when you're a Soviet Union when out of fashion in the early nineteen nineties by the looks of it, and it just has to go back to the news media reporting the neoves. You have to report on actual events that are actually newsworthy and not things that are
lazy and easy for you to write about. News is not always easy to get to. The hearth or three Mile Islands was not an easy story to cover, and I'm pretty sure if three Mile Island and Richard Drkin's saying something had happened on the same day, Richard Dowks would still have been somewhere in the news even though three Mile Island was actual new news. This is news. The news. The sports news here is not what Richardwkins said.
It's the results of the first round boxing match between an Algerian and an Italian that didn't finish because of anything that was done by the Algerian boxer. It's because the Italian woman's headgear kept on slipping and she got irritated enough that she just went, I can't do it anymore. And her headgear had to be replaced twice in the fight, and in the end the referee just went, stop, don't do this. Your headgear is not working properly.
Go away.
So there was nothing to do with her being knocked out or being punched too hard. The referee stepped in and her corner stepped in after the second time that her head gear wouldn't fit properly, and that's why she abandoned the contest because she got too irritated with her own head gear. That's an actual story. First round boxing match abandoned because of equipment failure. Not old man yells and howls that Moon transforms into werewolf and runs around screaming nonsense.
That's not the news, as.
Not Phoebe would say the news that here the.
Actual news for good misakes.
Right, Yeah, that's that that needs to be a tell TV, uh, not a TV that needs to actually be a shirt. Greg, I hope you're listening, so fill and Rob. Phil I want you to answer this first, and then Rob if you can chime in as well. Where is the accountability when it comes to people like Richard Dkins spreading misinformation and especially like a person who, for a very long time, until he hit his head on the on the news one day, lost his mind? So where where is the
accountability as far as like what he has said? And where can that accountability be found? Are we the ones who are supposed to hold him accountable or somewhere else? Phil, I want you to answer and then Rob.
In terms of their comfortability, I think I think every every person should hoil him a comfortable because he is this major figurehead among the heat TIS community.
And not only that, but I think also.
The science community should hoil him uncomfortable because he's making some statements that are not and keep him if the data at all right, And I I am kind of shocked that a person who's supposed to be an evolutionary biologist are making claims about trans women and trans not being something that is part of nature. Then there's adequate and multiple evidences within nature to show that this is also a part of nature. So he has me kind of confused. I'm wondering, honestly. F two, he is dementia
with his age. Dementia is setting in because some of this the sort of outrageous claims that I've been hearing in the past few years from Richard Dawkins about trans and taken into a congrez agent.
Wondering if he's.
Going and being an evolutionary biologist, whole evolutionary biologists will be making these claims. I can see that he's agent.
Maybe he is.
There's some mental issues going on there, you know.
Or could he just be a biggot?
Oh yeah, yeah, it was always a biggot.
But no, you know what, sometimes what happens with people with they men shoued hidden things actually start to come to the forefront because there's no in ambition anymore. It is like a person who is basically let's say, a person who has drunk a lot and starts pulling things.
The true character starts to show up.
Well, he already called himself a cultural Christian, so you know, raging bigot probably is up there to rob what say you.
So it's hard when it comes to accountability because there's a couple reasons for that, the main one being the people who should hold him accountable or the people who have something to lose.
By being associated with him.
So the the like easily twittered, possibly, but Twitter with the elon price itself on being not just like free speech, but the freest speech that ever did speak freely, and that means that they actually benefit by letting him say largely whatever he wants, and that's not unique to him, that's just anyone can say largely anything. So then you have to start going to because again earlier, right, it's appeal to expertise. He is an expert in some things,
and we do need to give him that credit. That way we can honestly deconstruct the things that are wrong or problematic. And I mean that in a social way, just like literally the problem with reasoning. So who should
hold him accountable the people who give him degrees. If the people who gave him degrees in professional association, it becomes an issue that they are associated with this person, they should be holding them accountable because ultimately, there's nothing out in the fabric of the universe is going to say you have said an untrue thing. Therefore, snap, you're done.
Like it's only people people in brains. I can't speak to the content so the health of his brain, and I don't want to, So it's going to have to be everyone else who thinks that they need to well.
In a world where misinformation spreads quickly, we must prioritize integrity over ego. Correcting our mistakes is a sign of strength, not weakness. As we work towards a just, interrational society, we must remain vigilant against falsehoods and stand in solidarity with those who are unfairly targeted. Only by doing so can we build a world where everyone is treated with dignity and respect they deserve. On a side note, I need Richard to go take some adderall, drink a hot
cup of Granddad and shut the fuck up. Perhaps you'll feel better in the morning and stop making the news by showing his ass on the internet. And if you, dear viewer, want to see more of us on the internet quick Here.
In a saga reminiscent of Keystone Cops, a two year pursuit of felony charges against school librarians in Granbury Texas unfolded like a farcical mission gone awry. Right wing extremists. Scott London embarked on his vendetta and poured over stacks of literature while sporting a bodycam to capture his quest to persecute, I mean, prosecute his target, three school librarians allowing miners to check out books at the library, some
deemed obscene. Despite subpoenas and dramatic investigative theatrics, ultimately the case did fizzle when the disc attorney did decline to indict citing insufficient evidence. So stick around for the sort of details of Scott London's attempt to stop kids from reading. There's a lot more idiocy to cover the story from NBC News by Mike Hixenberg. It's by Tyler Kingcaid, Scott Freeman, and Nave Parks on July twenty third, twenty twenty four.
Now said, I know there's a lot of talk about deciding what books should and should not be in schools or libraries or things like that. What do you think who should be making those type of decisions. Is it somebody who ultimately runs around with the camera trying to invade privacy or do you think there might be a more mature way to do it.
No, I definitely don't think that self righteous As for who has nothing to do with his days, apparently that's not the person who should make those decisions, and he won't because basically he works for two years for nothing, because he proposed some charges to be filed and they weren't. So unfortunately, I don't think it will have the effect I wish it had, because I'm pretty sure someone else will try another time. But yeah, I think it should
be done at the federal level. I don't see why a child in Texas should have access to different books than in California. There's no reason for for that. So I don't think uh school boards should exist. I think it should be done by the Ministry of Education, which should be funded accordingly, and not let by people who want to destroy the public system like like it was
for quite a bit. But yeah, it's I think it's symptomatic of a portion of the population who uh cease education as as as a bad thing, you know, uh, and and there are many reasons why, and we can jump into it, but basically that's that's that. It's just a miserable cup who thinks too much of his beliefs and wants to impust them onto everyone else.
That's just what it is.
Yeah, I can't disagree with you there. It's really a case that we're kind of mind boggling me though, that the police were getting involved in books and Eli talking about children and books and all of that. You know, the privacy of the children was as something that he took into consideration. Or are we talking about how exactly far did he go with that?
Yeah, he sure didn't consider that. So he even went so far as to gather a list over the past two years of like the names of children in these schools that had checked out these books. And it's ironic to think to see that he thinks this is creating like this is creating a safe environment for children, like this is this is the protection that children need. And you hit a lot of points that I really agree with, Cindy.
He he is.
Just pushing his personal beliefs. He said in an interview with the same source back in twenty twenty three. This has nothing to do with the constitution. I don't know what a constitutional constable is, but he said in the interview, this has nothing to do with his job, So he's just like being paid taxpayer money to just do this thing and persecute like librarians under felonies for letting kids read books. And it's just such a strange, Like I'm
starting to not believe. I saw somebody say that, like everybody watches America the same way America watched Tiger King, And I really see that, Like that makes a lot of sense to me, And I'm starting to no longer believe that the things that happen here are reality.
You know, I have to say that, it really is a little amazing to think that you're going it's okay, we're going to punish librarians for this, but really, where is it do you draw the line? If you ultimately decide this is a book that's bad, who would you Who would you decide is the person who bought the book? Is it the person that put it on a wagon and wheeled it into the front door. Where do you as a physical possession? Is it writing on a piece
of paper? What ultimately decides whose responsibility it is? Is books in your library? We're going to give you a felony that's absurd all around. What are you going to do? I mean, that's just absolute absurd. So let me ask you this, Cindy, dude, do you think this is a deliberate chilling effect to try to as you mentioned this people who want to not have education. Is this more in the along the lines of what we're looking at there just really not wanting it to.
Have I think it is when you look at all the cases where legislators, local legislators are trying to impose this kind of those Benning books. But in this specific case, I don't think Okay is smart enough to to to go this far. I just think he thinks he's uh, he's he's he's.
Just right in his mind.
He's just self righteous, and and he just wants to impose his views.
On on on anyone.
And you know, we we are talking about the the idea of Panning books, but we're not talking about the reasons why he says he does it because the content he doesn't like. It's not like there's there's a quote at some point where she says, uh, something like imagine if we got to give maxims on you know, like pornographic material in the hands of kids, and and that's not what's happening. Uh, you know, it's it's not like, uh, those books first of all, contain images of actual sexual
depiction or anything like that. It's it's just books of things that make him uncomfortable. And that's just what it is. It's just talking about there, it's talking about most sexuality, it's about talking about all of this, and that's just make him ikey, and so he just wants to prevent everyone to uh, to read those books. And it's just, yeah, I can't see and I can't see it's in any other way than just I don't like it, so others can have it.
It's it's not a matter of a matter of right, it's a matter of a feeling of discomfort, loss of entitlement. And you know, and and and maybe you're right. Maybe it's not his deliberate attempt to bring in the idea of a chilling effect. It could just be that, you know, it's it's a it's a feature. He didn't even know about it. This is an added bonus, because yeah, I think at the end of the day, it's really not even I think you probably hit the nail on the head. Elia.
Where where where did you come from?
This?
What?
What?
What did you get this?
So it.
I've said a lot of times that I don't think censoring information is the way to teach kids the right information. I think if you teach them how to think, not what to think, teach them how to discern correct incorrect, correct from incorrect, true versus from not true, you know, good source from bad source, then it doesn't matter what
they're like. They can see and read and take in whatever they want, and now they have the tools to discern, like, this is something that's helpful to me, and I should hold onto this, and this is something that's not quite so helpful, and I should get rid of this. What makes a kid want to go and seek something out more than anything else. Tell them that they can't have it,
and then they're gonna want to go find it. And it's like we talked about this on an episode recently, and somebody else on the show on the episodes said the same thing. They're going to go get the book on Amazon for like seven bucks. Anyway, as soon as they realize that you took it out of the library specifically so they wouldn't be able to read it. So it's not doing anything to stop them from accessing this material. And it's just punishing people that are like just trying
to educate kids. There was a person in the video in the article that said the same thing. Nobody should be facing threats of felony charges just for trying to educate people and provide information to the world. That would be like the three of us, if if somebody came to the three of us to say that, you know, we were committing a felony because you know the things we talked about on one of these shows. I think that's it's it's akin to that, and it's it blows my mind.
Yeah, I'd like to to Sorry, just just one point, I'd like to come back to what you just said when you talked about Sorry, I lost it. Now I go go ahead. Uh, I'm sorry, I forgot my train of thought.
Oh no, it's fine.
Uh.
I guess that happens to us sometimes. I know I've already forgot. Who are the two of you again, Kelly? Oh that's right, Kelly. I thank thanks for failing in for Eli. Now, having said that, you mentioned LGBTQ books, Eli, h what about sending people of color that also seem to draw a share of attention. I wanted both of you to kind of comment on what do you think that was about? Is it just a it can't be an icky thing. Surely this far in history, we're past
ichiness when it comes to race like that, aren't we. So, I mean, I was just trying to figure why don't we want to pretend that people of color don't exist when they exist around us. I don't understand that motivation.
I can answer to that, and I can come back to the point I forgot. You said that children they're just going to buy the book on Amazon. The problem is it increases the divide between the education of poor people and people.
Who have the means to go to buy those books.
And we know that in the US it's one of the major problems that education is extremely uh related to your revenues. So poor people have much much worse education, and then rich people and even the middle class. But yeah, there's this this this idea that not wanting to uh
to acknowledge your past. Because if you look at you know, Rosa Parks and all those pictures you see about black people trying to eat in a restaurant and being attacked by people, I think it's still fresh in the memory and people are so ashamed of it, that they just pushing it away and try to make it like it it didn't happen. I think that's one of the reasons why so many books talking about race issues in the US are on the list of band books.
So it's a more of a discomfort level than anything else.
You know, it's you.
Know, and really I think I understand a little better that at the end of the day, it's it's It is a very difference of just wanting to stigmatize versus one of to naturalize. And I think that that is fundamentally one of the differences, because so many of the things that he talked about are things that at the end of the day is a so what you know, who cares?
Move on?
And but you know, the unfortunately people like this keep popping up and we keep having to play whack a mole. But you know, do you think that this is a winning argument or is this a losing argument? Is this something that that people are receptive to, or or is this losing something?
What do you think? You lie?
I think that hopefully fewer than I think, but probably more than I think, people are are receptive to book banning. I think that most people probably think they're restricting information is the right way. And to your point, Cindy, which is a very good point, for those people who don't have the income resources to get that education outside of the school, if the school is now banned from providing it,
they're just out of luck. And that's just another hurdle they have to overcome in order to have the same opportunity or even a similar equitable opportunity as anyone else. And I think what happens is that when you look at historically the people that are likely to ban books, they're historically Christian or religious at least, and I think in most cases Christian at least. The ones that we've talked about, I think it's more likely to be white.
I think the more likely to be heterosexual or heteronormative. And I think it's also really common for everybody, regardless of any type of background, for somebody in power to feel defensive when things that they have done that are not that great are brought to light. And that happens a lot to white people and to hetero intestrate people and to sist people, because there's a lot of examples
of white and cysts and straight people causing harm. So when books like The Bluest Eye, which was one of the ones specifically mentioned in the article and was on the ten top ten most challenged books in the United States in twenty twenty three and was only one of one of only a few books on that list that was not about lgbt q I A plus issues, but also one of only a few that was written by
a person of color. And it's because these books are challenging the white normativity in the hetero normativity, and that's
what they don't like. And I think until it becomes clear that the perceived majority in society and in culture that you know that white sis hetero people perceive sorry, until it is understand that perceived majority isn't as strong as it is perceived to be, that's going to continue to be the case where they the majority of people feel like this is the right thing to do and.
Sending any thoughts or any any comments.
Yeah, I think there's one of the biggest fuels of the conservative movement in the US is the amount of shame they have to overcome to be part of the current society because the conservatives they are against, they still have some racist ideas. They still have homophobic ideas. They still have all those wrong ideas that have been proven false like fifty years ago, but they still have it because they grew up with those ideas and since they are no longer accepted in the society and we are
tribal creatures, we want to be to our society. And the response.
To to this.
Exciting, I would say, like like they're pushed on the side is trying to either prevent this information that they're different from reaching the kids, or trying to impose their views on everyone. And so you have those two, uh,
two movements in the conservative movement. You have one where they're trying to impose their views on everyone, like parietal abortion, like preventing gay marriage, like all this, and at the same time you have this, uh, let's make sure that our kids are not educated as they need to be in order to understand the society and stay with our ideas.
Yeah, I would.
Also I would also have to say that in many ways, the books are symbolic because it's a it's a it's a notation of a lack of acceptance that obviously so much further than books. This is, as you, as we mentioned earlier, stigmatized. This is to exclude this is this feels beyond just icky. This feels like, you know, the censorship that goes far beyond. But we but it's it's what's it's what's happening now, Eli, did you have any other thoughts on this, nothing in particular.
I'd say, yeah, it does go beyond the ikey, it goes it's it's I mean, it's it's not just like it's. I don't like this, and I don't want I mean a lot like I was saying a minute ago, I don't want, you know, the my children to feel responsible, to feel guilt, to feel shamed for the actions of my you know, of people in the past, which I can't say is unreasonable. But I don't think anybody wants your children to feel ashamed for the actions of people in the past.
It doesn't serve a purpose.
Right exactly, And and I don't think anybody wants that. I think it's just that these things need to be acknowledged so that we understand what did happen and why it is important to make sure that everybody has equality and everybody is treated the same, regardless of their background. And when you continue to remove the examples of that not happening, and the results of that not happening, then you remove the motives or the incentives to make sure it doesn't happen anymore.
Sending you a final thought, Yeah, I'd like to point out that in order to be educated on what your previous generations did and not feel guilty, that's possible that everyone else does it, but you need education for that.
You need properly trained educators.
And if you defend the education system, then it doesn't happen. And it's you know, it's it's a it's a chestrangity too. You cannot solve this problem if you don't manage to find a way to teach that. Yes, your grandparents did some horrific things, but it was a different time, they grew up in a different way. And although we do understand now that it's not acceptable and we're trying to change it, we don't feel guilty because we didn't do anything wrong.
We are not our grandparents.
No.
As a parent, my youngest being fourteen, we had talked earlier about Amazon and what you could find on Amazon and the reality. So yeah, I just accept a certain reality, but it doesn't change the reality. Also, as you mentioned, the income disparity, and also the exclusion that comes along with all of this. So all these things being very important, I'm glad that both of you brought these up. A trucker convoy calling itself God's Army is on a campaign
to take our border back. Humanitarian aid or border security Nope, they claim divine calling to drive the undocumented out of the country. Their zeal comes in the aftermath of the Supreme Court permitting the removal razor wire in Texas, or tragedy claim the lives of a migrant mom and her two children. The intersection of religious fervents and political tensions take center stage, prompting questions about the motivations and consequences
of God's Army on this apocalyptic quest. This article is from Ross Story published by published on January TwixT, twenty six, twenty twenty four. And Phoebe, what did you think of this?
Who they reclaiming you from? Is what I have to ask. It's the first question here. I mean the rhetoric they use in this. I feel like I was reading the loss end of a Margaret Atwood novel, and I felt like I was seeing the beginnings of the foundations of the Republic of Gilead, and it was short just to be hang on the bit taking the nation back. Who
the nation of immigrants for crying out loud? You know, as the Native Americans said in the cartoon to the white man shouting at the black man, go back to Africa. Why don't you all just fuck off back where you came from, the nation of immigrants having such hate towards immigrants is one of the most bizarre things that I
will ever experience in my life. The melting pot of America is one of the most anti immigrant places on the fringes from people who are just immigrants to this country from another place, whether it be the seventeen hundreds, whether it be from the twenty first century. They're all immigrants from here unless you're part of the native population, which, let's be frank, the immigrants didn't treat them very well to start with, so I think the immigrants may have
done some damage to the native population. So the immigrants campaigning about more immigrants is one of the most ironic things that you're ever going to notice. Here, this extremist rhetoric, this wet dream of Oh I'm coming to fight God's nonsense. Yes, I must. I must go to the border. I must
get my lovely polished firefarm ount. I must beat my chest and wear a hair shirt and drive and you know, feel manly and you know, beat back the nasty person that's coming to take everything from me that I took from the people who were here before me and may stop me. Wow, I need what a load of absolute cod swallow. I mean, the people organizing this, they need to get a better hobby. I mean, there are things in this world to worry about, but you know, a
nation of immigrants worrying about more immigrants. I mean, Kelly, come.
On, Yeah, I get it, I get it. And what really gad to me too is they can't then can themselves an army of God, their God's army. They're people, They're not even following the world words of Jesus, right. And one of the things that I like to bring up with bigoted Oh shit, I said the word. But yeah, they're going down to Texas. I don't know what they're going to do when they get there. Yeah, yeah, let's get out of here.
Some translations going.
Yeah. But as I was saying, one of the things I like to bring up with biggot I'm not going to say the word again, far right Christians is the parable of the good Samaritan right, because Samaritans were the aliens of their day. They were looked upon by the Hebrews back then as foreigners in their country lots of centuries.
I hate in this religion, isn't there. And the idea the parable was that these bad people were still good people, and if Jesus were alive and living in the United States said hey, I think that parable would be the good Mexican you know. And this, this whole caravan is just a Christian, nationalist, jingoistic, big I almost said it again, intolerant movement. These people don't believe in the Jesus or
the Bible. They believe in the Jesus that is wrapped up in an American flag and curing an assault rifle, ready to rain down vengeance bullets on the unworthy. Unworthy quote for brown people too, you know, the ones that rick him torn bless his little sweater vest once called the blah people.
People like the governor of Florida, you know, the non white governor of Florida.
Exactly.
Yeah, the most concerned part of me part of this article to me was when someone that's part of this convoy says, this is a biblical monumental moment that's been put together by God.
And I'm just curious.
Where in the Bible does this see say to keep people out of your country.
I don't plague.
I don't remember that verse. Maybe somewhere in the Old Testament. But wait, no, I think in the Old Testament the command was to go and commit genocide in somebody else's country, right. I think that that was kind of the theme of the Old Testament. Jesus, I can't I just can't think of anything Jesus might have said that said go to your borders and attack people that are coming into your country. I just you know, it's trucks.
The trucks.
Yeah, I don't remember Jesus mentioning trucks and convoys. As a matter of fact, I remember quite the opposite. I remember Jesus saying things like, if someone strikes you under your cheek, turn to the other one.
Let them hit the other.
If they take your cloak, give them your coat. It seems to be like Christians should instead of getting in convoys and going down to the border to protest border security, they should instead be giving away their belongings to these immigrants. They should be opening their doors and letting people have their homes and their houses and things like that. They should be overjoyed to quote unquote lose their jobs, even
though that's not what actually happens. You know, I have no relief statement on the United States border policies, whether they're good or bad. I know they're pretty inefficient and ineffective right now, understaffed at best. But my problem isn't with our border policies. My problem is making this move and religious turning it from a policy about immigration to
a religious argument. Because when you feel like you have a mandate from God, when you feel like God is telling you to protect your border, what won't you do to secure that border? What actions won't you take? And in Bible, God commands genocide. How long until a religious leader commands that says that God commanded that we can miss start committing genocide against illegal immigrants. I wouldn't be surprised if it's already happened and somebody has already said it.
There's nothing you can't justify and excuse based on faith, and most people it's benign. And you know at worst, causes them to go to church more than they'd like, but encourage them to be good and moral. But it's a slippery slope because the standard of good, what's good, and bad doesn't come from any objective standard. It just comes from this is what the big guy says, and so whatever the big guy says, that's what I'm going
to do. And we can look out in the world and see some pretty horrendous examples of people using this kind of logic, but it just doesn't work because who speaks for God? Who Who's who's giving us the actual message from God? It's not God himself. I haven't heard a voice. I haven't seen God come down and give a press conference and let people know what there's what they should be doing as far as border security or
anything else. Is h is correct. We just need a better standard for determining what's right and wrong and whether our policies are good or bad, and that should be more based on human well being and not on what some uh, some religious leader or God says. Infidel.
The reality is that Christianity here in the United States has nothing to do with the Bible. It has nothing to do with what's said in the Bible, because unfortunately a large portion of the Christians in our country have been completely radicalized into an idea that, let me quote this one person who was or an organizer that says, by ballot, by choice, by bullet, if forced, the republic will be restored. What what does that right?
Yeah?
You know, And and and one thing that I I find so absurd is that what they're doing is they're listening to people behind pulpits who are telling them and feeding them a story, and they're getting whipped up with this rhetoric. I absolutely hate it when I hear people use military style rhetoric God's army and all these other things, because what they're doing is they're they're they're creating a
mindset that's very dangerous. I know one of the people made the comment besieged on all sides by dark.
Forces of evil.
Yes, very scary words, because when people are thinking things like this, they will do very dangerous and unhinged things. Now, fortunately, it does seem that these people are rather incompetent. They can't seem to get their act together. Not many people showed up. They're having tire slash problems, they're having organiz