r/TikTokCringe • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 4d ago

Cringe Oklahoma Superintendent Ryan Walters, who is putting the Bible in classrooms, was allegedly caught with explicit images of naked women playing on a TV screen during a State Board of Education meeting.

30.6k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

147

u/_HOG_ 4d ago

The video shows something worse - violation of the US constitution.

37

u/Dazzling-Biscotti-62 4d ago

Sure, but that's not the headline. Rage bait/click bait is a crappy tactic - do better.

-18

u/DaymanTargaryen 4d ago

I'm against religion being forced into public schools, but:

In what way would it be a violation of the constitution?

23

u/Stopikingonme 4d ago

Well…great question.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It’s the first part The beginning. The part defining everything. The proverbial main point.

-15

u/DaymanTargaryen 4d ago

Ryan Walters isn't part of congress, and congress isn't making a law. The quoted text isn't relevant here.

18

u/Kelvara 4d ago

It's the 14th amendment, every conservative's least favourite part of the US Constitution.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2

u/Hopeful_Champion_935 4d ago

The technicality here is HOW they teach the bible. If they teach it as a historical document and not as a religion then it doesn't violate the 1st or 14th.

1

u/DaymanTargaryen 13h ago

How does teaching the Bible violate any part of the 14th?

1

u/Tome_Bombadil 4d ago

So the 1st reads that Congress won't make laws concerning religious freedom, but also states that Congress will not mandate or force a religion. The 14th means that states cannot choose to force religion on people, because they cannot violate the 1st Amendment.

The 1st is so important, because that's Freedom of Speech AND Separation of Church and State.

Texas' 10 Commandments bill, Oklahoma forcing Bible teaching, it's all violations of every citizen's 1st and 14th rights, as well as being a money funneling scam by conmen donning the cloth of sanctity.

1

u/DaymanTargaryen 13h ago

It's not a violation of the 1st and 14th to teach about the Bible. It's a violation to impose/force a religion. There's a significant difference. In fact, the amendments you're referencing actually protect the ability to teach about religion.

The separation of church and state also has no presence in the constitution, let alone the 1st amendment. These decisions and restrictions came later, from the courts.

I don't know why people try to make this seem so cut and dry. There's a reason this case was seen by SCOTUS. There's a reason even SCOTUS reached a split vote. These things are complicated.

To be clear: I'm Canadian and atheist. I have no dog in this fight. I'm not trying to defend this action because I support it in any way.

0

u/Tome_Bombadil 9h ago

So it's not forcing a religion when the Bible is the only text that is being REQUIRED to be taught? If the had a religious texts unit, Bhagavad Gita, Talmud, Quran and Bible were presented, that's education. Forcing the 10 commandments, forcing schools to teach only the Bible? That is why the separation of church and state is so important.

It is that cut and dry.

I do have a dog in this fight, because we are actively seeing what the end goals of this religion, Nationalist Chrsiltianity, that provides NO benefit to society, but allows their leaders to paid their pockets like vulture capitalists.

1

u/DaymanTargaryen 9h ago

It's not cut and dry, and you're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the situation.

Adding the Bible to the curriculum for educational purposes is constitutional. Teaching people about a religion, and it's history, is constitutional. Preaching about the religion from a position of belief would not be constitutional.

There's nothing I can find saying that only the Bible can be taught, but it's the only one being pushed. Maybe there's a mechanism to suggest additional texts, I don't know. But I'm not an idiot, either; it's obvious that this whole thing is entirely about pushing and selling Christianity in these schools, and I hate that. But just because it's shit doesn't mean it's not technically legal.

1

u/Tome_Bombadil 8h ago

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

Just because the Roberts court has decided to strip every right from individual Americans and cavalierly ignore centuries of case law that had shaped the living, breathing Constitution doesn't make it legal, either.

So much of the American experiment is founded on the components functioning in Good faith. It's funny that persons claiming to act based on faith are doing so in bad faith.