Jump to content

Should Latter-day Saints be Concerned about "Christian Nationalism?"


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would the coach be held responsible if anything happened to the students at that time?  As in injured?  If so, seems to mr they are in his care because of his employment. 
 

There is a difference between interacting with other adults and interacting with students no matter what time of the working day it is, imo.  They need to differentiate between adult interaction which can be nonschool related even on school property vs interaction with students…which if on school property seems to always imply authority even if it was midnight and coach and student ran into each other running laps on the school track because neither could sleep.  That it is during a time period very close to where the coach was actually coaching only strengthens the sense of authority over the student.

I get that the school was absolving other employees of their duties as student supervisors at that time. But they allow private conversations between the adults between classes and coffee breaks whatever they are legally called and ‘time off’ as far as I know where teachers can use the restroom and make calls, but they are still considered supervising students at that time…the kids are expected to obey the teacher even if the teacher is on a break.  If a fire alarm goes off around noon, just because the teacher is on a lunch break doesn’t mean they get to run for the door and forget about the kids  

My guess is the coach would not be happy if a student was goofing off and playing with school equipment right next to the prayer area and the coach told him to stop as he could hurt himself or the equipment or just because he was being a jerk and the student ignored him based on the coach was on his own private time. Otoh, if off school property and the coach saw a student goofing off and being a jerk in a store, would either he or the student see him as having actual authority over the student where he could get the kid disciplined or even expelled for example if the student ignored his instruction to behave?

As long as there is an expectation of authority on either the coach or the students’ part, I think the coach is acting as an agent of the state and while they can be allowed to have private time by themselves or with other adults, as soon as any student under their authority is involved, it is on the clock paid employment.

Yes, that's pretty much how I would put it. I was thinking about cases where someone was injured while getting a ride home from church or Scouting leaders after an activity. Although technically the activity is over, I seem to recall that the courts have held the leaders and the organizations liable for injury and death. Or imagine a scenario where a Scout leader invited a Scout to stay late after an activity and then molested the Scout. Does the organization have any responsibility, or is this "private behavior" on the leader's own time? Just seems like this ruling makes things far less clear and opens up the possibility of problematic actions by schools and their employees.

ETA: I asked my active Latter-day Saint wife what she thinks of the ruling. "It's appalling," she said. Then she said pretty much what I think: the idea that the guy is engaging in private behavior on his own time is ridiculous.

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment
1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

That is quite obvious. I’m just worried about marginalized kids being further stigmatized by being expected to participate in religious activities at school functions.

That seems quite a stretch.  Far more likely, I think, will be students "stigmatized by being expected" to toe the party line as to pet projects favored by individual teachers, administrators, school boards, etc., such as in-your-face LGBTQ+ advocacy and "preferred pronouns" inanities, anti-police rhetoric, anti-American rhetoric, partisan political rants, graphic sexual reading materials in school libraries (graphic enough that they can't be read aloud during school board meetings), and so on.

And I think that risk is far greater given that many school boards and districts are fully on board with it.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

This decision really blurs the lines. 

I would prefer schools, and government generally, to minimize involvement in the Culture Wars.  Let's have teachers teach history without a viscerally hostile and anti-American and anti-Whitey overlay.  Let's have teachers teach health without indoctrinating children about gender theories that didn't exist fifteen minutes ago, and without subverting parents and hiding information from them.  Let's teach civics as impartially as possible.  Let's take political advocacy out of the classroom.  Let's take hostility and contempt for religion out of the classroom.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That seems quite a stretch.  Far more likely, I think, will be students "stigmatized by being expected" to toe the party line as to pet projects favored by individual teachers, administrators, school boards, etc., such as in-your-face LGBTQ+ advocacy and "preferred pronouns" inanities, anti-police rhetoric, anti-American rhetoric, partisan political rants, graphic sexual reading materials in school libraries (graphic enough that they can't be read aloud during school board meetings), and so on.

And I think that risk is far greater given that many school boards and districts are fully on board with it.

I would prefer schools, and government generally, to minimize involvement in the Culture Wars.  Let's have teachers teach history without a viscerally hostile and anti-American and anti-Whitey overlay.  Let's have teachers teach health without indoctrinating children about gender theories that didn't exist fifteen minutes ago, and without subverting parents and hiding information from them.  Let's teach civics as impartially as possible.  Let's take political advocacy out of the classroom.  Let's take hostility and contempt for religion out of the classroom.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Again, I don’t think you understand what it’s like to be an adolescent in a marginalized religious minority. And your positions in the “culture wars” are well known. 

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, I don’t think you understand what it’s like to be an adolescent in a marginalized religious minority.

I would think such experience would give one empathy for students and their parents having wokist ideology rammed down their throats by public schools. 

Link to comment
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I would think such experience would give one empathy for students and their parents having wokist ideology rammed down their throats by public schools. 

Apparently you assume I don’t have such empathy. Why, I don’t know. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That seems quite a stretch.  Far more likely, I think, will be students "stigmatized by being expected" to toe the party line as to pet projects favored by individual teachers, administrators, school boards, etc., such as in-your-face LGBTQ+ advocacy and "preferred pronouns" inanities, anti-police rhetoric, anti-American rhetoric, partisan political rants, graphic sexual reading materials in school libraries (graphic enough that they can't be read aloud during school board meetings), and so on.

You are getting your talking points from YouTube now.

Okay, this is fine. A great place to find out what is going on.

This is insanely good.

DBDFBA38-435D-4645-AE38-0496A2228086.png.0a9b97a1d279e846f6ae599c7d0f2b75.png

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Should I be concerned about “Christian nationalism”? I think I have enough on my plate that I don’t need to take on this additional worry. 

With the hordes of Antifa assassins circling like predators who can blame you?

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would think such experience would give one empathy for students and their parents having wokist ideology rammed down their throats by public schools. 

I wish someone would define “woke” and “wokist”. It is another meaningless term that is meant to just let the listener fill it in with anything they personally dislike. I consider it a marginally more troubling development than those heretics who leave out Oxford commas.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You are getting your talking points from YouTube now.

Well, no.

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Okay, this is fine. A great place to find out what is going on.

This is insanely good.

DBDFBA38-435D-4645-AE38-0496A2228086.png.0a9b97a1d279e846f6ae599c7d0f2b75.png

Okay.

-Smac

Link to comment
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

With the hordes of Antifa assassins circling like predators who can blame you?

I wish someone would define “woke” and “wokist”. It is another meaningless term that is meant to just let the listener fill it in with anything they personally dislike. I consider it a marginally more troubling development than those heretics who leave out Oxford commas.

It throws you into a tizzy when the narrative does NOT go your way.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, longview said:

It throws you into a tizzy when the narrative does NOT go your way.

What narrative? What are you talking about? You think Christian Nationalism is winning? Because that would be not going my way.

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Virtual up-vote: ^

(Why can’t I award you response points?)

Maybe you can explain what he meant?

What narrative is not going my way?

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
8 hours ago, longview said:
11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

With the hordes of Antifa assassins circling like predators who can blame you?

I wish someone would define “woke” and “wokist”. It is another meaningless term that is meant to just let the listener fill it in with anything they personally dislike. I consider it a marginally more troubling development than those heretics who leave out Oxford commas.

It throws you into a tizzy when the narrative does NOT go your way.

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

What narrative? What are you talking about? You think Christian Nationalism is winning? Because that would be not going my way.

Because you are in DEEP denial about the derangement of "woke" philosophies?  Or maybe you are embarrassed with the antics of antifas which you have repeatedly expressed admiration for?  Possibly your lack of "enthusiasm" for free enterprise?

"Christian Nationalism" is a meaningless term for me.  I subscribe to Elder Oaks masterful praise of Constitutionalism and the blessings that flowed from it to the whole world.  Which you tried to fight back against by calling it idolatry.

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Virtual up-vote: ^

(Why can’t I award you response points?)

Thanks!  I did notice that my ability to express my votes was mysteriously taken away a couple weeks ago.  Have NO inkling of why it happened.  Seems similar to the occasional bans of various other board participants.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, longview said:

Because you are in DEEP denial about the derangement of "woke" philosophies?  Or maybe you are embarrassed with the antics of antifas which you have repeatedly expressed admiration for?  Possibly your lack of "enthusiasm" for free enterprise?

"Christian Nationalism" is a meaningless term for me.  I subscribe to Elder Oaks masterful praise of Constitutionalism and the blessings that flowed from it to the whole world.  Which you tried to fight back against by calling it idolatry.

 

One more virtual rep point: ^
 

In fact, I’ll give you five or six, since there’s no limit on the virtual ones I can give: ^^^^^^
 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, longview said:

Thanks!  I did notice that my ability to express my votes was mysteriously taken away a couple weeks ago.  Have NO inkling of why it happened.  Seems similar to the occasional bans of various other board participants.

Hmm. Weird. 
 

Have they curtailed your ability to open new threads?

Link to comment
11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A three word response from smac!

Do I win some kind of jackpot?

 

49 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Bonus points for no links. 

I get a chuckle from you guys scoffing at Smac for putting too much content and/or documentation in his posts. Almost seems like a variation on “my mind’s made up; don’t confuse me with facts.”

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I get a chuckle from you guys scoffing at Smac for putting too much content and/or documentation in his posts. Almost seems like a variation on “my mind’s made up; don’t confuse me with facts.”

Nah, I'm just chuckling at how unnecessarily verbose his posts tend to be and the superfluous number of links they contain. I prefer directness and clarity to walls of text and youtube links. But that's me.

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment
2 hours ago, longview said:

"Christian Nationalism" is a meaningless term for me.  I subscribe to Elder Oaks masterful praise of Constitutionalism and the blessings that flowed from it to the whole world.  Which you tried to fight back against by calling it idolatry.

What do you mean that it is meaningless for you?  Are you suggesting that you simply don't understand it, or are you suggesting that it is not a thing, or is it simply an inconvenient large chunk of your party and its easier to just pretend that it doesn't exist?

Do you also subscribe to President Nelson, Elders  Ballard, Cook, and Didier's (as early as the 70's) warning and repudiation of nationalism?  Should we be supporting nationalists in any form, Christian or not?  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...