Politics

697 readers

529 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only

▪️ Title must match the article headline

▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)

▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners

Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.

Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication-No Fox News or equal), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.

Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

Rule 7. No conjecture type posts (this could, might, may, etc.). Only factual. If the headline is wrong, clarify within the body. More info

Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

Video: Macklemore's new song critical of Trump and Musk is facing heavy censorship across major platforms.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes (www.scotusblog.com)

submitted 4 days ago by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@sh.itjust.works

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in the first of two cases in April involving religion and public schools. In Mahmoud v. Taylor a coalition of parents from Montgomery County, Md., contend that requiring their children to participate in instruction that includes LGBTQ+ themes violates their religious beliefs and thus their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] pepperjohnson@lemm.ee 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

So their religion can then stifle others' freedoms.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'm fine with them exempting their own child, it's others people's kids i don't want them effecting

[–] shnizmuffin@lemmy.inbutts.lol 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No, because the themes are tolerance and inclusion. Their children should be forced to learn those values in the context of sexual identity. They should be taught that their parents are bigots.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Sorry best that will do is get parents to claim you are kidnapping children, indoctrinating them into our way of thinking and get whatever group that does such called groomers every day until it stops. Only creating more division.

It should never be forced. It should be optional that the parents can refuse to allow their kids to go, and then let the parents go back to not paying any attention to their kids education just like they never were before. And slowly people will get back to learning tolerance and inclusion because politicians aren't screaming nonsense about education once they are done "winning."

[–] _core@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Gotcha, tolerate their intolerance. Isn't that how we got the current regime?

Also, kids won't be taught tolerance and inclusion but will somehow learn it despite being raised in an environment of intolerance and exclusion? Gtfo with that bullshit

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago

Oh no, different people. Acknowledging their existence would violate my rights.

[–] brandonbriggs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

religion is so weird