What did you learn today TIL

[Writers Bloque]

Nah!! The day it was declared, or signed into an agreement. Doesn't matter if the british knew or not, because they didnt give a rat's patootie what they thought. They declared independence, when they signed it, not when the other side knew. They didn't keep paying stamp taxes until the british found out.

The Declaration of Independence was signed on August 2, 1776.

The British learned that the colonists voted to declare their independence on August 10, 1776. They didn't receive a physical copy of the Declaration until September 28, 1776. By that point, it was old news.

Meanwhile, the British Parliament repealed the Stamp Tax on March 18, 1766 -- more than a decade previously.

Sorry, but this is what I do for a living...

Just as I thought. I am Impressed, MissB. My praise of you in another thread seems to have been validated.

[Hilda]

as the saying goes, when you learn one things you forget another. I don't remember if that's actually true or not🤪🤣

I think it's true of short-term memory loss in old age. My understanding is that you become less and less adept at "holding" an item of information, and it disappears before your brain can transfer it to long-term memory. Distractions can accelerate the loss. Cognitive function tests often include a simple mathematical task, placed there to see if the person taking the test can recall what came before the task.

I've noticed impairment of short-term memory in myself. Everyone, including my neurologist, tells me I'm fine, but I'm thinking about surrendering my driving licence the next time it comes up for renewal.

[Hilda]

Although women make up the majority of the population in virtually every country on Earth, women are a minority of the world's population thanks to male dominance in India and China.

India and China? My first thought was, infanticide and prenatal sex selection. 

[purpleshoes]

The Declaration of Independence was signed on August 2, 1776.

The British learned that the colonists voted to declare their independence on August 10, 1776. They didn't receive a physical copy of the Declaration until September 28, 1776. By that point, it was old news.

Meanwhile, the British Parliament repealed the Stamp Tax on March 18, 1766 -- more than a decade previously.

Sorry, but this is what I do for a living...

I don't know of anyone who doesn't enjoy the information you provide for us. There are so many things in our history that did not happen they way most people believe. A perfect example is the little ditty:

Lizzie Borden took an axe
and gave her mother forty whacks.
When she saw what she had done,
she gave her father forty-one.

A) In fact, it was not her mother, but her stepmother that was killed.
B) Forensics determined that the woman was struck 18 or 19 times (the father only eleven).
C) Lizzie was cleared of all charges at her trial, so legally she did not kill the couple. Technically, the crime remains unsolved to this day.

Then there's the whole "Constitutional" separation of church and state, but that's a topic for another day. 

[MissBarbara]

Then there's the whole "Constitutional" separation of church and state, but that's a topic for another day. 

That's a topic that I know an awful lot about.

But I'll spare you...

[Hilda]

Then there's the whole "Constitutional" separation of church and state, but that's a topic for another day. 

That's a topic that I know an awful lot about.

But I'll spare you...

An update on religious observance in US public schools would be very helpful and much appreciated.

When I was in secondary school in the UK, morning assembly was preceded by Church of England prayers. Jews, Roman Catholics, and Non-Conformists were permitted to wait outside the hall until prayers had finished.

How do modern US public schools deal with what I assume are increasing numbers of Moslem children, or children from religious backgrounds that don't recognize oaths or pledges?

[purpleshoes]

An update on religious observance in US public schools would be very helpful and much appreciated.

When I was in secondary school in the UK, morning assembly was preceded by Church of England prayers. Jews, Roman Catholics, and Non-Conformists were permitted to wait outside the hall until prayers had finished.

How do modern US public schools deal with what I assume are increasing numbers of Moslem children, or children from religious backgrounds that don't recognize oaths or pledges?

Basically, the whole church/state situation is a big ol' ugly can of worms. The primary purpose of the First Amendment is to give every American citizen the freedom to worship (or not) as they choose. Thomas Jefferson later emphasized that it was intended to prevent a Church of America (or state sponsored national religion) being forced upon its citizens.

Growing up in the fifties and sixties, it was common to see the Ten Commandments posted in public schools, but that came to an end after 1980, when the Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky law that required the document to be in every classroom. (Stone v Graham, 1980).

It has been argued that removing that simple list of Commandments has led us to where we are today, where respect and even common courtesy is no longer practiced, but that's beyond the scope of answering your question.

So now, Louisiana has passed a law (effective last week on July 1) that requires the Ten Commandments to once again be posted in public schools. Part of the problem is that the Ten Commandments assume that everyone is a Christian, which, duh, is not true.

Therein lies the problem. Who decides what is a religion and what is not? The federal government is prohibited from doing so by the First Amendment, so any such state law that gets passed is going to end up being adjudicated by the Supreme Court, which now has a much different composition than the court of 1980 (for which you can blame a certain ex-president whose name I refuse to speak).

To answer your specific question, I think the only viable answer is... no one has any freakin' idea how non-Christians will fit into the whole debate.

[Writers Bloque]

An update on religious observance in US public schools would be very helpful and much appreciated.

When I was in secondary school in the UK, morning assembly was preceded by Church of England prayers. Jews, Roman Catholics, and Non-Conformists were permitted to wait outside the hall until prayers had finished.

How do modern US public schools deal with what I assume are increasing numbers of Moslem children, or children from religious backgrounds that don't recognize oaths or pledges?

Basically, the whole church/state situation is a big ol' ugly can of worms. The primary purpose of the First Amendment is to give every American citizen the freedom to worship (or not) as they choose. Thomas Jefferson later emphasized that it was intended to prevent a Church of America (or state sponsored national religion) being forced upon its citizens.

Growing up in the fifties and sixties, it was common to see the Ten Commandments posted in public schools, but that came to an end after 1980, when the Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky law that required the document to be in every classroom. (Stone v Graham, 1980).

It has been argued that removing that simple list of Commandments has led us to where we are today, where respect and even common courtesy is no longer practiced, but that's beyond the scope of answering your question.

So now, Louisiana has passed a law (effective last week on July 1) that requires the Ten Commandments to once again be posted in public schools. Part of the problem is that the Ten Commandments assume that everyone is a Christian, which, duh, is not true.

Therein lies the problem. Who decides what is a religion and what is not? The federal government is prohibited from doing so by the First Amendment, so any such state law that gets passed is going to end up being adjudicated by the Supreme Court, which now has a much different composition than the court of 1980 (for which you can blame a certain ex-president whose name I refuse to speak).

To answer your specific question, I think the only viable answer is... no one has any freakin' idea how non-Christians will fit into the whole debate.

Allow me to introduce a wildly radical thought.

How about instead of it being taken religiously, it being taken as a secular code of conduct, minus the religious aspects i.e. no other gods, the sabbath, etc. One that anyone can embrace whether they are religious or not. Dont have to be a christian to know that murder, lying, theft, cheating, etc. are bad things.

[MissBarbara]

Then there's the whole "Constitutional" separation of church and state, but that's a topic for another day. 

That's a topic that I know an awful lot about.

But I'll spare you...

An update on religious observance in US public schools would be very helpful and much appreciated.

When I was in secondary school in the UK, morning assembly was preceded by Church of England prayers. Jews, Roman Catholics, and Non-Conformists were permitted to wait outside the hall until prayers had finished.

How do modern US public schools deal with what I assume are increasing numbers of Moslem children, or children from religious backgrounds that don't recognize oaths or pledges?

Up until the early 1960s, in U.S. public schools "Jews, Roman Catholics, and Non-Conformists," along with everyone else, was required to remain in the room and, at least in theory, recite the public prayers.

In 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Engel v. Vitale decision, which declared that public prayers in public schools violated the Establishment Claus of the 1st Amendment.

Here's what the text of the 1st Amendment says:

"Congress shall pass no law Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The first part is the Establishment Clause, and it means that the government cannot created a national religion to which all citizens are bound to adhere. Public prayers in public schools represented the government requiring all students to recite, or at least listen to, prayers specific to one religion (Christianity in general and Protestant Christianity in particular), and the practice represented an enforcement by the government of a specific religion. The Supreme Court decision remains in effect today.

It's worth noting that when the framers of the Bill of Rights created the 1st Amendment, they had the Church of England specifically in mind. That was a national religion (the monarch was the head of the Church of England), to which all people were bound (at least in theory) to adhere.

This is a gross oversimplification, but it gives the general idea.

[MissBarbara]

So now, Louisiana has passed a law (effective last week on July 1) that requires the Ten Commandments to once again be posted in public schools. Part of the problem is that the Ten Commandments assume that everyone is a Christian, which, duh, is not true.

It's very much worth noting that the Louisiana ordinance was signed into law by the governor four days ago. The constitutionality of the law will be challenged in court, and it will likely be found to violate the 1st Amendment. Appeals take time, and it's only been four days.

[MissBarbara]

An update on religious observance in US public schools would be very helpful and much appreciated.

When I was in secondary school in the UK, morning assembly was preceded by Church of England prayers. Jews, Roman Catholics, and Non-Conformists were permitted to wait outside the hall until prayers had finished.

How do modern US public schools deal with what I assume are increasing numbers of Moslem children, or children from religious backgrounds that don't recognize oaths or pledges?

Basically, the whole church/state situation is a big ol' ugly can of worms. The primary purpose of the First Amendment is to give every American citizen the freedom to worship (or not) as they choose. Thomas Jefferson later emphasized that it was intended to prevent a Church of America (or state sponsored national religion) being forced upon its citizens.

Growing up in the fifties and sixties, it was common to see the Ten Commandments posted in public schools, but that came to an end after 1980, when the Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky law that required the document to be in every classroom. (Stone v Graham, 1980).

It has been argued that removing that simple list of Commandments has led us to where we are today, where respect and even common courtesy is no longer practiced, but that's beyond the scope of answering your question.

So now, Louisiana has passed a law (effective last week on July 1) that requires the Ten Commandments to once again be posted in public schools. Part of the problem is that the Ten Commandments assume that everyone is a Christian, which, duh, is not true.

Therein lies the problem. Who decides what is a religion and what is not? The federal government is prohibited from doing so by the First Amendment, so any such state law that gets passed is going to end up being adjudicated by the Supreme Court, which now has a much different composition than the court of 1980 (for which you can blame a certain ex-president whose name I refuse to speak).

To answer your specific question, I think the only viable answer is... no one has any freakin' idea how non-Christians will fit into the whole debate.

Allow me to introduce a wildly radical thought.

How about instead of it being taken religiously, it being taken as a secular code of conduct, minus the religious aspects i.e. no other gods, the sabbath, etc. One that anyone can embrace whether they are religious or not. Dont have to be a christian to know that murder, lying, theft, cheating, etc. are bad things.

Allow me introduce a wildly prosaic response:

Most of the proscriptions found in the 10 Commandments that are not specifically religious-related are already proscribed under secular law, and they have been for centuries.

[Pornhubby]

[

Allow me introduce a wildly prosaic response:

Most of the proscriptions found in the 10 Commandments that are not specifically religious-related are already proscribed under secular law, and they have been for centuries.

And while parts of the Torah are in the Old Testament, the 10 Commandments are Jewish, not Christian. Jesus said “I have come to abolish the [Mosaic] law and the Prophets.“ Elevating Mosaic law before any other teaching of Christ (the Beatitudes perhaps?) is actually “un-Christian.“

 But the truth of the matter is, particularly among the evangelical nuts who promote this stuff is that they don’t read the Bible. To do that would blow their minds. It’s just a false religion designed to reinforce their conditional bias. Theatrical politics. Louisiana is 47th in the nation in education. But they will have the 10 Commandments on every wall.

[Writers Bloque]

[

Allow me introduce a wildly prosaic response:

Most of the proscriptions found in the 10 Commandments that are not specifically religious-related are already proscribed under secular law, and they have been for centuries.

And while parts of the Torah are in the Old Testament, the 10 Commandments are Jewish, not Christian. Jesus said “I have come to abolish the [Mosaic] law and the Prophets.“ Elevating Mosaic law before any other teaching of Christ (the Beatitudes perhaps?) is actually “un-Christian.“

 But the truth of the matter is, particularly among the evangelical nuts who promote this stuff is that they don’t read the Bible. To do that would blow their minds. It’s just a false religion designed to reinforce their conditional bias. Theatrical politics. Louisiana is 47th in the nation in education. But they will have the 10 Commandments on every wall.

I concede the point right up to the underlined bit.

Someone wise once said that the beginning of knowledge and learning is first learning right from wrong. I dont know where I heard that from, nor whom I can attribute it to.

But the underlined bit had me thinking.

As a developed nation, in my truest heart of hearts, I think we should be at a 50 way tie for first in education. Millions upon Billions have been spent to try and fix a broken system that shunts kids through whether they know enough to pass or get by in life. Most cant even read beyond the third grade level, and hell, even fuck the special needs kids, just getting them to pay attention is counted as a success. No, the underlined bit is the bitterest pill of truth one could ever say.

47th but hangs the ten commandments on the wall is like hanging a Picasso in a first grades art corner. The irony wasn't lost on me. It is an indictment of how we as a society have dropped the ball on the most precious and valuable resource we have: Future Generations. But instead of actually fixing the problem, we rabble and mob over the stupidest shit spouting hypocritical bullshit like "Think of the children." There isnt a line that I abhor more than that one. It even surpasses "The right side of History" and "For the Greater Good." If anyone in society actually gave a damned, then you would put your hands to the soil and help find better ways to educate our children, instead of crapping on alternative methods and private schools. In Pensacola there is a private school that is specially designed and equipped to provide an excellent education for those with special needs or on the Spectrum.

We don't listen to the children when shit is getting bad, then we go and sue the gun maker when that kid snaps. We whine about equity and equality, and yet 5 hours a day we play the bad father and toss our kids into the deep end, hoping they learn to swim, but realistically hope they can at least survive. But when votes come up, everyone who speaks emptily about the kids futures are amazingly silent. We get all mad about colleges and universities admittance protocols, and yet little Bobby cant even answer 1 fucking question on the SAT. But because everyone is so invested in making sure its all kosher and right say nothing when the kid drops out in his first semester because no one fucking prepared him for it. Colleges are now lowering their standards, which breeds a near infinite cycle of getting in and dropping out.

We traded Meritocracy for Everyone Gets an Award, even if little Julian is sitting in the corner eating paste. And then we get shocked that the next generation expects to slide by because why the fuck not, the schools just counted them as bodies to pad the state education funding. So yeah by this point, whatever reason they voted to hang the 10 commandments on walls, they completely missed the fucking train on the kids. Not just Louisiana, all of the 49 other states. But wait! there is a handy dandy, not worn out to death excuse that should magically shoulder all of the burdens of a failing system! Fucking covid! But then again,. you are home, kids are home remote learning, but instead of actually giving a flying shit about your child's education, you sit back, throw on the latest drivel on netflix while your kid fucks off on his virtual learning to play Minecraft. 2 years of a lock down should have made at least a majority of students rise up to their next grade level, but sadly, nope. Laziness is the enemy of advancement. But hey! At least the got their high school diploma that is about as worthless as ass wipes when a college or employer pokes around your educational history. I mean thats why they have that on job applications, to make it easier to look up if you are lying to them.

But we are going to rage about the commandments, and yet 3/4 of the students cant even read or comprehend them. Hey, three cheers for minor wins, while your little slugger cant even do long division or even tell you what the Magna Carte is or who the third president was. But yay for google, right?

(Not a rant, but my personal observations, this is not directed at anyone in particular, but at the systems that let this happen.)

[MissBarbara]

Allow me introduce a wildly prosaic response:

Most of the proscriptions found in the 10 Commandments that are not specifically religious-related are already proscribed under secular law, and they have been for centuries.

And while parts of the Torah are in the Old Testament, the 10 Commandments are Jewish, not Christian. Jesus said “I have come to abolish the [Mosaic] law and the Prophets.“ Elevating Mosaic law before any other teaching of Christ (the Beatitudes perhaps?) is actually “un-Christian.“

 But the truth of the matter is, particularly among the evangelical nuts who promote this stuff is that they don’t read the Bible. To do that would blow their minds. It’s just a false religion designed to reinforce their conditional bias. Theatrical politics. Louisiana is 47th in the nation in education. But they will have the 10 Commandments on every wall.

I'll admit it's a bit surreal debating Scripture on a sex site (and I'm still perving on that pic I posted in the Pic of the Day thread), but that's not what Jesus said. He said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

I don't disagree with anything else you say. And "theatrical politics" is the perfect way of putting it. The law was passed in order to garner votes from right-wing Evangelicals and, as I noted, as a test case that might be challenged up to the Supreme Court.

[purpleshoes]

I'll admit it's a bit surreal debating Scripture on a sex site (and I'm still perving on that pic I posted in the Pic of the Day thread), but that's not what Jesus said. He said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

I don't disagree with anything else you say. And "theatrical politics" is the perfect way of putting it. The law was passed in order to garner votes from right-wing Evangelicals and, as I noted, as a test case that might be challenged up to the Supreme Court.

I would be shocked if the Louisiana law didn't end up before the Supreme Court. The scary part is what the court will do with it. The majority six have already delivered a critical blow to the very foundation of women's rights. Having pulled off that shocker, who can predict what the court will do with this hot potato. There's a reason why public confidence in the Supreme Court is at the lowest level ever.

Back on topic, TIL that texts aren't always delivered in a timely manner. I got a text from Walmart suggesting that I review my order before I picked it up because there were substitutions made. It came in at 3:45am, more than twelve hours after I'd already picked up my order. 

[MissBarbara]

Most of the proscriptions found in the 10 Commandments that are not specifically religious-related are already proscribed under secular law, and they have been for centuries.

I think this is the first time I've quoted myself here on KB, but I feel compelled to do so because what I wrote above is aggressively incorrect.

Yes, there are some non-religious proscriptions in the 10 Commandments that are recognized under law in most countries -- murder, robbery, assault, etc. -- but there are several others that are not. Here in the U.S., there are no laws criminalizing lusting after one's neighbor's wife or desiring to have their possessions; lying is against the law only in specific and defined circumstances; and virtually everything in the 6th Commandment (or the the 7th Commandment, depending which enumeration you follow) is not against the law. It's true that, here in the U.S., we used to have laws punishing adultery, any form of extra-marital sex, and the like, but those, gratefully, are long gone.

[Writers Bloque]

Most of the proscriptions found in the 10 Commandments that are not specifically religious-related are already proscribed under secular law, and they have been for centuries.

I think this is the first time I've quoted myself here on KB, but I feel compelled to do so because what I wrote above is aggressively incorrect.

Yes, there are some non-religious proscriptions in the 10 Commandments that are recognized under law in most countries -- murder, robbery, assault, etc. -- but there are several others that are not. Here in the U.S., there are no laws criminalizing lusting after one's neighbor's wife or desiring to have their possessions; lying is against the law only in specific and defined circumstances; and virtually everything in the 6th Commandment (or the the 7th Commandment, depending which enumeration you follow) is not against the law. It's true that, here in the U.S., we used to have laws punishing adultery, any form of extra-marital sex, and the like, but those, gratefully, are long gone.

Adultery is punished heavily in civil court, I think because sending someone to jail because they slept with your sister while married to you has the opportunity to get really silly and bog down the criminal courts. A certain family member of mine had a prenup so thick, even PH would say fuck it over. One of the clauses she added that in case of infidelity she gets it all, and pays no alimony. The Ironic part is, she is a notorious cheater.  I seen a copy of it, and still to this day question the ethics of the lawyer who drafted such a one sided contract. it was written to flay a man alive and leave him nothing but whatever he is wearing at the time.

[Pornhubby]

The one thing about prenuptial agreements is that, in every US jurisdiction I am aware of, the agreement is unenforceable if there is a “disparity in bargaining power“ in negotiating the terms of the agreement. Meaning that, if one person has a lot of assets, and the other person has few, the person with the money MUST pay independent counsel to represent the other party in negotiations. Failure to do that will render the agreement void and unenforceable. I’m not saying that crafty rich fucks don’t get away with it sometimes, but that’s the way it is supposed to work. There has to be a meeting of the minds to have a valid contract, and if they are not even telling you what they own, much less how their financial arrangements have been made, there’s no way to make an informed decision about whether or not to enter into the prenuptial agreement.

[Writers Bloque]

The one thing about prenuptial agreements is that, in every US jurisdiction I am aware of, the agreement is unenforceable if there is a “disparity in bargaining power“ in negotiating the terms of the agreement. Meaning that, if one person has a lot of assets, and the other person has few, the person with the money MUST pay independent counsel to represent the other party in negotiations. Failure to do that will render the agreement void and unenforceable. I’m not saying that crafty rich fucks don’t get away with it sometimes, but that’s the way it is supposed to work. There has to be a meeting of the minds to have a valid contract, and if they are not even telling you what they own, much less how their financial arrangements have been made, there’s no way to make an informed decision about whether or not to enter into the prenuptial agreement.

I dont know enough about the process, because the only way out of our marriage is "till death do us part." She might be a hard core lush, but when she is sober, she is too crafty. My great aunt is a thrice widower, not making any implications there, as two were of natural causes and one, well we do not talk about that one. He just up and left one day, and a month later his car was found half sunk into the mud and he was desiccated. Coroner ruled it a suicide. Not very likely. But she is already remarried, at 84. Nice man. Isn't there half the time when they show up to gatherings, like hes right there, but when you talk to him, the talks past you, kind of weird. This is also the same woman who drove an expensive car into the lake.

[Hilda]

Are there any states in which the tide is flowing the other way? By that I mean towards complete secularization of public education?

The other option, that of teaching comparative religion, always struck me as impractical. Which religions do you teach? How do you represent those religions? How do you 'compare' them? What strikes me as an eminently reasonable approach is the "Theory of Knowledge" module in the International Baccalaureate. Teach the students to think for themselves and question knowledge itself.