I disagree with the notion of teaching children about masturbation until they hit 10 but in all honesty there've been studies undertaken by the APA that showed that children exposed to the concept of sex at a younger age showed a very consistent and measurable superiority of maturity, learning abilities, cognitive functions, social awareness, and personal responsibilities as they entered high school over those who had not. By which of course I mean they were shown what sex entailed, how it worked, what it caused, what its effects were, etc. Basically, show them a home-made sex tape of two people going at it, and give them context to what they were seeing, and in high school they wouldn't be obnoxious, loud, disrespectful little shits the rest of their classmates tended to be. and they learned better, faster, and were more mature towards others and life in general.
So, just to throw it out there; "protecting the children" when it comes to depictions of sexual interaction? It's total bullshit and actually counter-productive.
Now, I'm one of those silly-ass humanist socio-democracy hippies who thinks that getting rid of bigotry and ignorance and blatant selfishness of greed will help improve society by reducing crime and increasing productivity and promote intellectual pursuits, so you'll have to forgive me when I say that there are two rights you are given, Catfish, in regards to the whole thing about homosexuality.
If you don't have a problem with anti-discriminatory programs in schools teaching, based on unbiased information, that same-sex relations are of no harm to anyone at all, you wouldn't object to the topic. Now if you do object, which I must simply assume you do, I must also assume you desired to tell your children that homosexuality is wrong and a sin based on your unsubstantiated theistic text's claims. This is perfectly acceptable and within your constitutional rights, I am afraid.
You see, the government cannot take religious sides. It is within its scope instead to, with the public schooling system, educate based on impartial, verifiable information. It is there to simply educate on what is known and what can be applied. Homosexual relationships have never been shown to have any kind of concrete evidence to have a negative impact on others...and hell, I don't think they've even been able to come up with clay or mud evidence. It is simply stating a fact. It would be against your rights if it was officially stating that the Abrahamic religions are explicitly wrong on the concept of homosexual relations and individuals. See, many of the creationist morons tried this shit before; they stated evolution was oppressing their religious views. Except it was not. It was not taking a side of any kind with or against any particular religion or religious group, it was simply being taught as a valid, evidence-backed, scientifically-explained phenomenon. You cannot cry oppression when the government is not actively telling you you cannot practice something. You can still tell your children whatever homophobic diatribe you want, the government can't stop you from doing that, it just has simply begun to provide the actual truth to the matter to dispel misconceptions and provide benefits to society, which I mentioned above, by perpetuating understanding based on empirically-backed information.
You are not being religiously oppressed or suppressed by the secular institution of government. Your children are just being exposed to different points of view. In other words, they're being given a sample of what life entails. The government is within its rights to do so; your rights to believe whatever you wanna believe and whatever you wanna tell your kids when they're at home is not being intruded on.
As for vaccinations, that constitutes public health and safety. For some reason you listed that as another religious thing being oppressed or suppressed. You could almost be right in this regard, except there is no religion that explicitly states that they cannot, specifically, be vaccinated. Furthermore, the vaccinations that are mandatory are ones that are absolutely crucial to minimizing mortality rates of infants, toddlers, children, teenagers, adults, and the elderly due to infection or sickness. An un-vaccinated individual can become sick with an extremely lethal or incurable and/or highly contagious disease that may kill them, infect others, and kill them as well. The damage can be manifest. Having access to vaccines to such illnesses and actively refusing to have your child undergo them presents an extreme danger to them, yourself, and others. This in turn essentially threatens, if not outright suppresses, the far more important legal right to life, not to just to a single person, but to many.
This is like a jihadist bombing a marketplace and when he's arrested, he complains that his religious rights are being suppressed because his religion told him to kill people. If your religion's decrees are interfering with the safety of another individual, it is not a matter of religious oppression; it is a matter of violation of a living, breathing individual's right to live with no valid or tangible reason for it given other than "this book tells me [x]!" If your religion interferes with the life of another [the rights of liberty], then you may not claim oppression; it is public safety and common sense and the respect of another American citizen's life.
So no, Catfish. Neither of those two things are secularism oppressing religion. Indeed, this stuff is part of the social contract; it is binding as long as you live in this country; you accept that you can believe what you want and practice what faith you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else but the moment it potentially hurts another, it is no longer a constitutional right in regards to that which will bring potential or actual harm to other citizens.
Deal with it. Or leave the country. Your choice.
So, just to throw it out there; "protecting the children" when it comes to depictions of sexual interaction? It's total bullshit and actually counter-productive.
Now, I'm one of those silly-ass humanist socio-democracy hippies who thinks that getting rid of bigotry and ignorance and blatant selfishness of greed will help improve society by reducing crime and increasing productivity and promote intellectual pursuits, so you'll have to forgive me when I say that there are two rights you are given, Catfish, in regards to the whole thing about homosexuality.
If you don't have a problem with anti-discriminatory programs in schools teaching, based on unbiased information, that same-sex relations are of no harm to anyone at all, you wouldn't object to the topic. Now if you do object, which I must simply assume you do, I must also assume you desired to tell your children that homosexuality is wrong and a sin based on your unsubstantiated theistic text's claims. This is perfectly acceptable and within your constitutional rights, I am afraid.
You see, the government cannot take religious sides. It is within its scope instead to, with the public schooling system, educate based on impartial, verifiable information. It is there to simply educate on what is known and what can be applied. Homosexual relationships have never been shown to have any kind of concrete evidence to have a negative impact on others...and hell, I don't think they've even been able to come up with clay or mud evidence. It is simply stating a fact. It would be against your rights if it was officially stating that the Abrahamic religions are explicitly wrong on the concept of homosexual relations and individuals. See, many of the creationist morons tried this shit before; they stated evolution was oppressing their religious views. Except it was not. It was not taking a side of any kind with or against any particular religion or religious group, it was simply being taught as a valid, evidence-backed, scientifically-explained phenomenon. You cannot cry oppression when the government is not actively telling you you cannot practice something. You can still tell your children whatever homophobic diatribe you want, the government can't stop you from doing that, it just has simply begun to provide the actual truth to the matter to dispel misconceptions and provide benefits to society, which I mentioned above, by perpetuating understanding based on empirically-backed information.
You are not being religiously oppressed or suppressed by the secular institution of government. Your children are just being exposed to different points of view. In other words, they're being given a sample of what life entails. The government is within its rights to do so; your rights to believe whatever you wanna believe and whatever you wanna tell your kids when they're at home is not being intruded on.
As for vaccinations, that constitutes public health and safety. For some reason you listed that as another religious thing being oppressed or suppressed. You could almost be right in this regard, except there is no religion that explicitly states that they cannot, specifically, be vaccinated. Furthermore, the vaccinations that are mandatory are ones that are absolutely crucial to minimizing mortality rates of infants, toddlers, children, teenagers, adults, and the elderly due to infection or sickness. An un-vaccinated individual can become sick with an extremely lethal or incurable and/or highly contagious disease that may kill them, infect others, and kill them as well. The damage can be manifest. Having access to vaccines to such illnesses and actively refusing to have your child undergo them presents an extreme danger to them, yourself, and others. This in turn essentially threatens, if not outright suppresses, the far more important legal right to life, not to just to a single person, but to many.
This is like a jihadist bombing a marketplace and when he's arrested, he complains that his religious rights are being suppressed because his religion told him to kill people. If your religion's decrees are interfering with the safety of another individual, it is not a matter of religious oppression; it is a matter of violation of a living, breathing individual's right to live with no valid or tangible reason for it given other than "this book tells me [x]!" If your religion interferes with the life of another [the rights of liberty], then you may not claim oppression; it is public safety and common sense and the respect of another American citizen's life.
So no, Catfish. Neither of those two things are secularism oppressing religion. Indeed, this stuff is part of the social contract; it is binding as long as you live in this country; you accept that you can believe what you want and practice what faith you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else but the moment it potentially hurts another, it is no longer a constitutional right in regards to that which will bring potential or actual harm to other citizens.
Deal with it. Or leave the country. Your choice.
