Lol.. now your just making things up and sounding silly.

He would still be paying twice or paying for other people's kids. Nothing you mentionex invalidates that.

That is of course only if he went to that school system. Home school and private school tax payers are still paying.

That's what will happen when you get them fired. They will go on welfare and the public will support them.

Any racists already on welfare likely wont get fired because the likely wont have a job.

Functionally no money=guilty but not in principle.

The problem is that the system is so stacked against a person, that without money you will have an extremely difficult time defending yourself. In modern times, the justice system has been changed to the "just us" system. This is likely even more true in other countries that do not have the supposed safeguards like the USA claims to have.

But this is not a hearing to determine if he is guilty or innocent, just if he broke the terms of his bail. You could attach a guilty or innocent aspect to that but there are no criminal penalties or charges of breaking laws involved.

This is vigilante justice at its finest.

Yes, force those idiots to practice their free speech underground so no one knows racists are out there. They do not deserve to have jobs due to crap they say about things outside their job and having nothing to do with their jobs. Put them on welfare and make the public support them.

Because the way I see it, you are free to speak anything you want as long as it doesn't offend me or isn't stupid, or not crazy.

Where is that end sarcasm tag. Oh well, someone will be stupid enough to not understand even if it did show up.

In other words, if they do not believe like you do or in act in ways that you find acceptable, they have no business being involved with the governance of their lives or the society around them. Got it..

Seriously, the abolitionists were completely biased and I would think their bias ended up as an improvement in the end. You may think your comment was insightful but it is shortsighted at best. Biases have a strong place in society and the governance of it. Sometimes you agree with them, sometimes you do not. Your objective should be to influence them, not bar them.

There is no separation of church and state. There is however a letter written by Jefferson which mentioned that in his attempt to describe the first amendment's religious protections to a congregation that feared it wouldn't be allowed to practice its version of religion.

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

So when the state compels a child to attend school under penalty of law and participate in the teachings of that school, the state is bared by the first amendment from prohibiting the free exercise thereof in regards to religion. It's not that it can or cannot be taught, it's that it has to be taught in ways that do not end up with the schools undermining any religion because of the separation of church and state. This ends up with either information being removed or additional but unrelated information being added in order to not undermine the religious freedoms of the people.

Nothing suggests that this information will never be taught in these schools. It just makes it clear that it will not be taught the way it was presented in the text book. Most schools in the US have a separate health class that deals with these subjects and does so usually in ways that while some religions might find upsetting, does not undermine any of them.

What does the first amendment say?

Here is part of it.

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

Now the part you are missing is the free exercise thereof. When the state compels a person to attend and learn something, the state is forbidden from doing so in ways that prohibit the free exercise thereof (religion). So if the state is going to require something to be in the curriculum that prohibits the free exercise of religion, it has to do it in ways that also allow the free exercise thereof. In other words, it cannot say any religion is correct or wrong in it's teaching of students who are compelled by law to attend.

I hope you are informed enough to have an informed discussion.

I seriously doubt the information will not be covered, just not covered the way the book presents it. Most all US schools have a separate class that deals with these issues called health class and all the information is generally covered in those but is often presented in ways that do not offend religions and other interests.

What school/country/state did you go to?

In my area, midwest USA, it's required in 5th or 6th grade, 7th, and 8th grades with each grade level presenting more appropriate amounts of information for the age which the child is. So you basically get an introduction to puberty and then more advanced topics including sex ed by the time you are13 or so years old. In the first two years, the course is separated by sex so all the girls learn about girls and boy learn about boys the first year, the opposite sex the second and eventually its a normal mixed class that sort of recaps everything and talks about STDs, protection, pregnancy, and so on.

Religious beliefs do not deserve respect.

But they have a constitutional right to exist and the constitution bars the government from prohibiting the free exercise of it.

This is true regardless of whether you agree with any religion or not. The state is the government and subject to the first amendment via the 14th. Whether you respect that or not, the state has to. The state cannot just go around saying this religion is real or fake and believe this other information. It has to present the information in ways that avoid that or ignore the information as part of a state mandated curriculum. the difference here is that some at a local level objected, they dealt with it at a local level. Others seem not to care so they do nothing about it.

lol.. They have a constitutional right to those personal beliefs and the state is expressly forbidden from denying it or encouraging it or prohibiting it. So when the state compels a person's child to attend school, they either have to present contrary information in a neutral way or not at all when it comes to religion. Just because the page is removed from the books does not mean the material will not be taught. It just means it will not be taught in the way the book presents it.

But think about that. Suppose it was a speech issue, suppose you were for gay rights and the schools removed any mention of gay rights or gay struggles from the learning environment and brainwashed the children into thinking they have less rights and are not the same as "normal people". How about if they gave them bad grades or other punishment because they held a contrary belief and thought all man was created equal and should all enjoy the same privileges and abilities and have the same opportunities that everyone else can.

Does the state have the right to do that with your child when you are dead set on equal rights? what if the year was 1835 and it was colored people instead of gays? Well, even if you think they do, they are specifically barred from doing it with religion.

Most Christians do no care about it either. What you are suggesting is akin to saying that a used car will never be yours or by using used car parts to fix your car it automagically makes it someone else' because someone else owned it at one time. While what you say is an interesting factoid, it is completely irrelevant as Christians now own the day in regards to their celebrations. The fact that someone else may have or still is doing something different is ancillary to that.

We've been doing renewables and efficiency for almost 50 years. How much longer till we can reach that goal?

Yes, i said it. We are close to the limits of renewables and efficiency. Unless there is a major discovery, we will only see minor improvements that will likely be outpaced by population growth and lifestyle improvements with poorer people. I think progress will outpace the efforts.