March 4, 2024

I’m going to go through this ridiculous flyer, which tramps on the constitution in favor of one guy’s christian beliefs, apparently. I personally believe that the constitution is the guiding document for our United States, and not the Bible and the constitution says Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”

This flyer reads like a christian screed that labels certain things that United States citizens are entitled to do as “Evil”. Evil sure seems like a religious-oriented point of view but the constitution, as we know, does not require a religious test as qualification for any office or public trust, and that should certainly, more generally, apply to citizens. Do ALL so-called christian religions from all sects agree on what is *evil*? Or is it just the one sect that Burns belongs to. The giveaway is at the top, that he and Republicans are fighting for the “hearts and minds of kids”. Since when is big government allowed to get into parent’s private business and decide how they should bring up their kids? Is that why Burns ran for office, to impose his own religious views on all the public? This also seems to assume that people that do not share his christian mission are not ethical, which of course is nonsense.

Isn’t freedom in the United State for EVERYONE, and not just for those what want to push their own religious ideas on people?

And, at least it used to be, that parents ultimately were the ones that were responsible for protecting their children. I know that a lot of parents are terrible at that job, and that laws need to intervene to protect them. There have been parents that weren’t paying attention when religious and youth pastors sexually assaulted their children (for example); it seems to me the remedy for that is to go to the police and file a report. But it’s Burns ideas about what protection is, stepping in place of a parents right to raise their child as they see fit, and it conflicts with “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the bill of rights. When did Republicans become the party of “We Mind Your Private Business”? What’s next? Cameras in the living room? Neighbors ratting out their neighbors? It’s also not like there aren’t a lot of tools, besides the authority of the parent, to set controls on internet and television. Heck, I know that the school system has a blocking system for the students attending class to prevent them from just cruising on the internet during class time.

This “Evil forces are preying on your children” is an irresponsible way to fear-monger.

Online predators- parents have the ability to block access to sites or even, gasp, determine when or if their children would be online. Being involved in a child’s life to ensure their safety and set up tools to help that is supposed to be what a PARENT does. And if they don’t, it does not become all of a sudden the responsibility of an elected politician to peer into their private house and tell them what to do.In other words, he might wish that every body went to church but cannot mandate that and instead, parents have a duty to protect themselves from in -person predators, like youth ministers.

If Burns is so concerned with school violence, why is he not actively pushing for gun control instead of making the schools more like little jails?

Burns mentions transgender drag shows. I suppose he would have some real problems allowing children to watch the movie Mrs Doubtfire, or Tootsie, or The Birdcage, with their parents. Below, Bugs Bunny dressing up like a woman in lots of toons.

Notice that in this one, 1918 US Liberty Loan campaign, that President Woodrow Wilson appears
Anybody else ever watch the Doris Day movie “Calamity Jane?”
Local Glen Rose resident Chip Joslin https://scsalon.org/bl/index.php/2024/01/27/so-chip-joslin-of-glen-rose-texas-is-an-actor-heels/

Even former governor Rick Perry attended a drag show and the only thing thought about that was whether he was secretly gay. Going through the court system, but a federal court has already ruled that what Burns and others tried to do was unconstitutional. And it was NOT *EVIL*.

LGBTQ+ Texans, advocates, artists and business groups who sued the state, argued that the law discriminates against the content of performances and restricts equally protected free expression that is protected under the First and 14th Amendments.

In Tuesday’s 56-page ruling, Hittner noted a survey of court decisions “reveals little divergence from the opinion that drag performances are expressive content that is afforded First Amendment protection.”

“Drag shows express a litany of emotions and purposes, from humor and pure entertainment to social commentary on gender roles,” the ruling reads. “There is no doubt that at the bare minimum these performances are meant to be a form of art that is meant to entertain, alone this would warrant some level of First Amendment protection.”

Other states have passed similar legislation restricting drag performance, which have also been struck down by federal courts.

I don’t really know what *woke* is, but don’t think being awake and aware is a bad thing and it would be great to hear him describe what a *woke transgender agenda” actually is because it sure just sounds like an attempt to scare people. I kind of think this is a backdoor way to be against gay people (guess he overlooks the story of David and Jonathan) and nose into their business, all while SCOTUS ruled in favor of gay people getting married in 2015. What makes Burns think he can try to demonize people simply because of their sexual preference? Shouldn’t a child who has 2 gay parents that attends school be protected against slurs and hate?

Predatory Big Tech. I actually don’t disagree with this, but I also think it needs to apply to adults too. Big Tech regularly takes data from online looking at their platform and resells it. This should stop OR parents could ban their own children’s use of a given social media app, in the same way that I do not belong to Facebook.

Social Media-I don’t know what is meant by this but maybe it is akin to this.

An Age Verification Digital ID “Pilot Program” is a Slippery Slope Towards a National Digital ID 

The bill’s authors may hope to bypass some of these age verification flaws by building a government-issued digital ID system for the (voluntary) use by all citizens and lawful residents of the U.S. to be able to verify their ages and parent/guardian-minor relationships on social media platforms (although this “pilot program” would likely not be completed before the age verification requirements went into effect). But this program risks falling down a slippery slope toward a national digital ID for all purposes. 

Under the bill, individuals would have to upload copies of government-issued and other forms of identification, or people’s asserted identities and ages would be cross-referenced with electronic records from state DMVs, the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration, state agencies responsible for vital records, “or other governmental or professional records that the Secretary [of Commerce] determines are able to reliably assist in the verification of identity information.” 

EFF and other civil liberties organizations have long been critical of digital ID systems and policies that would move us toward them. While private, commercial age verification systems come with particular concerns, government versions that rely on digital IDs are also dangerous. 

Mission creep is a serious concern. The intention of this ID system may only be to authorize social media access; the bill states that the pilot program credential “may not be used to establish eligibility for any government benefit or legal status.” But it’s unlikely that age and parental status verification would be its only use after its creation. Congress could easily change the law with future bills. Just look at the Social Security Number–once upon a time, it was only meant to allow Americans to participate in the federal retirement program. Even the Social Security Administration admits that the number “has come to be used as a nearly universal identifier.” Online government identity verification for accessing social media is already dystopian; who knows where the system would end up after it’s in place. Without very careful and thoughtful management and architecture, a digital ID system could lead to loss of privacy, loss of anonymous speech, and increased government surveillance. 

Since Burns decision to protect children is all paramount, I’m sure he is shouting about the Southern Baptist association molestation database, including a trial going on about Paul Pressler. And is working to make sure children in religious houses of worships are not preyed on by predators. That seems very appropriate for a religious person but not for someone elected to a secular office.

Also, what is Burns doing about rapes? Remember, after Roe v Wade bit the dust, Greg Abbott said he was going to make sure no rapes occurred. But ooops, according to the Austin American Statesman, there have been 26,000 rape-related pregnancies since Roe v Wade was overturned.

And incest. I understand that may be hard to prove, although recently in this county, a guy that was sexually assaulting minors went to prison. Being able to get an abortion, as opposed to being forced to carry a fetus till birth, should not be something up for debate.

Burns certainly has a right to run his own life as he sees fit and according to his own religious idealogy. He does not have the right to force this on other people NOR to assume that other Texans are not ethical and cannot possibly be in charge of their own private lives.

Leave a Reply