Fairfax School Board Chair Takes Oath of Office on Stack of Porn

by Kerry Dougherty

Ah, December. That marvelous holiday month, when Jews and Christians celebrate joyous holidays.

Of course it’s also the season when those who loathe religion spring into action. This is their moment too.

This year’s crop of religion haters is especially ugly.

According to the New York Post, Harvard University officials — who have done almost nothing to protect Jewish students who were threatened and harassed by pro-Hamas radicals — told a rabbi that he could light a menorah on campus but warned him to take it down and hide it at night, lest those who hate Jews vandalize it.

On our campus in the shadow of Widener Library, we in the Jewish community are instructed, ‘We’ll let you have the menorah, you made your point, OK. Pack it up, don’t leave it out overnight because there will be criminal activity we fear and it won’t look good’, Rabbi Hirschy Zarchi said at a Hanukkah lighting Wednesday night.

Zarchi, the founder and president of Harvard Chabad, said the university has asked the group to take in the menorah each night since the first Hanukkah lighting on campus.

And in the Iowa State House last week, The Satanic Temple erected an altar to Satan alongside a nativity and menorah, claiming they had a right under the First Amendment to slap their hideous Satan-worshiping abomination alongside the religious ones.

As if THAT was what the Founders had in mind when they penned the founding documents that established  America’s principle of freedom of worship.

A Navy vet and devout Christian beheaded the statue of Satan and knocked down the altar before turning himself in to authorities. The man has been charged with a misdemeanor criminal mischief.

In Hanover County, a parent has objected to the Bible being in the school library because of the stories contained therein.

You couldn’t make this garbage up.

More madness in Fairfax County — where else? — where several school board members, including the chair, mocked those who take the oath of office with their hand on a Bible, Koran or other holy book by pledging their oaths on stacks of secular books or porn. The Washington Post points out that all 12 of the new board members elected in November are Democrats. Color me unsurprised.

Most notable was Karl Frisch, vice chair who becomes chairman in January. He swore his oath on a pile of five LGBTQ+ books that have been removed in many places from access by younger children because of their pornographic content.

Make no mistake, Frisch and friends weren’t taking a stand against “banned books.” They were deliberately offending and mocking people of faith.

By the way, there are no “banned books.” If you can buy these books in a bookstore they aren’t banned. Many parents were outraged when they discovered that many elementary and middle school libraries contained books that featured graphic sex, gay sex, and sex between adults and youngsters.

These concerned parents demanded the books be removed from some school libraries. Anyone who really wants their first grader to see images of oral sex between boys and men can order a copy of “Gender Queer” from Amazon and share it with their kids.

Even Democratic operative Ben Tribbett objected to the asinine behavior by Democrat school board members. Here’s what he posted on X:

This is so disrespectful to religious people because it totally misses the point of *why* they swear in on a Bible. The School Board should reconsider whether they want someone giving a middle finger to people of faith representing all of them as Chairman.

He’s right. It was this sort of revolting behavior that got Gov. Glenn Youngkin, Lt. Gov. Winsome Sears and Attorney General Jason Miyares elected.

Keep it up, Democrats. Normal people need to be reminded of who you are.

Republished with permission from Kerry: Unemployed and Unedited.

 

 


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

98 responses to “Fairfax School Board Chair Takes Oath of Office on Stack of Porn”

  1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    It seems that Kerry would impose a sort of religious test in America. Freedom of religion applies only to Christians and Jews; the Bible and its sexually explicit passages are exempt from challenge; and one must take the oath of office with a hand on the Bible.

    1. Turbocohen Avatar

      Are you a Nambla supporter, Dick?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Two words: Bridget Zeigler.

        Are you for three-ways?

    2. Very disappointing Mr. Hall-Sizemore. I don’t see any of those things in this article.

      “It seems that Kerry would impose a sort of religious test in America.”

      Where does it say that?

      “…one must take the oath of office with a hand on the Bible.”

      It doesn’t say that either.

      In fact, Kerry specifically mentions other books. Within the article Kerry notes that oaths are often taken on the “Bible, Koran or other holy book” and appears to have no abjection to anyone’s sincere faith.

      What is objectionable in the article is the deliberate middle finger to all people of faith.

      An oath of office need not be religious, nor is any book required. Karl Frisch deliberately chose to be offensive, not just to those with whom he may disagree, but offensive to the many people of faith he was elected to serve.

      “(Witnesses and officials can opt to make an affirmation rather than take an oath; the affirmation omits reference to God and uses the words “I affirm” rather than “I swear.” The formula was developed to accommodate those branches of Christianity that believe swearing to be an offence, but it is now available to atheists and to agnostics. In such cases, no book is used.)”

      https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-brief-history-of-oaths-and-books

      Kerry often overstates the case. Here, however, it is you who has done so. Your observations are not accurate.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        “Bible, Koran or other holy book”

        To an atheist, that’s a religious test, no?

        1. BTW – I am very familiar with our Constitutional rights in this area as swearing is against my faith.

          Matthew 5:34-37 KJV
          “but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Ah. ‘Splains a lot Lucy.

          2. I also try to respect the faith of others.

            For example, if Karl Frisch had taken the oath with his hand on a Muhammed picture book and Muslims complained, I would side with them. And I wouldn’t put that book in a K12 library where Muslims would be offended either.

            People’s faith should be respected to the degree possible, especially in public schools where children are required to attend.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Well, there you go. The woman was offended by the descriptions and stories in the Bible. We can then be assured that you “wouldn’t put that book (the Bible) in a K12 library”

          4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            So should people’s public statements which is what the swearing in action was…. a public statement against the practice of banning books. The fact that it is Christians who are doing the banning (and therefore feel slighted for having those actions mocked) is incidental.

          5. The oath of office is not the time or place to settle partisan scores. I will speak more to that is a new thread.

          6. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            It is perfectly fine to make a statement of what the person taking the oath holds up as important to them personally (hence the use of personal bibles, etc). This is exactly the statement the official in question was making in his ceremony. He feels freedom from censorship in public schools is personally important to him.

        2. Please read the rest of my comment. I explain that someone may affirm and no book is required. If that had been done, there’s zero chance there would have been any objection and Kerry wouldn’t have written the article.

          If Kerry had done what she’s been accused of, I would be calling it out too. That didn’t happen.

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “”It seems that Kerry would impose a sort of religious test in America.”

        Where does it say that?”

        “And in the Iowa State House last week, The Satanic Temple erected an altar to Satan alongside a nativity and menorah, claiming they had a right under the First Amendment to slap their hideous Satan-worshiping abomination alongside the religious ones.

        As if THAT was what the Founders had in mind when they penned the founding documents that established America’s principle of freedom of worship”

        1. I read that.

          What’s wrong with the statement. It’s absolutely true. Is it your contention that an alter to Satan IS what the founders intended?

          Seems the left isn’t so keen on Kerry having free speech rights.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “Is it your contention that an alter to Satan IS what the founders intended?”

            Yes. The courts tend to agree.

            “Seems the left isn’t so keen on Kerry having free speech rights.”

            No one has even remotely suggested she does not have a right to write what she wrote. She, on the other hand, suggests that the Satanic altar display is not protected speech.

          2. “She, on the other hand, suggests that the Satanic altar display is not protected speech.”

            It is speech, but the issue in this case is weather it is religion. The IRS said yes, but many do not agree. I believe the issue will be revisited in the courts.

            You would be one of the first say that religion should stay in its lane. It’s most unfortunate that secularist won’t stay in theirs.

            Religion: “the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.”

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “You would be one of the first say that religion should stay in its lane. It’s most unfortunate that secularist won’t stay in theirs.”

            The problem here is that religion thinks that their lane that the secularists should stay out of includes the public square.

    3. Nowhere in the article does the author state that the ‘offensive’ acts should be banned, or that the people who engaged in them should have been prevented from doing so.

      She called them out for “deliberately offending and mocking people of faith”. Which is what they did.

      Writing about their actions is her right under the 1st Amendment.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “She called them out for “deliberately offending and mocking people of faith”. Which is what they did.”

        The fact that some “Christians” took (faux) offense does not mean that the intent of the action was offense. The officials clearly stated it was simply a statement against censorship of books.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          faux offense, indeed!

        2. Bull.

          They knew what they were doing, they did it intentionally, and they should own it.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Might they have been able to predict the offense the “Christians” would claim? Well, indeed. Nobody should throttle their public statements, though, simply because some Karen might twist it to claim offense. The act, though, is simply what they claim it to be, a statement against censorship. What the “Christians” do not like is that it did pointedly mock their acts of censorship as of late. I see no fault in such a statement. They kind of deserve it. It is distinctly different from mocking their wish to swear on a bible… to claim that is the intent is, frankly, absurd.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Might they have been able to predict the offense the “Christians” would claim? Well, indeed. Nobody should throttle their public statements, though, simply because some Karen might twist it to claim offense. The act, though, is simply what they claim it to be, a statement against censorship. What the “Christians” do not like is that it did pointedly mock their acts of censorship as of late. I see no fault in such a statement. They kind of deserve it. It is distinctly different from mocking their wish to swear on a bible… to claim that is the intent is, frankly, absurd.

          3. I did not say they should throttle their public statements. Quite the opposite, in fact. I said they should “own it”.

          4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            They did own it. They stated exactly what they intended and owned it. The fact that Conservatives “Christian” victims wish to twist it to something else so as to claim offense is just more blatant dishonesty from that crowd – as I said likely not unexpected but hardly a concern.

  2. NEWS ALERT: FCPS to award high-school diplomas immediately upon arriving at kindergarten…..to save time and effort….. all savings to go to the teacher’s union.

  3. Is one really going to argue that the First Amendment only applies to some forms of speech and certain religions but not others? When did conservatives start living in Bizarro World?

    1. The 1st Amendment has nothing to do with this. No law is being proposed to limit speech, nobody has been arrested, etc.

      What Karl Frisch did was deliberately disrespectful and offensive. The article just points that out.

      As the last line makes clear, the only potential punishment should be at the polls.

      What exactly is “Bizarro World” about pointing out when an elected official does something offensive?

      1. FRish used a stack of LGBT books that have been banned by other school districts. Trying to argue that they are pornography is a POV of the right. Frisch was sticking his finger, figuratively, in the eye of social conservatives who want to put homosexuals,etc back into the closet without full rights.

        1. I know what happened.

          You have yet to explain where the 1st amendment was violated.

          And Gender Queer is explicit and there’s a very good case that it doesn’t belong in K12 libraries. I couldn’t quote it here for example.

          1. No one ever looks clever by intentionally misunderstanding something. The point is that he could use what he wanted and thus, everyone else just goes along with it. Social conservatives are just resentful due to all of the political battles that have been lost to the LGBT community. A better question is why would anyone who wants to treat homosexuals as second class citizens would want to serve on a school board or even be involved in politics these days.

          2. I’m not misunderstanding anything.

            You claimed a 1st Amendment problem, but have yet to demonstrate one. No school library is large enough to hold every book ever written. The choice of which ones are most appropriate, is not a 1st Amendment issue.

            You also made reference to “certain religions,” but have not demonstrated how any religion has been slighted in the article or anywhere else.

          3. It was an official government function, was the government suppose to take action and not let him use the books? Or was the government in Iowa suppose to tolerate the vandalism because it was against a religion that most people dislike. Or are the books suppose to be banned in school libraries and the schools suppose to not address some of the students being non-cisgendered because it makes social conservatives uncomfortable? One may want to go back and see how courts have overturned the schools telling teachers to shut up about homosexuality or schools being sued for not allowing same-sex couples at homecoming dances and school proms.

          4. “It was an official government function, was the government suppose to take action and not let him use the books?”

            Does the article suggest that in any way? No!

            The 1st Amendment protects the right to say and doe certain things, but it doesn’t protect individuals from the potential consequences.

            Karl Frisch is vice chair and is scheduled to become chairman in January.

            Democratic operative Ben Tribbett said the following:

            “The School Board should reconsider whether they want someone giving a middle finger to people of faith representing all of them as Chairman.”

            Part of the job of the Chairmen is to preside over meetings and represent the board in a respectful way to the public. Offensive speech and gestures may be protected speech, but they may also cause animosity with the public and reflect poorly on the entire body.

            “Or was the government in Iowa suppose to tolerate the vandalism because it was against a religion that most people dislike. ”

            The person who destroyed the satanic temple display (Michael Cassidy) turned himself in. His face was not covered and he fully expects to be accountable for his actions.

            The satanic temple made their statement, and he made his. He will accept the consequences after his day in court.

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    I dunno, Karen, the story of Lot giving his daughters to pleasure strangers is pretty racy…

    “ The daughters of the biblical patriarch Lot appear in chapter 19 of the Book of Genesis, in two connected stories. In the first, Lot offers his daughters to a Sodomite mob; in the second, his daughters have sex with Lot without his knowledge to bear him children.”

    1. Where’s that quote from? It’s not from the article.

      Your quote is a description of what happens in Genesis. It’s not a quote from the Bible.

      Genesis 19:5 King James Version (KJV) and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

      Some translations are clearer.

      Here’s the same verse in the New International Version (NIV).

      Genesis 19:5 NIV
      They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

      The Bible does reference sex and sexual encounters, but the descriptions are not explicit.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        She links the story, Nat. If you link a story, you’re responsible for it too.

        1. The link doesn’t work for me. Asks for a login.

        2. It’s still a false accusation if you are suggesting that the Bible has explicit sex. It does not.

          The books conservatives find objectionable, however, are often VERY explicit. So much so, that I wouldn’t be able to quote them here. Many also have pictures or graphical illustrations.

          Comparisons to the Bible are absurd.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Define “explicit sex” in a book and then describe the boundary with “implicit sex”.

            Here’s a question. In 2004 a movie “Team America” was released. It’s a spoof on the 1960s TV show Thunderbirds. It’s done with puppets. In the movie, the two puppets have a sex scene. Since they’re puppets, can it be explicit?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            maybe…..

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            In the movies, it’s called “simulated sex” since the actors are not actually having sex. But since puppets are “simulated people”, dang, those puppets were having actual sex.

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Great, now you do it.

          5. Not my job.

            Unless something is a violation of Federal or State law, it’s up to the citizens in each community.

          6. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Majority, or just 1?

        3. The link doesn’t work for me. Asks for a login.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Well, there’s enough info in the link to find it elsewhere.

            Here’s a trick that often works. Close your browser. Reopen the link and while the page is loading, hit “text only”.

  5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “He’s right. It was this sort of revolting behavior that got Gov. Glenn Youngkin, Lt. Gov. Winsome Sears and Attorney General Jason Miyares elected”

    This sort of statement is hardly new for the Fairfax School Board members who, I will remind you, were recently re-elected. In other words, the voter have weighed in on this issue since Youngkin’s election… he lost…

    1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      Indeed. Reelected. This is exactly what the people of Fairfax want, and they should have it.

  6. Thomas Dixon Avatar
    Thomas Dixon

    So instead of swearing an oath to God, these people are swearing to gay and pedophelic literature?

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      I believe they were swearing an oath to the people they will represent which I prefer greatly over an oath to a deity.

      1. “I believe they were swearing an oath to the people they will represent …”

        Hello? They now represent everyone in their district, not just those with whom they agree.

        Out of respect for the office and their constituents, they could at least set aside their petty nonsense for a couple hours.

        1. They now represent everyone in their district, not just those with whom they agree.

          Actually, they don’t. And that’s the problem with extreme, zealot, politicians of any stripe.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            To be fair, there are those who cannot be represented as well as those who should not be represented.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Actually, they do… regardless of whether you agree with them or not. They represent their constituents by definition.

        2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          “Hello? They now represent everyone in their district, not just those with whom they agree.”

          100%. They were swearing to them all as is appropriate. They should not be swearing to God, however as they don’t represent a deity… even those who used a bible.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Is there a difference? Except one is sure to exist.

  7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “You couldn’t make this garbage up.”

    Gave it a good go though, Kerry..,

  8. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “A Navy vet and devout Christian beheaded the statue…”

    And here we have another example of “Christians” resorting to violent vandalism in the face of a non-violent public statement by secularists.

    1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      And so many hearts were broken over that.

  9. I think the primary point of Kerry Dougherty’s article was Karl Frisch’s disrespectful display during the oath of office ceremony. What happened was wrong, and should be an offence to all.

    The public oath of office ceremony is a serious matter. Public officials solemnly promise to fulfill the duties of their elected office on behalf of ALL their constituents. It is most certainly not the time or place for settling old scores, or disrespectful mocking of one’s political opponents.

    In recognition of the significance of the responsibility bestowed on those who serve their community, § 15.2-1512 of the Code of Virginia requires that all local government officials, upon entering office, take the following oath:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me as ………. according to the best of my ability, (so help me God).”

    Not a mere formality, the oath is a public pledge that the official understands the requirements of the position, and will work to meet or exceed those requirements. Those taking the oath must fully consider the meaning of the oath and all of its important implications.

    An oath is a formal promise which, traditionally invokes God, or something else which the taker of the oath considers sacred, to act as a witness to the oath taker’s sincere intention to fulfill that promise. In this way, the oath was historically thought not only to bind the oath taker to the laws of man, but to a higher moral authority as well. Oath takers can “affirm,” rather than “swear,” and omit reference to God.

    Secondly, oath takers pledge to “faithfully and impartially discharge all duties” required of them by their office…

    Lastly, the oath requires officials to “discharge all duties incumbent upon” them, as holders of their particular office, “to the best of [their] ability.”

    https://cura.vcu.edu/land-use-education/what-does-the-oath-of-office-mean/

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “I think the primary point of Kerry Dougherty’s article was Karl Frisch’s disrespectful display during the oath of office ceremony. What happened was wrong, and should be an offence to all.”

      I disagree. The following is the primary point of Kerry’s piece:

      “Make no mistake, Frisch and friends weren’t taking a stand against “banned books.” They were deliberately offending and mocking people of faith.”

      She is not (supposedly) offended because what he did was (supposedly) inappropriate or unseemly for such a serious occasion. Her beef is that she (wrongly) says he was mocking Christians for using a bible – specifically that he “… mocked those who take the oath of office with their hand on a Bible, Koran or other holy book”

      1. “Her beef is that she (wrongly) says he was mocking Christians…”

        Read the article. That’s not what Kerry said. She specifically said:

        “They were deliberately offending and mocking people of faith.”

        That includes Jews, Muslims and others who take a solemn oath with their hand on a sacred work as a demonstration of their sincerity.

        Instead of “people of faith,” I said “disrespectful mocking of one’s political opponents,” but have used “people of faith” in other comments here.

        My opening sentence about “primary point” was to focus on what Karl Frisch did, as opposed to the Satanic alter or other examples Kerry used to provide the backdrop.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          I have no problem with you expanding Kerry’s “offense” to all peoples of faith. Still that (supposed) offense of religious persons because of their preference to use religious manuscripts for this ceremony is Kerry’s central beef and not because he acted inappropriately or unseemly during the ceremony.

          1. Eric the half a troll:
            “I have no problem with you expanding Kerry’s “offense” to all peoples of faith.”

            I didn’t “expand” anything by including people of faith.

            “Make no mistake, Frisch and friends weren’t taking a stand against “banned books.” They were deliberately offending and mocking people of faith.
            -Kerry Dougherty

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “I didn’t “expand” anything.”

            I meant from my comment restricting it to “Christians”… sheesh, ease up…

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “I didn’t “expand” anything.”

            I meant from my comment restricting it to “Christians”… sheesh, ease up…

          4. I’m truly sorry if that’s what you meant in your previous comment. All I had to go on is what you wrote, and it didn’t come across to me that way at all.

          5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            That is what I meant. I was acknowledging that Kerry meant “people of faith” not just “Christians”. I even quoted her as saying so in my earlier comment. As I also stated, that really doesn’t change anything as to her primary complaint.

      2. “Her beef is that she (wrongly) says he was mocking Christians…”

        Read the article. That’s not what Kerry said. She specifically said:

        “They were deliberately offending and mocking people of faith.”

        That includes Jews, Muslims and others who take a solemn oath with their hand on a sacred work as a demonstration of their sincerity.

        Instead of “people of faith,” I said “disrespectful mocking of one’s political opponents,” but have used “people of faith” in other comments here.

        My opening sentence about “primary point” was to focus on what Karl Frisch did, as opposed to the Satanic alter or other examples Kerry used to provide the backdrop.

  10. I haven’t seen any comments on this:

    ‘We’ll let you have the menorah, you made your point, OK. Pack it up, don’t leave it out overnight because there will be criminal activity we fear and it won’t look good’, Rabbi Hirschy Zarchi said at a Hanukkah lighting Wednesday night.

    I guess antisemitism is now just taken for granted, as is Harvard’s efforts to sweep it’s antisemitism under the rug rather than combat it?

  11. Warmac9999 Avatar

    Swearing in on a pile of kiddie porn is symbolic of the modern socialist democrat who hates America.

  12. Bob X from Texas Avatar
    Bob X from Texas

    I wish all politicians would take their oath of office with their hand on Thomas Sowell’s ” Basic Economics”.

  13. “Fairfax School Board Chair Takes Oath on Stack of Books.”

    There — I fixed the headline for you.

  14. “This is so disrespectful to religious people because it totally misses the point of *why* they swear in on a Bible. . . . “

    It’s “religious people” who are the problem, trying to force their beliefs and practices on the rest of us.

Leave a Reply