Giddy up! More on the Bible in public schools

[PureX]

I grew up in the 60s where the Pledge of Allegiance and the Lord's Prayer was the start of every day. I fully believe beginning each morning with collaborative structure is paramount to a productive, cooperative day, however, it was not necessary nor helpful, that it be these particular two group recitations that were used. In today's society of diverse cultural backgrounds it would just be wrong.

I grew up with that, too, and let's be honest, it was just wrote habit. No one was feeling any if it. It was just another stupid example of imposed control by the grown ups. In the end it probably inspired as much resentment as it did anything else.

 

[Revoltingest]

This actually comes down to State's Rights. It is not the Job of the Federal Government. If you read the First Amendment to the Constitution, it addresses religion.



The Congress makes the law for the Federal Government, therefore the Federal Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. That means the Fed needs to butt out. However, it does not say the States Assemblies are under the same restrictions as Congress and the Fed.

Separation of Church and State are words, not even in the Constitution. That was a lawyer word scam, like the Inflation Reduction Act that caused inflation. It is commercial lawyer jingle that has allowed Federal Government overreach, under the guise of pretending to be Constitutional using a word scam that misdirects away from the clear wording in the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment says;


Congress shall make no law, pro or con, concerning religion, and since Congress makes all the Federal laws, the Fed is also powerless when it comes to religion. However, there is nothing in that Amendment about state assemblies who make state laws, unable to makes laws about religion or the free exercise thereof. This is still a state option, like abortion, marijuana, gambling, etc. Liberal States can ban the Bible in schools but Conservative State can go the other way. We can then run two parallel tests to see what happens instead of a one size fits all, illegal approach using crooked Federal Governor overreach.

It's a bad idea to read part of the Constitution,
& pay no attention to the rest, in this case, the
14th Amendment. SCOTUS rulings must be
considered too.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Balthazzar]

This actually comes down to State's Rights. It is not the Job of the Federal Government. If you read the First Amendment to the Constitution, it addresses religion.



The Congress makes the law for the Federal Government, therefore the Federal Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. That means the Fed needs to butt out. However, it does not say the States Assemblies are under the same restrictions as Congress and the Fed.

Separation of Church and State are words, not even in the Constitution. That was a lawyer word scam, like the Inflation Reduction Act that caused inflation. It is commercial lawyer jingle that has allowed Federal Government overreach, under the guise of pretending to be Constitutional using a word scam that misdirects away from the clear wording in the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment says;


Congress shall make no law, pro or con, concerning religion, and since Congress makes all the Federal laws, the Fed is also powerless when it comes to religion. However, there is nothing in that Amendment about state assemblies who make state laws, unable to makes laws about religion or the free exercise thereof. This is still a state option, like abortion, marijuana, gambling, etc. Liberal States can ban the Bible in schools but Conservative State can go the other way. We can then run two parallel tests to see what happens instead of a one size fits all, illegal approach using crooked Federal Governor overreach.

I agree with most of your post, but the penal side of religious law is the way I apply it, which is what many are very much in disagreement with. I acknowledge an assembly's right to institute liberties or to deny liberties as it would best reflect the wishes of the assembly, but creating laws combined with penalties biased to a specific religion is forbidden and rightly so. For example: I don't find stoning adulterers to be at all beneficial, so I support the decision to deny this type of religious bias. I don't find cutting off a thief's hand to be at all beneficial, so I support that denied bias also.

Our secular laws cover these biases as they pertain to religious penalties for what's considered a crime in this nation. Murder and theft are handled by established, non religious laws.

An assembly's decision to display basic affirmations such as the 10 commandments, without religious bias in penalty association should be permitted.

An affirmation of effect is relevant to the 10 to be displayed, which would amount to, in effect, better community relations and more peaceful social interactions among the community itself. These are not vain nor unprofitable guiding principles.

I would disagree with this display in every State, however due to or depending upon the diversity existing within each state's citizen base.

 

[JIMMY12345]

“It’s crystal clear to us that in the Oklahoma academic standards under Title 70 on multiple occasions, the Bible is a necessary historical document to teach our kids about the history of this country, to have a complete understanding of Western civilization, to have an understanding of the basis of our legal system,” Walters said."

Do you disagree as to the importance of the Christian faith in the development of western civilization?

(Constitutional issues aside)

So long as its shares a table with Darwin's "Origin of the Species"

 

[Revoltingest]

These are not vain nor unprofitable guiding principles.

Some are irrelevant & even wrongful commandments
to non-Christians, eg, no other gods before God.
And the good ones, eg, don't murder, are too few.
There's no prescription to be tolerant of others'
beliefs, traditions, & conduct. There's no prescription
to learn & understand. There's no prescription to
honor one's word.
If it were really about giving moral guidance, there
wouldn't be religious proscriptions. There would be
more useful prescriptions, as I listed. The 10
Commandments are just a mix of good, evil, inadequate,
& irrelevant. It's about religion....imposing it.

 

[Tomef]

Oh boy.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/us/oklahoma-schools-bible-curriculum/index.html

How will the USSC decide on these proposals/laws?

Tune in next week, same bat time, same bat channel.

The bible was something to have a good laugh at in School. Shouldn’t take that away from kids. Also having one of those evango-nut preachers in would teach kids how to recognise a twat.

 

[Revoltingest]

The bible was something to have a good laugh at in School. Shouldn’t take that away from kids. Also having one of those evango-nut preachers in would teach kids how to recognise a twat.

In the nifty fifties, we had public school prayer
& Bible stories. (SCOTUS hadn't stopped it yet.)
Dint work on me. I recall thinking....
"People actually believe this <process of pinching one off on da terlit>?"
These deluded fools don't deserve power over me.

Censorship requires avoiding the actual word.

 

[Tomef]

In the nifty fifties, we had public school prayer
& Bible stories. Dint work on me. I recall
thinking....
"People actually believe this <process of pinching one off on da terlit>?"
These deluded fools don't deserve power over me.

Censorship requires avoiding the actual word.

RE was a class where you could stop bothering to think about anything, and find ways to get other people in trouble with the teacher (so she could forgive them).

 

[Balthazzar]

Some are irrelevant & even wrongful commandments
to non-Christians, eg, no other gods before God.
And the good ones, eg, don't murder, are too few.
There's no prescription to be tolerant of others'
beliefs, traditions, & conduct. There's no prescription
to learn & understand. There's no prescription to
honor one's word.
If it were really about giving moral guidance, there
wouldn't be religious proscriptions. There would be
more useful prescriptions, as I listed. The 10
Commandments are just a mix of good, evil, inadequate,
& irrelevant. It's about religion....imposing it.

Too few to be considered moral guidance may be correct, and the first is wrongful only if you apply the documented source as the only application of no other God before. There is no need to prescribe tolerance, traditions, or further conduct additions, nor is there a need to suggest learning or being honorable. That suggestion is in the honor your mother and father part, which if deemed honorable by those in question, there should be no teaching of the religion or converting efforts made at all...If those who require the posting are obedient to that principle. If my upbringing was secured in the humanities and my parents wishes were for me to nor forsake my personal upbringing, then that honor would be extended by my Christian friends as they pertain to my parents honorable standing and my responsibility to them...if I choose to. And, if I didn't choose to, would I still be in the good graces of that religion?

 

[Pogo]

So, at the end of the day, I'm an American who supports religious freedom

That is nice, so don't support a rule that denies anyone who is not of your apparent or maybe just the majority LA their freedom. Further, you recognize the discomfort of those we even non-religious differences, so, do you want to be condemned to your historical low income status or are you in favor of minimizing the obstacles in the way of improving your position as minority poverty possibly due to your not being of the appropriate religion of the "majority"
You may be happy with your position in society as at least at the bottom of a popular position, but why are you arguing for effectively a caste system?
Did you miss the equal opportunity lessons in school or are you really in favor of segregation?

 

[Pogo]

In the nifty fifties, we had public school prayer
& Bible stories. (SCOTUS hadn't stopped it yet.)
Dint work on me. I recall thinking....
"People actually believe this <process of pinching one off on da terlit>?"
These deluded fools don't deserve power over me.

Censorship requires avoiding the actual word.

Yeah, and a few years later we still had the pledge where I was and the under god line which I would just be silent for already made it obvious to me and maybe much of my nice white bread midwestern cohort that I was different.

 

[Revoltingest]

Too few to be considered moral guidance may be correct...

"May be"?
Hah!
Definitely!

...and the first is wrongful only if you apply the documented source as the only application of no other God before.

I care not about sources.
It's wrong to preach that to a non-Christian.

There is no need to prescribe tolerance, traditions, or further conduct additions, nor is there a need to suggest learning or being honorable.

It is indeed troubling that Christians
see no need for those values.
Clearly, such people shouldn't be
proselytizing in public schools.

That suggestion is in the honor your mother and father part, which if deemed honorable by those in question, there should be no teaching of the religion or converting efforts made at all...If those who require the posting are obedient to that principle. If my upbringing was secured in the humanities and my parents wishes were for me to nor forsake my personal upbringing, then that honor would be extended by my Christian friends as they pertain to my parents honorable standing and my responsibility to them...if I choose to. And, if I didn't choose to, would I still be in the good graces of that religion?

That is confusing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, and a few years later we still had the pledge where I was and the under god line which I would just be silent for already made it obvious to me and maybe much of my nice white bread midwestern cohort that I was different.

I refused to say the pledge.
Even back then, I was all...
**** that religious & blind-patriotism bullfeces.

 

[Balthazzar]

That is nice, so don't support a rule that denies anyone who is not of your apparent or maybe just the majority LA their freedom. Further, you recognize the discomfort of those we even non-religious differences, so, do you want to be condemned to your historical low income status or are you in favor of minimizing the obstacles in the way of improving your position as minority poverty possibly due to your not being of the appropriate religion of the "majority"
You may be happy with your position in society as at least at the bottom of a popular position, but why are you arguing for effectively a caste system?
Did you miss the equal opportunity lessons in school or are you really in favor of segregation?

I anticipate or would like an opportunity to assemble with people who are likeminded. My Christian friends, as much as I love them, are different than I am, but I respect their efforts and I understand them. I'm on the more liberal side of the conservative coin and the views of my peers don't always permit my personal freedom or rather my comfort to remain true to my nature and mentality. I'm standing on a comfort principle as it applies to truth, my truth specifically which is personal to me. This isn't about money, or conformity, or status, but about justice and truth as these apply to people.

 

[Balthazzar]

.

That is confusing.

Why is that confusing?

If you teach to honor your mother and father and if I chose not to honor my mother and father by converting to your religion (they are indeed honorable) would I still be in your good graces since I deiced to dishonor my parents by converting to your ways?

 

[Revoltingest]

I anticipate or would like an opportunity to assemble with people who are likeminded. My Christian friends, as much as I love them, are different than I am, but I respect their efforts and I understand them. I'm on the more liberal side of the conservative coin and the views of my peers don't always permit my personal freedom or rather my comfort to remain true to my nature and mentality. I'm standing on a comfort principle as it applies to truth, my truth specifically which is personal to me. This isn't about money, or conformity, or status, but about justice and truth as these apply to people.

You already have the right of free association.
But not the right to commandeer an entire
state, & turn it into a theocracy in violation
of the Constitution.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why is that confusing?

Because I couldn't glean a coherent meaning from it.

 

[McBell]

Thanks for listing the religious laws to show the difference between the 10 to be displayed and the religious laws themselves.

Do you not understand that laws have punishments when broken?

 

[Balthazzar]

Do you not understand that laws have punishments when broken?

People commit Adultery, lie, they desire other people's things, they sometimes worship doorknobs of all things, and mostly there are no laws against these things, but the consequences of are somewhat evident in our social dynamics. These are therefore, not imposed laws but displays in an area where they have been approved to be displayed by their citizen base.

Secular laws would apply to 3 on the list, libel/defamation, theft, and murder. The others remind us of their benefit if we have the mind to acknowledge the benefits of being a good neighbor.

 

[Argentbear]

This actually comes down to State's Rights. It is not the Job of the Federal Government. If you read the First Amendment to the Constitution, it addresses religion.



The Congress makes the law for the Federal Government, therefore the Federal Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. That means the Fed needs to butt out. However, it does not say the States Assemblies are under the same restrictions as Congress and the Fed.

Separation of Church and State are words, not even in the Constitution. That was a lawyer word scam, like the Inflation Reduction Act that caused inflation. It is commercial lawyer jingle that has allowed Federal Government overreach, under the guise of pretending to be Constitutional using a word scam that misdirects away from the clear wording in the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment says;


Congress shall make no law, pro or con, concerning religion, and since Congress makes all the Federal laws, the Fed is also powerless when it comes to religion. However, there is nothing in that Amendment about state assemblies who make state laws, unable to makes laws about religion or the free exercise thereof. This is still a state option, like abortion, marijuana, gambling, etc. Liberal States can ban the Bible in schools but Conservative State can go the other way. We can then run two parallel tests to see what happens instead of a one size fits all, illegal approach using crooked Federal Governor overreach.

Try reading the constitution. in it you will find Article 6 and the supremacy which establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

This is why states cannot reinstitute segregation or do away with interracial marriage or start constructing and using concentration camps. it is also way every citizen is protected by the first amendment no matter what state they live in.