Louisiana becomes first state to require that Ten Commandments be displayed in public classrooms

[Balthazzar]

MJ laws, 10 commandment issues, abortion issues, what else has been on the forefront of our local concerns? Disagreements in displaying 10 rules that have been deemed too religious to be included in our school systems. Marijuana rights and recreational use of mind altering substances have likewise been local issues. Abortion rights have long been local issues. We also have hate crimes and whatnot demoralizing our nation and to top it off, many view this nation to be exempt from international conflict on our soil. Other territories view us as bullies, heathens, infidels, and as satan.

Are the 10 commandments being displayed in context of historical documents playing a major role in our social paradigms truly all that offensive to the majority of our citizens? If so, I have a feeling we have a date with a reality check. Meanwhile, Ukraine is reaching out for assistance with Russia, Palestinians hate our support for Israel and we answer their call against Israel despite the aim to be hostile towards Israel, all while Russia makes it a point to enter into our backwater yard to conduct military exercises in the Carribean in attempt to make is evident that they have the capability to start a fight with us. They happen to rub shoulders with Iran who supports Palestine and is likewise hostile to Israel and the US.

The 10 commandments seem trivial and inconsequential, particularly in context of required display as a historical document. Trivial yet somehow more important than the bigger picture that surrounds our borders.

 

[Revoltingest]

You aren't kidding. TRUE STORY TIME AGAIN:

The first and only argument that my late husband and I had was over a dang brisket. I am telling you, he left that brisket out overnight, I didn't do it. And I said, "Oh no, you left the brisket out!" I mean, this was like 20 years ago, and the brisket was $40 even then. HE GOT SO MAD AT ME that he wouldn't even talk to me, which drove me crazy. So that night I did what any self respecting woman would do. I thought to myself, "I can't sleep next to this man who won't even talk to me." So I got up and went upstairs to the guest room. Well, about three minutes later, I heard him stomping up the stairs and I thought, "Oh no, here it comes." He opened the door and grabbed my feet and said, "Get your *** downstairs into our bed." So I did so! And that was it - it was fabulous!

So you had brisket, eh.

I once had a difficult job moving 3 engines
from TX (Austin) to MI. After loading the
trailer & fastening everything down, I went
to a BBQ place next door for brisket.
Good it was.

 

[F1fan]

huh? Having a poster of the Ten Commandments on the wall...what is so shocking about that?

That it doesn't include a sign that tells children it has no authority over anyone.

The Ten Commandments mean nothing without believers claiming it does. In reality they are irrelevant.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are the 10 commandments being displayed in context of historical documents playing a major role in our social paradigms truly all that offensive to the majority of our citizens?

It's that one religion is being officially promoted by a state over all others. That is unconstitutional and unAmerican. This is a land for us all, not just idolatrous Christians who love them some graven images amd don't wanna share society.

 

[Balthazzar]

It's that one religion is being officially promoted by a state over all others. That is unconstitutional and unAmerican. This is a land for us all, not just idolatrous Christians who love them some graven images amd don't wanna share society.

Florida is allowing religion to be included in their public schools also. Well, at least it has been in the works. The Satanist Temple has been very anxious to be included in Florida's initiative. As for one religion being officially promoted by a state over other religions, I suppose that's the direction that specific state is going. Is it unconstitutional? Apparently, this has been decided as a constitutional leniency, per state decision. The broad brush of big government may be condensing to smaller geographic locations...States, specifically and it appears to be based on state majority. As for the graven images, carved and idolatrous ... We are guaranteed right to practice our religions. I wonder if ever there will be a state to pick up a Satanist leaning majority and create a satanist state specifically, per majority of popular vote. At least then, they can display their statues and alters according to community wishes. I wonder if other religions will have the conviction and zeal to create a majority in specific locations also.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We are guaranteed right to practice our religions.

Yes. Just as I am free to point out they are very worldy oriented and have lost sight of the Kingdom. They will say "Lord, Lord, I have worked miracles and cast out demons in your name" and he will reply "I never knew you. Depart from me workers of evil."
He will cast them aside and there I will be to savour their wails amd teeth gnashing. And I'm gonna make it worse for them. We'll be in Hell. What will it matter if I salt their wounds per my taste?

 

[anotherneil]

No ****. I'm pointing out treason and execution is extreme and unreasonable for such a thing.

Then when is it not extreme and unreasonable?

 

[anotherneil]

The law is an exercise in what you can get away with. If you can convince somebody that your interpretation is within the law as written, then it is.

In some cases perhaps, but what's your point?

 

[McBell]

In some cases perhaps, but what's your point?

I suspect their point is that this ten commandments bill was specifically designed to go all the way to SCOTUS to see what can be gotten away with.

 

[anotherneil]

I suspect their point is that this ten commandments bill was specifically designed to go all the way to SCOTUS to see what can be gotten away with.

This does seem to be the point that Pogo is attempting to make, but it in response to a sequence of posts that went off topic; here's the sequence of posts - first, I posted this:

This is obviously yet another blatant attempt by deranged religious zealots to impudently CRAP on the Bill of Rights & any public office holders behind this are domestic enemies of the state.

The problem is that there are no legal consequences for politicians in public office responsible for this stuff, like being charged with treason or being traitors & having to face a military firing squad, etc. I think it ought to at least result in being expelled immediately from the public office they hold, banishment for life from holding any public office anywhere in the US, and loss of any benefits to which current and former public office holders are or would normally be entitled.

Shadow Wolf responded using this excerpt:

The problem is that there are no legal consequences for politicians in public office responsible for this stuff, like being charged with treason or being traitors & having to face a military firing squad, etc.

I don't like MAGA because apparently it takes an insurrection to incite patriotic feelings in me. And there are many I wish woukd dragged behind a shed and shot as traitors, but treason and firing squads seem pretty extreme for this.

I replied with this:

Off topic - I'm specifically referring to the deliberate scoffing at the US Constitution by creating laws that are obviously unconstitutional.

Shadow Wolf and Pogo responded with the following:

No ****. I'm pointing out treason and execution is extreme and unreasonable for such a thing.

The law is an exercise in what you can get away with. If you can convince somebody that your interpretation is within the law as written, then it is.

I responded to Pogo with this:

In some cases perhaps, but what's your point?

...which is what you responded to. What I'm not getting is the reason for why it's in response to a sequence of posts where there's a discontinuity for that to be the point. I'm not going to dwell on this, though.

 

[anotherneil]

Here's a story regarding this thread issue that some might find amusing:

I was listening to WMAL last night, which is a talk show radio station in the DC area, and from 10 pm to 11 pm they have a radio show hosted by Matt Walsh. In one segment of his show, he discussed the constitutionality of this Louisiana ten commandments in public schools issue.

He usually hits the bullseye with various topics & issues that he covers on his show, so we often see eye-to-eye, but in this case, he totally dropped the ball.

He starts off by correctly pointing out that the constitutional right in question is the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") aka the establishment clause, but then he went on to make the claim that it doesn't apply to Louisiana since this wasn't a law made by congress & it only applies to the federal government; he exposed his ignorance of the incorporation doctrine, particularly with Everson v. Board of Education (1947), which incorporated the establishment clause, meaning that it applies to the states, not just the federal government.

Let's suppose that the incorporation doctrine didn't exist, and the establishment clause did not apply to Louisiana, though; he goes on to expose more of his ignorance by not being aware that in the Louisiana constitution declaration of rights, there is also a section that prohibits the state from writing such laws: Section 8. No law shall be enacted respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Perhaps he's just not aware that the states also have their own constitutions.

derp

 

[Pogo]

This is obviously yet another blatant attempt by deranged religious zealots to impudently CRAP on the Bill of Rights & any public office holders behind this are domestic enemies of the state.

The problem is that there are no legal consequences for politicians in public office responsible for this stuff, like being charged with treason or being traitors & having to face a military firing squad, etc. I think it ought to at least result in being expelled immediately from the public office they hold, banishment for life from holding any public office anywhere in the US, and loss of any benefits to which current and former public office holders are or would normally be entitled.

OK, this is your opinion along with some rather radical penalties.
Reality is they are entitled to their opinions no matter how vile in yours so long as they don't result in harm to others and the legal remedy is to vote them out of office or impeach them as appropriate for non-elected offices.
Declaring people enemies of the state is an authoritarian solution and what the constitution / bill of rights is there to protect against.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I was trying to say that maybe the commandments will help them make better choices.

I've never seen the Commandments used to resolve conflicts between warring parties.

 

[Balthazzar]

Yes. Just as I am free to point out they are very worldy oriented and have lost sight of the Kingdom. They will say "Lord, Lord, I have worked miracles and cast out demons in your name" and he will reply "I never knew you. Depart from me workers of evil."
He will cast them aside and there I will be to savour their wails amd teeth gnashing. And I'm gonna make it worse for them. We'll be in Hell. What will it matter if I salt their wounds per my taste?

i suppose that's your prerogative, and your contribution will likely be your own to harvest. Beyond this, and despite our differences in codes of conduct, I would suggest that this much is true for everyone. Action equates to consequence. If separation and finding our places for adequate fitting is the goal and effort, I suppose our actions will reflect our placement or rather our placement will reflect our actions. It's a win-win apparently. I suggest this due to action reflecting our character and personalities. For a guy like me, I wouldn't enjoy living somewhere where monogamy and trust-based relationships were unheard of. This isn't true for everyone. Some prefer the opposite of fidelity and relationships based on trust. Seems odd to me, but who am I to argue lifestyle preferences?

 

[crossfire]

Nowhere in the New Testament does it condone slavery. I haven't looked up slavery for a long time, but it seemed very common in lots of communities in the Old Testament, not just Jewish communities. Where was the golden rule then?

Still no answer to my question about the Golden Rule. Oh well. Maybe I missed it but I doubt it.

There have been versions since the ancient Egyptians (2040-1650 BCE), and it appears in Buddhism around 600 BCE, and in the Mahabarhatta c 400 BCE. You can find it in Greece, esp. Thales 624-546 BCE. Unfortunately, the oldest I can find in Judaeo-Christian sources is Hillel the Elder c. 110 BCE – 10 CE.

Leviticus 19:17-18 & 19:33-34

 

[Kathryn]

Leviticus 19:17 & 19:33

My question was - where was this during that time?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Gee, imagine how awful the world would be if everyone followed those.

If the schools want to post moral instruction on the walls, they can do a lot better than the Ten Commandments. The four commandments about worshiping gods take up 40% of the space and teach nothing of value to the communities underwriting those schools. Promoting religion is only good for churches.

This attempt to slip religion into classrooms ought to damage the church's public persona further. Here people are imposing their religious preferences on the children of parents who don't want that in violation of the Constitution while trying to represent themselves as a source of moral instruction.

Somebody suggested revoking the church's tax-free status, but this is breaking the law. Isn't it time to prosecute the guilty and send a message to others that would spit on a fundamental American principle?

The bible doesn't endorse slavery, it simply states that it's a way of life for some people.

The Bible condones slavery and provides instructions for would-be slavers.

it was Christians who used the Bible to eradicate slavery.

It was Christians who bought and whipped slaves, and they justified that with their Bibles.

Slavery isn’t in the Constitution.

It's also not mentioned in the Ten Commandments. I guess it got bumped for honoring parents or not envying.

Because it violates Article 1 in freedom of religion and the prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Your freedom to practice your faith doesn't extend to public school classrooms. Why did you object?

Are you seriously comparing lynching with posting words in a classroom right now?

I thought that the comparison was apt given the context of caring about things that don't affect one directly.

 

[crossfire]

My question was - where was this during that time?

These refer to people who reside within Hebrew land. Of course they could obtain slaves and concubines by raiding other territories. :/

I can only refer you to Luke 10:29 "And who is my neighbor?" (From the parable of the good Samaritan from several centuries later.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Leviticus 19:17-18 & 19:33-34

Close, but those restrict the requirement to "thy neighbour" and "thy people." I think the Golden Rule has to apply more broadly.

 

[Kathryn]

Close, but those restrict the requirement to "thy neighbour" and "thy people." I think the Golden Rule has to apply more broadly.

And where was it in all those countries you mentioned? Slavery was pretty ubiquitous everywhere till the 19th century.