• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Pogo

Well-Known Member
No ad hoc rescue for these people.

They were baked in the cake.

These are they whom the deciple that Jesus loved spoke of.

They went out from us, but they were not of us.

To make it plain that they are not all of us.

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. - 1 John 2:19​

Peaceful Sabbath.
They have traded their morals for power, they are not for peace or harmony only to have everybody subject to their whims. They have picked authoritarian leaders like Trump and Putin who only pay lip service to Christianity and brandishing their torches are marching on the constitution and the idea of liberty and equality for all.

Are you sure you wish to be associated with them while espousing "Teach Your Children"?
1968
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
Why am I here as in why do I exist, or why am I here on this forum?

I'm on this forum because I exist and what others who exist do affects me, my family, my community, my country, and the rest of the world.

I don't know why I exist and I don't think anyone knows why we exist; I have no recollection of asking to be born, yet here I am existing as a mortal entity that's subjectable to pain and pleasure and having to make fight or flight decisions.

One "fight" decision I have made essentially entails a presence on this forum & if you want to make a thread about me then that's fine with me.

We have a constitution, and in that constitution the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment provides separation of church and state protection; if the very individuals we delegate to running the government or any part of it don't honor the US Constitution, then we no longer have that infrastructure for law, order, protecting constitutional rights; that, in turn means that the very same constitution that's being ignored in part no longer has any foundation and there's nothing to prevent the entire constitution from being ignored.

That's the same constitution that establishes our 3 branches of government, and if that's ignored, then that means we have no president, vice president, senate, house of representatives, supreme court, executive branches including US Marshals, military, State department, etc. We would only have a joke that people would be entitled to and justified in not taking seriously, because the "president" would only be someone pretending to be the president, someone else only pretending to be the VP, a bunch of people pretending to be members of congress, a group of people pretending to be Supreme Court justices by wearing black robe costumes, etc. etc. We would in reality have anarchy and that can lead to chaos. I don't want that, so let's not do things to cause that.
I agree that is we ignore the constitution then we don't have any basis for our laws. How is this relevant to our discussion?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Another recent article by the New York Times relevant to the thread that helps explain why this case is part of a larger pattern that everyone living in the United States should be aware of:

"One new law requires that transgender students be addressed by the pronouns for the gender on their birth certificates (“God gives us our mark,” he said). Another allows public schools to employ chaplains (“a great step for expanding faith in public schools”).​
Then he signed into law a mandate that the Ten Commandments be hung in every public classroom, demonstrating a new willingness for Louisiana to go where other states have not. Last month, Louisiana also became the first state to classify abortion pills as dangerous controlled substances.​
“We don’t quit,” Mr. Landry, a Republican, said at the signing ceremony.​
Taken together, the measures have signaled the ambition of the governor and the Republican-led Legislature to be at the forefront of a growing national movement to create and interpret laws according to a particular conservative Christian worldview. And Mr. Landry, a Catholic who has been vocal about his faith’s influence in shaping his politics, wants to lead the charge."​
Boy, is he sure out of luck when it comes time to get Heavenly rewards, cause he ain't gettin' non. His reward is this earhtly praise he gets from these very worldly minded Christians. Jesus makes this clear.
 

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
Louisiana constitution Article 1 section 8
§8. Freedom of Religion
Section 8. No law shall be enacted respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

US Constitution Amendment 1
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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is generally interpreted as not being able to favor one religion and since the 10 commandments are specific to a subset of religions it shouldn't fly in LA or the US . See Stone vs Graham re Ten Commandments in classrooms.
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, was a court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Kentucky statute was unconstitutional and in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacked a nonreligious, legislative purpose. Wikipedia

I would suggest this a starting point for the decision, whether in agreement or not. If there is such a constitutional travesty in Louisiana, and separation of church and state to be honored, then this seems more plausible than the argument opposed.


In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
I would suggest this a starting point for the decision, whether in agreement or not. If there is such a constitutional travesty in Louisiana, and separation of church and state to be honored, then this seems more plausible than the argument opposed.


In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Yeah that's right we separated from a government that had no separation of church and state, it was even assumed that the king was granted his powers from heaven.
As to nature's god, until you provide evidence that there is one and that you have the right one out of all the possibilities, we will continue to allow you to worship your God as you will but it is not a part of the rules that we the people have set down.
 

Regiomontanus

Eastern Orthodox
So, what about the billions of people who lived before Jesus or lived in lands whereas they never heard of him-- don't the count?

You are a Catholic, yes? So, I assume you know the church's teaching on this?

Instead of laughing at a reply mocking your faith, maybe provide some guidance on this important question?



Etc.,
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
It's sad. This SC I do believe would also rule against Dred Scott.
Of course there were no prior examples of cases like his before so they had to go with the original words and while we are at it, even though evolving standards of cruel and unusual punishment have been allowed since 1910, that is obviously a bad idea since it wasn't written down in exact words before.
 
Top