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

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

It's how the SC is super big into this fantasy of "Original Intent," but not only that Clarence Thompson has stated the SC should redress several cases that grant federally grant rights to many (but, of course, not mentioned was the SC case that allows him to be married). And when those Republicans questioned even the right to contraception it's best to take them seriously because this SC seems likely to side with them. And as we've seen after Roe v Wade was struck, the Reps really don't want it to be a state's right, they want to ban it federally next. (on this I hope legalized pot sets a precedent for countering such federal laws).

 

[Pogo]

It's how the SC is super big into this fantasy of "Original Intent," but not only that Clarence Thompson has stated the SC should redress several cases that grant federally grant rights to many (but, of course, not mentioned was the SC case that allows him to be married). And when those Republicans questioned even the right to contraception it's best to take them seriously because this SC seems likely to side with them. And as we've seen after Roe v Wade was struck, the Reps really don't want it to be a state's right, they want to ban it federally next. (on this I hope legalized pot sets a precedent for countering such federal laws).

The SC will rule for anyone who brings a case to them based on federal law, I mistakenly thought that the concept of evolving standards was a valid concept in Constitutional analysis but obviously it apparently can only be applied to punishment. Federal acceptance of Marijuana will require Congressional action to straighten out the mess.

It is also not original intent, the founders were liberal products of the Enlightenment and would have interpreted new questions in that vein, not strict literality that infests so much conservative thought.

 

[Balthazzar]

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.

That's not entirely true.

Just as independence was declared with just cause form British rule in 1776, enabling greater domestic control of the United states aftern being granted it's own governing liberties, specific to the majority, it seems most appropriate to follow that model when an abolition of certain rights have been deemed unjust and detrimental to the well being of its citizens - in any territory within the constitutional borders upon which our governing models were and are based. This helps ensure that each states majority are recognized, as opposed to the broad brush approach of federal control and one size fits all solutions to the way our citizens are governed and govern our communities.

 

[Pogo]

That's not entirely true.

Just as independence was declared with just cause form British rule in 1776, enabling greater domestic control of the United states aftern being granted it's own governing liberties, specific to the majority, it seems most appropriate to follow that model when an abolition of certain rights have been deemed unjust and detrimental to the well being of its citizens - in any territory within the constitutional borders upon which our governing models were and are based. This helps ensure that each states majority are recognized, as opposed to the broad brush approach of federal control and one size fits all solutions to the way our citizens are governed and govern our communities.

Sorry, the constitution is there to protect the rights of the minority not to enforce the will of the majority.
Congress is there to set standards for what the government will do but they are limited by the constitution and one of the things it says is that "Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise" The state does not have the right to post one religions literature in public places. They can allow displays in public if all who wish to display are granted equal access such as seasonal displays so long as they give equal space to pagan, wiccan, druid, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto and so on at request, but they may not put up any one of those.

What Louisiana is doing is by only posting one document, no matter its quality or value , establishing a preference and denying persons not of that religion their right to exercise their freedom.

Again, this is exactly what Kentucky tried in 1980 and the SC ruled against them.

 

[Dave Watchman]

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?

That's a good question. I don't really know. That one's far in excess of my pay grade. But if people fall into judgement, they may be judged by what they know. So I'd also be equally concerned about the people alive in modern times, who have been aware of the Gospel, but choose to ignore it.

The article posted by Regiomontanus here reads pretty good to me.

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?

Fate of the unlearned - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

What About Those Who've Never Heard the Gospel?

A look at some of the key Bible verses about the justice of God and the fate of those who have never heard of Jesus.

www.bethinking.org

Etc.,

I don't think anyone burns in hell for infinity. But that as well appears to be up for debate.

But however God will save His People, past, present and future, the mechanism will still be connected to Christ's birth, death and resurrection.

Jesus said that He has sheep in many folds. And that His sheep will hear His Voice.

"I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them in as well, and they will listen to My voice. Then there will be one flock and one shepherd.​

I will remain optimistic that the people of that One Flock will listen to their inner voice.

Even when they do the things of the law without knowing it, and that it will be counted to them as righteousness.

So there also may be something we could argue for them in Romans 2:

"For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.​

But I wouldn't get cute with this. Like I say, this is beyond my paygrade.

God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. It still happens through Jesus, no man can approach the Father except through Him.

 

[Balthazzar]

Sorry, the constitution is there to protect the rights of the minority not to enforce the will of the majority.
Congress is there to set standards for what the government will do but they are limited by the constitution and one of the things it says is that "Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise" The state does not have the right to post one religions literature in public places. They can allow displays in public if all who wish to display are granted equal access such as seasonal displays so long as they give equal space to pagan, wiccan, druid, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto and so on at request, but they may not put up any one of those.

What Louisiana is doing is by only posting one document, no matter its quality or value , establishing a preference and denying persons not of that religion their right to exercise their freedom.

Again, this is exactly what Kentucky tried in 1980 and the SC ruled against them.

I would suggest this much disagreement warrants a court date for the opposing view of the "minority" to be heard.

 

[Balthazzar]

Sorry, the constitution is there to protect the rights of the minority not to enforce the will of the majority.
Congress is there to set standards for what the government will do but they are limited by the constitution and one of the things it says is that "Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise" The state does not have the right to post one religions literature in public places. They can allow displays in public if all who wish to display are granted equal access such as seasonal displays so long as they give equal space to pagan, wiccan, druid, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto and so on at request, but they may not put up any one of those.

What Louisiana is doing is by only posting one document, no matter its quality or value , establishing a preference and denying persons not of that religion their right to exercise their freedom.

Again, this is exactly what Kentucky tried in 1980 and the SC ruled against them.

Ok, so a state like Louisianna took the initiative to secure a long standing norm after that long standing norm was abolished and denied a right. Since, the assembly's gathered, the grievances' addressed, the petitions made and bills were signed into law. These are local efforts mind you, representing those who took the initiative to preserve something deemed valuable, beneficial, and to counter the hostilities against the Christian document, which was at one time a part of the text-book curriculum. One simple display in each classroom to 1. either remember what they lost, or 2. to remember what they gained. State power of the people...

 

[Pogo]

I would suggest this much disagreement warrants a court date for the opposing view of the "minority" to be heard.

In that there are estimated to be 10,000 religions in the world currently that would be rather difficult and Christianity would probably not even qualify as you said so I suggest you stick with the current solution of not putting anybody's up. Should the people of Hamtramck MI have to put up the 10 commandments or the 5 pillars of Islam ? what about those Christian sects that feel that it is blasphemous to post Bible quotes outside of churches.

Nobody is denying you your beliefs, or the right to them in space as you can do whatever you want in your own space, but public spaces are for everybody to enjoy equally.

Why is this so important to you, you do realize that not everybody shares your religious beliefs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is also not original intent, the founders were liberal products of the Enlightenment and would have interpreted new questions in that vein, not strict literality that infests so much conservative thought.

Yeah, the Founding Fathers would definitely shock all these MAGA pinheads. For them it is very much "don't meet your heroes." Jefferson proclaimed himself the intellectual adversary of the clergy and thought the Constitution should be rewritten every 20 years.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ok, so a state like Louisianna took the initiative to secure a long standing norm after that long standing norm was abolished and denied a right. Since, the assembly's gathered, the grievances' addressed, the petitions made and bills were signed into law. These are local efforts mind you, representing those who took the initiative to preserve something deemed valuable, beneficial, and to counter the hostilities against the Christian document, which was at one time a part of the text-book curriculum. One simple display in each classroom to 1. either remember what they lost, or 2. to remember what they gained. State power of the people...

So? America is not for Christians. It's for everyone. This is why the law is generally interpreted as if you allow one you have to allow them all. And many have seen the wisdom, simplicity and productivity in the "none at all" option and do what their intended to do while leaving religion to be a personal matter like it's supposed to be.
After all, religion and politics aren't what we discuss in proper company and schools aren't there to lead kids in religion or politics. They tried it and it best it's repressive against all religions save for the favored, at worst it's part of larger effort of genocide (it's why English and French are so common globally, even up to replacing and erasing traditional/ancestral languages around the world).

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

That is not a legal document that applies to America. It is one that applied to England. We were declaring our separation from England. Do not get misled by poetic language.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So? America is not for Christians. It's for everyone. This is why the law is generally interpreted as if you allow one you have to allow them all. And many have seen the wisdom, simplicity and productivity in the "none at all" option and do what their intended to do while leaving religion to be a personal matter like it's supposed to be.
After all, religion and politics aren't what we discuss in proper company and schools aren't there to lead kids in religion or politics. They tried it and it best it's repressive against all religions save for the favored, at worst it's part of larger effort of genocide.

I would love to flood the walls of the schools of Louisiana with the "to do lists" of all sorts of deities. And if any Christians complained "But those are just gods made up by man!" I would challenge them to prove that their god was not "just made up by man".

 

[Balthazzar]

In that there are estimated to be 10,000 religions in the world currently that would be rather difficult and Christianity would probably not even qualify as you said so I suggest you stick with the current solution of not putting anybody's up. Should the people of Hamtramck MI have to put up the 10 commandments or the 5 pillars of Islam ? what about those Christian sects that feel that it is blasphemous to post Bible quotes outside of churches.

Nobody is denying you your beliefs, or the right to them in space as you can do whatever you want in your own space, but public spaces are for everybody to enjoy equally.

Why is this so important to you, you do realize that not everybody shares your religious beliefs.

I was reading the document that started this nations ongoing development, and it struck a chord. We declared our independence in 1776, but it wasn't until 1980 that the 10 commandments became subject of abolition from our school systems. In 2024 we have an illustration and example of what the declaration enabled in 1776, namely an independent right of a State to utilize the 1st amendment as intended. In this case, independence from recent SC rulings that denied rights that had been granted and long established in this nation for over 200 years. After over 40 years of watching this nation's government refuse, reject, deny, and almost vilify a document, the 10 commandments specifically and all that has transpired since the onset of that 1980 ruling, it was deemed fit to grant Louisiana that right once more.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."

 

[Pogo]

Ok, so a state like Louisianna took the initiative to secure a long standing norm after that long standing norm was abolished and denied a right. Since, the assembly's gathered, the grievances' addressed, the petitions made and bills were signed into law. These are local efforts mind you, representing those who took the initiative to preserve something deemed valuable, beneficial, and to counter the hostilities against the Christian document, which was at one time a part of the text-book curriculum. One simple display in each classroom to 1. either remember what they lost, or 2. to remember what they gained. State power of the people...

It was never deemed a right, it may have happened by tradition in some areas, but that doesn't make it a right. As to hostilities, no, no-one is being hostile to the book, but posting it in public is potentially being hostile to others. As to using it as a teaching document, that can be done in appropriate settings such as comparative literature and history. As to your supposed approval in the legislature, that is a good example of one of the dangers of democracy that the constitution is written to protect against called Tyranny of the majority.
"The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot, argued John Stuart Mill in his 1859 book On Liberty.[1]"
" in the context of a nation, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, laws requiring supermajorities and the introduction of a Bill of Rights have been used to counter the problem. A separation of powers (for example legislative and executive majority actions subject to review by the judiciary) may also be implemented to prevent the problem from happening internally in a government.[4]"

Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That we avoid these problems through our constitutional system is one of the reasons that the US is considered a bastion of freedom to the world.
To do what you wish is to put us back on the road to religious wars such as occurred for thousands of years and threaten to break out even today where there are differences of religion that are supported by states, just look at the middle east and they are all Abraham religions until you get to South Asia and we have a different set of religions causing problems by favoring one religion over another.

This is all high school history but you should probably go back and read about all the
Christian war between Catholics and protestants and even protestant sects not to mention Crusades or the barely under control situation in Northern Ireland.

It is not disrespect for your religion it is recognition of human nature and the slippery slope of minor disagreements in deeply held ideas escalating.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I would love to flood the walls of the schools of Louisiana with the "to do lists" of all sorts of deities. And if any Christians complained "But those are just gods made up by man!" I would challenge them to prove that their god was not "just made up by man".

I would love to. I was raised as one of them. I was brought up to lead them. And I can argue against them in ways "born and raised atheists" can't (not that I've ever seen, anyways, because they just don't have all the knowledge and understanding of the Bible that Evangelicals do, and they haven't been trained to cite it and use it on the spot in a debate). For me it's fun. Especially against ones who haven't really put much time or effort into studying the Bible. But even those they have, to catch them in such a hole they look like a deer caught in headlights, and the gaze is delicious. They know how to lead people on who are curious, they know how to work up conversations with strangers, they even have special lessons for dealing with atheists. What they don't really plan for that well is someone like me, someone who used to be one them and can throw the Bible back at them just as well. And the ones who actually offer a challenge, to get that look when they know and realize they've been beat, I would eat it for food if I could.
(where did this stupid saying come from, a deer stuck in headlights? Have you ever seen a deer, or a cow, stuck in headlights? Even an o'possum! It looks nothing like that dumbfounded and speechless gaze).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

The Laws of Nature and Nature's God refers to the Laws of Physics and Science and a very thoroughly Deist worldview. But even the Christians among them weren't taking the Bible literally like so many American Evangelicals today. Biblical literalism is, after all, not a historic universal or norm and those who read it as a literal history book I would say are likely among a minority. Even 1000 years ago people still knew enough to call hogwash on the outlandish stories, and if Medieval Britons knew what a lion actually was (they seem to have been intensely curious about them though) and how it behaves as we do today they would have dismissed Daniel's story as well. They just were not dumb people. But today? Their literalism is so destructive and self defeating that it never would have allowed for science to develop even though early scientists almost uniformly believed they were studying god's creation. The sort of thinking needing for that sort of thing, the type of education, they know it gets people to start asking questions and putting pieces together, they know it draws people away from them and so they actively discourage pursuing what is one of the better achievements and contributions of Christians. Even the Father of Modern Genetics, Gregor Mendel, was an Abbot. That gets into territory where it just will not work for a literalist.

 

[Pogo]

I was reading the document that started this nations ongoing development, and it struck a chord. We declared our independence in 1776, but it wasn't until 1980 that the 10 commandments became subject of abolition from our school systems. In 2024 we have an illustration and example of what the declaration enabled in 1776, namely an independent right of a State to utilize the 1st amendment as intended. In this case, independence from recent SC rulings that denied rights that had been granted and long established in this nation for over 200 years. After over 40 years of watching this nation's government refuse, reject, deny, and almost vilify a document, the 10 commandments specifically and all that has transpired since the onset of that 1980 ruling, it was deemed fit to grant Louisiana that right once more.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."

You want to know why your argument fails, it is because you are ignoring a very important teaching of Jesus that is directly relevant for your desire to have your Bible quote on the wall.

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Yeah, that old thing called the golden rule and you need to put yourself in the position of the other who wants to put their religious quote on the wall where you have to see it every day.

If you want to ignore this, go ahead and continue down the path you are on but beware the consequences.

 

[Balthazzar]

it is recognition of human nature and the slippery slope of minor disagreements in deeply held ideas escalating.

I agree with this one point you made.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

 

[Pogo]

I would love to. I was raised as one of them. I was brought up to lead them. And I can argue against them in ways "born and raised atheists" can't (not that I've ever seen, anyways, because they just don't have all the knowledge and understanding of the Bible that Evangelicals do, and they haven't been trained to cite it and use it on the spot in a debate). For me it's fun. Especially against ones who haven't really put much time or effort into studying the Bible. But even those they have, to catch them in such a hole they look like a deer caught in headlights, and the gaze is delicious. They know how to lead people on who are curious, they know how to work up conversations with strangers, they even have special lessons for dealing with atheists. What they don't really plan for that well is someone like me, someone who used to be one them and can throw the Bible back at them just as well. And the ones who actually offer a challenge, to get that look when they know and realize they've been beat, I would eat it for food if I could.
(where did this stupid saying come from, a deer stuck in headlights? Have you ever seen a deer, or a cow, stuck in headlights? Even an o'possum! It looks nothing like that dumbfounded and speechless gaze).

As a matter of fact, yes, while it is normally taken to mean that deer tend to freeze in place and look at you at night on the road, when you don't actually avoid them and then get out of your car you will see dumb, speechless, dead deer stuck in the holes where your headlights used to be, I came across a poor soul who had just learned this meaning and when asked why he didn't even attempt to avoid it he told me and apparently it is true, hitting the deer is covered by insurance but running off the road is not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As a matter of fact, yes, while it is normally taken to mean that deer tend to freeze in place and look at you at night on the road, when you don't actually avoid them and then get out of your car you will see dumb, speechless, dead deer stuck in the holes where your headlights used to be, I came across a poor soul who had just learned this meaning and when asked why he didn't even attempt to avoid it he told me and apparently it is true, hitting the deer is covered by insurance but running off the road is not.

I didn't think it referred to stuck where the physical headlight was given the unlikeliness of that actually happening. I thought it refereed to them tending to stand still in the road, as if hypnotized and ensnared by the oncoming headlights.