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

[The Hammer]

Trump endorses Ten Commandments in schools, implores evangelical Christians to vote in November

Donald Trump has told a group of evangelicals that they “cannot afford to sit on the sidelines” of the 2024 election, imploring them at one point to “go and vote, Christians, please!”

apnews.com

Trump supports the motion for more of these types of "commandments" be put in schools.

 

[Balthazzar]

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.

I went to LA a few years ago, and noticed something I had never acknowledged before. They had little districts, areas specific to specific people or types of people. This nation has red states and blue states. We have ability of a majority occupation in every state, segregated between nearly every type of person in this nation. This nation is a nation of immigrants. Communities operate and function very well when like minded people gather and assemble together. The question becomes a matter of geographic location and current majority occupation, or location most apt to fit us best as individuals. I myself, am a bit of a nomad. I have no home of my own, no apartment, no motel room or anywhere I pay rent. I typically move around from town to town, finding shelter as I go. My point is this nation is a very diverse one and I always feel best when around likeminded people. Where do I fit best ... I'm unsure at the moment, but I enjoy travel. I have a camera, a laptop, and a journalistic passion. These things inspire me, even as an American living on poverty level income. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - I think this translates into a "Do what you will and harm none". There must be somewhere in this nation where I'm free enough to be myself. Surely.

 

[Pogo]

I went to LA a few years ago, and noticed something I had never acknowledged before. They had little districts, areas specific to specific people or types of people. This nation has red states and blue states. We have ability of a majority occupation in every state, segregated between nearly every type of person in this nation. This nation is a nation of immigrants. Communities operate and function very well when like minded people gather and assemble together. The question becomes a matter of geographic location and current majority occupation, or location most apt to fit us best as individuals. I myself, am a bit of a nomad. I have no home of my own, no apartment, no motel room or anywhere I pay rent. I typically move around from town to town, finding shelter as I go. My point is this nation is a very diverse one and I always feel best when around likeminded people. Where do I fit best ... I'm unsure at the moment, but I enjoy travel. I have a camera, a laptop, and a journalistic passion. These things inspire me, even as an American living on poverty level income. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - I think this translates into a "Do what you will and harm none". There must be somewhere in this nation where I'm free enough to be myself. Surely.

Most anywhere so long as you don't try to impose on others because as you have noticed there are a lot of different kinds of others.

 

[Balthazzar]

Most anywhere so long as you don't try to impose on others because as you have noticed there are a lot of different kinds of others

I suppose with my odd form of Christian flavor, my zeal for truth and equality, justice and sense of basic human rights to pursue happiness, along with my personal codes of conduct specific to myself and no other, and need to honor that which is true, I would agree ... only one thing. Impositions are not limited to personal values anymore, apparently ... Federal funding and funded institutions are likewise impositions to the larger democracy. My personal imposition as a person, the air I breath, the space I occupy, the words I write, the precepts I honor and value, will always be viewed as in imposition to someone. This is part of life everywhere, no matter where you go. Finding likeminded people, gathering and assembling with like minded people, seems something we do anyway. Your do unto others threat is viewed as just that, given you have openly viewed my stance as an "imposition".

You want your Muslim words to be displayed? I'm not in disagreement. I'll be publishing soon. You will see my words in print.

 

[Valjean]

I'm asking for why you folks, the people of this forum, thinks these thing are happening at this point in history?

Peaceful Sabbath.

There's not a simple answer. It's a byzantine history that took root in the gilded age of the late 1800s. A class of rich and powerful industrialists had taken advantage of the 'small government' and unregulated, free trade of the era to secure an aristocracy dominating both society and government. In a series of political moves they lost their dominance by the late 1930s.

The public and industry prospered, but throughout the period a powerful class of influential despots sought to re-establish their oligarchy.
In '71 an influential lawyer, upset at the growing dominance and wealth of the middle class, secretly penned a corporate call to arms for an organized campaign against "the people's" Democratic power.

Bankers and industry organized. They captured government and the media, deregulated, and consolidated power. The author of the manifesto was appointed to the supreme court. With the election of Reagan, the Keynesian-based economic system began a rapid reversion back to the Neoliberal, free-trade, deregulated, small government of the 19th century gilded age. Wealth and power "trickled up, and popular democracy was undermined. Industry moved overseas, poverty increased, and the corporate owned media convinced the people that the growing poverty and wealth inequality was the fault of a liberal conspiracy.

Now they've allied with the Christian evangelicals, overthrown democracy for oligarchy, packed the supreme court, diminished the middle class, and created hordes of impoverished and homeless.
They've undermined social services, and many people are turning to religion and "strong-father" demagogues for succor. The New Aristocracy is happy to pander to their insecurity to further its own interests.

This rant is a massive oversimplification of the origins and nature of our current situation, of course. If you want something more in-depth, I can recommend some reading.

 

[Valjean]

We have more freedoms because we decided that no more will the Church decide civil policy. Except in America, where we are loosing freedoms largely because of the Evangelical, Religious Right, so-called Moral "majority" doesn't like to share and demands and screams all of society be brought under heel in accordance to their dogma and tyranny.

We've seen where this sort of trend leads in Iran and Afghanistan.

 

[Valjean]

In a classroom the 10 Commandments could indeed be part of a coercive effort (by the state) to compell children to follow any of several religions.

The Right considers Christian Evangelicals a childlike, compliant, and easily controlled tool in a campaign to secure and hold onto power. A small aristocratic class served by a large class of compliant workers would be to their liking.

So keep them controlled, in the dark, insecure, and don't expose them to unorthodox ideas or lifestyles. Give them nothing to rely on but the blandishments of the party's religious toadies.

 

[Pogo]

The Right considers Christian Evangelicals a childlike, compliant, and easily controlled tool in a campaign to secure and hold onto power. A small aristocratic class served by a large class of compliant workers would be to their liking.

So keep them controlled, in the dark, insecure, and don't expose them to unorthodox ideas or lifestyles. Give them nothing to rely on but the blandishments of the party's religious toadies.

Ah yes, mushroom management, keep them in the dark and feed them s***.

And now they have enlisted a Troll Clown to rally the put upon workers by making outrageous statements like how about we have cage matches with migrants. The Christians think it sounds like a good idea as they can get back at the lions and rational people are so flabbergasted that they don't even realize they are being trolled to distract them from organizing to reteach civics and economics to the bamboozled.

The whole idea is no government function as the income arrow is already sufficiently in their favor so long as it stays unregulated.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Just want to clarify that when I say "Could indeed be a part" I do not mean anything beyond, and I mean it without the present tense. It could potentially be a part of a coercion, and that is why it is illegal. I do not think this is an attempt to oppress Christians or some extensive plan to make generations subservient. There's always a reaction between conservatives and progressives. One pulls this way. The other overcorrects in the opposite direction.

 

[Argentbear]

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 might want to read the actual 1980 decision. You seem to have some unfounded ideas about that ruling.
The ruling relied on the "Lemon test"
The Court found that the statute failed the first prong—that of secular purpose. The posting of the ten commandments served no educational function. The court found “not even a pretense of a secular purpose in the statute….Despite defendant’s argument that the Ten
Commandments provide the 'cornerstone of our legal system' and 'thus have become secular in nature,'" the court focused instead on the sectarian nature of the first three commandments, the lack of explanation of purpose on the postings themselves, and the statute’s specific mandate that the Decalogue of the Christian religion be posted. The court concluded that the statute failed not only the Lemon secular purpose requirement—but also the second prong—that the activity not advance not just religion but advancement of a specific religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Hero?
There is no kinship of values.
To them, Jefferson is just the guy on the $2 bill.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Of course I do not.

Then you are only interested in espousing the idea of "Having that in the classroom is not forcing anything. Ignore as you wish" when it comes to your belief in certain religious materials?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That's what people said about Roe v Wade.

Not equivalent. There is not right to an abortion in the constitution. The 13th amendment abolished slavery.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

On what grounds?

That black people of African descent cannot be citizens? What are you asking?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Okay so far --- but what follows from that, do you think? (Hint: this is where the Enlightenment really began.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not equivalent. There is not right to an abortion in the constitution. The 13th amendment abolished slavery.

The Constitution, in the 9th Amendment, was very careful to say that not all rights are necessarily enumerated in the Constitution itself. For example, the Consitution makes no mention of a right to privacy, either.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hero?
There is no kinship of values.
To them, Jefferson is just the guy on the $2 bill.

Yeah, they do idolize and glorify a caricature of who they think the Founding Fathers were.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That black people of African descent cannot be citizens? What are you asking?

Why not? SCOTUS ruled that a woman does not have the right to her own body. (While they did not say that directly, that is what Dobbs means: that states may grant such a privilege, but it is not an inherent right.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not equivalent. There is not right to an abortion in the constitution. The 13th amendment abolished slavery.

The 13th did not abolish slavery but rather restricted it. The United States of America has never actually or fully abolished slavery.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, they do idolize and glorify a caricature of who they think the Founding Fathers were.

To most leaders, the founders are icons upon
whom their personal values are projected.