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

[Shadow Wolf]

I'll take the text of the US constitution and Treaty of Tripoli, over your opinion.

Yeah, the Constitution that makes no mention of Jehovah or Jesus or the Bible or the Church or anything else that makes it possible to reasonable infer they meant that god and religion. If it were made to be Christian why shall Congress make no laws respecting any religion and why are there to be no tests of religious faith to hold office?
Why was it signed, resigned and rewritten and rewritten again to emphasis to a Muslim country that the US is not a Christian nation and thus will have nothing of this Christian vs Muslim nonsense that without doubt was part of the reason the US was officially established secular.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are welcome. Does that mean it is false? Would you like the site?

No, but it demonstrates that the argument is worthless. Why didn't you search for quotes from Shakespeare in lawsuits? I am sure that there are quite a few of them. The existence of those would not prove anything either. That was the point of that argument. You could understand how it is pointless when it comes to Shakespeare but you cannot see why it is pointless when it comes to Bible quotes.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Supreme Court - Moses and the 10 Commandments

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

The first four appear to be written by an extremely jealous god, with an inferiority complex and a gigantic ego, to boot.
I'm not sure anybody should be worshiping such a deity.

 

[Balthazzar]

Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You actually read this this time to understand why you are wrong and why the US and indeed the state of Louisiana has these words in its constitution.

make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise.

It is a protection against even the popularly elected legislators enforcing bad decisions.

Yes, I do see this and acknowledged this after over 10 years in the arena, after which I stood on your side. Today, I acknowledge a change in the dynamic and association, the secured 1st as a federal, per state basis according to state majority. That's the difference.

 

[Kenny]

By requiring public state funded schools post the Christian ten commandments that is a law that explicitly "respects an establishment of religion". @Kenny

I don’t agree… Supreme Court will decide. The context of “establishing” was “forcing”.

 

[The Hammer]

I don’t agree… Supreme Court will decide. The context of “establishing” was “forcing”.

And a law IS force "you MUST post the ten commandments" is force.

But unfortunately you are right in the SCOTUS will decide.

 

[Balthazzar]

You are just not seeing it. Yes, the 1st applies to everyone, in every state. Permitting some states to ignore the 1st due to "their own majority" necessarily entails the 1st NOT applying to everyone in those states. Thus, some states could reduce the freedom for some within those states.

Now think: how is it possible to claim that reducing the freedom for some in individual states "enables greater freedom?" You can't! If the Constitution applies to 333 million American, then taking a freedom away from some of them necessarily reduces the number that the Constitution applies to.

Once again, return to the notion of the tyranny of the majority. That applies at state level, too, if state majorities can tyrannize those states' minorities.

Greater freedom because the 1st still secures separation of church and state federally, yet more freedom per state to determine best policy per majority vote in specified state, which means if anyone happens to want to place Muslim literature on the wall in schools, it can still be done per state majority vote.

 

[Kenny]

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=lu_law_review

Why, thank you!

 

[Pogo]

The 10 DOES say you shall not covet thy neighbors slave.

TMI

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes -- for example "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his 2 cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."

And then the whole nation coveted everything that their native neighbors had, and not only coveted it, but took it. Way to obey God's Big Ten!

And look how relevant it is to today ... I mean, my neighbour has like 8 manservants and 3 maidservants that I frequently covet. How many do yours have?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

TMI

Yeah. The Bible doesn't seem to help all the subs looking for a dom.

 

[Pogo]

I like George Carlin's version:

First: •THOU SHALT ALWAYS BE HONEST AND FAITHFUL, ESPECIALLY TO THE PROVIDER OF THY NOOKIE.
And second:•THOU SHALT TRY REAL HARD NOT TO KILL ANYONE, UNLESS, OF COURSE, THEY PRAY TO A DIFFERENT INVISIBLE MAN THAN THE ONE YOU PRAY TO.
Two is all you need, folks. Moses could have carried them down the hill in his pocket. And if we had a list like that, I wouldn't mind that brilliant judge in Alabama displaying it prominently in the courthouse wall. As long he included one additional commandment: •THOU SHALT KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF!

And I BELIEVE GEORGE is in heaven having these arguments.

 

[Pogo]

WORLD history says that the entire WORLD practiced slavery from as far as we can look back thru to the 19th century. Not just Christians, for the record.

What's your process for deciding that the 10th commandment is actually condoning slavery?

Because it was in keeping with world practices when it was written by people in that world.

 

[Pogo]

How was Shakespeare used in law? Did they quote his works?

I still see irrelevancy with your statement.

Yes Shakespeare is often quoted. I leave it to you and LEXIS to determine who is more quoted in recent history.

Let me see if I can make this more obvious.
The fact that a statement is made by referencing a piece of classical literature as an example of the basic human condition does not make it significant to the laws that we use to govern ourselves.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The bible doesn't endorse slavery, it simply states that it's a way of life for some people. Which it was for thousands of years, and still is in some places.

It condones and endorses slavery. It tells you where to get your slaves. It tells you how long you get to own them. It tells you how much to pay for them. It tells you how to treat them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah, I've heard the same from whatever camp you're hailing from but it's pretty easily refuted.

And yet you didn't.

It's not easily refuted. It's right there in black and white. That makes it hard to refute.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes… and, of course, those who say it is false omit the reality that it was Christians who used the Bible to eradicate slavery. Something all the lines of “All men are created equal” - and “God created man in His image and in His likeness”.

I will side with @Kathryn

They also used it to defend and justify slavery.
Which was easy because it's all right there in black and white - how to treat your slave, where to get them, how much to pay, what to do with their kids (surprise! You own them too!).

 

[Pogo]

Yes, I do see this and acknowledged this after over 10 years in the arena, after which I stood on your side. Today, I acknowledge a change in the dynamic and association, the secured 1st as a federal, per state basis according to state majority. That's the difference.

And this change in dynamic is what we are trying to protect against.
As you appear to have been on both sides, what is your argument in either direction?

 

[Pogo]

Greater freedom because the 1st still secures separation of church and state federally, yet more freedom per state to determine best policy per majority vote in specified state, which means if anyone happens to want to place Muslim literature on the wall in schools, it can still be done per state majority vote.

Hopefully you will be less confused in your understanding of your own point tomorrow.
Maybe you could remind us of the position you held in the past?

 

[Pogo]

It condones and endorses slavery. It tells you where to get your slaves. It tells you how long you get to own them. It tells you how much to pay for them. It tells you how to treat them.

But I didn't see the word endorse in there anywhere?