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

[Balthazzar]

What if a new "Ten Commandments" were mandated that stressed atheism?

I would suggest the same principle would apply to relevant state or states who chose to pursue the inclusion of in their schools.

 

[metis]

I would suggest the same principle would apply to relevant state or states who chose to pursue the inclusion of in their schools.

The states are secular entities, so why use them to push religion?

And what if some legislators pushed the Muslem Five Pillars of Faith to be mandatory in all public classrooms?

 

[Kathryn]

The states are secular entities, so why use them to push religion?

And what if some legislators pushed the Muslem Five Pillars of Faith to be mandatory in all public classrooms?

I guess if they could get the votes, they'd need to display the Five Pillars of Faith.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Freedom to assemble and practice religion in this nation has been shackled

In what way? Who isn't allowed to build a church or temple, or rent space to hold religious meetings? Who isn't allowed to invite people with similar beliefs into their home to worship together? Who is prevented from putting up a sign saying, "Judgment day is near, Repent!" or "Allah is One!"?

 

[Tomef]

Louisiana has become the first state to require that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom under a bill signed into law by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry on Wednesday.

The GOP-drafted legislation mandates that a poster-sized display of the Ten Commandments in "large, easily readable font" be required in all public classrooms, from kindergarten to state-funded universities. Although the bill did not receive final approval from Landry, the time for gubernatorial action - to sign or veto the bill - has lapsed.

One religion to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them!

Interesting that none of them has proposed engraving the beatitudes on the walls instead. Very Old Testament these characters.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The New Testament doesn't involve itself with politics or even stations in life. It basically says that whatever condition you find yourself in, be content.

And it never declares anywhere that slavery is immoral.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Old Testament is the Old Testament. It's an archive from the ancient world. The New Testament doesn't involve itself with politics. It basically says that whatever condition one finds oneself in, be content and make it work.

This doesn't address what was said and just looks like an evasion to me.

 

[Kathryn]

And it never declares anywhere that slavery is immoral.

It doesn't take a stand one way or the other, other than the Golden Rule. I don't know, I wouldn't want to be a slave, would you? That's the main reason I don't own any.

This doesn't address what was said and just looks like an evasion to me.

Sorry you feel that way. It's not an evasion at all.

 

[metis]

I guess if they could get the votes, they'd need to display the Five Pillars of Faith.

Probably.

 

[Copernicus]

It doesn't take a stand one way or the other, other than the Golden Rule. I don't know, I wouldn't want to be a slave, would you? That's the main reason I don't own any.

That and the fact that you would be facing a long jail term if you did try to own one. I think we should all take comfort in the existence of a law rather than just reliance on the good will of people.

 

[Kathryn]

That and the fact that you would be facing a long jail term if you did try to own one. I think we should all take comfort in the existence of a law rather than just reliance on the good will of people.

I totally get what you're saying but I probably also couldn't afford to own a slave.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It doesn't take a stand one way or the other, other than the Golden Rule. I don't know, I wouldn't want to be a slave, would you? That's the main reason I don't own any.

And it never declares that the slavery discussed in the Old Testament is immoral.

Sorry you feel that way. It's not an evasion at all.

You said, "The Old Testament is the Old Testament. It's an archive from the ancient world. The New Testament doesn't involve itself with politics. It basically says that whatever condition one finds oneself in, be content and make it work."

Who's talking about politics? We're talking about morality, here.

 

[Kathryn]

And it never declares that the slavery discussed in the Old Testament is immoral.


You said, "The Old Testament is the Old Testament. It's an archive from the ancient world. The New Testament doesn't involve itself with politics. It basically says that whatever condition one finds oneself in, be content and make it work."

Who's talking about politics? We're talking about morality, here.

OK whatever you say.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The states are secular entities, so why use them to push religion?

Rhetorical question, right?

These people don't want secular government. They want theocracy. They like having their god in the Pledge and on the money. They are happy with tax breaks to churches and politicking from the pulpit. They want government functions to begin with Christian prayers. They are happy recriminalizing abortion because they believe that their god disapproves and expects them to compel the birth of unwanted babies.

They're authoritarian and want the Bible to be law (Christian nationalism). But you likely know all of that already, which is why I asked if your question was rhetorical.

At one time, and for over 200 years this freedom was honored in the schools and even our text books. Within the last 40 or so years, these freedoms were stripped from those who honor them.

Religion should never have entered the classroom. That it was allowed in was a violation of First Amendment, a mistake that was later corrected.

only one state is allowing this

Others have tried in the past and been corrected. This is the first state to test this current Supreme Court, and they have reason to be optimistic. Although they may surprise us, we should no longer expect the Court to represent unbelievers.

you somehow deem it something selfish.

Yes. These people want to impose their religion on people who want nothing to do with it. That makes them bad neighbors in my estimation. And it justifies an antitheistic attitude and activism until they are removed from government.

would you prefer to live in a blue state with people who are more so likeminded than those in Louisiana or would you prefer to live in Louisiana where certain ties have been dissolved, enabling them to pass the law?

I wouldn't live in Louisianna even before this new law. I prefer the company of liberal humanists (I include theistic humanists), which are scarcer there than in blue states.

But how is that relevant to this issue?

You mentioned the acts where people claim Christianity as false

I notice you declined to respond to my question about how you would feel seeing wall posters in school that represent the views of unbelievers, and I think I know why.

They are no longer subject to federally enforced denial of that states religious affiliation in the school systems per majority

Yes, they are, but that could change given this Court.

1 for Christianity, 49 for atheists

No, 1 only for Christians and 49 for all residents.

Prior to this law for the State of Louisiana, only Atheists were being acknowledged as credible and valid.

Removing religion from the classroom is not promoting atheism. Nor is it a statement about Christianity or any other religion.

I think it's about culture, the citizens, and the inclusion of religion as opposed to those who oppose religion.

Oppose religion? Louisianans already have all the religious freedom they can use. They're free to worship the god of their choice as they see fit. Christians there can pray, read their Bibles, wear crosses, put up Christman trees, and congregate in churches to sing hymns and hear sermons with like-minded people. Banning religious indoctrination in public schools does not diminish any of those freedoms

Yes, if you mine it and don’t take the whole of the message or if you become dogmatically religious about it.

Mine it? The whole message is "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you."

Maybe you're alluding to Jesus' contradiction, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." But the kids won't see that in school, just the "mined" Ten Commandments.

And it's not me being religiously dogmatic. The Ten Commandments ARE religious dogma. I'm discussing what they say.

You give honor where honor is due in as much as it is due.

I do, but the Commandment doesn't allow for that. As I said, they're commands, not requests. Of course, nobody can say definitively what honor means in this context, so there's wiggle room in the interpretation of what is actually being commanded, but whatever one decides that is, he is commanded to do it.

What's so striking to me about that is that it gets a spot on the top ten. I don't have any idea why it's prioritized over being kind, for example.

Likewise with the commandment against envying. Why is that there? Envy can be very constructive. You see something you like or admire and set out to make it yours as well. Maybe some of the kids in the Louisiana classrooms will want to grow up to be teachers or athletes because of somebody that they admire.

And with four Commandments devoted to worshiping the deity, that's six spots out of ten. The document isn't moral instruction. It's too flawed. It's religious indoctrination, and that's why you and others want it there - not to dissuade would-be murderers or liars, but to get to children when they're young - before they develop critical thinking skills to give them the impression that there is a god, and that it's the god of Abraham.

That's what putting prayer in school was for as well. And teaching creationism. The church wants to get to the young children that aren't being taught Christianity at home, being taken to churches, or enrolled in private religious schools, so it wants access to them through the public schools.

 

[fantome profane]

The New Testament doesn't involve itself with politics or even stations in life. It basically says that whatever condition you find yourself in, be content.

That is really funny, that slavery is "politics". I think slavery is "politics" exactly the same way murder or rape are "politics". And you are saying that the Bible says whatever condition you find yourself in "be content". Meaning if you find yourself a slave, be content in being a slave, but also if you find yourself a slave owner, be content being a slave owner. And if you find yourself being a rapist, be content being a rapist.

Very strange.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

1 for Christianity, 49 for atheists

No, 1 only for Christians and 49 for all residents

And there it is, 2 perspectives -- and the heart of the disagreement.

 

[Kathryn]

That is really funny, that slavery is "politics". I think slavery is "politics" exactly the same way murder or rape are "politics". And you are saying that the Bible says whatever condition you find yourself in "be content". Meaning if you find yourself a slave, be content in being a slave, but also if you find yourself a slave owner, be content being a slave owner. And if you find yourself being a rapist, be content being a rapist.

Very strange.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

 

[fantome profane]

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I'm sorry you feel that slavery is "politics" and religious spiritual leaders should not comment on it.

I'm sorry you feel the either slaves or slave owners should be content with the condition they find themselves in.

 

[Kathryn]

I'm sorry you feel that slavery is "politics" and religious spiritual leaders should not comment on it.

I do think that slavery can be very political but I have never said spiritual leaders should not comment on it.

 

[Copernicus]

I totally get what you're saying but I probably also couldn't afford to own a slave.

I admit that I've never been troubled by that concern, but there are certainly a great many Americans who would think it well within their means. Again, I am comforted by the thought that jail terms would be a greater deterrent than lack of means. Lots of folks probably own pets without thinking about the cost of maintaining them.