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

[Argentbear]

How come God doesn't condemn slavery? He doesn't involve Himself with it either way.

He makes laws about it. He chastises slaves that try to free themselves.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Where in the text of Bill of Right (not in headings and notes) can you find the actual words “Bill of Rights?"

And yet the Decalogue is mentioned by name in Supreme Court ruling over 330 times.

Oh, @Kenny, how typical. Duck and "oh look over there!"

Refusing to just answer a simple question by evasion is just as dishonest as telling an outright lie. Too bad you can't figure that out.

 

[Argentbear]

That's my point. I would suggest that if a body of people within a state wanted something like that in their own schools, they would put in the effort to get it done, which would equalize the playing field and set the stage for a truer freedom of religion in this nation. Atheist don't need to concern themselves with it, they are already honored across the board. The peaceful assembly would be in play for the state votes and also petitions would need to be made for the effort itself. If not, then Louisianna will remain the only state who chose this route. Florida is doing something similar. States gathering together those likeminded peaceably, like an assembly, in an effort to obtain greater freedom to practice their specified faiths or religions together and to have similar displays included in the school systems that best reflects the states citizen base.

Doing so woudl be establishing a state religion something specifically prohibited by the constitution

 

[Argentbear]

So, is everyone in this nation truly free to practice their faith? In work places? In restaurants? If not, this isn't true religious freedom. This is an absence of that truer freedom, but ... assemblies are protected by the constitution. Birds of a feather flock together after all. The point is we're guaranteed religious freedom, we have the right to assemble, and we have a right to a voice to make laws that we deem best fit to secure our happiness. What state will I assemble to? I mean if this actually takes place, I'll follow the flow of those who think most like myself.

You can practice your religion all you like but you don't have the right to make others practice your religion.

 

[Argentbear]

Nope, they cost on average $800 each in 1860 (that's about $25,000 to $30,000 in today's money) and then you needed to house them, feed them, offer them medical care, etc. I'd rather spend my money elsewhere. But you do you.

I hate slavery and I have good reason to. I'll just leave it at that for now.

Monetary Value of Slaves | Encyclopedia.com

Monetary Value of SlavesThe entire Southern economy before the Civil War was based on the labor and value of enslaved people of African descent. People of African descent were treated like chattel, property that could be bought and sold like livestock and other commodities that slave owners...

www.encyclopedia.com

that would have been for (I don't know how else to put it) top of the line slaves. the average slave or one over the age of 30 or under the age of say 15 would have been a fraction of that cost.

 

[Argentbear]

Where in the text of Bill of Right (not in headings and notes) can you find the actual words “Bill of Rights?"

And yet the Decalogue is mentioned by name in Supreme Court ruling over 330 times.

So what?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Where in the text of Bill of Right (not in headings and notes) can you find the actual words “Bill of Rights?"

And yet the Decalogue is mentioned by name in Supreme Court ruling over 330 times.

Oh, @Kenny, how typical. Duck and "oh look over there!"

Refusing to just answer a simple question by evasion is just as dishonest as telling an outright lie. Too bad you can't figure that out.

And even worse, you make one claim while completely ignoring the collary -- why would you mention how many times the Decalogue is mention in SCOTUS rulings, and not answer the same thing about the Bill of Rights?

Is such obfuscation and dishonesty something required of you in your religion?

 

[Balthazzar]

Louisiana did not choose it for their state.
The bill is nothing more than a test to see how the current SCOTUS will rule.

Nothing more than a test? How old are you? I question this because of the statement. You can't be serious.

 

[Balthazzar]

Doing so woudl be establishing a state religion something specifically prohibited by the constitution

It has already been passed. The law suits expected. There's a reason this is happening. I hope you're not one who thinks it's just a simple test. I'm also in favor of the law, but I'm not in favor of the same law being passed in every state. There's a reason for this too. This also is not a simple test. There's a reason for it.

 

[Balthazzar]

You can practice your religion all you like but you don't have the right to make others practice your religion.

Amen and amen! Thank God and thank God. Some people understand that mindset. Did I ever tell you my fail safe position is atheism? It is. There's a reason for that too.

 

[Kenny]

Oh, @Kenny, how typical. Duck and "oh look over there!"

Refusing to just answer a simple question by evasion is just as dishonest as telling an outright lie. Too bad you can't figure that out.

I didn’t know for sure… but if it was “none” - then my reply is very valid. For that matter, my statement is valid no matter what the answer is.

If the answer was “none” - was it because that I applied equality to the Bill of Rights that it messed you up?

 

[Kenny]

So what?

That would be my reply to Mr. humanist

 

[Kenny]

And even worse, you make one claim while completely ignoring the collary -- why would you mention how many times the Decalogue is mention in SCOTUS rulings, and not answer the same thing about the Bill of Rights?

Is such obfuscation and dishonesty something required of you in your religion?

Are you upset because you don’t like me to apply the same principle that you are using? Who then would be labelled as dishonest?

 

[McBell]

Nothing more than a test? How old are you? I question this because of the statement. You can't be serious.

The very wording is a rather strong indication.
You have actually read the actual bill, right?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I didn’t know for sure… but if it was “none” - then my reply is very valid. For that matter, my statement is valid no matter what the answer is.

If the answer was “none” - was it because that I applied equality to the Bill of Rights that it messed you up?

But you see, the answer is not "none." In the actual Biblical text, the phrase "the Ten Commandments" appears exactly once. You will find those words in Exodus 34:28 -- "And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments."

So, read the verses Exodus 34:1-28 and tell us if this is still "a legal document." And are you obeying it?

(Sorry, my version is KJV -- but it won't matter if you're using NIV or some other.)

 

[McBell]

It has already been passed. The law suits expected. There's a reason this is happening. I hope you're not one who thinks it's just a simple test. I'm also in favor of the law, but I'm not in favor of the same law being passed in every state. There's a reason for this too. This also is not a simple test. There's a reason for it.

The law suit is the purpose.
The reason it is happening is because the bill was written specifically to make it to the supreme court.
It is a simlpe test.
that is pi**** people off in the process is merely an added bonus.

 

[Kenny]

But you see, the answer is not "none." In the actual Biblical text, the phrase "the Ten Commandments" appears exactly once. You will find those words in Exodus 34:28 -- "And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments."

So, read the verses Exodus 34:1-28 and tell us if this is still "a legal document." And are you obeying it?

I know you aren’t ignorant of scripture and understanding what is and isn’t.

1) - Please keep this in context of what we are talking about
2) - ff we look at the 10 commandments, we can come to the conclusion that we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God

If you want to change the subject

What do you understand about wills and testaments - what does it mean and when does it go into effect?
What has precedent, the first will and testament or the last?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I know you aren’t ignorant of scripture and understanding what is and isn’t.

1) - Please keep this in context of what we are talking about
2) - ff we look at the 10 commandments, we can come to the conclusion that we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God

If you want to change the subject

What do you understand about wills and testaments - what does it mean and when does it go into effect?
What has precedent, the first will and testament or the last?

And......once again you try to change the topic. I asked you to nothing more difficult (especially for a religious Christian like yourself) to read just 28 verses of the Bible -- and you're off on wills and testaments?

***STAFF EDIT***

 

[Kenny]

And......once again you try to change the topic. I asked you to nothing more difficult (especially for a religious Christian like yourself) to read just 28 verses of the Bible -- and you're off on wills and testaments?

***STAFF EDIT***

You are too funny. Open a new thread if you want to talk Bible. Otherwise, be true to yourself and stick to the subject matter. When you attack a poster, it shows that you aren’t standing on firm ground.

 

[Kathryn]

that would have been for (I don't know how else to put it) top of the line slaves. the average slave or one over the age of 30 or under the age of say 15 would have been a fraction of that cost.

Nope, that;s the average price per the link I gave. I just googled "average price of a slave in 1860."