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

[Kenny]

The prayer has nothing to do with how Congress is run. It is also voluntary. You need to study history a bit more

Au contraire… you need to study history a whole lot more.

 

[Debater Slayer]

If you don't live in Louisiana, how is this relevant to your day-to-day life? And before you say, "If it happens there, it can happen in my state," see my first bullet. If you live in one of the other nine Bible Belt states, yes, you have cause for concern. If you don't, then you've become outraged over something that doesn't affect you.

Does something have to affect a person in order for them to be concerned about it or find it objectionable? For instance, do I have to live in, say, Saudi Arabia in order to object to its highly theocratic laws that currently don't affect me at all?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Does something have to affect a person in order for them to be concerned about it or find it objectionable? For instance, do I have to live in, say, Saudi Arabia in order to object to its highly theocratic laws that currently don't affect me at all?

Your question doesn't reflect my view. You live in the country impacted. Most people that are outraged over the Louisiana law do not live in the state.

If you lived in Egypt, would you be concerned about the theocracy in Saudi Arabia?

You're also ignoring my second bullet entirely.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your question doesn't reflect my view. You live in the country impacted. Most people that are outraged over the Louisiana law do not live in the state.

It's normal & appropriate to be concerned about authorities
behaving wrongfully even when I'm not personally affected.

Should I tolerate cops murdering civilians just because I'm not the victim?
Should I stay silent about abortion just because I won't get pregnant?
Perhaps you don't care about what happens to others.
I do.
And I'll continue being noisy about it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Your question doesn't reflect my view. You live in the country impacted. Most people that are outraged over the Louisiana law do not live in the state.

If you lived in Egypt, would you be concerned about the theocracy in Saudi Arabia?

I no longer live in Saudi Arabia, but since I know that its laws negatively affect and curtail the rights of many people living there, I still find them objectionable.

My question is mainly focused on the notion that someone has to be affected by something in order to object to it (or to be outraged about it, depending on how one looks at the reaction). I don't see why one can't be outraged about unjust wars happening in other countries, for instance—or, for a less severe example, unjust laws in other countries or states.

You're also ignoring my second bullet entirely.

I think it's separate from my above question, but to address it either way: if the Ten Commandments are required by the state to be displayed in schools, then it seems to me that the state of Louisiana is giving Christianity preferential treatment over other religions whether or not people choose to look at or read the commandments.

Hypothetically, the US government could project an image of a Bible on the White House, and no one would be forced to look at it. I think it would still be a display of favoritism toward one religion and a violation of state neutrality toward religions, though.

 

[Kenny]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

​

What is it that YOU think the non-modern interpretation is it is saying?

It isn’t what I think… it was why it was written.

First, notice the glaring reality that it doesn’t state “separation of church and state” - That statement cannot be found except in one single letter from Thomas Jefferson written to a Baptist assemble in Connecticut. The position of “freedom from religion” instead of “freedom of religion” is a modern day imposition of thought on people. It was a direct effort to not let what happened in England - to make a national church thus the context of the letter was to assure the Baptist that they didn’t have to worry about the governmental forcing of one sect over another.

The purpose of the “Establishment Clause” is two-fold: (1) to prohibit Congress from imposing a national religion upon the people; and (2) to prohibit Congress (and the Federal government generally) from interfering with existing church-state relations in the several States. Thus the “Establishment Clause” is linked directly to the “Free Exercise Clause.” It was designed to promote religious freedom by forbidding Congress to prefer one religious sect over other religious sects. It was also intended, however, to assure each State that its reserved powers included the power to decide for itself, under its own constitution or bill of rights, what kind of relationship it wanted with religious denominations in the State. Hence the importance of the word “respecting”: Congress shall make no law “respecting,” that is, touching or dealing with, the subject of religious establishment on a national level.

The modern effort to “abridge” this freedom is contrary to the purpose of what was written.

If you check every State Constitution, you will find God in all of them. If the purpose of the Constitution was to have no religion, it would have forced every State to amend their Constitution.

Every State Constitution is proof that today’s interpretation is in error.

 

[Kenny]

So is slavery, misogamy and genocide but I'd rather not have any of those back either.

strawman arguments

 

[Quintessence]

• If you don't live in Louisiana, how is this relevant to your day-to-day life?

See:

Alito’s ‘Godliness’ Comment Echoes a Broader Christian Movement

Justice Samuel Alito’s secretly recorded remarks come as many conservatives have openly embraced the view that American democracy must be grounded in a Christian worldview.

www.nytimes.com

The long and short of it is, this is part of a broader effort to redefine the United States as a Christian theocracy. I may make light of it now because I genuinely find this absurd, but these are the same people that stripped basic human rights from half the population in this country.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I no longer live in Saudi Arabia, but since I know that its laws negatively affect and curtail the rights of many people living there, I still find them objectionable.

My question is mainly focused on the notion that someone has to be affected by something in order to object to it (or to be outraged about it, depending on how one looks at the reaction). I don't see why one can't be outraged about unjust wars happening in other countries, for instance—or, for a less severe example, unjust laws in other countries or states.

I apologize. I was under the impression you lived there, but it still doesn't negate my point about being impacted.

What productive comes of objecting to something or being outraged by something unless one actively does something to affect change? Seems to me to be a needless form of suffering. Empathy, I understand. Outrage, I do not.

I think it's separate from my above question, but to address it either way: if the Ten Commandments are required by the state to be displayed in schools, then it seems to me that the state of Louisiana is giving Christianity preferential treatment over other religions whether or not people choose to look at or read the commandments.

This is nothing new in the Bible Belt states.

Hypothetically, the US government could project an image of a Bible on the White House, and no one would be forced to look at it. I think it would still be a display of favoritism toward one religion and a violation of state neutrality toward religions, though.

The White House is not in the Bible Belt. You are, again, bullet-mining.

But since you bring it up, as recently as this past Christmas, there was a nativity scene displayed at the White House.

 

[wellwisher]

Do you say that because you think that Christian religion should be forced on everyone, including students? What would you say to the Hindu or polytheistic students who might be in classrooms and lecture halls in LA? That they should have known they've been wrong all along?

The Ten Commandments is Old Testament and came way before Christianity. However these basic principles still apply today. It is a way to help children and adult develops better social behavior. It is concise and not like a secular law stack that is confusing with legal double talk, bought with campaign donations; IRS loopholes.

The mirror religion of Atheism, by the default, has to prefer the opposite of the Ten Commandments such thou can steal in Liberal Cities. Instead, their commandment is more like thou shall not confront the thief who steals, or else. The Ten Commandments, by saying thou shall not steal, creates an uproar? It is like holy water around a vampire.

Maybe we can go through the Ten Commandments and see what the Vampires are afraid of. I can see how number 9 may not benefit the DNC and their entire Trump-centric campaign strategy before the election; mudsling and fake news gossip. Number 8 could make it harder to steal the election with scams or rip off the tax payer such as the $billion stolen from the COVID fund. Number 10 could potentially moderate the divisive discontent created by pitting rich versus poor; covet and resentment. The DNC would need to depend on good ideas and not stunts. Number 6 would reduce the number of liberal cult heroes on death row. It may also make some women second guess abortion. Number 4 will make harder for liberals to boycott businesses like Chick-fil-A, which does not work on Sunday; day of rest, due to the beliefs of the founder.

The first three commandment appears to be the hardest for the vampires to bear. Number 2 and making idols would effect marketing, since exaggerating the impact of goods and services is to create a false sense of reality; idol worship effect. The pet rock was a good example, of marketing used to make children think and act like a rock was alive. It is also about teen idols who become like mini gods in terms of worship; emulation and merchandizing.

Number 5 or honor your mother and father, would have prevented the DNC and their injustice system; bear false witness, from targeting parents so they could brain wash their children to make adult decisions that they are too immature to make. Minion recruitment would suffer if we teach the children to honor the wishes of their parents and not the perv teachers in a trench coat, fixated on alternate sex.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I apologize. I was under the impression you lived there, but it still doesn't negate my point about being impacted.

What productive comes of objecting to something or being outraged by something unless one actively does something to affect change? Seems to me to be a needless form of suffering. Empathy, I understand. Outrage, I do not.

Okay, is your contention against outrage in specific or concern in general? I agree that empathy and doing what one can to help, if anything, are much more effective than outrage, but I also know that outrage (even if not by itself) has historically motivated many people to productive action.

If we're talking about caring in general, my points still stand. If your issue is with outrage only, then I mostly agree.

This is nothing new in the Bible Belt states.

Yeah, but I don't see it as any less concerning. They're not exempt from the First Amendment, after all, nor are they exclusively Christian.

The White House is not in the Bible Belt. You are, again, bullet-mining.

See my point above; I never said it had to be, nor do I think that makes a difference here considering that all states are bound by the Constitution.

But since you bring it up, as recently as this past Christmas, there was a nativity scene displayed at the White House.

I believe a Christmas celebration is different because it has become a cultural rather than strictly religious staple at this point, but I think this is a topic that is perhaps best suited for a separate thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Au contraire… you need to study history a whole lot more.

No, the existence of a prayer session only shows that Congresspeople sometimes like to talk to themselves. That is about it. But you just make non-points that can be refuted by a simple "So what?" all too often. That is rather sad when it takes only two words to refute you.

 

[Revoltingest]

Every State Constitution is proof that today’s interpretation is in error.

It's not proof.
An alternative explanation is that references to God are
a vestige of Christianity's historical greater domination
of government.
Jefferson's statement shows original intent behind the
1st Amendment.
Perhaps you're OK with having scripture from your religion
being singularly posted on government property. But I
wonder why the need of Christians to infuse their religion
in all walks of life, & to exclude others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Ten Commandments is Old Testament and came way before Christianity. However these basic principles still apply today. It is a way to help children and adult develops better social behavior. It is concise and not like a secular law stack that is confusing with legal double talk, bought with campaign donations; IRS loopholes.

The mirror religion of Atheism, by the default, has to prefer the opposite of the Ten Commandments such thou can steal in Liberal Cities. Instead, their commandment is more like thou shall not confront the thief who steals, or else. The Ten Commandments, by saying thou shall not steal, creates an uproar? It is like holy water around a vampire.

Maybe we can go through the Ten Commandments and see what the Vampires are afraid of. I can see how number 9 may not benefit the DNC and their entire Trump-centric campaign strategy before the election; mudsling and fake news gossip. Number 8 could make it harder to steal the election with scams or rip off the tax payer such as the $billion stolen from the COVID fund. Number 10 could potentially moderate the divisive discontent created by pitting rich versus poor; covet and resentment. The DNC would need to depend on good ideas and not stunts. Number 6 would reduce the number of liberal cult heroes on death row. It may also make some women second guess abortion. Number 4 will make harder for liberals to boycott businesses like Chick-fil-A, which does not work on Sunday; day of rest, due to the beliefs of the founder.

The first three commandment appears to be the hardest for the vampires to bear. Number 2 and making idols would effect marketing, since exaggerating the impact of goods and services is to create a false sense of reality; idol worship effect. The pet rock was a good example, of marketing used to make children think and act like a rock was alive. It is also about teen idols who become like mini gods in terms of worship; emulation and merchandizing.

Those are not the Ten Commandments. Haven't you ever read the Bible?

 

[Revoltingest]

I apologize. I was under the impression you lived there, but it still doesn't negate my point about being impacted.

What productive comes of objecting to something or being outraged by something unless one actively does something to affect change? Seems to me to be a needless form of suffering. Empathy, I understand. Outrage, I do not.


This is nothing new in the Bible Belt states.


The White House is not in the Bible Belt. You are, again, bullet-mining.

But since you bring it up, as recently as this past Christmas, there was a nativity scene displayed at the White House.

I wonder about something....
You appear to object to posting about issues that
directly affect others, but not oneself. But these posts
don't affect you personally. Is this contradictory?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are you aware that you are giving a modern interpretation that doesn’t match what it says?

No, in fact the Baptists, who were viewed more unfavorably then, where huge proponents of keeping the State and Church separate so no one could ban their denomination. And that is how it was understood, that keep state and church separate maximizes liberty for all.
In addition the Treaty of Tripoli explicitly states the US was not founded upon the Christian religion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What productive comes of objecting to something or being outraged by something unless one actively does something to affect change? Seems to me to be a needless form of suffering. Empathy, I understand. Outrage, I do not.

Empathy is why I'm outraged over thr IDFs actions in Gaza. I can't do anything about it, but they're still people.

 

[McBell]

It isn’t what I think… it was why it was written.

First, notice the glaring reality that it doesn’t state “separation of church and state” - That statement cannot be found except in one single letter from Thomas Jefferson written to a Baptist assemble in Connecticut. The position of “freedom from religion” instead of “freedom of religion” is a modern day imposition of thought on people. It was a direct effort to not let what happened in England - to make a national church thus the context of the letter was to assure the Baptist that they didn’t have to worry about the governmental forcing of one sect over another.

The purpose of the “Establishment Clause” is two-fold: (1) to prohibit Congress from imposing a national religion upon the people; and (2) to prohibit Congress (and the Federal government generally) from interfering with existing church-state relations in the several States. Thus the “Establishment Clause” is linked directly to the “Free Exercise Clause.” It was designed to promote religious freedom by forbidding Congress to prefer one religious sect over other religious sects. It was also intended, however, to assure each State that its reserved powers included the power to decide for itself, under its own constitution or bill of rights, what kind of relationship it wanted with religious denominations in the State. Hence the importance of the word “respecting”: Congress shall make no law “respecting,” that is, touching or dealing with, the subject of religious establishment on a national level.

The modern effort to “abridge” this freedom is contrary to the purpose of what was written.

If you check every State Constitution, you will find God in all of them. If the purpose of the Constitution was to have no religion, it would have forced every State to amend their Constitution.

Every State Constitution is proof that today’s interpretation is in error.

That is certainly one way to look at it.
We will have to wait and see what SCOTUS decides.

 

[Revoltingest]

Empathy is why I'm outraged over thr IDFs actions in Gaza. I can't do anything about it, but they're still people.

90+% of RF discussions would disappear
were they limited to issues that only affected
us directly & personally.

It seems that lately we've several meta-discussions
about limiting discussion about other people's
troubles. So strange.
Perhaps it's a form of disagreeing about an issue
by curbing other views?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But I
wonder why the need of Christians to infuse their religion
in all walks of life, & to exclude others.

Because they don't take "be ye not of this world" seriously at all.