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

[Revoltingest]

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

I notice that biblical scripture is much like
a Chinese restaurant menu. Pick one from
column A, one from column B, & so on.
Whatever anyone wants to believe, the
Bible offers justification.

 

[Kenny]

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.

Can you please substantiate your interpretation? As it stands, even the way you are saying it, supports what I just said.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

Even if it is, when the two are separate were all far and incomparably better off so good riddance. We got rid of slavery (mostly), it's high time to do away with other divisive elements in society.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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?

Did you miss that someone asked me a question about what I said?

 

[Revoltingest]

Did you miss that someone asked me a question about what I said?

Possibly.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Can you please substantiate your interpretation? As it stands, even the way you are saying it, supports what I just said.

Not really. What I'm saying is in line with idea that America is a nation of predominantly Christians but is not a Christian Nation itself.

Baptists in the history of separation of church and state - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Originally, Baptists supported separation of church and state in England and America.[1][2] Some important Baptist figures in the struggle were John Smyth, Thomas Helwys, Edward Wightman, Leonard Busher, Roger Williams (who was a Baptist for a short period but became a "Seeker"), John Clarke, Isaac Backus, and John Leland.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not surprising, but weird. And very much an attack on the separation between church and state.

Which is doubtlessly the point.

 

[F1fan]

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.

Well then if religion wants a say in politics lets start taxing them.

If they want independence and non-profit status, they need to mind their own business from anything the government does, and let freedom from religion be as important as freedom of religion.

 

[Pogo]

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

like slavery, just because it was done doesn't make it good in French or English.

 

[Kathryn]

The Ten Commandments
I AM the LORD thy God.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images.
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.
​

This is the precise required wording as commanded by the Bill itself

So, the Protestant version, in a state that has parishes instead of counties. Alrighty then.

 

[fantome profane]

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

It is such a lucky thing that no one is giving a modern interpretation to the Ten Commandments.


My modern interpretation is that freedom of religion is incompatible with the government imposing religion on people. That is just true regardless of what any secular or religious document says.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Try again.
Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

History matters enough to document. Freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly separate from the larger operations of government ... This appears to be the motivating factor in the decision to require the display of certain historical documents that inevitably helped shape our nation.

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!

 

[Argentbear]

I just heard this on NPR and looked to see if anyone posted about it. Looks like we have seven pages worth of posts (most of which I didn't read), so I guess I'm late to the party.

A couple of thoughts on this. Take them for what they are...

• Louisiana is a Bible Belt state, so something like this occurring is not surprising or unexpected.
• No one is forcing you or your child to look at this and read it, let alone believe it.
• 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.
• The ACLU and other civil rights group are already on this like white on rice.

This is kind of like saying that people never had a reason to be concerned about lynching. Lynching was something that primarily happened in Bible Belt states and if you don't live in one of those states you don't have much of a reason to be upset about it and even if you did live in one of those states no one is forcing you to participate in lynchings

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

Oh, yes, just command the world's 1.2 billion Hindus to drop all those deities they worship ("thou shalt have no other god's before me"). That sounds fair -- shouldn't bother them a bit, any more than you would be bothered by being commanded to drop Jesus from your worship list.

 

[Kenny]

It's not proof.

That is hardly a refutation of what I said.

An alternative explanation is that references to God are
a vestige of Christianity's historical greater domination
of government.

creative.

Jefferson's statement shows original intent behind the
1st Amendment.

No and yes

Jefferson’s Wall of Separation Letter – The U.S. Constitution Online – USConstitution.net - U.S. Constitution.net

Jefferson’s Wall of Separation Letter Thomas Jefferson was a man of deep religious conviction — his conviction was that religion was a very personal matter, one which the government had no business getting involved in. He was vilified by his political opponents for his role in the passage of the...

www.usconstitution.net

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.

I wonder why it bothers you so much. It is historical.

 

[Pogo]

Can you please substantiate your interpretation? As it stands, even the way you are saying it, supports what I just said.

The puritans too. Just because they were Christian didn't mean they wanted religion entangled with the state.

How did the Puritans view politics?
Even though they believed that the primary purpose of government was to punish breaches of God's laws, few people were as committed as the Puritans to the separation of church and state. Not only did they reject the idea of establishing a system of church courts, they also forbade ministers from holding public office.

 

[Kenny]

Even if it is, when the two are separate were all far and incomparably better off so good riddance. We got rid of slavery (mostly), it's high time to do away with other divisive elements in society.

Slavery isn’t in the Constitution. Where are you going with this?

 

[Kenny]

like slavery, just because it was done doesn't make it good in French or English.

Slavery isn’t in the Constitution. Where are you going with this?

 

[Argentbear]

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.

Sorry but the due process clause makes the bill of rights something that individual states have to adhere to. So, no individual states cannot set up state religions