"Texas State Rep. Files Bill to Let Teachers Post Ten Commandments in Classrooms"

[Evangelicalhumanist]

EXACTLY!

The Ten Commandments don't FORCE religion on anyone! Thank you for helping the cause!

Then why the urgent desire to have them prominently displayed in EVERYONE's public spaces, dedicated to EVERYONE -- like courts, legislatures and schools?

 

[shmogie]

Incorrect. In 1802, Thomas Jefferson (while he was President BTW) wrote about “that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State”. Ref.



And posting the tenets of one particular religion, one very specific religion depending on which version of the Ten Commandments is used: Jewish, Catholic or Protestant, is to establish a particular religion.



It is impossible to represent all religions. Would atheism be represented? Satanism? Paganism? Santeria? You know perfectly well that there would even be an argument about posting the ‘idolatrous’ Catholic Ten Commandments.



Nobody said football teams cannot pray. In this article you will see that it still goes on. It is things like the pastor preaching a specific religion to a public high school team with the team required to pray with him that is not allowed.



Please provide a source for this. I am aware of a great many instances of the subject of Islam being involved with school studies, some seriously misrepresented. But I am not aware of this one.


Of course, it is. It is the state saying that this very specific religious representation is part of the education the student is to receive. What other reason would there be for posting the Ten Commandments?



The establishment clause was not about a state religion in Britain. It was about state sponsored or approved oppression of ‘unapproved’ religions, involving loss of employment, confiscation of property, and even death, often by torture. It was not restricted to Britain or even Europe but came over with immigrants. Check it out The First Amendment was intended to present that from continuing by, as Jefferson put it, building a wall between Church and State.

The Constitution has been honored. To too many people, religious freedom means the freedom to make everyone follow my religion.

Thomas Jefferson was using concepts and words with a totally different meaning today.

He meant exactly what the establishment cause states, that the state cannot establish and support a specific specific religion,as a government religion. The state is to have hands off as relates to the church and practice of religion, that is the purpose of the wall.

I suggest you look up some of the cases to be found under the title of "accomodationist".

There you will find that there is a raging war between the anti religion idea of the state, and a different view, it is far from over.

Doesn't the obliteration of religion in any way shape or form in the schools, establish atheism as the official government belief ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your reference for that statement? (trusted -- of course) or are you mining someone else unsupported statement.

Seriously, you did not know that?

This is far from a perfect source, but it does lay out the basic facts for you:

Why do many historians believe Moses was fictional but believe Jesus was historical? : AskHistorians

And another article:

Leading archaeologist says Old testament storeis are fiction

And a nice Wiki article:

Moses - Wikipedia

If you want a quick summary claims of the Moses story would have left evidence. That evidence is totally lacking. This a case where an event should have left evidence and there is none, that is evidence against the events occurring.

 

[columbus]

I look up the words and their definition in those languages. Latin is a dead language but you can still study it.

Latin?
You think Moses spoke Latin?

Oh wait, what you meant must be "The people who translated the Original Testament the way I want it translated must be from God!
God wouldn't disagree with me."
Is that about right?
Tom

 

[Curious George]

Doesn't the obliteration of religion in any way shape or form in the schools, establish atheism as the official government belief ?

No. It establishes secularism. Athiesm is the belief that god does not exist. Removing gods from government agencies does not establish a belief that god does not exist or even a belief that god might not exist. It establishes a belief that the government will remove itself from such notions.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Please, are you so weak that you cannot follow the Constitution?

Try again without the personal attacks.

Nothing personal but only a weak minded person would feel intimidted by seeing some religious symbol. As they say, if the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[Kenny]

Then why the urgent desire to have them prominently displayed in EVERYONE's public spaces, dedicated to EVERYONE -- like courts, legislatures and schools?

Because someone all of a sudden said that which has been displayed for over 200 years now says "you can't do that", contrary to the Constitution. err.... I mean Bill of Rights

It is already in courts and legislatures and use to be in schools, are there all of a sudden certain places that are now anti-religious zones?

It is an infringement on the rights that have been established.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

THAT was the purpose of the law! Modern day and biased Supreme Court nominees changed it on purpose

You will have to explain what was changed. There is no established religion in the U. S. But that does not mean religious symbols cannot be displayed. No one is forced to accept any certain religion.

 

[Kenny]

You will have to explain what was changed. There is no established religion in the U. S. But that does not mean religious symbols cannot be displayed. No one is forced to accept any certain religion.

You must have misunderstood. I would saying you are correct. Religious symbols, including the Ten Commandments, is not forcing anyone into a certain religion. It isn't establishing a religion. What has changed is that now government isn't neutral but anti-religious.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

You must have misunderstood. I would saying you are correct. Religious symbols, including the Ten Commandments, is not forcing anyone into a certain religion. It isn't establishing a religion. What has changed is that now government isn't neutral but anti-religious.

Sorry. I did not understand. You are 100% correct. The government is actually encouraging and supporting atheism. This is just as wrong as if they supported any other church or belief system. The constitution does not ban religion but only the "establishing" of one particular religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing personal but only a weak minded person would feel intimidted by seeing some religious symbol. As they say, if the shoe fits, wear it.

This is again a false accusation. It is dishonest. You have to demonstrate that people are intimidated. You cannot support that claim. You are whether you realize it or not breaking the Commandment against bearing false witness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry. I did not understand. You are 100% correct. The government is actually encouraging and supporting atheism. This is just as wrong as if they supported any other church or belief system. The constitution does not ban religion but only the "establishing" of one particular religion.

Where and how have they done that? Please be specific.

EDIT: You appear to be making a false dichotomy. Not supporting your particular religious beliefs is not supporting atheism.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Thomas Jefferson was using concepts and words with a totally different meaning today.

He meant exactly what the establishment cause states, that the state cannot establish and support a specific religion,as a government religion. The state is to have hands off as relates to the church and practice of religion, that is the purpose of the wall.

Posting the Ten Commandments in a public school some specific form of the Ten Commandments that relates to a specific religion as I have repeatedly noted, with the obvious intent that this is part of their education IS the establishment of a particular religion.

BTW could you explain which of the words in “building a wall of separation between Church & State” have a different meaning today? ‘Wall of separation’ strikes me as being very clear now and then.

I suggest you look up some of the cases to be found under the title of "accomodationist".

There you will find that there is a raging war between the anti religion idea of the state, and a different view, it is far from over.

Doesn't the obliteration of religion in any way shape or form in the schools, establish atheism as the official government belief ?

I am familiar with accommodationist principles, that it is not considered unconstitutional to offer finances, services or whatever to religious organizations as long as these same services are available to anyone, or that in fact they do not involve the provision of significant services.

There have been many such accommodationist decisions coming down from courts that favor the religious organizations. Other cases have not. The landmark Lemon vs Kurtzman case ruled that paying the salaries of teachers in Catholic schools who taught secular subjects with state provided secular materials was not allowed. The reason for this was that religion is so inherent to education in Catholic schools that it would be necessary to continually monitor the teaching, an unreasonable requirement. Having gone to Catholic school I can tell you that religion is always front and center no matter what class is being taught.

In the accommodationist cases, the fact that an organization is religious was irrelevant to the services. Posting the Ten Commandments (and again which version?) in a public school is not accommodationist. It is favoring one particular religion. The religious content of the posting is not irrelevant, otherwise there would be no reason for posting it.

The courts are not waging any war on religion. They are enforcing the Constitution, neither establishing nor prohibiting, no more and no less. Sometimes it goes one way and sometimes another. That is why there are courts, to decide.

So which version of the Ten Commandments do you want in public schools? Please answer that before going any further.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You must have misunderstood. I would saying you are correct. Religious symbols, including the Ten Commandments, is not forcing anyone into a certain religion. It isn't establishing a religion. What has changed is that now government isn't neutral but anti-religious.

A religiously neutral government wouldn't have religious symbols on government property, but would allow them on private property. An anti religious government would also remove them from private property.
The problem here is some Christians are viewing the change from Christian favoritism to religiously neutral secularism as oppression.

Personally, I don't care about the statues. They are symptomatic and not the cause of the US' particular issues with evangelical overreach. Much of the UK and Europe has religious iconography everywhere and still reached key civil rights battles such as interracial marriage, womens rights and gay rights long before the US. And has much less anti-science evolution denial and global climate change denial than the US, a product of the evangelical right.

So, in short, the ten commandments shouldn't be there any more than the middle way or the four paths or the satanic verses. But ultimately it's low on my radar of problems.

 

[Kenny]

Latin?
You think Moses spoke Latin?

Oh wait, what you meant must be "The people who translated the Original Testament the way I want it translated must be from God!
God wouldn't disagree with me."
Is that about right?
Tom

You must have not read the context

And, no, the Hebrew people did not translate it the want it to be translated. but if you want to believe that, you are a free-will spiritual agent on this earth.

 

[Shaul]

If they do post them I hope they are in Hebrew.

So will these schools be keeping the Sabbath and not have any activities on Saturdays? Just asking.

 

[Kenny]

If they do post them I hope they are in Hebrew.

So will these schools be keeping the Sabbath and not have any activities on Saturdays? Just asking.

We are just posting... we aren't forcing people into a religion.

 

[Kenny]

A religiously neutral government wouldn't have religious symbols on government property, but would allow them on private property. An anti religious government would also remove them from private property.
The problem here is some Christians are viewing the change from Christian favoritism to religiously neutral secularism as oppression.

Personally, I don't care about the statues. They are symptomatic and not the cause of the US' particular issues with evangelical overreach. Much of the UK and Europe has religious iconography everywhere and still reached key civil rights battles such as interracial marriage, womens rights and gay rights long before the US. And has much less anti-science evolution denial and global climate change denial than the US, a product of the evangelical right.

So, in short, the ten commandments shouldn't be there any more than the middle way or the four paths or the satanic verses. But ultimately it's low on my radar of problems.

respect your POV

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

This is again a false accusation. It is dishonest. You have to demonstrate that people are intimidated. You cannot support that claim. You are whether you realize it or not breaking the Commandment against bearing false witness.

Maybe you should demonstrate how atheists or anyone else is harmed by seeing some religious symbol. If you are not harmed by it then why all the fuss? You are not forced to accept any state sponsored religion because there is none. And that is what the Constitution promises.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Where and how have they done that? Please be specific.

EDIT: You appear to be making a false dichotomy. Not supporting your particular religious beliefs is not supporting atheism.

Simple. Religious people would like to be able to display religious symbols such as crosses or Stars of David. Atheists do not want these symbols displayed. When the government agrees with atheists and does not allow such displays they are supporting the atheist view and not the religious view.