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

[Subduction Zone]

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.

There is no need. The fact is that what is being propose is illegal. That is good enough. You are shifting the burden of proof. That is a tactic that someone often uses when he is in the wrong.

And you may not realize but your myths are harmful to many members of your church. But that is a separate topic.

 

[Curious George]

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.

That is not the case. The government is supporting secularism which happens to be in concert with most atheist's views. There are plenty of atheists out there that would love anti-religion stuff posted but I would be against that as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

That is not the case. This sort of display would be legal if it was open to all religious beliefs. It is not. It is therefore clearly illegal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not the case. The government is supporting secularism which happens to be in concert with most atheist's views. There are plenty of atheists out there that would love anti-religion stuff posted but I would be against that as well.

Rather amazing that those whose religious excesses are being curtailed cannot see that taking away their illegal special privileges is not bias in favor of atheism.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Rather amazing that those whose religious excesses are being curtailed cannot see that taking away their illegal special privileges is not bias in favor of atheism.

Very twisted logic. If the choices are to allow religious symbols or not allow religious symbols then not allowing them clearly favors atheists who are the ones who do not want religious symbols. And there are no special privileges. The constitution simply bans a government sponsored religion, it does not ban religion entirely.

 

[Curious George]

Very twisted logic. If the choices are to allow religious symbols or not allow religious symbols then not allowing them clearly favors atheists who are the ones who do not want religious symbols. And there are no special privileges. The constitution simply bans a government sponsored religion, it does not ban religion entirely.

This is not an athiest vs christian argument. This is a secular vs. Non-secular argument. You see two sides and and because many atheists are on one side you flock to the opposite side.

Address the actual arguments. Children are a uniquely impressionable audience. Schools are places where the audience is captive. Creating a law that is specifically for one religion or one branch of religion does show favoritism. Govenment favoring one religion or one type of religion over others does qualify as establishimg a religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Very twisted logic. If the choices are to allow religious symbols or not allow religious symbols then not allowing them clearly favors atheists who are the ones who do not want religious symbols. And there are no special privileges. The constitution simply bans a government sponsored religion, it does not ban religion entirely.

Wrong again. Your religious symbols will be different from those of other religions. If a display is not open to all it has to be closed to all. Not allowing those on your side to break the law is not supporting atheists.

Don't make false accusations about the logic of others when you can't seem to reason properly yourself.

 

[oldbadger]

I am not suggesting there was anything of legal value there.

I am, and many of those laws are repeated in our legislations.
Would you like some examples?
Here's one.... a small one but a brilliant one.
All flat roofs must be fitted with parapets! (Deut. 22:8)
That is a law in the UK!!

I am suggesting that the good ideas are already fpumd elsewhere.

Yeah?
Where?
Have you ever seen that one before anywhere else?
All flat roofs must be fitted with parapets! (Deut. 22:8)

I wouldn't abandon an idea simply because that idea was found in the bible. I do not think the ideas of value in the bible redeem the other parts.

In which case you probably won't think that anything is of value, George, because mankind does seem to include some junk with the good.
You'll just be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, then.

 

[Curious George]

I am, and many of those laws are repeated in our legislations.
Would you like some examples?

that was supposed to say wasn't, but good habit prevented me from writing the double negative leading to poor communication on my part.

Here's one.... a small one but a brilliant one.
All flat roofs must be fitted with parapets! (Deut. 22:8)
That is a law in the UK!!


Yeah?
Where?
Have you ever seen that one before anywhere else?
All flat roofs must be fitted with parapets! (Deut. 22:8)

Prior to the bible? Nowhere. However we have much better building codes now... And have for some time.

In which case you probably won't think that anything is of value, George, because mankind does seem to include some junk with the good.
You'll just be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, then.

No, i just see no reason to post the bad.

 

[wellwisher]

Posting the Ten Commandments would be a good thing for the students. However, the Progressives will not like this, since they, through education and various leftwing media and Hollywood propaganda, teach a social philosophy that breaks these commandments.

The posting of the Ten Commandment will cause problems for the future Progressive indoctrination of students, since these commandments create conflicting messages, compared to the indoctrination, that will lead to discussions, that can now be avoided. Allowing the students to think is dangerous to the left.

 

[Twilight Hue]

BURN IT DOWN! I TELL YOU!!! REVOLUCIOOOOOOOOON! That's Spanish for revolution!

View attachment 25949

Christian certainly do like redecorating what they touch. ;0]

 

[Twilight Hue]

That is not the case. The government is supporting secularism which happens to be in concert with most atheist's views. There are plenty of atheists out there that would love anti-religion stuff posted but I would be against that as well.

Are there cases where that has actually happened?

 

[Kenny]

Are there cases where that has actually happened?

Absolutely!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Absolutely!

I'm not aware of anything like that.

 

[HonestJoe]

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.

This isn’t a proposal to allow display of religious symbols in schools, it’s a proposal to specifically allow only the Ten Commandments. It implicitly supports the existing restrictions on any and all other religious symbols. If this was really about religious freedom, why would it be so restricted?

Even regarding a general removal of the restriction, far from all religious people will what the display of religious symbols in schools (certainly not other religions’ and maybe not even their own) and not all atheists specifically object (plus some atheists are religious too ). And if there was a removal of the restriction for all religions, I’ve no doubt the Christians currently pushing the Ten Commandments would be front-and-centre of the protests when the crescent moons and inverted crosses started going up.

 

[Kenny]

I'm not aware of anything like that.

Just off the top on my brain, is there a possibility that there is a Creator and He was the one who first started Creation?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Just off the top on my brain, is there a possibility that there is a Creator and He was the one who first started Creation?

How does that apply to the government supporting secularism?

 

[Curious George]

Are there cases where that has actually happened?

Many

 

[Woberts]

It's things like this that make me wish that there was a religious test for someone entering office. Or rather, an irreligious test. You don't see atheists trying to destroy the foundations upon which America stands, something that Christians claim to value. Their actions prove this as a blatant lie.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

This is not an athiest vs christian argument. This is a secular vs. Non-secular argument. You see two sides and and because many atheists are on one side you flock to the opposite side.

Address the actual arguments. Children are a uniquely impressionable audience. Schools are places where the audience is captive. Creating a law that is specifically for one religion or one branch of religion does show favoritism. Govenment favoring one religion or one type of religion over others does qualify as establishimg a religion.

You better read the dictionary on what establishment means.