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

[lostwanderingsoul]

The first four "Commandments" are where the problem lies.

Does seeing the first four force you to accept any religion? That is the purpose of separation of church. No one is forced to accept any religion or belief. But just seeing something does not force you to accept it or agree with it. Some people would rather not see " you should not steal other people's property" but that does not stop them from stealing.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

We're not talking about secular, legal or philosophical rules. What we're objecting to are rules as part of a religious doctrine, presented as a classroom catechism.
Moreover, "giving" rules by writing them on a wall or poster is not the same as installing them as permanent behavioral traits, with full appreciation of their utility and ramifications.

So a teacher should not tell students that they should not steal other people's property? Maybe that is why there is so much crime today. Kids have not been told that it is wrong.

 

[shmogie]

Not really since it is quite common knowledge what the source of them is.

For one example, the Commandment to observe the Sabbath is really quite a give-away as to where it comes from, although most Christians don't keep the Sabbath anyway.

So, the establishment clause isn´t really about establishing a state religion, but rather, is about denying anything that could have have any relation to religion, though it has no religious meaning of itself ?

So, a rest day, is about establishing a religion, or not murdering, stealing, lying, respecting your parents, etc., etc, ?

All are forbidden in the class room, because we know where they came from ?

Of course, the first amendment does not say this at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does seeing the first four force you to accept any religion? That is the purpose of separation of church. No one is forced to accept any religion or belief. But just seeing something does not force you to accept it or agree with it. Some people would rather not see " you should not steal other people's property" but that does not stop them from stealing.

It does not matter whether it forces or not. Those foolish commandments make it a de facto state support of religion. That goes against the First Amendment making such actions illegal. One would have to allow for the laws of any religion to be posted. The laws of Islam, the precept of Budhdhism, Pastafarian Eight I Really Wish You Wouldn'ts, and perhaps even the work that the Hebrews plagiarized, the Code of Haruambi. The walls would be covered with codes and laws.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, the establishment clause isn´t really about establishing a state religion, but rather, is about denying anything that could have have any relation to religion, though it has no religious meaning of itself ?

So, a rest day, is about establishing a religion, or not murdering, stealing, lying, respecting your parents, etc., etc, ?

All are forbidden in the class room, because we know where they came from ?

Of course, the first amendment does not say this at all.

When one says that the reason for the rest day is to worship an imaginary friend it does cross that line.

 

[shmogie]

Does seeing the first four force you to accept any religion? That is the purpose of separation of church. No one is forced to accept any religion or belief. But just seeing something does not force you to accept it or agree with it. Some people would rather not see " you should not steal other people's property" but that does not stop them from stealing.

Please point out to me where the Constitution discusses separation of church ( and state). It isn´t in the first amendment,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please point out to me where the Constitution discusses separation of church ( and state). It isn´t in the first amendment,

Not in those words, but the writers of it made their meaning clear.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Please point out to me where the Constitution discusses separation of church ( and state). It isn´t in the first amendment,

The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a religion by government. The Ten Commandments are Judeo-Christian. The Ten Commandments specify monotheism and depending on which Ten Commandments are posted prohibits the use of images. The Ten Commandments say to keep the Sabbath holy. Which day is that again?

Concerning which Ten Commandments are to be posted, why not the full text of the ones in the Bible?. The problems is that the First Commandment makes it plain that it is all about Jews.

"I am the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."
Exodus 20:2

And then there is:
"Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee"
Exodus 20:11

Even picking which version of the Ten Commandments to use is establishing one religion over another.

 

[shmogie]

The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a religion by government. The Ten Commandments are Judeo-Christian. The Ten Commandments specify monotheism and depending on which Ten Commandments are posted prohibits the use of images. The Ten Commandments say to keep the Sabbath holy. Which day is that again?

Concerning which Ten Commandments are to be posted, why not the full text of the ones in the Bible?. The problems is that the First Commandment makes it plain that it is all about Jews.

"I am the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."
Exodus 20:2

And then there is:
"Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee"
Exodus 20:11

Even picking which version of the Ten Commandments to use is establishing one religion over another.

So, posting the ten commandments is establishing a state supported religion, as, say Britain has ?

Original intent is one approach to understanding the Constitution. What do you thing the intent of the Founders was in writing the first amendment ?

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

So, posting the ten commandments is establishing a state supported religion, as, say Britain has ?

Original intent is one approach to understanding the Constitution. What do you thing the intent of the Founders was in writing the first amendment ?

The intent was to avoid the horrors of state established religions that they saw in Europe, persecution of unfavored religions even to the point of attempted extermination of the practitioners. This is why the very first clauses in the very first item in the Bill of Rights prevents the establishment of a particular religion and guarantees the free exercise of religion.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

It does not matter whether it forces or not. Those foolish commandments make it a de facto state support of religion. That goes against the First Amendment making such actions illegal. One would have to allow for the laws of any religion to be posted. The laws of Islam, the precept of Budhdhism, Pastafarian Eight I Really Wish You Wouldn'ts, and perhaps even the work that the Hebrews plagiarized, the Code of Haruambi. The walls would be covered with codes and laws.

What is forbidden by the 1st amendment is forcing someone to accept a state sponsored religion. Seeing a sign on the wall does not force you to do this unless you are especially weak minded. Are you?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Please point out to me where the Constitution discusses separation of church ( and state). It isn´t in the first amendment,

It simplt says the government shall not endorse a state sponsired religion. It does not say there can be no mention of religion in any government building or property. The Congress and Supreme Court both open with prayers. No one is forced to accept any religious idea or state run religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is forbidden by the 1st amendment is forcing someone to accept a state sponsored religion. Seeing a sign on the wall does not force you to do this unless you are especially weak minded. Are you?

Wrong, it forbids a state sponsored religion which is what you are advocating for.

You do realize that this is an immoral act, don't you? Why support it?

 

[shmogie]

The intent was to avoid the horrors of state established religions that they saw in Europe, persecution of unfavored religions even to the point of attempted extermination of the practitioners. This is why the very first clauses in the very first item in the Bill of Rights prevents the establishment of a particular religion and guarantees the free exercise of religion.

The original intent was to deny the establishment of a STATE SPONSORED, and SUPPORTED RELIGION.

It was not to establish government denial of religion, and hostility toward it.

The free exercise of religion was, as you point out, guaranteed.

Having a Christmas tree or the ten commandments in a class room is not the establishment of a state supported religion.

 

[shmogie]

BTW, we have to remember that especially in the past and sometimes in the present the constitutional dictates are not always followed. Unless someone legally complains, they may stand for decades or even centuries. Let me give you a quick example.

At the library near the place we owned in the U.P., there was a large picture of Jesus hanging on the wall even up to about 10 years ago, but no other religious figure was shown as such. Eventually that picture was taken down, although I don't know what prompted that.

Same thing with Christian prayers before football games, for another example. If no one complains, even though they may be in violation, it may continue on indefinitely.

Do you find in the Constitution a reason why the picture of Christ should be taken down, or that pictures of notables of other religions should be posted ?

Are complaints the measure of what is Constitutional ?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Having a Christmas tree or the ten commandments in a class room is not the establishment of a state supported religion.

It is if it appears to favour one religion above others, as many feel it does.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The original intent was to deny the establishment of a STATE SPONSORED, and SUPPORTED RELIGION.

It was not to establish government denial of religion, and hostility toward it.

The free exercise of religion was, as you point out, guaranteed.

Having a Christmas tree or the ten commandments in a class room is not the establishment of a state supported religion.

First off prohibiting illicit religious displays is not hostility towards religion. Just because you can't shove your mythical beliefs down the throats of others does not mean that people are hostile to those beliefs. They may be "hostile" to illegal actions.


Second you are of course wrong about the Establishment Clause:

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia

'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." '

Written by Thomas Jefferson, one of the two main authors of the Bill of Rights.

That has been interpreted as a no government support of religion, which a display of only the Ten Commandments would be, in a government. This would only be allowed if multiple sources were allowed, not just Judeo-Christian ones. The Supreme Court building is an excellent examples of this. There are multiple law givers besides Moses.

I wonder how many here know what was supposedly on those stone tablets according to the Bible?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is if it appears to favour one religion above others, as many feel it does.

I find it ironic that none of the Christians here seem to know that the traditional Ten Commandments were not the ones that we see on monuments and other religious displays.


What Moses actually supposedly brought down according to the Bible was this:

"17 Don’t make metal images of gods.

18 Don’t fail to observe the Festival of Thin Bread in the month of Abib. Obey me and eat bread without yeast for seven days during Abib, because that is the month you left Egypt.

19 The first-born males of your families and of your flocks and herds belong to me.

20 You can save the life of a first-born donkey by sacrificing a lamb; if you don’t, you must break the donkey’s neck. You must save every first-born son.

Bring an offering every time you come to worship.

21 Do your work in six days and rest on the seventh day, even during the seasons for plowing and harvesting. 22 Celebrate the Harvest Festival each spring when you start harvesting your wheat, and celebrate the Festival of Shelters each autumn when you pick your fruit.

23 Your men must come to worship me three times a year, because I am the Lord God of Israel. 24 I will force the nations out of your land and enlarge your borders. Then no one will try to take your property when you come to worship me these three times each year.

25 When you sacrifice an animal on the altar, don’t offer bread made with yeast. And don’t save any part of the Passover meal for the next day.

26 I am the Lord your God, and you must bring the first part of your harvest to the place of worship.

Don’t boil a young goat in its mother’s milk."

Very few Christians would recognize those and since the last one amounts to a ban on cheeseburgers they probably would not be very interested in posting it on the wall.

 

[Valjean]

So a teacher should not tell students that they should not steal other people's property? Maybe that is why there is so much crime today. Kids have not been told that it is wrong.

No. Just telling a kid something or writing it on the board doesn't implant it very firmly. Kids get told "do this/don't do that" all day long and, as often as not, it goes in one ear and out the other.

If you want kids to learn the rules; to fully understand and appreciate them, you need to discuss them.
Ask the students their views on the subject. Have them explain their understandings of social rules; their intents, utility, &c. Have them discuss the consequences of ignoring them.
Engage them in a Socratic dialogue and you could have them pondering the subject for days, discussing it in the lunch room and on the playground. You'll also be teaching them valuable reasoning and analytic skills.

So, posting the ten commandments is establishing a state supported religion, as, say Britain has ?

Probably more like Massachusetts had -- where it was illegal not to belong to and be active in the church, or like the many regions that taxed residents to support a particular church, or required Sunday attendance without a good excuse.

Remember the Religious Wars? The Founding Fathers sure did. They knew what divisive horrors religious controversy could wreak; how easily impositions like the above could be fanned into a conflagration.

Original intent is one approach to understanding the Constitution. What do you thing the intent of the Founders was in writing the first amendment ?

Both the secularists and the religious supporters saw merit in a separation. Jefferson's contingent feared the church would contaminate the state, while Madison's feared the state would do the same to the church.

What is forbidden by the 1st amendment is forcing someone to accept a state sponsored religion. Seeing a sign on the wall does not force you to do this unless you are especially weak minded. Are you?

Kids can be acutely sensitive to small, divisive details. They're easily prejudiced against minority features or beliefs.
Writing "don't steal" on the board is one thing, but posting it in a religious context, as doctrine, invites judgement and division among classmates. Religious minorities can feel threatened, that there's something wrong with them, while those who are part of the creed can be prejudicing against the outliers.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-exercise-that-taught-kids-racism-by-teaching-them-t-1558075369

 

[Prestor John]

Why should they already know them?

Their parents should have taught them

Are they even important to most people today?

I can't speak for anyone, but they are important even if they don't believe them so.

How many people could actually recite them correctly?

I don't know.