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

[Valjean]

The only commandments that appear to apply universally are the injunctions against murder, adultery, stealing and bearing false witness. The first four seem just to declare the sovereignty of God and man's proper attitude toward Him.

Warning: Language.

 

[oldbadger]

I think it is the use as a symbol of religion in general and Christianity specifically.

Now I know that astute readers might point out that the Ten Commandments are also sacred to Judaism and Islam. However, in these cases it seems to ne Christians holding out the Ten Commandments as a symbol of their faith.

The rationale is that "oh no, it is a symbol of law." But let us be honest, is that truly why people are tryimg to post the Ten Commandments?

They're actually quite good commandments, and the fact that we have mostly ignored the whole lot for a long time does mitigate for them to be shown.

And you can add the two-dozen or so biblical poor-laws to them as well. If the world followed the OT poor-laws we wouldn't be in such a bad place now, with a tiny % holding most of the wealth, and young couples realising that they will never be able to buy a home in their lives.

Nah...... there are bigger (bad) issues to solve than trying to impress kids with good laws.

 

[Curious George]

They're actually quite good commandments, and the fact that we have mostly ignored the whole lot for a long time does mitigate for them to be shown.

And you can add the two-dozen or so biblical poor-laws to them as well. If the world followed the OT poor-laws we wouldn't be in such a bad place now, with a tiny % holding most of the wealth, and young couples realising that they will never be able to buy a home in their lives.

Nah...... there are bigger (bad) issues to solve than trying to impress kids with good laws.

Except we have instances of law that predate the existence of the Jewish religion. In fact we can find laws of all sorts if we want.

No, the poor laws of the Torah are just that. I don't think we should advocate slavery or inequality between the sexes. I think you are looking through rose colored glasses.

 

[oldbadger]

Except we have instances of law that predate the existence of the Jewish religion. In fact we can find laws of all sorts if we want.

Well if they're any good, dig 'em out and put them up.

No, the poor laws of the Torah are just that. I don't think we should advocate slavery or inequality between the sexes. I think you are looking through rose colored glasses.

The poor laws are fantastic!
You would embrace modern adaptations for sure.
The OT poor-laws don't deal with slavery, George.

 

[Curious George]

Well if they're any good, dig 'em out and put them up.

I already gave two examples earlier. But I don't think those were necessarily good codes of laws either. Law is important and older is not better.

The poor laws are fantastic!
You would embrace modern adaptations for sure.
The OT poor-laws don't deal with slavery, George.

Sure they do. Unless you think the slavery laws were good-laws.

 

[oldbadger]

I already gave two examples earlier. But I don't think those were necessarily good codes of laws either. Law is important and older is not better.

Sure they do. Unless you think the slavery laws were good-laws.

Think of it this way.
If you ruled your country, are there some bad laws that you would change, and some good laws that you would keep?

I don't think you would chuck the whole lot out because you found some bad ones, and you will find some bad ones.

Now the OT poor-laws are/were all good laws, and if adapted to our world would be a great blessing. We'll let you redact those slavery laws, George, and you could also do something about folks working long hours for little wages today as well, another kind of slavery.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Their parents should have taught them

.

Why?
Their parents probably did not know them themselves, nor consider them a priority.

Schools do not teach either religion or morals these days.
But if it was a choice, I think "Morals and ethics and social responsibility", would be my priority, for a compulsory module at every level of education.

 

[Kenny]

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

Actually, you are wrong,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, you are wrong,

Your error was explained to you. Look into the court cases in this. You will find that as usual you are wrong.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

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.

A Christmas tree is by Supreme Court ruling not a religious symbol. Obama had more Christmas trees in the White House than any other president. (Bill O'Reilly jokingly commented 'but they all face Mecca' ) Having the Ten Commandments in the classroom is giving state backing to one category of religion. And as I have shown, because there is more than one version, it will establish one religion over even similar ones as the preferred one. If multiple religious representations are to be used, first of all where do you stop? And is the symbol of atheism also going to be there?

 

[HonestJoe]

Could a teacher write " you should not kill other people or steal their property" on the classroom wall, would that be a problem? After all we have laws against murder and stealing. But if she writes " thou shalt not kil" and "thou shalt not steal" it is a problem? What is wrong with giving students rules to live by? Only those who are against religion in any form are against this. But the same rules apply to them. Even atheists are not allowed to steal and murder.

It’s obviously not the commandments against theft and murder that are an issue (and teachers are already free to refer to those principles in class already). The objection would mainly be about the commandments demanding we worship and honour the Christian God and no other.

 

[shmogie]

A Christmas tree is by Supreme Court ruling not a religious symbol. Obama had more Christmas trees in the White House than any other president. (Bill O'Reilly jokingly commented 'but they all face Mecca' ) Having the Ten Commandments in the classroom is giving state backing to one category of religion. And as I have shown, because there is more than one version, it will establish one religion over even similar ones as the preferred one. If multiple religious representations are to be used, first of all where do you stop? And is the symbol of atheism also going to be there?

I think you are showing the bias of the so called separation of church and state concept, which didn´t exist till the 1950ś.

The establishment clause says nothing about this. The original intent is perfectly clear the state cannot establish, incorporate, define, financially support appoint leaders, etc, etc. of a religion.

It says absolutely nothing about having to be equal in representing different religions

It says nothing about a school football team praying before a game on the school field, which isn´t the state establishing a state religion.

If a school in Michigan which is 90% Muslim is approved by itś board to post a quotation from the Koran, this is not establishing a state religion.

If the 10 commandments are posted, any student is free to ignore them. This is not the state establishing a religion.

The establishment clause has been totally abused. It is no longer about a state supported and sponsored religion, as the Founders meant in response to the state religion of Britain.

It is now about the complete and total absence of religion in any government entity, for any and all reasons.

The Constitution has been ignored and abused, and religious freedom has been restricted.

 

[Revoltingest]

The only commandments that appear to apply universally are the injunctions against murder, adultery, stealing and bearing false witness. The first four seem just to declare the sovereignty of God and man's proper attitude toward Him.

Warning: Language.

And even adultery can be moral.
Why do Christians want to post only these particular prescriptions &
proscriptions, some of which are absurdly inapplicable to non-Christians?
If they really believe that simple posting of "Dos & Don'ts" will cause
children to become citizens who honor them, then the list must be
greatly changed. Why exclude "Pay the rent" & "Support yourself"?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I think you are showing the bias of the so called separation of church and state concept, which didn´t exist till the 1950ś.

The establishment clause says nothing about this. The original intent is perfectly clear the state cannot establish, incorporate, define, financially support appoint leaders, etc, etc. of a religion.

It says absolutely nothing about having to be equal in representing different religions

It says nothing about a school football team praying before a game on the school field, which isn´t the state establishing a state religion.

If a school in Michigan which is 90% Muslim is approved by itś board to post a quotation from the Koran, this is not establishing a state religion.

If the 10 commandments are posted, any student is free to ignore them. This is not the state establishing a religion.

The establishment clause has been totally abused. It is no longer about a state supported and sponsored religion, as the Founders meant in response to the state religion of Britain.

It is now about the complete and total absence of religion in any government entity, for any and all reasons.

The Constitution has been ignored and abused, and religious freedom has been restricted.

The Constitution doesn't have to explicitly say "a school team may not be lewd in prayer by a teacher before a game" for something to be against the Constitution. Inferences may be drawn, interpretations may be made. That's what courts, particularly the Supreme Court, are for. They have ruled on this. Wish as hard as you like, make all the fallacious appeals to tradition you like, you're wrong. The Supreme Court makes decisions about such things, as the Constitution DOES explicitly say, and they have ruled against you.

 

[shmogie]

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.
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.
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.
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

The Constitution says what it says. It cannot be ignored because of reasons A, B , C etc.

It can be changed by the amendment process, not bastardized or ignored.

The establishment clause is about one thing, and one thing only, a state funded, supported, regulated,
religion.

Posting the ten commandments in a classroom is not establishing a state funded,supported, regulated religion.

There may be valid reasons why this isn´t worthwhile, but denying it based upon the first amendment is simply a hollow noise, and is not at all the original intent of the Founders.

This bastardization of the Constitution has morphed to insanity. There is a strident group, citing the first amendment, that wants all the headstones at Arlington national cemetery that show a cross, star of David, or Muslim moon, changed, because these symbols in a government cemetery are the establishment of religion.

In another case, a hundred year old monument to a towns dead of WW1, in the shape of a cross, is tied up in litigation, for the same reason.

The first amendment has been weaponized as never intended to attack religion, and any symbol of it. It was never intended to be hostile to religion.




The Founders must be spinning in their graves

 

[shmogie]

And even adultery can be moral.
Why do Christians want to post only these particular prescriptions &
proscriptions, some of which are absurdly inapplicable to non-Christians?
If they really believe that simple posting of "Dos & Don'ts" will cause
children to become citizens who honor them, then the list must be
greatly changed. Why exclude "Pay the rent" & "Support yourself"?

What difference does it make ?

We, as far as I am concerned, are talking about the first amendment.

Your observation about what Christians may or may not want to do and why is irrelevant.

Why do evolutionists insist that their charts used in schools show the magical first organism that burst into life from chemicals ? To this point, that organism is a fairy tale.

THe issue is the legality of the ten commandments being posted based upon the Constitution, not your particular beliefs about it.

 

[shmogie]

That t

The Constitution doesn't have to explicitly say "a school team may not be lewd in prayer by a teacher before a game" for something to be against the Constitution. Inferences may be drawn, interpretations may be made. That's what courts, particularly the Supreme Court, are for. They have ruled on this. Wish as hard as you like, make all the fallacious appeals to tradition you like, you're wrong. The Supreme Court makes decisions about such things, as the Constitution DOES explicitly say, and they have ruled against you.

That too is irrelevant. Supreme court decisions are overturned by later courts.

So, the entire issue could and probably will be revisited.

I find it interesting that rather than discussing the First amendment, and itś original intent, you choose to cover the issue with the glorious supreme court.

That is exactly what the slave owners did in the Dred Scott case

 

[Revoltingest]

What difference does it make ?
We, as far as I am concerned, are talking about the first amendment.

Others have brought up the efficacy of posting commandments for children to
ensure proper behavior. Efficacy is an issue....without it, why post them at all?

Your observation about what Christians may or may not want to do and why is irrelevant.

It speaks to motives.
Do they want the 10 Commandments posted because it's useful,
or because they want their religion made official, with signage
directed not just at themselves, but also at non-believers?

Why do evolutionists insist that their charts used in schools show the magical first organism that burst into life from chemicals ? To this point, that organism is a fairy tale.

Evolution is included in science, which is necessary to know.
It is testable & useful.
The 10 Commandments is religion, which matters only to adherents.
It is non-testable & based solely upon belief, ie, not useful.

THe issue is the legality of the ten commandments being posted based upon the Constitution, not your particular beliefs about it.

I agree.
But posting tenets of a single religion smacks of establishment.
It's unconstitutional IMO.
If they posted the tenets of all religions, that would be OK as
instruction in other cultures. But why bother...no one would
just start obeying posters with sayings, particularly if many
conflict with others.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That t

That too is irrelevant. Supreme court decisions are overturned by later courts.

So, the entire issue could and probably will be revisited.

I find it interesting that rather than discussing the First amendment, and itś original intent, you choose to cover the issue with the glorious supreme court.

That is exactly what the slave owners did in the Dred Scott case

Supreme Court decisions MAY be overturned. But until they ARE, they stand. So, again, you can wish that some future court will overturn it all you want, but until it ACTUALLY HAPPENS, the current Supreme Court ruling is the one that matters.

 

[Kenny]

Your error was explained to you. Look into the court cases in this. You will find that as usual you are wrong.

Au contraire...

You have simply adopted a 1962 erroneous attitude.

This is the exact meaning articulated by its own author, James Madison. After reviewing this same historical context of the Establishment Clause, Chief Justice Rehnquist concluded:

It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison’s thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion (Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985).

"I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way (“Madison Letter...,” 1773, emp. added)."

The Northwest Ordinance, passed by Congress in 1789, provided that “[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged” (1789, 1:52).

On the day after the House of Representatives voted to adopt the final version of the First Amendment Establishment Clause, Representative Elias Boudinot proposed a resolution asking the President to issue a Thanksgiving Day Proclamation to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God” (Annals of Congress, 1789, 1:949). This resolution was passed on September 25,

In 1782, the United States Congress passed the following resolution: "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."