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

[Kenny]

Supreme Court decisions CFAN 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.

That is true... however, it also stands that Supreme Court didn't follow precedent which translates into unjust interpretations.

 

[Curious George]

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.

I am not suggesting there was[n't] anything of legal value there. I am suggesting that the good ideas are already fpumd elsewhere. 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.

EDIT []

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

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?

I think you need to read it closer. A state sponsed religion means the government picks one specific religion and requires everyone to accept that religion. Writing something on a wall does not support one specific religion and no one is required to accept it or believe it.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

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.

But the kids are not forced to follow any of the rules. Many go out and steal another kid's lunch money. No one is forced to believe in any god or religion. They are really just suggestions or ideas for discussion.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That is true... however, it also stands that Supreme Court didn't follow precedent which translates into unjust interpretations.

Under your system, whatever the Supreme Court says is deemed to be "just", or, at least, the law of the land. Again, you can complain about it all you like and wish it were otherwise all you want, but until such time as the SCUSA reverses previous decisions about this stuff, the law is clear, whether @shmogie likes it or not.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I think you need to read it closer. A state sponsed religion means the government picks one specific religion and requires everyone to accept that religion. Writing something on a wall does not support one specific religion and no one is required to accept it or believe it.

Supreme Court says otherwise.

 

[HonestJoe]

But the kids are not forced to follow any of the rules. Many go out and steal another kid's lunch money. No one is forced to believe in any god or religion. They are really just suggestions or ideas for discussion.

Thou shalt not bare false witness.

The proposal (as with others like it) to “allow” teachers to put up the Ten Commandments (and that along) has nothing to with “ideas for discussion” or “suggestions”, it’s about imposing a specific religious culture in the school environment. If it was about generally promoting ideas and discussion, why is it limited to a single extract from a single religion (and a single version of it at that)?

The fact is that discussion of the Ten Commandments is already permitted within the context of religious studies classes anyway. Of course in that context, I’m sure the supporters would object to actual discussion as it would include questioning and challenging the commandments and the religious principles behind them.

 

[metis]

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 ?

According to the SCOTUS, either or, and our case here where I live is what led to that decision, which has since been verified through other decisions, including the lower federal courts. Without a Constitutional Amendment, it's likely to remain a done deal, namely to be inclusive or exclusive.

Are complaints the measure of what is Constitutional ?

I already covered that, and the answer is no.

 

[Kenny]

Under your system, whatever the Supreme Court says is deemed to be "just", or, at least, the law of the land. Again, you can complain about it all you like and wish it were otherwise all you want, but until such time as the SCUSA reverses previous decisions about this stuff, the law is clear, whether @shmogie likes it or not.

I agree totally. Interestingly enough, will it be the same if they shoot down Roe vs Wade?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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."

Wrong again. Even if your last claim is true you are still astoundingly wrong. Any student of history would laugh at you. The constitution was written in 1887. Do you need a source? Earlier I did quote and source Thomas Jefferson, the other main author, and that quote showed you were wrong about your claim on the constitution.

try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree totally. Interestingly enough, will it be the same if they shoot down Roe vs Wade?

Yes, but that is highly unlikely.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I agree totally. Interestingly enough, will it be the same if they shoot down Roe vs Wade?

As I understand your system, yes.

IF.

But in eithercase, not counting chickens prematurely is my point here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you need to read it closer. A state sponsed religion means the government picks one specific religion and requires everyone to accept that religion. Writing something on a wall does not support one specific religion and no one is required to accept it or believe it.

Another poster that cannot study history of precedent.

Tell me, why are you in favor of this immoral act? Do you realize that the "Ten Commandments" people want to put up are not the " Ten Commandments " that Moses brought down from the mountain in the myth?

 

[Kenny]

Wrong again. Even if your last claim is true you are still astoundingly wrong. Any student of history would laugh at you. The constitution was written in 1887. Do you need a source? Earlier I did quote and source Thomas Jefferson, the other main author, and that quote showed you were wrong about your claim on the constitution.

try again.

You have to do better than just "I said so". I quoted.

 

[Kenny]

As I understand your system, yes.

IF.

But in eithercase, not counting chickens prematurely is my point here.

never had...

 

[columbus]

Let me point out something.
The First Commandment clearly prohibits Christianity.

Anybody who thinks that Moses was a trinitarian is delusional.
Tom
ETA ~In the modern world, conservative Sunni Islam is probably the closest thing to Moses' 1st Commandment that still exists.~

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have to do better than just "I said so". I quoted.

You supposedly quoted. I earlier quoted and linked Thomas Jefferson's work. Quotes without sources are worthless, especially when done by one with a history of quote mining. The quote is in this thread. Go find it.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Do you even know what establishing a religion means? England has an official national religion called the Church of England. For many Arab countries the official religion is Muslim. The United States does not have an official religion. All religions are welcome. Putting a cross or Star of David or Ten Commandments on a government building does not force anyone to accept any religion. No religion is "established". Are you so weak minded that seeing a cross will force you to become a Christian or seeing a Star of David will force you to become a Jew? No one is forced to accept any religion. No religion is "established". When you ban all religious symbols or ideas you are actually "establishing" atheism because only atheists will get what they want. How is establishing atheism allowed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me point out something.
The First Commandment clearly prohibits Christianity.

Anybody who thinks that Moses was a trinitarian is delusional.
Tom
ETA ~In the modern world, conservative Sunni Islam is probably the closest thing to Moses' 1st Commandment that still exists.~

Shh! Ixnay on the odGay.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

never had...

If you say so. It certainly seems to be the crux of @shmogie 's argument, however.