Texas to take up bill requiring Ten Commandments in every public school

[jamil]

The 1st Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It then states that Congress cannot abridge free speech, or the press, or the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

There IS NO "separation of church and state" listed in the Constitution--only that CONGRESS cannot establish a "national" religion like the Church of England had done. Our Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Christian and wanted the freedom for everyone to practice their religion how they saw fit. The entire LIE about church and state separation was from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist, where he stated his opinion that there should be a separation between them.

"thus" is an important word in interpreting one of the founders meaning. You can argue that it's only his opinion that the establishment clause means that. But you can't argue that it was only his opinion that it should.

And if that is a founder's opinion of what the establishment clause means. It's reasonable to conclude that this bit about no separation between church and state is your opinion. It's only your opinion that it's a lie.

BTW, the first amendment is incorporated. So effectively the 1A applies to all levels government. Or do you think that a state can prohibit the presses? Can a county government ban all conservative speech?

You may not like that it's incorporated. But now that the 2A is incorporated, what do you think of it now? Should Illinois be able to confiscate every firearm, because the 2A only applies to the US congress?

 

[jamil]

See now we have a real violation of constitutional rights in this post. So government taxing them would “prohibit the free exercise of religion” as would saying the church cannot organize politically…

Does the free exercise clause mean churches can't be taxed?

 

[jamil]

If the government wants them posted the government should post them. What happens if you do not do your job?

You're making a good case for tyranny.

 

[Route 45]

Not religious texts smh.

Literally what God Almighty told Moses from Mt Sinai.

It has nothing to do with religion.

 

[Route 45]

You must get exhausted jumping to conclusions so much.

Again, if the government wants the Ten Commandments posted in a government school, they can do it, and whatever the government’s agreement with its employees told to do a job is what determines what happens if an employee is insubordinate…

Soften your words all you want, but it's clear what you are really saying.

Government agents will determine which religious text goes on the wall in a public school, and those who refuse to cooperate will be fired. I see that you don't want to answer the question over whether anyone should be arrested if they fail to comply, because deep down, you know how wrong it is. If you would look past the end of your own nose, of course. But "muh religion is the same as the founders," so I guess it's all good in your eyes.

Would be curious as to what your opinion would be regarding the posting of the five pillars of Islam in a taxpayer funded school district with a majority Muslim population. How would the parents of the 25% enrollment of Christian kids feel about that?

 

[Ingomike]

Would be curious as to what your opinion would be regarding the posting of the five pillars of Islam in a taxpayer funded school district with a majority Muslim population. How would the parents of the 25% enrollment of Christian kids feel about that?

It is actually going in in Michigan…

 

[jamil]

It is actually going in in Michigan…

And in that case, if no other religion’s texts are allowed, neither should theirs.

 

[Ingomike]

I am over “public“ schools for the record so no need to worry about what the government posts.

The problem with government schools is the government choosing what to teach…

 

[Ziggidy]

The requirement to post the Ten Commandments in each public school classroom by law is obviously a government establishment of religion.

Depends how it is being presented. Allowing the Commandments to be posted is not saying their school subscribes to that thought; but rather, It allows for the free practice of the 1st amendment. No different than saying the lack of the commandments means the school does not support their commandments. IOW, having them posted does not mean anything except that members of the school are allowed to support the 1st amendment without fear of reprimand.

For the school to establish a religion (commandments), it must teach them and have students graded on them. Having them posted and referenced is nothing more than an awareness point.

When I was much younger I wanted to be a cop. I went to college for (back then) “Police Science”. One of my classes was the introduction to law enforcement. It was a history / morality book that touched on how greatly their 10 Commandments influenced the laws we have today.

Quite interesting. I believe those who do not want the commandments posted are nothing more than troublemakers. Many of the same people have no problem with tranny story hour, porn books in the library or other perverted inquiries

 

[jamil]

Depends how it is being presented.

Well, let's just stick to reality then. We're not seeing "may post", we're seeing "shall post" in these laws. It's a requirement. And the requirement is only for the Christian stuff. That's establishment.

Allowing the Commandments to be posted is not saying their school subscribes to that thought; but rather, It allows for the free practice of the 1st amendment. No different than saying the lack of the commandments means the school does not support their commandments. IOW, having them posted does not mean anything except that members of the school are allowed to support the 1st amendment without fear of reprimand.

Allowing students, or even faculty, to post religious materials, as long as it is not exclusive to one religion, is not a violation of the establishment clause. The 1st amendment does not apply to one religion exclusively.

For the school to establish a religion (commandments), it must teach them and have students graded on them. Having them posted and referenced is nothing more than an awareness point.

That's nonsense. Excluding the right to just one religion is establishment whether the school teaches it or not.

When I was much younger I wanted to be a cop. I went to college for (back then) “Police Science”. One of my classes was the introduction to law enforcement. It was a history / morality book that touched on how greatly their 10 Commandments influenced the laws we have today.

Quite interesting. I believe those who do not want the commandments posted are nothing more than troublemakers. Many of the same people have no problem with tranny story hour, porn books in the library or other perverted inquiries

I believe that those who want to force public schools to post the 10 commandments exclusively are troublemakers. There can be no other explanation. It has to be that they're just troublemakers. Why else would anyone want to force schools to post only their religious stuff if they're not just trying to cause trouble?

/sarcasm

 

[Ingomike]

While on I somewhat undecoded on this whole thing this article was interesting on the topic of what exactly is religion and what us not.

“SEL programs such as these meet the federal government’s definition of a religion, which is a “comprehensive belief system that addresses the fundamental questions of human existence, such as the meaning of life and death, man’s role in the universe, and the nature of good and evil, and that gives rise to duties of conscience.”

“The First Amendment commands that the government can “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Leftists' 'Spiritual' SEL In Public Schools Amounts To State Religion

Social-emotional learning will become spiritual-ethical learning, and public schools will decide whose beliefs to teach.

thefederalist.com

 

[Ziggidy]

The First Amendment literally prohibits the establishment of religion by the government.

Doesn’t the government establish religion just by the mere fact it is banning religion? The government bans the 10 Commandments from schools because it is religious and in doing so establishes that religion. The government calls it religion so it must be establishing it as a religion?

 

[Route 45]

Doesn’t the government establish religion just by the mere fact it is banning religion? The government bans the 10 Commandments from schools because it is religious and in doing so establishes that religion. The government calls it religion so it must be establishing it as a religion?

Holy ****! Impressive! One doesn't often see this level of mind-bending twisting of the meaning of words outside of professional politics. This is some next-level BS right here. Even Bill and Hill are in awe!

 

[Ingomike]

Holy ****! Impressive! One doesn't often see this level of mind-bending twisting of the meaning of words outside of professional politics. This is some next-level BS right here. Even Bill and Hill are in awe!

Interesting that when wanting to see how the world defined religion this Wikipedia definition with a disclaimer popped up.

“The definition of religion is a controversial and complicated subject in religious studies with scholars failing to agree on any one definition.”

So is it so far out there for someone to define a vacuum from religion as a religion itself?

 

[Ziggidy]

View attachment 269151

Holy ****! Impressive! One doesn't often see this level of mind-bending twisting of the meaning of words outside of professional politics. This is some next-level BS right here. Even Bill and Hill are in awe!

Call it what you want but in reality, as long as the government does not mandate its teaching as part of the constitution or such, it should be allowed everywhere. The 10 commandments, in and of themselves are not a religion.

 

[Ziggidy]

Interesting that when wanting to see how the world defined religion this Wikipedia definition with a disclaimer popped up.

“The definition of religion is a controversial and complicated subject in religious studies with scholars failing to agree on any one definition.”

So is it so far out there for someone to define a vacuum from religion as a religion itself?

Atheism - it is a religion.

 

[Route 45]

So is it so far out there for someone to define a vacuum from religion as a religion itself?

Sure, just like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

[Route 45]

Atheism - it is a religion.

Nobody mentioned atheism. And no, atheism is not a religion. Religions are all based on faith, which is the opposite of atheism.

If you only believe in one god, out of sll of the gods worshipped throughout history, then you are already 99% atheist.

I can’t wait until they start demanding Islamic tenets plastered on the walls of Beaver Cleaver Elementary School. I will be equally opposed to that, but you will have no leg to stand on if you oppose it. Not that reason will even make a dent in your thinking, of course.

 

[jamil]

Call it what you want but in reality, as long as the government does not mandate its teaching as part of the constitution or such, it should be allowed everywhere. The 10 commandments, in and of themselves are not a religion.

The 1st amendment protects religious exercise too. You are bending the definition to one that supports the constitutional protection you want rather than the one provided. The “establishment” prohibited by the constitution means the stake cannot make a defacto religion. The government privileging one over others IS effectively establishing a favored religion. So while I agree that prohibiting any religion from anything that smells like the state probably violates the free exercise clause, allowing 10 commandments and not religious materials from other religions violated the establishment clause.

Are you okay with Islam’s texts being displayed along side the 10 commandments? Or Wicca’s? If not, I think we’re finished here.

 

[JettaKnight]

Call it what you want but in reality, as long as the government does not mandate its teaching as part of the constitution or such, it should be allowed everywhere. The 10 commandments, in and of themselves are not a religion.

This tantamount to, "I'm not touching you, am I bothering you, because I'm not touching you." So when the spiral minarets go up, and the call to prayer hours out, you'll have no problem because Islam is not being taught, right?

Furthermore, we're discussing a mandate of posting religious text, not just allowing.

As to, the old, "atheism is a religion" argument, unless you can point to something explicitly teaching, "there is no god" , I'll continue to hold the line that simply not discussing our teaching religion at all is not teaching atheism.

If students want to start a 10 commandments club, that's completely cool. Likewise it's be cool if they start an atheist club or Baal club.