Government, religion, and "secular" vs. "religious"

[PAF]

Should Government Pass Laws To 'Require' The Display of Religious Material?

I’m Not Roman Catholic, But My State Is
by Larry L. Beane



I’m not Roman Catholic, but my state is!

Louisiana is indeed a Roman Catholic state. It just is. And the state has just passed a law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in all classrooms.

Continue reading…



https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...t-my-state-is/

[Brian4Liberty]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Many would say that if the school gets any government money at all, then it's a violation of the 1st Amendment.

On the other hand, do the Ten Commandments by themselves constitute establishing a religion?

And what about Marxism and it's variants (such as wokeism), which is a replacement or substitute for religion, and believed in just as strongly, with it's own mantras, taboos and dogma?

At the founding of the United States, were the Ten Commandments displayed anywhere publicly? That would speak towards original intent of the 1st.

[Snowball]

Your answer is that only the Federal government is barred Constitutionally from it.

States and municipalities can and have done so.

[PAF]

Many would say that if the school gets any government money at all, then it's a violation of the 1st Amendment.

On the other hand, do the Ten Commandments by themselves constitute establishing a religion?

And what about Marxism and it's variants (such as wokeism), which is a replacement or substitute for religion, and believed in just as strongly, with it's own mantras, taboos and dogma?

At the founding of the United States, were the Ten Commandments displayed anywhere publicly? That would speak towards original intent of the 1st.

To atheists, and other religions which do not believe in or follow the doctrine of the first 4 Commandments would have a strong case that it does establish a religion.

1. Thou shalt not have any other gods before God.

2. Thou shalt not make yourself an idol.

3. Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain.

4. Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy.


https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bi...nificance.html

[sparebulb]

I don't think that 10 Commandments would harm anyone, regardless of their chosen religion.

That said, only chaos agents and their mindless drones would complain about it.

Especially when the entire 'gubmint and the pubic skool stands opposed to each of the commandments.

Total distraction for the over 75 crowd that watch Fox News and the brain-deads that watch the rest of the media.

Every classroom in my junior high had the Rotarian 4-way test on the wall. Total globalist religion on display with zero complaints.

[Anti Federalist]

At the founding of the United States, were the Ten Commandments displayed anywhere publicly? That would speak towards original intent of the 1st.

Yes, especially in Episcopalian churches, such as North Church in Boston.

[PAF]

Yes, especially in Episcopalian churches, such as North Church in Boston.

But you and @sparebulb avoided the question in the title. Should government legislate into law "requiring" the display of religious material?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

[Anti Federalist]

But you and @sparebulb avoided the question in the title. Should government legislate into law "requiring" the display of religious material?

Government should not mandate, under penalty of law, that you send your kids to their indoctrination centers.

Once you accept that premise, then you also have to accept that the state is going to decide what to present to children, whether it be drag queeers mincing about or posting Christian principles from the bible.

And I was not avoiding the question, I was answering a specific follow up question that Brian asked.

The answer being that yes, the 10 Commandments were publicly displayed in public houses and churches and meeting halls all across New England in the 18th century.

[PAF]

Government should not mandate, under penalty of law, that you send your kids to their indoctrination centers.

Once you accept that premise, then you also have to accept that the state is going to decide what to present to children, whether it be drag queeers mincing about or posting Christian principles from the bible.

And I was not avoiding the question, I was answering a specific follow up question that Brian asked.

The answer being that yes, the 10 Commandments were publicly displayed in public houses and churches and meeting halls all across New England in the 18th century.

Acceptable answer. While you were typing that, I was typing this:


This is the slippery slope of not adhering to each and every one of the Bill of Rights.

While the Ten Commandments sound innocent in nature, and in my view, a very good set of words to live by, take into consideration the number of immigrants that are being invited here. Many might follow Sharia Law, or some other religion that you do not agree with. Should those local/state governments legislate into law a "requirement" to display such doctrines or religions? Or are the Ten Commandments somehow the exception, deeply hidden in the 1st Amendment?

[sparebulb]

But you and @sparebulb avoided the question in the title. Should government legislate into law "requiring" the display of religious material?

I'm not avoiding the question either.

I've stated that this is a distraction.

Or even pandering, if you will.

[oyarde]

seems like yer public skool is root cause of yer problem

[PAF]

I'm not avoiding the question either.

I've stated that this is a distraction.

Or even pandering, if you will.

Read Post #9. It was "Republicans" who passed the OP law. Distraction or not, this goes to show how far people/legislators have gone away from the Bill of Rights, starting with the very first one.

[Anti Federalist]

Read Post #9. It was "Republicans" who passed the OP law. Distraction or not, this goes to show how far people/legislators have gone away from the Bill of Rights, starting with the very first one.

That's part of the proposition that has been destroyed.

The invaders don't give a $#@! about the Bill of Rights.

[sparebulb]

Read Post #9. It was "Republicans" who passed the OP law. Distraction or not, this goes to show how far people/legislators have gone away from the Bill of Rights, starting with the very first one.

I don't disagree with you at all.

For the sake of discussion, would there be lesser or greater harm if the legislature would have made a law that banned posting the Ten Commandments in the pubic skool?

Arguably, greater in my view. But it is the flipside of the same slippery slope of which you speak.

[PAF]

That's part of the proposition that has been destroyed.

The invaders don't give a $#@! about the Bill of Rights.

And the overwhelming majority of Americans do? Seems to me if the majority of Americans did abide by the Bill of Rights [most can't even name them], we wouldn't have much to worry about.

For the sake of argument, let's push the blame on foreigners because WE hate ourselves for our freedoms. Take Patriot Act, TSA, etc., for instance.

[redmod79]

[Swordsmyth]

The 10 Commandments are part of our cultural history and the foundation of our laws.
They should absolutely be on display in every courthouse and government building.

Whether there should be government schools is a different question.

It's not a 1stA violation, it's freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
Watch who sides with the atheists and satanist on the lies about the 1stA and the attacks on GOD's laws, they can't be trusted.

[PAF]

The 10 Commandments are part of our cultural history and the foundation of our laws.
They should absolutely be on display in every courthouse and government building.

Whether there should be government schools is a different question.

It's not a 1stA violation, it's freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
Watch who sides with the atheists and satanist on the lies about the 1stA and the attacks on GOD's laws, they can't be trusted.

Post #16 is a video for you to watch then, since you clearly don't understand. Oh, and Trump is shown in that video too, along with Mike Johnson and Ben Carson.

[nobody's_hero]

A few months ago, I made the argument that a local/state government cheating in an election, clearly affected the nation as a whole, and I was immediately dogpiled by staunch defenders of state's rights.

—Yes, defending cheating on the grounds that states should be free to do whatever they want with 'their own' elections.

I found it quite peculiar, but eventually relented and bowed out of the debate. And yet, now . . .

If we will twist ourselves into pretzels to defend cheating as an inherent right of a state but make no such allowance for displaying the 10 commandments, then it speaks volumes about the condition of our society.

[I have no interest in rehashing that debate here, I simply ask that people pause and consider that the same logic could be applied in this instance, and as the state of Louisiana's mandate has no impact on any other of the 49 states in any way similar to who ends up as president of the entire country, perhaps the state's rights argument could be even more easily applied]
---------------------------
Whenever someone says we should keep God out of government (particularly when I hear it from christians), my response is always, 'Why? We let the devil in.'

[Anti Federalist]

And the overwhelming majority of Americans do? Seems to me if the majority of Americans did abide by the Bill of Rights [most can't even name them], we wouldn't have much to worry about.

For the sake of argument, let's push the blame on foreigners because WE hate ourselves for our freedoms. Take Patriot Act, TSA, etc., for instance.

No most of them don't.

All of the invaders do not.

That is why we can not have a proposition nation anymore.

[PAF]

A few months ago, I made the argument that a local/state government cheating in an election, clearly affected the nation as a whole, and I was immediately dogpiled by staunch defenders of state's rights.

—Yes, defending cheating on the grounds that states should be free to do whatever they want.

I found it quite peculiar, but eventually relented and bowed out of the debate. And yet, now . . .

If we will twist ourselves into pretzels to defend cheating as an inherent right of a state but make no such allowance for displaying the 10 commandments, then we are doomed as a society.

Whenever someone says we should keep God out of government (particularly when I hear it from christians), my response is always, 'Why? We let the devil in.'

Two negatives do not make a positive. There is a sound reason for separation of church and state. This is another litmus test to see how grounded people actually are, and passage of the OP law is direct evidence that this country's founding principles of freedom and liberty is declining from within.

[Anti Federalist]

Two negatives do not make a positive. There is a sound reason for separation of church and state. This is another litmus test to see how grounded people actually are, and passage of the OP law is direct evidence that this country's founding principles of freedom and liberty is declining from within.

It wasn't an issue until about 60 years ago when the Jews complained and drove a case to the Supreme Court which ended school prayers.

Are we better off now or then?

It's all a moot point anyway.

The invading hordes don't give a $#@! about the Bill of Rights or "separation of church and state".

They will impose Sharia law, or rigid caste systems, depending on which unwholesome flood of brown overwhelms us first, and they will kill you in the streets if you so much as say one wrong word.

Well, maybe not us, as we'll be long dead.

Our kids will have suffer through it and curse us for the cowards we were.

[PAF]

It wasn't an issue until about 60 years ago when the Jews complained and drove a case to the Supreme Court which ended school prayers.

Are we better off now or then?

It's all a moot point anyway.

The invading hordes don't give a $#@! about the Bill of Rights or "separation of church and state".

They will impose Sharia law, or rigid caste systems, depending on which unwholesome flood of brown overwhelms us first, and they will kill you in the streets if you so much as say one wrong word.

Well, maybe not us, as we'll be dead.

Our kids will have suffer through it and curse us for cowards we were.

I don't buy it. But if true, you and others who support that pathetic law are kicking it off beautifully to a tremendously great start by giving passes to POLITICIANS who enact such unprecedented laws.

They don't hate us for our freedoms. Amerikans do.

[nobody's_hero]

Two negatives do not make a positive. There is a sound reason for separation of church and state. This is another litmus test to see how grounded people actually are, and passage of the OP law is direct evidence that this country's founding principles of freedom and liberty is declining from within.

But from a Constitutionalist argument, there is no violation if the state of LA decides to make a such a law.

I would say the decline from within started when the devil was allowed to work within the halls of government institutions, but God was forced out.

[TheCount]

seems like yer public skool is root cause of yer problem

This law does not only apply to public schools

[PAF]

But from a Constitutionalist argument, there is no violation if the state of LA decides to make a such a law.

I would say the decline from within started when the devil was allowed to work within the halls of government institutions, but God was forced out.

TRUST THY Politicians and the Government - they/it knows best.

Now for the fun part:

"Required to display": who pays for the material that is to be displayed?

Once the Ten Commandments are accepted, what about the next community over or another state that "requires" Sharia to be displayed? SHALL that be funded too?

[Anti Federalist]

I don't buy it. But if true, you and others who support that pathetic law are kicking it off beautifully to a tremendously great start by giving passes to POLITICIANS who enact such unprecedented laws.

They don't hate us for our freedoms. Amerikans do.

Are we better off and more free and less in debt 60 years ago or now?

No they don't hate us for our freedoms.

They don't give a $#@! about "our freedoms".

[Anti Federalist]

Once the Ten Commandments are accepted, what about the next community over or another state that "requires" Sharia to be displayed? SHALL that be funded too?

You're behind the times.

It's already required that children attend drag queeer shows and watch grown men wave their dicks at 8 year old classmates.

And we are getting upset about this?

[Swordsmyth]

Post #16 is a video for you to watch then, since you clearly don't understand. Oh, and Trump is shown in that video too, along with Mike Johnson and Ben Carson.

It's garbage.

And I repeat myself:

The 10 Commandments are part of our cultural history and the foundation of our laws.
They should absolutely be on display in every courthouse and government building.

Whether there should be government schools is a different question.

It's not a 1stA violation, it's freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
Watch who sides with the atheists and satanist on the lies about the 1stA and the attacks on GOD's laws, they can't be trusted.

[Swordsmyth]

Are we better off and more free and less in debt 60 years ago or now?

No they don't hate us for our freedoms.

They don't give a $#@! about "our freedoms".

They hate us for our virtues, which is why they drove them out of the public square.