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.

[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

[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?

[mrsat_98]

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

So who is supposed to officer and train the militia ? In case you have not noticed the ball on the flag pole.

[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.

[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.

[jmdrake]

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?

Yes. The first 4 commandments are clearly about a particular religion. And Catholics have a different version of the 10 commandments. The second commandment about graven images is thrown out. The 4th commandment says nothing about the 7th day (which is Saturday). The 10th commandment is split it two in order to cover the fact that the second commandment was tossed. So...which version of the 10 commandments are going to be posted?

[Brian4Liberty]

Yes. The first 4 commandments are clearly about a particular religion. And Catholics have a different version of the 10 commandments. The second commandment about graven images is thrown out. The 4th commandment says nothing about the 7th day (which is Saturday). The 10th commandment is split it two in order to cover the fact that the second commandment was tossed. So...which version of the 10 commandments are going to be posted?

The version that Charlton Heston brought down from the mountain of course...

[jmdrake]

The version that Charlton Heston brought down from the mountain of course...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Brian4Liberty again.

[Sonny Tufts]

Yes. The first 4 commandments are clearly about a particular religion. And Catholics have a different version of the 10 commandments. The second commandment about graven images is thrown out. The 4th commandment says nothing about the 7th day (which is Saturday). The 10th commandment is split it two in order to cover the fact that the second commandment was tossed. So...which version of the 10 commandments are going to be posted?

George Carlin's classic take on the Ten Commandments. His suggested addition (at the very end of his discussion) is spot on.

[Snowball]

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

States and municipalities can and have done so.

[Invisible Man]

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

States and municipalities can and have done so.

The question posed in the thread title makes no mention of the Constitution.

[Snowball]

The question posed in the thread title makes no mention of the Constitution.

their case is Federal.

"In their complaint filed today in the U.S. District Court ..."

[Invisible Man]

their case is Federal.

"In their complaint filed today in the U.S. District Court ..."

If the question is, "Should the federal government interfere with state laws respecting the establishment of religion?" then then answer is no, both constitutionally and ethically (the ethical issue is far more important than the constitutional one).

But if the question is, "Should government [any government] pass laws to require the display of religious material?" that's an entirely different question, and one that can be resolved only by an appeal to justice, and not to the Constitution.

[Snowball]

If the question is, "Should the federal government interfere with state laws respecting the establishment of religion?" then then answer is no, both constitutionally and ethically (the ethical issue is far more important than the constitutional one).

But if the question is, "Should government [any government] pass laws to require the display of religious material?" that's an entirely different question, and one that can be resolved only by an appeal to justice, and not to the Constitution.

What's an "appeal to justice" in Federal courts without the Constitution? The Constitution is the law of the land.
Are you suggesting it should be ignored? This is how slippery slopes lather up. Appeal to "justice" is quite a broad subjective plea.

[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.

[oyarde]

seems like yer public skool is root cause of yer problem

[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.

[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.

[Sonny Tufts]

it's freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

Freedom of religion doesn't include the right to have government promote a particular faith (i.e., theism).

[Swordsmyth]

Freedom of religion doesn't include the right to have government promote a particular faith (i.e., theism).

It most certainly does.

[Sonny Tufts]

It most certainly does.

Really? Is your faith so unpersuasive that it needs the power of government to promote it?

And while you're at it, point to the language of the Constitution (assuming you believe it has some sort of legal effect) that enshrines a particular faith with a preferred status, especially given its prohibition of religious tests for federal offices and the Free Exercise Clause's guarantee that one can be a polytheist or idolater, both of which violate the Ten Commandments.

In discussing Article VI's no religious test in the debate of the North Carolina Convention on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, James Iredell, later a Justice of the Supreme Court, said ". . . [i]t is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for?"

And another delegate pointed out that Article VI "leaves religion on the solid foundation of its own inherent validity, without any connection with temporal authority, and no kind of oppression can take place."

[Swordsmyth]

Really? Is your faith so unpersuasive that it needs the power of government to promote it?

And while you're at it, point to the language of the Constitution (assuming you believe it has some sort of legal effect) that enshrines a particular faith with a preferred status, especially given its prohibition of religious tests for federal offices and the Free Exercise Clause's guarantee that one can be a polytheist or idolater, both of which violate the Ten Commandments.

In discussing Article VI's no religious test in the debate of the North Carolina Convention on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, James Iredell, later a Justice of the Supreme Court, said ". . . [i]t is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for?"

And another delegate pointed out that Article VI "leaves religion on the solid foundation of its own inherent validity, without any connection with temporal authority, and no kind of oppression can take place."

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits it.
And we as a Christian country have every right to promote the Christian (not exclusively ours) values that our culture and laws are founded on.

It's not a matter of weakness, it's a matter of strength.

Putting the 10 up in government buildings is not a religious test, nor is it establishing a religion.

[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.'