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

[jmdrake]

I don't need to explain that.
People do bad things in all cultures, and only by upholding the good virtues and values can we keep the bad people at bay.

You said "Once you unmoor the culture and the law from its Christian foundation" that murder would be claimed as a right or something to that effect. Based on your logic, cultures that didn't have a Christian foundation wouldn't have laws against murder.

Abortion is already here and claimed as a religious right, assisted suicide is already here and if attacked will be defended as a religious right.

Stupid example. There were no laws in the U.S. against abortion until the 1800s. Under English common law abortion was legal until the "quickening" which is about 15 weeks. So the "Christian foundations" of this country didn't prevent abortion. And you mentioned Judaism having the same 10 commandments. Well guess who's claiming abortion as a right? Jews! (See: https://houstonlawreview.org/article...-abortion-bans) The idea that life begins at conception seems to be only a Catholic thing. Roe v Wade points this out. The United States was not founded to be a Catholic country. And the Catholics have their own version of the 10 commandments.

Now what happened with abortion law over the years is exactly the "Tacoma Narrows Bridge" scenario I pointed out. The U.S. started with the same moderate "abortion is legal up until 14 weeks" position that Protestant England had. Then once states started passing laws on the issue, some states took the Catholic extremist "ban all abortions after conception" position and some states took the Jewish extremist "abortion legal until birth" position. And everybody could back up their position with the same Bible and 10 commandments. Then SCOTUS mapped out a "compromise" that wasn't really a compromise that fell somewhere in between the historical Protestant 14 week position and the Jewish "abortion legal until birth" position and invalidated all abortion bans except for the last trimester. (States could still allow the Jewish position but could invalidate it through law as well.)

The more I've thought about it, the more I'm convinced that those English Protestants got it right the first time. A zygote cannot think or feel pain or have dreams etc. But at some point much later in pregnancy (around 21 weeks), the fetus can recognize its mother's partner's voice, have REM sleep etc. Equating the "death" of a zygote to the death of a fetus that's almost able to live outside the womb has led to stupid conclusions like people claiming Ron Paul is "pro abortion" for supporting the "day after pill" because, it's theoretically possible (though not proven) that it can work not only but preventing ovulation but also by preventing implantation of a zygote.

Next comes things like Sati, and then the Thugs.
Slippery slopes are real and you have to put up fences and signs to keep people away from them.

America was and is built on Christian morality, and the founders never intended for the 1stA to apply to religions that contradict the cultural and religious foundations of our laws.

When America was built, it followed the English Protestant common law position which allowed abortion up until 14 weeks. You're not trying to return America to its Protestant roots. You're trying to turn America into something else.

Edit: And even through I 100% disagree with you, thank you for pushing me to look deeper into this. This explains a very off photo I saw a few years ago. This woman is Jewish:

Amanda Herring, 32, was among the pro-choice protesters in Washington DC on Friday after the conservative-majority court voted to overturn its two landmark abortion rights decisions, 1973’s Roe v. Wade and 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

“I am very pregnant – I am due tomorrow,” Ms Herring told NBC News.

The Jewish educator, who showed up with her one-year-old son Abraham, told the outlet the Supreme Court ruling was an infringement on her religion.

“This is a part of me right now,” she said.

“I’m Jewish and according to Jewish law and tradition, life begins with the first breath at birth, and that if anything were to happen up until then that it is part of me, and it is my decision, it’s part of my body – it’s like a limb. It’s a significant part of me, but it’s my decision.”

Asked why she wrote “not yet a human”, she said it was “because everyone is talking about murder”.

And what justification do Jews have for this position?

Exodus 21:22-25

Exodus 21:22-25
King James Version
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

What does "fruit depart from her" mean? Some translations equate that to premature birth. Others equate that to miscarriage. Who's right? I don't know. Regardless, the idea that putting Bibles in all schools and teaching students from them as well as teaching the 10 commandments will mean everyone will agree with your position on abortion is ludicrous.

[acptulsa]

You're not trying to return America to its Protestant roots. You're trying to turn America into something else.

Why do the very people who try to drag all of us out on the slipperiest slopes always seem to use slippery slopes as an excuse for doing it?

[Swordsmyth]

You said "Once you unmoor the culture and the law from its Christian foundation" that murder would be claimed as a right or something to that effect. Based on your logic, cultures that didn't have a Christian foundation wouldn't have laws against murder.

LOL
Non Secquitur.

I said OUR culture, whose foundation is Christian, would have that happen if unmoored from its foundation.
That says nothing at all about other cultures with different foundations which remain moored to their foundations.

Stupid example. There were no laws in the U.S. against abortion until the 1800s. Under English common law abortion was legal until the "quickening" which is about 15 weeks. So the "Christian foundations" of this country didn't prevent abortion. And you mentioned Judaism having the same 10 commandments. Well guess who's claiming abortion as a right? Jews! (See: https://houstonlawreview.org/article...-abortion-bans) The idea that life begins at conception seems to be only a Catholic thing. Roe v Wade points this out. The United States was not founded to be a Catholic country. And the Catholics have their own version of the 10 commandments.

Nonsense.
Abortion not being illegal back then was because it was rare and shameful because of our Christian culture.
The law allowed it only up to a point as you point out.
When we became unmoored from our roots they took it all the way up to birth.
And the Jews are lying about their religion, unless they are confessing to being the Synagogue of Satan who call themselves Jews but are not.
There is nothing in Judaism that requires them to commit abortions as part of their religion, and the others claiming it as a religious right are the satanists.

Now what happened with abortion law over the years is exactly the "Tacoma Narrows Bridge" scenario I pointed out. The U.S. started with the same moderate "abortion is legal up until 14 weeks" position that Protestant England had. Then once states started passing laws on the issue, some states took the Catholic extremist "ban all abortions after conception" position and some states took the Jewish extremist "abortion legal until birth" position. And everybody could back up their position with the same Bible and 10 commandments. Then SCOTUS mapped out a "compromise" that wasn't really a compromise that fell somewhere in between the historical Protestant 14 week position and the Jewish "abortion legal until birth" position and invalidated all abortion bans except for the last trimester. (States could still allow the Jewish position but could invalidate it through law as well.)

Nobody can back up abortion until birth with any part of the Bible.
And abortion up until birth is not the free exercise of real Judaism, it would be the free exercise of satanism if the 1stA ever was intended to encompass religions of evil that are in direct opposition to Biblical principals.

The more I've thought about it, the more I'm convinced that those English Protestants got it right the first time. A zygote cannot think or feel pain or have dreams etc. But at some point much later in pregnancy (around 21 weeks), the fetus can recognize its mother's partner's voice, have REM sleep etc. Equating the "death" of a zygote to the death of a fetus that's almost able to live outside the womb has led to stupid conclusions like people claiming Ron Paul is "pro abortion" for supporting the "day after pill" because, it's theoretically possible (though not proven) that it can work not only but preventing ovulation but also by preventing implantation of a zygote.

Not interested in this conversation right now.
But the legal doctrine of quickening is at least an arguable moral and legal position that was not the start of the slippery slope.

When America was built, it followed the English Protestant common law position which allowed abortion up until 14 weeks. You're not trying to return America to its Protestant roots. You're trying to turn America into something else.

I'm not trying to do anything about banning all abortion here, that's not what we are discussing, we are discussing abortion up to birth as a religious right.

Edit: And even through I 100% disagree with you, thank you for pushing me to look deeper into this. This explains a very off photo I saw a few years ago. This woman is Jewish:

Amanda Herring, 32, was among the pro-choice protesters in Washington DC on Friday after the conservative-majority court voted to overturn its two landmark abortion rights decisions, 1973’s Roe v. Wade and 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

“I am very pregnant – I am due tomorrow,” Ms Herring told NBC News.

The Jewish educator, who showed up with her one-year-old son Abraham, told the outlet the Supreme Court ruling was an infringement on her religion.

“This is a part of me right now,” she said.

“I’m Jewish and according to Jewish law and tradition, life begins with the first breath at birth, and that if anything were to happen up until then that it is part of me, and it is my decision, it’s part of my body – it’s like a limb. It’s a significant part of me, but it’s my decision.”

Asked why she wrote “not yet a human”, she said it was “because everyone is talking about murder”.

And what justification do Jews have for this position?

Exodus 21:22-25

Exodus 21:22-25
King James Version
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

What does "fruit depart from her" mean? Some translations equate that to premature birth. Others equate that to miscarriage. Who's right? I don't know. Regardless, the idea that putting Bibles in all schools and teaching students from them as well as teaching the 10 commandments will mean everyone will agree with your position on abortion is ludicrous.

I never said everyone would agree with my exact position on abortion.

I said abortion up to birth was the start of the slippery slope that led to assisted suicide, and if it is granted the status of a religious right it WILL lead to things like Sati and the Thugs.

She and all the other Jews saying the same thing are lying:

Jeremiah 20:17

“Because he slew me not from the womb; or that my mother might have been my grave, and her womb to be always great with me.”

King James Version (KJV)



Numbers 12:12

“Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb.”

King James Version (KJV)



Psalms 22:10

“I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.”

King James Version (KJV)



Hosea 12:3

“He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God:”

King James Version (KJV)



Psalms 139:13

“For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.”

King James Version (KJV)



Job 3:11

“Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?”

King James Version (KJV)



Isaiah 49:1

“Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.”

King James Version (KJV)



Judges 13:7

“But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death.”

King James Version (KJV)



Jeremiah 1:5

“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”

King James Version (KJV)





Whether it's at conception or the quickening it's a person in the womb before birth and they know it.

But let's pretend that it's not, that still doesn't make actively terminating it before birth a religious right, it would need to be part of their religion to perform the abortion as a ritual to be a free exercise of religion issue, only it still wouldn't be because that would be evil and satanic which was never part of the 1stA.
Even the verse you cited treats it as a crime, whether it treats it as a property crime instead of a murder or not.

The satanic slippery slope is real, and the founders would have tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail anyone claiming that satanic murder cults were covered by the 1stA.

[Snowball]

As far as Oklahoma is concerned, the Prescott case (which was based on the Oklahoma Constitution) dooms the attempt to put the Ten Commandments in classrooms. I suspect the Oklahoma official knew this, but like many politicians he promulgated an unconstitutional regulation to placate certain segments of the population. When the regulation is struck down later on he can then blame the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

It's been in OK classrooms for at least 14 years. All he's doing is making sure certain non-compliant schools don't shirk from their responsibility.

Here's the relevant parts of Title 70, Section 8 :

"The subject matter standards for history, social studies and United States Government shall include study of important historical documents, including the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Emancipation Proclamation, Federalist Papers and other documents with significant history and heritage of the United States, and the content of the United States naturalization test, with an emphasis on the specific content of the test and the ideas and concepts it references."

-and the details-

§70-11-103.11. Elective course offering on Old and New Testament.
A. A school district may offer to students in grade nine or above:
1. An elective course on the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)
and its impact and an elective course on the New Testament and its impact; or
2. An elective course that combines the courses described in paragraph 1 of this subsection.
B. The purposes of courses authorized by this section are to:
1. Teach students knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives that are prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory, and public policy; and
2. Familiarize students with, as applicable:
a. the contents of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament,
b. the history of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament,
c. the literary style and structure of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament, and
d. the influence of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament on law, history, government, literature, art, music, customs, morals, values, and culture.
C. The Bible shall be the primary text of the course and may be supplemented with additional resources. The primary text for the course will be a parallel translation Bible or multi-translation Bible that uses more than one translation for side-by-side comparison chosen by the school district. However, a student may not be required to use a specific translation as the sole text of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament and may use as the basic textbook a different translation of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament from that chosen by the district board of education or the student’s teacher.
D. A course offered pursuant to this section shall follow applicable law and all federal and state guidelines in maintaining religious neutrality and accommodating the diverse religious views, traditions, and perspectives of students in the school district. A course offered pursuant to this section shall not endorse, favor, or promote, or disfavor or show hostility toward, any particular religion or nonreligious faith or religious perspective. Nothing in this section is intended to violate any provision of the United States Constitution or federal law, the Oklahoma Constitution or any state law, or any rules or guidelines provided by the United States Department of Education or the State Department of Education.
E. A teacher of a course offered pursuant to this section must be certified to teach social studies or literature.
Added by Laws 2010, c. 227, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2010.

Oklahoma Statutes - Title 70. Schools Page 564
http://www.oklegislature.gov/osstatuestitle.html

Walters: "“My staff has been looking at Oklahoma state statutes,” he said. “We’ve been looking at the Oklahoma Academic Standards, and it’s crystal clear … that the Bible is a necessary historical document...."
https://omaha.com/news/nation-world/...88c7e0e18.html

He is correct. He has the authority by Oklahoma law to issue this directive which merely makes sure that schools under his authority do not attempt to skirt their responsibilities as described and expressed in the 2010 law above.

Where was the legal challenge in 2010? It's been fourteen years.

[jmdrake]

LOL
Non Secquitur.

I said OUR culture, whose foundation is Christian, would have that happen if unmoored from its foundation.
That says nothing at all about other cultures with different foundations which remain moored to their foundations.

Okay. But there's no reason to believe that America, having now become a pluralistic society, would magically adopt some rule about murder that hasn't been adopted by any other major human society.

Nonsense.
Abortion not being illegal back then was because it was rare and shameful because of our Christian culture.

^That is a made up argument without any foundation. Link please. Here is a link stating that abortion was once "common practice" in America.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/06/11033...ors-changed-th

You can argue against that, but you need to come with a source other than just your opinion.

Edit: And come to thing of it that argument is ridiculous on its face because abortion after the quickening already WAS illegal! So, under English common law, the issue of abortion had come up enough times for there to be a body of case law on when abortion should be legal and when it shouldn't be.

The law allowed it only up to a point as you point out.
When we became unmoored from our roots they took it all the way up to birth.

No. It became unmoored when some states started passing abortion laws that outlawed abortions that were legal under the Protestant English Common Law. I think @dannno made a point similar to this that abortion was usually done via herbs (black cohash) prior to state legislatures getting involved in abortions. Regardless, the American Medical Association initially pushed for abortion laws as a way to hurt midwives who were there competition. (See above NPR link).

And the Jews are lying about their religion, unless they are confessing to being the Synagogue of Satan who call themselves Jews but are not.
There is nothing in Judaism that requires them to commit abortions as part of their religion, and the others claiming it as a religious right are the satanists.

Nobody is claiming that anything in Judaism requires abortion. That's a straw man argument. Rather the claim is that under the Torah abortion is allowed. That's also a position that most Protestant churches historically took.

Nobody can back up abortion until birth with any part of the Bible.
And abortion up until birth is not the free exercise of real Judaism, it would be the free exercise of satanism if the 1stA ever was intended to encompass religions of evil that are in direct opposition to Biblical principals.

I gave you Exodus 21:22-25. Your statement that "Nobody can back up abortion until birth with any part of the Bible" is illogical. Coming out with other verses that support your position does not by itself negate Exodus 21:22-25. Add to that Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. " Babies don't have breath until they are born. I'm not saying I agree with the "abortion is okay until birth" (I do not) but there is clearly biblical support for it. There is biblical support for a lot of things Christians disagree with which is why you have so many denominations of "Bible believing Christians."

Not interested in this conversation right now.
But the legal doctrine of quickening is at least an arguable moral and legal position that was not the start of the slippery slope.

The start of the slippery slope was when laws were passed that went against that position! Go back to Roe v Wade. Had Norma McCorvey been able to have an abortion up to 14 weeks she most likely would have had one. The law swung too far in one direction and then was overcompensated in the other direction. It's not a "slippery slope." It's an oscillating bridge that is headed towards collapse.

I'm not trying to do anything about banning all abortion here, that's not what we are discussing, we are discussing abortion up to birth as a religious right.

We are discussing what the actual historical Christian (Protestant) position of this country is and it's NOT the abortion laws Republicans are currently passing! If you are ready to admit that REPUBLICANS are going against the Protestant Christian roots of this country then we are in agreement! But I don't think you are ready to concede that.

I never said everyone would agree with my exact position on abortion.

I said abortion up to birth was the start of the slippery slope that led to assisted suicide, and if it is granted the status of a religious right it WILL lead to things like Sati and the Thugs.

And ^that is a provably false statement. The problems began with laws banning abortion which went against the English Protestant common law position and that caused a backlash and now there's been a counter-backlash. There is no "slippery slope." It's an oscillating bridge headed to collapse.

She and all the other Jews saying the same thing are lying:

Having a different opinion from you and "lying" are not the same thing.

Jeremiah 20:17

“Because he slew me not from the womb; or that my mother might have been my grave, and her womb to be always great with me.”

King James Version (KJV)

That's nice. Yes a fetus can die at any time in pregnancy. Using your "logic" the Protestant founeven a 3 weeks dation of this country which allowed abortion up until 14 weeks is wrong because at any time a fetus can die in the womb.

Numbers 12:12

“Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb.”

King James Version (KJV)

Sounds like a deformed fetus who dies at birth or shortly after birth. That's interesting because some ant-abortion laws do not allow abortion even for a non-viable pregnancy. This passages seems to go against those laws.

Psalms 22:10

“I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.”

King James Version (KJV)

And Adam was "cast" in the dirt before he became a living soul.

Hosea 12:3

“He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God:”

King James Version (KJV)

That supports the quickening view.

Psalms 139:13

“For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.”

King James Version (KJV)

"And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him,” (Hebrews 7:9-10)

"Still in the loins of his father" means God knows people when they are still just sperm. So....every time you don't give sperm a change to be implanted in a woman (which is every day) that's a sin and a crime?

Job 3:11

“Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?”

He could have "died in the womb" immediately after conception. Since you say that you aren't staking out an "abortion at conception" position (which goes against Protestant English Common law, you cannot honestly rely on this verse or any other verse talking about people dying in the womb.

Isaiah 49:1

“Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.”

King James Version (KJV)

In Isaiah 45, the prophet called Cyrus by name 100 years before Cyrus was even conceived! So that's a non sequitur.

See: https://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible...ct-king-cyrus/

God's foreknowledge of someone before the birth of both of their parents shows you use His foreknowledge of who that person will be while that person is still in the womb to make any statement about abortion whatsoever.

Judges 13:7

“But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death.”

LOL. Again, God is talking about Sampson before he was even conceived! You can't use this to make any statement about abortion one way or another. It's not like God waited around for Sampson's parents to have sex and his mother to get pregnant for God to declare him special.

Jeremiah 1:5

“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”

Again this does NOT advance your position about abortion because it talks about God's foreknowledge BEFORE CONCEPTION!

Whether it's at conception or the quickening it's a person in the womb before birth and they know it.

BS! Some of your verses would insinuate person hood before conception! That's a stupid argument. God knew before Tamar played a harlot and Judah got her pregnant that one of the sons from this union would be the progenitor of Jesus. That doesn't justify prostitution. He knows which sperm will reach which egg, which zygotes will get implanted and which won't, which will get aborted by nature (miscarriage) or by medicine, and who's going to grow up to be a serial killer or a president of the United States (same difference?)

But let's pretend that it's not, that still doesn't make actively terminating it before birth a religious right, it would need to be part of their religion to perform the abortion as a ritual to be a free exercise of religion issue, only it still wouldn't be because that would be evil and satanic which was never part of the 1stA.

The First Amendment also has a "non establishment" clause. A Christian could argue based on 1 Corinthians 6 that women should be forced to cover their heads just like Muslim countries require. Most Americans would instinctively reject that. America has never adopted that position regardless of clear biblical support for it, albeit just one verse. Likewise, despite all of your protestations to the contrary, America didn't historically adopt the "Because Jeremiah said that he could have died in the womb that means that any time a baby is killed in the womb that's murder" position. That came later. The men who wrote the constitution recognized God but did not seek to create laws that required a biblical foundation. One can make the argument for the "no abortions after quickening" position without relying on the Bible but relying on the scientific knowledge that at some point in the pregnancy there is a human inside with a mind that can react to external stimuli. But the potential humans that God can recognize while they are still in their dad's loins and mom's ovaries or even before both parents are born can't (to my knowledge) react to external stimuli. So while biblical understanding can give historical context as it did in the Roe v Wade decision it shouldn't guide the decision.

Even the verse you cited treats it as a crime, whether it treats it as a property crime instead of a murder or not.

Beating up a woman whether she is pregnant or not is a crime so....what's your point?

The satanic slippery slope is real, and the founders would have tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail anyone claiming that satanic murder cults were covered by the 1stA.

The founders allowed abortion up until the quickening. It's not a "slippery slope." It's an oscillating bridge and laws banning abortion prior to when it was banned under English common law are what started the oscillation.

[jmdrake]

It's been in OK classrooms for at least 14 years. All he's doing is making sure certain non-compliant schools don't shirk from their responsibility.

Here's the relevant parts of Title 70, Section 8 :

"The subject matter standards for history, social studies and United States Government shall include study of important historical documents, including the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Emancipation Proclamation, Federalist Papers and other documents with significant history and heritage of the United States, and the content of the United States naturalization test, with an emphasis on the specific content of the test and the ideas and concepts it references."

-and the details-

§70-11-103.11. Elective course offering on Old and New Testament.
A. A school district may offer to students in grade nine or above:
1. An elective course on the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)
and its impact and an elective course on the New Testament and its impact; or
2. An elective course that combines the courses described in paragraph 1 of this subsection.
B. The purposes of courses authorized by this section are to:
1. Teach students knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives that are prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory, and public policy; and
2. Familiarize students with, as applicable:
a. the contents of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament,
b. the history of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament,
c. the literary style and structure of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament, and
d. the influence of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament on law, history, government, literature, art, music, customs, morals, values, and culture.
C. The Bible shall be the primary text of the course and may be supplemented with additional resources. The primary text for the course will be a parallel translation Bible or multi-translation Bible that uses more than one translation for side-by-side comparison chosen by the school district. However, a student may not be required to use a specific translation as the sole text of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament and may use as the basic textbook a different translation of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament from that chosen by the district board of education or the student’s teacher.
D. A course offered pursuant to this section shall follow applicable law and all federal and state guidelines in maintaining religious neutrality and accommodating the diverse religious views, traditions, and perspectives of students in the school district. A course offered pursuant to this section shall not endorse, favor, or promote, or disfavor or show hostility toward, any particular religion or nonreligious faith or religious perspective. Nothing in this section is intended to violate any provision of the United States Constitution or federal law, the Oklahoma Constitution or any state law, or any rules or guidelines provided by the United States Department of Education or the State Department of Education.
E. A teacher of a course offered pursuant to this section must be certified to teach social studies or literature.
Added by Laws 2010, c. 227, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2010.

Oklahoma Statutes - Title 70. Schools Page 564
http://www.oklegislature.gov/osstatuestitle.html

Walters: "“My staff has been looking at Oklahoma state statutes,” he said. “We’ve been looking at the Oklahoma Academic Standards, and it’s crystal clear … that the Bible is a necessary historical document...."
https://omaha.com/news/nation-world/...88c7e0e18.html

He is correct. He has the authority by Oklahoma law to issue this directive which merely makes sure that schools under his authority do not attempt to skirt their responsibilities as described and expressed in the 2010 law above.

Where was the legal challenge in 2010? It's been fourteen years.

Did you really read that before submitting it? If the law say a school "may offer" such a course then how could a school "attempt to skirt their responsibilities?" The word may implies it was an option, not a responsibility.

[Snowball]

Did you really read that before submitting it? If the law say a school "may offer" such a course then how could a school "attempt to skirt their responsibilities?" The word may implies it was an option, not a responsibility.

I don't want to talk to you. You're just wrong about too much stuff for me to bother.
I was going to respond to the other post also, but it's like, I have better things to do with my time.
So please, just try not to reply to my posts so much.

[jmdrake]

I don't want to talk to you. You're just wrong about too much stuff for me to bother.
I was going to respond to the other post also, but it's like, I have better things to do with my time.
So please, just try not to reply to my posts so much.

Don't write such illogical drivel and I won't respond so much. It's not my fault that you apparently don't understand the difference between a law that say a school may use the Bible in a class and a law that says it's "required" or a "directive which merely makes sure that schools under his authority do not attempt to skirt their responsibilities."

[Snowball]

Don't write such illogical drivel and I won't respond so much. It's not my fault that you apparently don't understand the difference between a law that say a school may use the Bible in a class and a law that says it's "required" or a "directive which merely makes sure that schools under his authority do not attempt to skirt their responsibilities." If English isn't your first language just say so.

You're wrong again. Walters is operating within his capacity. The legal objections to teaching the Bible in public schools (AS DESCRIBED AND DELIMITED IN THE ABOVE STATUTE) all call upon the supposed rights of students being infringed by a teacher, superintendent, principal, or any curriculum-provider in a public school in these matters. That's what has to be prohibited for a win. Otherwise, it's just another (different) government official or employee doing the very same thing.

Your objection fails to appreciate the fact that these government-paid workers have already been DOING IT for at least fourteen years.
The decision is not and cannot be THEIRS ALONE, because the inclusion of the Bible into a public school curriculum is not IN ANY WAY "less" illegal if a lesser agent or agency of the government REQUIRES IT in that classroom than if a Superintendent REQUIRES it.

I'll see what Sonny thinks about the 2010 law and Walters' reliance on it, along with his own legal administrative capacity as Superintendent.

Don't bother retorting me and insulting me. I won't reply again. This is not the only thread where you lack decorum, and I've had enough.

[jmdrake]

You're wrong again. Walters is operating within his capacity. The legal objections to teaching the Bible in public schools (AS DESCRIBED AND DELIMITED IN THE ABOVE STATUTE) all call upon the supposed rights of students being infringed by a teacher, superintendent, principal, or any curriculum-provider in a public school in these matters. That's what has to be prohibited for a win. Otherwise, it's just another (different) government official or employee doing the very same thing.

Your objection fails to appreciate the fact that these government-paid workers have already been DOING IT for at least fourteen years.
The decision is not and cannot be THEIRS ALONE, because the inclusion of the Bible into a public school curriculum is not IN ANY WAY "less" illegal if a lesser agent or agency of the government REQUIRES IT in that classroom than if a Superintendent REQUIRES it.

I'll see what Sonny thinks about the 2010 law and Walters' reliance on it, along with his own legal administrative capacity as Superintendent.

Don't bother retorting me and insulting me. I won't reply again. This is not the only thread where you lack decorum, and I've had enough.

You don't own the forum and pointing out your mistakes isn't a violation of forum rules. So no "decorum" is lacking. And once again you are lacking in logic. The law said a school may offer a course. If a particular school doesn't offer said course that's not a violation of the law. Whining about being called out doesn't improve your argument. You are free to use the forums block feature. If you don't know how to do that ask.

This part of your argument is particularly ridiculous.

Your objection fails to appreciate the fact that these government-paid workers have already been DOING IT for at least fourteen years.
The decision is not and cannot be THEIRS ALONE, because the inclusion of the Bible into a public school curriculum is not IN ANY WAY "less" illegal if a lesser agent or agency of the government REQUIRES IT in that classroom than if a Superintendent REQUIRES it.

If the law says the school may offer the course, then by the way the law is written that decision is the school's alone! If you want a law that says "If a student was a to take the Bible class then the school must offer in" then the law should freaking say that!

This idea that the executive branch should be able to rewrite legislation to mean what they want it to mean is part of what's wrong with the country. That's what has lead to the administrative state which, at the federal level, has been called the "deep state." Recently a law was passed in Tennessee to allow teachers to carry guns if the school principal, superintendent and county sheriff approved it. Using your logic that would be that teachers could be required to carry guns which is, of course, absurd.

[Sonny Tufts]

It's been in OK classrooms for at least 14 years. All he's doing is making sure certain non-compliant schools don't shirk from their responsibility.

Where was the legal challenge in 2010? It's been fourteen years.

The Prescott case was in 2015. In case you never had a basic civics class, a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court on a matter of the Oklahoma Constitution takes precedence over a conflicting statute.

And I'm not talking about the Bible being used in a class on religion. I'm talking about a mandate that the 10 Commandments be posted in every Oklahoma classroom.

[Snowball]

The Prescott case was in 2015. In case you never had a basic civics class, a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court on a matter of the Oklahoma Constitution takes precedence over a conflicting statute.

And I'm not talking about the Bible being used in a class on religion. I'm talking about a mandate that the 10 Commandments be posted in every Oklahoma classroom.

Well, they spring from the same memorandum.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/us/ok...lum/index.html

I do admit they could be treated differently. But it's also arguable that this "displaying" is part of the statute I posted, which you're ignoring.
It's also possibly defensible via Van Orden v. Perry, a SCOTUS decision you likely objected to, however I'm sure you'll say that has no bearing also.

Just like you didn't address in previous posts of mine how North Dakota's governor intends to defend his posting of the Ten Commandments, or Louisiana's.

Pretty stunning the lack of respect, towards these officials and their legal teams. You can't assume you're right until you win the case.

I don't appreciate your snide remarks at me, either, which are off-base, because the Oklahoma Supreme Court could have smashed Title 70 Section 8 anytime they pleased in the last fourteen years. I think you've heard the Steve Martin line about being something that begins with the letter "a" ?

By the way, when I went to school and college, we didn't have "civics class". We actually had quality education back then.

[Sonny Tufts]

But it's also arguable that this "displaying" is part of the statute I posted, which you're ignoring.

I'm ignoring it because it conflicts with the Oklahoma Constitution.

It's also possibly defensible via Van Orden v. Perry, a SCOTUS decision you likely objected to, however I'm sure you'll say that has no bearing also.

It has no bearing because Prescott was based on the Oklahoma Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause. You haven't bothered to read Prescott, have you? Yet you have the audacity to pontificate on something you know nothing about. Here, read this and learn something:

To be sure, the United States Supreme Court case of Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), ruled that the Texas Ten Commandments monument did not violate the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the issue in the case at hand is whether the Oklahoma Ten Commandments monument violates the Oklahoma Constitution, not whether it violates the Establishment Clause. Our opinion rests solely on the Oklahoma Constitution with no regard for federal jurisprudence. https://casetext.com/case/prescott-v...l-pres-commn-1

[Snowball]

I'm ignoring it because it conflicts with the Oklahoma Constitution.



It has no bearing because Prescott was based on the Oklahoma Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause. You haven't bothered to read Prescott, have you? Yet you have the audacity to pontificate on something you know nothing about. Here, read this and learn something:

I'm certainly NOT the one pontificating in this thread. I started off in this thread talking about historical and constitutional states rights.
You are among those who have the OPINION that the authorities in THREE STATES have no legal grounds.

Well.. when a CASE happens, then we talk. Anything you MAINTAIN is true about Prescott or any OTHER case is merely an opinion
until that opinion wins in a court of LAW involving THESE actions by elected officials. "See you in court, Sonny..."

[Sonny Tufts]

You are among those who have the OPINION that the authorities in THREE STATES have no legal grounds.

My comments have been limited to Oklahoma and the requirement that the Commandments be posted in every classroom. I believe Prescott controls the (state) constitutionality of this requirement. Indeed, I think the case for the invalidity of the requirement is stronger than the fact pattern in Prescott. Unlike the state capitol grounds involved in Prescott a public school classroom involves a captive audience of impressionable children who would be forced to see a clearly religious message every school day, thereby benefiting and supporting the Judeo-Christian system of religion.

Now if you want to distinguish Prescott from the new regulation, have at it.

Interesting bit of history: following the Prescott decision and the removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the capitol grounds, legislators put a measure on the 2016 ballot that would have removed Article 2, Section 5 from the Oklahoma Constitution (which was the basis for the decision in Prescott). The measure failed by almost 14 percentage points.


EDIT: The Oklahoma superintendent mandated that the Bible be included the school curriculum, that there be a Bible in every classroom, and that teachers " teach from it." He did not specifically require that the Commandments be posted; that was done in Louisiana. I apologize for my error.

Further regulations regarding this mandate are to be issued, and the State department of Education may supply teaching materials to be used in all classes. It remains to be seen just how secular and even-handed the use of the Bible will be. Will students learn about Jefferson's bible, a severely redacted version of the New Testament that omitted any miracles, the Resurrection, and passages portraying Jesus as divine? Will they learn how the Bible was used to justify slavery? Will other foundational documents such as the Constitution be contrasted with the Ten Commandments (e.g., the First Amendment conflicts with the first three commandments)?

[Snowball]

My comments have been limited to Oklahoma and the requirement that the Commandments be posted in every classroom. I believe Prescott controls the (state) constitutionality of this requirement. Indeed, I think the case for the invalidity of the requirement is stronger than the fact pattern in Prescott. Unlike the state capitol grounds involved in Prescott a public school classroom involves a captive audience of impressionable children who would be forced to see a clearly religious message every school day, thereby benefiting and supporting the Judeo-Christian system of religion.

Now if you want to distinguish Prescott from the new regulation, have at it.

Interesting bit of history: following the Prescott decision and the removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the capitol grounds, legislators put a measure on the 2016 ballot that would have removed Article 2, Section 5 from the Oklahoma Constitution (which was the basis for the decision in Prescott). The measure failed by almost 14 percentage points.

I know, but you aren't addressing the points I made about how it's already being enforced. Fourteen Years. So, whether it's a single teacher, principal, group of teachers, school councils, town councils, whatever, these are already occurring before the memorandum. It's in the 2010 law posted earlier. Whether Prescott prohibits this or not is TBD. Even Supreme Court rulings can be overturned by the Ruling Court. Gov. Burgum's rationale appears to imply a connection to Stone v. Graham. Stone v. Graham had four justices including Chief Justice Burger in Dissent. So, nobody in this thread should seek to characterize anyone with insults for supporting the opinions of four Supreme Court justices.

You should consider why there are no cases being advanced at this time, and why the moves to do all this are happening among conservative states. It's because of the ruling SCOTUS. The ACLU are not dopes. If Stone v. Graham was heard just a year after it was, it probably would have gone the other way with O'Connor. Definitely with Scalia in 1986. This is all politics. Look at the Dissent: Burger - Nixon/ Blackmun - Nixon/ Stewart - Eisenhower/ Rehnquist - Reagan. Try these cases in 2024? No way.

[jmdrake]

I know, but you aren't addressing the points I made about how it's already being enforced. Fourteen Years. So, whether it's a single teacher, principal, group of teachers, school councils, town councils, whatever, these are already occurring before the memorandum.

In order to sue someone you have to have standing. Under the voluntary statute, teachers, students, parents, principals etc in the schools that didn't implement the Bible classes didn't have standing to challenge the law. I'm betting that it was only used in very red school districts where people were not likely to sue or even complain about it. Now it's being mandated across the entire state increasing the likelihood of a lawsuit exponentially. We'll see what happens.

[Anti Federalist]

[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.