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

[jmdrake]

I did.
An amendment to the Oklahoma constitution is a law. It was passed by State Question No. 526, Legislative Referendum No. 220 in 1978.
It is YOUR belief that the Oklahoma school system is violating their state constitution, so call the ACLU or something.
Don't know what to tell you. It's your opinion.

No, you didn't. I'll ask it again. Regardless of what the state constitution says why are you gung ho for a state to establish a religion? If the U.S. constitution was changed to no longer have a second amendment, I would for changing the constitution to put the second amendment back in because I believe the right to keep and bear arms is a good thing. You apparently believe states establishing their own state religion is a good thing. I'm asking you why you believe that. And your infantile red herring about the ACLU is irrelevant. The ACLU isn't the only organization that fights for religious liberty just like the NRA isn't the only organization that fights for gun rights. I disagree with the ACLU's push for gender affirming care for children (among other things). So your repeating that stupid "Why are you donating to the ACLU" argument makes no sense. I have indirectly supported https://www.libertymagazine.org/, and though they have taken some positions I disagree with, they aren't pushing for child gender surgeries like the ACLU.

So, one more time, why do you think that states establishing their own religions is a good thing?

[jmdrake]

I doubt very much that the Oklahoma official who started this mess intends for the instruction to include how the Bible was used to justify slavery or that Massachusetts made blasphemy a capital offense (emulating Leviticus 24:16).

You know that the Bible as written wasn't actually used to justify slavery right? At the Smithsonian they have a copy of the "slave Bible" which was a Bible where all of the anti slavery references were cut out in order to pretend the Bible justified slavery.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ngs-180970989/

[jmdrake]

You have been a member here long enough to know that there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution.

It's true that the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution and @PAF didn't say that they were. But Thomas Jefferson did include those words in a letter as president to discuss his understanding of the ideals of this country.

https://www.bridgew.edu/stories/2023...urch-and-state

That said, much of what was seen as benign instances of religion in the public square in 1802 have become hot button topics today. In 1802 it was as natural for a teacher to talk to his/her class about faith as it has become in some places for teachers to talk to classes about gender identity and choosing pronouns. And, of course, that's the rub. Teachers have been forced by the heavy hand of government to put their religion in the closet while the cultural propaganda says sexuality must be taken out of the closet and brought into the classroom. And the backlash is oh so predictable.

[Snowball]

So, one more time, why do you think that states establishing their own religions is a good thing?

Ok, so you agree that if and when a case is heard, the State of OK has the right to present its defense.

Now, you're asking ME MY opinion on the broad topic of States Rights. Since the U.S. Const. merely prohibits CONGRESS on the Federal level from establishing a religion, it follows, and is demonstrable historically, that the Founders and the delegates of many states had this vision for the union. My opinion is that we, as Americans, should seek to adhere to the original intent of the Constitution.

[jmdrake]

Ok, so you agree that if and when a case is heard, the State of OK has the right to present its defense.

Well duh! That means absolutely nothing. The Biden administration had the right to present its defense of the bump fire stock ban too. Please try to make an intelligent argument.

Now, you're asking ME MY opinion on the broad topic of States Rights. Since the U.S. Const. merely prohibits CONGRESS on the Federal level from establishing a religion, it follows, and is demonstrable historically, that the Founders and the delegates of many states had this vision for the union. My opinion is that we, as Americans, should seek to adhere to the original intent of the Constitution.

Another non-intelligent argument that doesn't address my question. The original Constitution also didn't directly prohibit states from violating your right to free speech or freedom of the press or freedom to peaceably assemble or freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances. That does not mean that the founders were okay with the states violating those freedoms. They dealt with that in state constitutions and as it's already been pointed out to you, Oklahoma, which didn't even become a state until 1907, has language that goes beyond the text of the U.S. constitution.

But once again, quit dodging the question. Why do you want a state religion? The Constitution doesn't prevent forced sterilization of prisoners just to "prevent welfare" and that happened in California up until 2014. I still say that's barbaric. The Constitution as written doesn't prevent states from making abortion legal for any reason through the 9th month of pregnancy. I wouldn't expect someone who was pro life and living in a state that took such an extreme pro choice position to say "Oh well. I guess I can't advocate for the unborn in my state because the founders didn't put that explicitly in the U.S. Constitution." But that's the silly argument you're making with regards to states establishing religions.

[ClaytonB]

I doubt very much that the Oklahoma official who started this mess intends for the instruction to include how the Bible was used to justify slavery or that Massachusetts made blasphemy a capital offense (emulating Leviticus 24:16).

But it's OK to butcher kids under the new, "neutral" religion of Wokism? You've lost the plot. The "secular neutral" narrative only worked while the next-door gay neighbors restricted themselves to the After-8 Club. As soon as they started prowling around among the kids and scheming ways to "turn" them "trans", and even harnessing the force of the State to that end, they signed the death-warrant of that cultural truce. To be clear, I am not espousing or advocating or soliciting in any fashion violence towards the cultural Marxists (which includes the homosexuals and many other depraved people, many of whose appetites are not related to sex at all). Rather, I am simply giving a warning, in the biblical sense of warning. There is a violence coming which no one has ever imagined. It will set upon the cultural Marxists and everyone like them. Whether that will happen sooner or later, only God knows, but I cannot imagine how God will delay much longer while people are butchering children on the operating table. God has never once delayed judgment upon a culture once it began feeding on its own children. Abortion is tragic but the technological methods of modern abortion make it seem clinical. Chopping up a child's body parts is not clinical, it's open-air paganism and barbarity. The only difference between that and Gen. 6:5,11 is scale. Compare to Matt. 24:37.

Most people will not heed the warning in this post (the Gospel). If you're on the fence, get off it. Fire is coming, 2 Thess. 1:6-10.

[Snowball]

Another non-intelligent argument that doesn't address my question. The original Constitution also didn't directly prohibit states from violating your right to free speech or freedom of the press or freedom to peaceably assemble or freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Very true. It didn't. Now, put that in your pipe and smoke it. Say it again and say it out loud and see how it sounds. Mull over it.

Then, compare it to the Second Amendment, which unlike the First, is NOT delimited whatsoever. It reads, rather, "shall not be infringed".

They are different, are they not?

That does not mean that the founders were okay with the states violating those freedoms. They dealt with that in state constitutions

Not all Founders were in charge of states, and some were at odds with state powers, who were putting up a fight. You need to appreciate the distinctions they made. The distinction between the First and Second Amendments is one of jurisdiction between the Federal Republic and the sovereign States. The Fourth is also all-encompassing, like the Second (NOT THE FIRST) ... it says "shall not be violated". Period.

The authors of the Constitution wanted to apply broad, unrestricted rights to every state citizen borders and infringe upon State Rights, they would have used the same language in the First as they did in the Second, Fourth, Fifth (NO court).. etcetera.

Only the First is specialized in this manner. "Congress shall make no law". Ergo....States MAY.

But once again, quit dodging the question. Why do you want a state religion?

I never said I do. I merely said that I support Oklahoma's (and Louisiana's...) posting of the Ten Commandments in schools.

[Sonny Tufts]

You know that the Bible as written wasn't actually used to justify slavery right?

It was (mis)used by some to do so. See:

https://time.com/5171819/christianit...-book-excerpt/
https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/is-...oogle_vignette

[Sonny Tufts]

Now, you're asking ME MY opinion on the broad topic of States Rights. Since the U.S. Const. merely prohibits CONGRESS on the Federal level from establishing a religion, it follows, and is demonstrable historically, that the Founders and the delegates of many states had this vision for the union. My opinion is that we, as Americans, should seek to adhere to the original intent of the Constitution.

The original intent of the Constitution was altered by the 14th Amendment, which limits what states can do.

[jmdrake]

Very true. It didn't. Now, put that in your pipe and smoke it. Say it again and say it out loud and see how it sounds. Mull over it.

Put what in my pipe and smoke it? You act like you won some sort of victory by arguing against a straw man. Hint. You didn't.

Then, compare it to the Second Amendment, which unlike the First, is NOT delimited whatsoever. It reads, rather, "shall not be infringed".

Another straw man argument. I purposefully didn't mention the 2nd amendment. You made the ridiculous argument that since the Constitution only mentioned Congress in the first amendment, the founders must of have been okay with states establishing their own religions. They handled that issue at the state level just like they handled state infringements of freedom of press at the state level.

Not all Founders were in charge of states, and some were at odds with state powers, who were putting up a fight. You need to appreciate the distinctions they made. The distinction between the First and Second Amendments is one of jurisdiction between the Federal Republic and the sovereign States. The Fourth is also all-encompassing, like the Second (NOT THE FIRST) ... it says "shall not be violated". Period.

Another ridiculous straw man argument. They all had influence at the state level and state constitutions mirrored the protections in the federal constitution. Note that you can't come up with a single example of a state establishing its own religion.

The authors of the Constitution wanted to apply broad, unrestricted rights to every state citizen borders and infringe upon State Rights, they would have used the same language in the First as they did in the Second, Fourth, Fifth (NO court).. etcetera.

Prior to the "incorporation doctrine" SCOTUS declined to apply the 2nd, fourth or fifth amendment to the states. Read U.S. v Cruikshank if you don't believe me.

Only the First is specialized in this manner. "Congress shall make no law". Ergo....States MAY.

Yep. And each of the states had some variation of the first amendment anyway, including Oklahoma. So you're making a point that has no point.

I never said I do. I merely said that I support Oklahoma's (and Louisiana's...) posting of the Ten Commandments in schools.

You made it on the basis of states being able to establish their own religions. That said, a historical display of ancient laws that included codes besides just the 10 commandments wouldn't be an establishment of religion.

[jmdrake]

It was (mis)used by some to do so. See:

https://time.com/5171819/christianit...-book-excerpt/
https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/is-...oogle_vignette

Only to the extent that they did not use the entire Bible. Hence the need for a slave bible. Did you even read the link I provided you?

Edit And the links you provided only prove my point! Those passages were left in the slave Bible. Let's see what you would NOT find in the slave Bible.

There is no place in the Bible where anyone turned black after being cursed by God, bu Gehazi and his descendants were turned white because of greed.

2 Kings 5:26-27

26 But Elisha said to him, “Was not my spirit with you when the man got down from his chariot to meet you? Is this the time to take money or to accept clothes—or olive groves and vineyards, or flocks and herds, or male and female slaves? 27 Naaman’s leprosy will cling to you and to your descendants forever.” Then Gehazi went from Elisha’s presence and his skin was leprous—it had become as white as snow

Kidnapping a man and selling him into slavery was punishable by death.

Exodus 21:16

“Whoever kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or is found with him in his possession, must be put to death.

Slavery in Paul's time was based on debt, not race. Paul told Philemon he could force him (Philemon) to release Onesimus but asked to nicely to do it instead pointing out that Philemon owed Paul his very life and offering to pay whatever Onesimus owed.

Philemon 17-20

17 If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.

18 If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account;

19 I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.

20 Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord.

And Paul told masers they couldn't even threaten their slaves! Hard to make someone you're not paying to pick cotton if you aren't allowed to use threats.

Ephesian 6:9

And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

[Snowball]

The original intent of the Constitution was altered by the 14th Amendment, which limits what states can do.

As does the changes to State constitutions, but the meanings and applications of various dictats are still up for interpretations, so we have court cases...

[Snowball]

Another straw man argument. I purposefully didn't mention the 2nd amendment. You made the ridiculous argument that since the Constitution only mentioned Congress in the first amendment, the founders must of have been okay with states establishing their own religions. They handled that issue at the state level just like they handled state infringements of freedom of press at the state level.

You don't know what you're talking about. Ask Sonny if you don't believe me. States had laws favoring Christianity. In their Constitutions.

[jmdrake]

You don't know what you're talking about. Ask Sonny if you don't believe me. States had laws favoring Christianity. In their Constitutions.

Oklahoma certainly did not. And you can't even be honest about what you are arguing. You say you don't want state laws establishing religion but then you're supporting the 10 commandments based on state laws establishing religion. Make up your mind dude.

Edit: And I see more dishonesty from you. I didn't say that no state had any law favoring Christianity. What I said was " They handled that issue at the state level just like they handled state infringements of freedom of press at the state level." Now if you want to make a particular argument about a particular state "establishing" Christianity, actually make a reference to it so that can actually be discussed instead of trying to argue against what I didn't say.

[Sonny Tufts]

Only to the extent that they did not use the entire Bible. Hence the need for a slave bible. Did you even read the link I provided you?

I'm not denying that slaveowners cherry picked biblical verses to justify slavery. They did, and my point was that I doubt very much that this misuse would be taught as part of the "historical" approach to teaching the Bible that the Oklahoma official would have people believe would be the norm.

[Snowball]

Oklahoma and Lousiana are following the North Dakotan precedent on the Ten Commandments.

Thus far, this argument is impervious to the anti-prayer ruling of Engel v. Vitale, 1962.

Some of the legal rationale may be read here:

https://apnews.com/article/north-dak...0dd951ab96bb10

[jmdrake]

I'm not denying that slaveowners cherry picked biblical verses to justify slavery. They did, and my point was that I doubt very much that this misuse would be taught as part of the "historical" approach to teaching the Bible that the Oklahoma official would have people believe would be the norm.

Fair enough. If you're arguing that whatever course that might be taught will likely be agenda driven I concede that point. Oddly enough if in the Roe v Wade decision there are references to beliefs about abortion from the Judaic, Protestant and Catholic traditions. I bet a lot of people running around talking about "Judeo-Christian values" would be shocked to know that, according to the opinion in Roe, the Jewish faith allows abortion up until the moment of birth.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/

It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live' birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. [Footnote 56] It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. [Footnote 57] It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. [Footnote 58] As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physician and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. [Footnote 59] Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. [Footnote 60] The Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this "ensoulment" theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from

Point? A class which honestly looked at the historical role of religion in U.S. politics could have merit.

[jmdrake]

Oklahoma and Lousiana are following the North Dakotan precedent on the Ten Commandments.

Thus far, this argument is impervious to the anti-prayer ruling of Engel v. Vitale, 1962.

Some of the legal rationale may be read here:

https://apnews.com/article/north-dak...0dd951ab96bb10

The link you posted says this is to allow the 10 Commandments to be posted rather than requiring them to be posted. Also a competing bill says that they should be included in a display with other historical documents.

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum signed a measure Friday aimed at shielding schools and teachers from lawsuits arising from posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms.

The Republican’s endorsement of the bill comes after attorneys and school officials warned the legislation is unconstitutional and would spur costly and unwinnable legal fights.

The bill received broad support in both Republican-led legislative chambers, with a 76-16 vote in the House and a 34-13 vote in the Senate. Hoping to fend off legal challenges, the House amended the bill with a requirement that the Ten Commandments be included in a display with other historical documents.

In a statement, Burgum said the bill “clarifies the existing authority in state law that allows a school to display a religious object or document of cultural, legal, or historical significance together with similar documents.”

“This law supports local control and gives school districts full control over whether to display any religious objects or documents,” his statement said.

[Swordsmyth]

You're delusional. The Free Exercise Clause protects beliefs. It does not protect all actions taken in conjunction with beliefs. Murder will still be outlawed even if some idiot claims his religion requires him to murder.

Is Christianity's message so unappealing that it needs the government to promote it?

Bunk, we already have people suing for the "right" to abortion on free exercise grounds, and many other cases have been decided in favor of actions and not just beliefs.
Exercise is about much more than just belief.

[Swordsmyth]

Judiasm, as practiced today, is incompatible with Christianity and includes texts like the Talmud which teach that Mary was a whore and Jesus was a magician and a charlatan. One of the biggest problems with our foreign policy is the myth of "Judeo-Christianity." The "small hat club" and @Anti Federalist points out.

Irrelevant.
They still have the 10 commandments in their religion. (whether they follow them or not)

What our ancestors believed? Some of your ancestors most likely believed in Thor or Zeus or Jupiter or fill-in-the-blank. Trying to pretend that teaching about the Bible and the 10 commandments without putting it in historical context is somehow not teaching religion is itself an insult to the Bible, the 10 commandments and Christianity. If it's a "history class" the put everything in its actual historical context. If that isn't done it's just a religion class dishonestly masquerading as a history class.

So put it in historical context.
It's part of our history.

[jmdrake]

Bunk, we already have people suing for the "right" to abortion on free exercise grounds, and many other cases have been decided in favor of actions and not just beliefs.
Exercise is about much more than just belief.

It is universally accepted that once a human is born, and is not brain dead, that person is alive and is deserving of all legal protections. It is not universally accepted that once an ovum is fertilized it is alive and is deserving of all legal protections. The very red state of Alabama recently ran into problems because of this. The Alabama law started off with a 6 week abortion ban but then expended it to a ban from conception. Then some prospective parents sued an IVF clinic for not protecting their embryos from a deranged patient. The Alabama Supreme Court overturned the wrongful death dismissals claiming the embryos were people. That caused a panic as IVF clinics threatened to shut down. So the Republican dominated Alabama legislature did a carve out of protection from liability for IVF clinics for the negligent destruction of embryos and Republican Alabama Senator Kate Britt (who did the cringe response to Biden's 2024 SOTU speech), introduced federal legislation to penalize states who do not protect access to IVF. So a Republican has tried to pass a law to punish other states for doing what Republicans in her own state attempted to do.

There is no similar conflict over murder as there is over abortion. The sad reality is that post Dobbs overturning [i]Roe v Wade[/b] there has not been a rational national discourse on abortion but rather just a bunch of hyperbole.

[Swordsmyth]

It is universally accepted that once a human is born, and is not brain dead, that person is alive and is deserving of all legal protections. It is not universally accepted that once an ovum is fertilized it is alive and is deserving of all legal protections. The very red state of Alabama recently ran into problems because of this. The Alabama law started off with a 6 week abortion ban but then expended it to a ban from conception. Then some prospective parents sued an IVF clinic for not protecting their embryos from a deranged patient. The Alabama Supreme Court overturned the wrongful death dismissals claiming the embryos were people. That caused a panic as IVF clinics threatened to shut down. So the Republican dominated Alabama legislature did a carve out of protection from liability for IVF clinics for the negligent destruction of embryos and Republican Alabama Senator Kate Britt (who did the cringe response to Biden's 2024 SOTU speech), introduced federal legislation to penalize states who do not protect access to IVF. So a Republican has tried to pass a law to punish other states for doing what Republicans in her own state attempted to do.

There is no similar conflict over murder as there is over abortion. The sad reality is that post Dobbs overturning [i]Roe v Wade[/b] there has not been a rational national discourse on abortion but rather just a bunch of hyperbole.

There may not be conflict over murder as a religious right currently, but there will be when they take enough slices off the salami.
Once you unmoor the culture and the law from its Christian foundation, which always limited and defined religious freedom as only applying to religions that didn't breach our fundamental beliefs, there is nothing to keep anchored to, you will drift endlessly until you are out of sight of land.

[jmdrake]

There may not be conflict over murder as a religious right currently, but there will be when they take enough slices off the salami.
Once you unmoor the culture and the law from its Christian foundation which always limited and defined religious freedom as only applying to religions that didn't breach our fundamental beliefs there is nothing to keep anchored to, you will drift endlessly until you are out of sight of land.

And yet in countries that have no historical connection to Christianity you have prohibitions against murder. How do you explain that? In historical Christianity you had people burned to death for being accused of being witches. How do you explain that?

[PAF]

And yet in countries that have no historical connection to Christianity you have prohibitions against murder. How do you explain that? In historical Christianity you had people burned to death for being accused of being witches. How do you explain that?

Coercing Morality in Puritan Massachusetts

[jmdrake]

Irrelevant.
They still have the 10 commandments in their religion. (whether they follow them or not)


So put it in historical context.
It's part of our history.

That's what I've been saying the whole time. Glad we agree on that point.

[jmdrake]

Coercing Morality in Puritan Massachusetts

Wow! Interesting read. And now the hydra the Puritans created, compulsory public education and U.S. ivy league universities, is devouring children from the opposite religions / cultural / political perspective.

[Sonny Tufts]

Thus far, this argument is impervious to the anti-prayer ruling of Engel v. Vitale, 1962.

I doubt you've ever read the case, which involved a government-composed prayer that was required to be recited at the beginning of class each day, although individual students weren't required to recite it if they or their parents objected.

It's best to keep this in mind:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943)

[Snowball]

I doubt you've ever read the case, which involved a government-composed prayer that was required to be recited at the beginning of class each day, although individual students weren't required to recite it if they or their parents objected.

It's best to keep this in mind:

They cite the case not just in non-denominational or gov't composed prayer but in any prayer.
But that wasn't why I posted about it. All I said was that the current legal positions of states like ND, OK, LA,
is that they are immune to anti-prayer rulings.

Again, the rationale was expressed here:
https://apnews.com/article/north-dak...0dd951ab96bb10

[Sonny Tufts]

They cite the case not just in non-denominational or gov't composed prayer but in any prayer.
But that wasn't why I posted about it. All I said was that the current legal positions of states like ND, OK, LA,
is that they are immune to anti-prayer rulings.

Again, the rationale was expressed here:
https://apnews.com/article/north-dak...0dd951ab96bb10

Immune?

The Republican’s endorsement of the bill comes after attorneys and school officials warned the legislation is unconstitutional and would spur costly and unwinnable legal fights...Attorneys and education testified earlier that the bill likely violates the clause in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the establishment of religion by the government.

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.

[Swordsmyth]

And yet in countries that have no historical connection to Christianity you have prohibitions against murder. How do you explain that? In historical Christianity you had people burned to death for being accused of being witches. How do you explain that?

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.

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.
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.