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

[PAF]

This is hegelian dialectic at its finest. There are posters in this thread who are rightfully against what the left is espousing, but then they unfortunately default to supporting its apparent opposition. Satan has his hands in both cookie jars (left and right). The left grows in its extremism, and in response the right grows in its extremism. And it is going back and forth and will continue until one side has enough support to force its evil edicts on the entire population. The left is gaining traction for its climate sundays https://www.climatesunday.org/ and the right is gaining traction for its project 2025 https://www.project2025.org/. The man of sin is fine with either.

Project 2025

- It adopts a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory, a disputed interpretation of Article II of the Constitution of the United States, which asserts that the president has absolute power over the executive branch upon inauguration.

- Jeffrey Clark, a contributor to the project and a former official within the DOJ, would advise the future president to immediately deploy the military for domestic law enforcement by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807.

- It promotes capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of those sentences.

- Critics of Project 2025 have described it as an authoritarian, Christian nationalist movement that seeks to reform the United States into an autocracy. Several experts in law have indicated that it would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers. Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan, for example in the contexts of centralizing power, individual rights and freedoms.

- Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a scholar of fascism and authoritarian leaders at New York University, wrote in May 2024 that Project 2025 "is a plan for an authoritarian takeover of the United States that goes by a deceptively neutral name."

- Doing away with the separation of church and state is the goal of many architects of Trumpism, from Project 2025 contributor Russ Vought to far-right proselytizer Michael Flynn, who uses the idea of "spiritual war" as counterrevolutionary fuel ...

This explains Trump's call for Federally-Funded Nationwide "Stop and Frisk" and complete Local LEO Immunity, among other anti-liberty agenda.

[Anti Federalist]

But in the meantime, you are advocating that politicians and governments have the right to intrude/dictate into the religious freedom of individuals lives.

Tell you what, get rid of the queeer porn in the school libraries and the drag queeer shows, and you can take down the ten commandments as well.

[acptulsa]

Tell you what, get rid of the queeer porn in the school libraries and the drag queeer shows, and you can take down the ten commandments as well.

Deal!!

[Anti Federalist]

Deal!!

Done!!

[PAF]

Tell you what, get rid of the queeer porn in the school libraries and the drag queeer shows, and you can take down the ten commandments as well.

I mind my own business, AF. That is up to each local school system to do via the parents who attend the school board meetings.

I remember a time when people minded their own business and didn't meddle so much.

And then they started poking their meddlesome noses into everybody's affairs outside of their own community and new laws were created by the higher ups, state on up to the fed. I don't subscribe to that philosophy, even though you do.

Do you remember those times? Or, do you feel rather comfortable with this pathetic New Normal? Because you sure do participate in it enough.

[Anti Federalist]

I mind my own business, AF. That is up to each local school system to do via the parents who attend the school board meetings.

I remember a time when people minded their own business and didn't meddle so much.

And then they started poking their meddlesome noses into everybody's affairs outside of their own community and new laws were created by the higher ups, state on up to the fed. I don't subscribe to that philosophy, even though you do.

Do you remember those times? Or, do you feel rather comfortable with this pathetic New Normal? Because you sure do participate in it enough.

I homeschooled my children. They never step foot inside a government school. How is that participating?

I do remember those times. If a pervert dressed as a woman showed up in the school library and started waving his dick at grammar school kids, he would have gotten his ass beaten to within an inch of his life, and then got hauled off to jail.

They would have dragged him out right under the plaque on the wall with the ten commandments on them.

That being said, if the parents, through their local school board, elected to post the ten commandments in school buildings, that be would OK, right?

[PAF]

I homeschooled my children. They never step foot inside a government school. How is that participating?

I do remember those times. If a pervert dressed as a woman showed up in the school library and started waving his dick at grammar school kids, he would have gotten his ass beaten to within an inch of his life, and then got hauled off to jail.

They would have dragged him out right under the plaque on the wall with the ten commandments on them.

That being said, if the parents, through their local school board, elected to post the ten commandments in school buildings, that be would OK, right?

It would not be ok with me. School is for learning math, science, reading/writing, how to compete in the world. Morals and religion should be up to parents, not government. But if the parents of another community opted for that, I would not meddle, nor would I want my tax dollars to fund ten commandments or any other religious material in their school.

Public schools aren't going anywhere anytime soon. But I do not support or advocate politicians writing laws "in the meantime" to interfere/force moral/religious upbringing no matter how well intended.

I do not subscribe to Hillary's "It Takes A Village" and "For The Greater Good" which is where today's "republicans" are today. They are nothing more than Closet Communists who accept politicians/government into their lives.

[Invisible Man]

It would not be ok with me. School is for learning math, science, reading/writing, how to compete in the world. Morals and religion should be up to parents, not government.

So learning math, science, reading/writing, and how to compete in the world *should* be up to the government?

Also, notice this word in the second sentence I quoted from you: "should."

This word "should" makes your own position that you are articulating here a matter of morals and religion. There is no avoiding it. In order for a school to conform to your standards of what it *should* do, as opposed to AF's standards of what it *should* do, it must favor your morals and religion over AF's.

[Snowball]

Hopefully, I don't need to explain the problem with your reasoning here.

There was none.
Yours has the problem because you are suggesting that using the Constitution as an authority is circular reasoning,
when that's exactly what the federal courts are supposed to do.

[PAF]

So learning math, science, reading/writing, and how to compete in the world *should* be up to the government?

I never once said or inferred that the above "should be up to the government".

Also, notice this word in the second sentence I quoted from you: "should."

This word "should" makes your own position that you are articulating here a matter of morals and religion. There is no avoiding it. In order for a school to conform to your standards of what it *should* do, as opposed to AF's standards of what it *should* do, it must favor your morals and religion over AF's.

As opposed to government, I don't see a problem with "it should be up to the parents". Whether parents choose to do that, or not, is up to them, regardless of what I think or believe.


In other words: Quit picking on me

[Invisible Man]

There was none.

Does the following chain of reasoning accurately represent the argument you provided?

What the Constitution says should be followed because it is the Law of the Land.
We know that the Constitution is the Law of the Land because it says so in the Constitution.

Because it sure looks to me like that is precisely what you said.

And if so, then yes, there is an obvious a problem with it. It is question begging. If the very point of contention is whether or not the Constitution is the Law of the Land, then this can't be decided by pointing to what the Constitution itself says about the matter.

If you really think that's valid, then I can just as easily write my own Constitution and include within it a declaration that it is the Law of the Land, superseding the Constitution that you quoted, and my claim would be valid on account of being supported by the Constitution that I wrote.

[Invisible Man]

I never once said or inferred that the above "should be up to the government".

You implied it. I inferred it from what you said. And if that wasn't what you meant, then you misspoke and may want to revise your post.

[PAF]

You implied it. I inferred it from what you said. And if that wasn't what you meant, then you misspoke and may want to revise your post.

Nah, I'm good. I think folks around here know where I stand concerning government. If not, you/they can simply look to the left at my avatar and figure it out ;-)

But no, I did not "imply" it either.

[TheCount]

there are schools in lousiana not taking public monies that are not religious schools? Hard to imagine , if so they should sue if that is what they like. Im sure they have an excellent presentation on why a young student should not learn to be discouraged from coveting , bearing false witness etc, I suppose the state can put forth a presentation on how coveting has lead to downfall of a nation where only 6 in ten work and only two of those pay more tax than recieve. It should be excellent , lol

I have no idea what you're talking about

[nobody's_hero]

That being said, if the parents, through their local school board, elected to post the ten commandments in school buildings, that be would OK, right?

We're conditioned to be outraged about the one but not the other.

I mean, a blind man could see how much things are sliding away from any sort of moral sensibility in this country, whether it comes from God or whatever you personally subscribe to as the basis of your moral foundation. (plot twist though, aside from 'thou shalt have no other Gods before me' and 'don't use the Lord's name in vain', the ten commandments would just be an ordinary list of tips on how not-to-be-a-douchebag, so just how much of it is *really* religious? Most sane people follow 80% of the 10 commandments day-to-day. Is the problem that someone put a title on it?)

That's why I say, only the devil is allowed in government. People act like freaks in school and there's a smattering ho-hum of disapproval, but God gets a mention, and it's time to circle the wagons.

I'm gonna be honest. I just can't get that animated about it. Having the 10 commandments in school is so far down on my list of potential threats to this country that there's not enough internet space to reach the 'last' page. The people who want to keep God out of schools have enough help. They don't need mine.

[acptulsa]

Public schools aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

So learning math, science, reading/writing, and how to compete in the world *should* be up to the government?

Dude. Given that government function x exists, not as a hypothetical but as a fact of life, and given that one could consider it easier (which is read like "possible in the short term"), one has a right to tell x, this line you shall not cross. This is not what you're here for. We are the public and you will deliver what we require, because we're itching to convince our neighbors to disband you.

Like he said. Quit picking on him.

[Invisible Man]

Dude. Given that government function x exists, not as a hypothetical but as a fact of life, and given that one could consider it easier (which is read like "possible in the short term"), one has a right to tell x, this line you shall not cross. This is not what you're here for. We are the public and you will deliver what we require, because we're itching to convince our neighbors to disband you.

Like he said. Quit picking on him.

The problem with that argument is that line X is getting crossed. Once you concede that public school isn't going anywhere, it is just as much a given that public school, just as much as any other school, is and always will be religious. It cannot conceivably avoid crossing that line. School without religion is not just a practical impossibility, it is a logical impossibility. If it doesn't cross it for one religion, it must cross if for another. To tell it not to cross it for religion A doesn't result in a less religious public school, it only results in a public school that is more supporting of religion B against religion A.

To support a separation of church and state is to support a separation of school and state. There is no middle option of having the state involved in schools that are religionless.

[acptulsa]

The problem with that argument is that line X is getting crossed. Once you concede that public school isn't going anywhere...

Your train just left the rails.

How are you going to get rid of this existential thing? Would you be open to a two step plan? You don't think rallying the public to say, this is what we expect from you, and waiting for government to fail would be a good step in making the public see that government isn't the best tool for the job?

You're too pure to pursue a two step plan? It's rip it asunder or live with it?

Once you read what we both wrote and say we conceded that this thing isn't ever going anywhere you only proved that you don't pay attention.

[Invisible Man]

Your train just left the rails.

How are you going to get rid of this existential thing? Would you be open to a two step plan? You don't think rallying the public to say, this is what we expect from you, and waiting for government to fail would be a good step in making the public see that government isn't the best tool for the job?

You're too pure to pursue a two step plan? It's rip it asunder or live with it?

Once you read what we both wrote and say we conceded that this thing isn't ever going anywhere you only proved that you don't pay attention.

I don't understand how anything you're saying has anything to do with anything I said.

[PAF]

..

Alanah Odoms, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana. “Public schools are not Sunday schools. We must protect the individual right of students and families to choose their own faith or no faith at all. The separation of church and state is a bedrock of our nation’s founding principles; the ten commandments are not.”

[Invisible Man]

Your train just left the rails.

How are you going to get rid of this existential thing? Would you be open to a two step plan? You don't think rallying the public to say, this is what we expect from you, and waiting for government to fail would be a good step in making the public see that government isn't the best tool for the job?

You're too pure to pursue a two step plan? It's rip it asunder or live with it?

Once you read what we both wrote and say we conceded that this thing isn't ever going anywhere you only proved that you don't pay attention.

I think I may get what you're saying.

I think you're saying that there is this seemingly unattainable goal of separation of school and state.

Since that goal is out of reach, there's nothing wrong with advocating a lesser goal of, as long as we must have public school, at least having public schools without displays of the 10 Commandments, which I think you and PAF take to be an incremental improvement over public schools with displays of the 10 Commandments.

But that is precisely the question. Is that really an incremental improvement at all? Is the religion that the state advances in schools that refrain from displaying the 10 Commandments really in any slight way better than the religion the state advances when it displays them?

For me, that is not an easy question to answer. It's certainly not as obvious as it seems to be for you and PAF.

But one thing that is absolutely clear to me is that both options (public schools with displays of the 10 Commandments and public schools without displays of the 10 Commandments) are exactly equal in the degree to which they advance religion of one kind or another.

[PAF]

I think I may get what you're saying.

I think you're saying that there is this seemingly unattainable goal of separation of school and state.

Since that goal is out of reach, there's nothing wrong with advocating a lesser goal of, as long as we must have public school, at least having public schools without displays of the 10 Commandments, which I think you and PAF take to be an incremental improvement over public schools with displays of the 10 Commandments.

But that is precisely the question. Is that really an incremental improvement at all? Is the religion that the state advances in schools that refrain from displaying the 10 Commandments really in any slight way better than the religion the state advances when it displays them?

For me, that is not an easy question to answer. It's certainly not as obvious as it seems to be for you and PAF.

But one thing that is absolutely clear to me is that both options (public schools with displays of the 10 Commandments and public schools without displays of the 10 Commandments) are exactly equal in the degree to which they advance religion of one kind or another.

I oppose any politician and/or government establishing a religion, or version of, whether it is in school or anywhere else. Period.

[Snowball]

To support a separation of church and state is to support a separation of school and state. There is no middle option of having the state involved in schools that are religionless.

Another ludicrous statement, like how you say the Constitution is not the law and that you can dream up your own.
All I wanted was for you to acknowledge that the Federal court where this case will be heard is sworn to uphold that Constitution and its laws.

What you describe in this nonsense above IS the defacto reality in the United States, yet you say it's not an option.

Looney Tunes.

[Invisible Man]

I oppose any politician and/or government establishing a religion, or version of, whether it is in school or anywhere else. Period.

I agree.

But, there are two options:
A) The establishment of religion by way of having public schools that display the 10 Commandments
B) The establishment of religion by way of having public schools that do not display the 10 Commandments

The choice between those options is not a choice between one that is more of an establishment of religion over against another that is less of an establishment of religion. It is a choice between two options that are exactly equal in the degree to which they establish religion.

[acptulsa]

I think I may get what you're saying.

I think you're saying that there is this seemingly unattainable goal of separation of school and state.

Since that goal is out of reach...

I hope you never get a kitten. You'll wean the poor thing cold turkey. Once you get it to take one bite of cat food, you probably won't keep milk in the house for six months.

No, man. I'm saying maybe the best way to destroy it is to prove to the public that it cannot be tamed and made to serve. Sometimes people have to try one more thing before they give up on what they thought was a good idea.

You like point B. I like point B. We are at point A. You aren't dictator. What's your plan, dude? Which way from here?

[Invisible Man]

What you describe in this nonsense above IS the defacto reality in the United States

Are you saying that the de facto reality in the US is religionless schools?

You are mistaken. Every public school in the USA is thoroughly and zealously religious. The only question is, what is its religion.

[PAF]

I agree.

But, there are two options:
A) The establishment of religion by way of having public schools that display the 10 Commandments
B) The establishment of religion by way of having public schools that do not display the 10 Commandments

The choice between those options is not a choice between one that is more of an establishment of religion over against another that is less of an establishment of religion. It is a choice between two options that are exactly equal in the degree to which they establish religion.

C) Stay out of it. Do not fund. Do not enforce. Do not suggest/write/approve any legislation at all. IE: Off limits.

[Invisible Man]

Another ludicrous statement, like how you say the Constitution is not the law and that you can dream up your own.

You misread what I said.

I didn't claim that I can dream up my own Constitution. I claimed that if your argument that the US Constitution is the Law of the Land were a valid argument, then the result would be that I could dream up my own Constitution to be the Law of the Land superseding the US Constitution.

In reality, justice prohibits me from dreaming up my own Law of the Land. And just as it prohibits me from that, it also prohibits everyone else from it.

[acptulsa]

C) Stay out of it. Do not fund. Do not enforce. Do not suggest/write/approve any legislation at all. IE: Off limits.

It's very important to keep what politics you can't eliminate as local as possible.

[Snowball]

I don't concur with your semantic journeys, @Invisible Man... so how about just spitting it out

if you were on the court and had to decide the case...

how would you rule?

allow Louisiana to post the Decalogue or strip them down?

If you're going to strip them down, by what authority?