Louisiana classrooms now required by law to display the Ten Commandments

[The Liturgist]

That's what I'm talking about. The interpretations are widely different. Someone could be fine with a nativity scene in a classroom. Others, usually athiests, would through a fit and claim establishment. But in reality it's not. It's about allowing and not establishing. The left is so afraid that merely having the ten commandments will lead to everyone believing in God and becoming a Christian. Or that everyone will be required to recite the sinners prayer and believe Christ is the savior.

Allowance is not establishment. I wonder if it's becauae that's the tactic they use all the time. They use allowance of trans ideolgy in the school to force everyone else to proclaim the faith and express belief in it or get fired or disciplined. Maybe that's what they are afraid of with the the commandments.

This is entirely correct. The Left have tried to abuse the Constitution to muzzle Christians, although now they seem to want to change it, since the illegal suppression of church worship during the Pandemic was found unconstitutional, due to the first amendment.

 

[The Liturgist]

Even so, what did the ending of legal segregation have to do with the unified American belief in Chrsitianity? The fraction of Americans who were Christians did not change from the times of legal segregation to when it ended.

So you’re seeking to deny that Martin Luther King Jr. was either a Christian and/or made with his very life a substantial contribution to the end of segregation in the South?

 

[Hans Blaster]

So you’re seeking to deny that Martin Luther King Jr. was either a Christian and/or made with his very life a substantial contribution to the end of segregation in the South?

Nope, that is not what I claimed. The other side (the segregationists) were also Christians. I'll re-ask my question putting the most important word in bold text:

Even so, what did the ending of legal segregation have to do with the unified American belief in Chrsitianity?

 

[BCP1928]

That's what I'm talking about. The interpretations are widely different. Someone could be fine with a nativity scene in a classroom. Others, usually athiests, would through a fit and claim establishment. But in reality it's not. It's about allowing and not establishing. The left is so afraid that merely having the ten commandments will lead to everyone believing in God and becoming a Christian. Or that everyone will be required to recite the sinners prayer and believe Christ is the savior.

Allowance is not establishment. I wonder if it's becauae that's the tactic they use all the time. They use allowance of trans ideolgy in the school to force everyone else to proclaim the faith and express belief in it or get fired or disciplined. Maybe that's what they are afraid of with the the commandments.

How is the teacher directed to answer questions about it? The first question which comes to mind is, "Teacher, how come those Ten Commandments aren't the same as the ones I learn about in Sunday School?"

No, I don't think this is a religious issue at all. What's to be posted is not really Scripture--it's a cartoon version of the Ten Commandments posted as a right-wing gang tag.

 

[The Liturgist]

Nope, that is not what I claimed. The other side (the segregationists) were also Christians

Not all of them.

But it was the common Christianity and the application of that concept which ultimately persuaded the majority to reject segregation, since obviously segregation is contrary to the Golden Rule, among other precepts.

Indeed, had there not been a substantial number of Christians among the segregationists, it is likely that segregation would still exist at present. Likewise, I would argue that had De Klerk not been at least nominally Christian, he would not have dismantled the Apartheid policies enforced with such brutality by his predecessor PW Botha in South Africa.

I would argue, since it is the Christian religion in which the arguments were chiefly made against segregation. It was the Christianity of Martin Luther King Jr. that prevailed, as opposed to the Marxist ideology embraced by other more extreme persons. In addition, it was the Christianity of Martin Luther King Jr. which greatly reduced the amount of violence that could otherwise have resulted from that very tense situation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not all of them.

And neither were all of the anti-segregationists. Chrstians on both sides.

But it was the common Christianity and the application of that concept which ultimately persuaded the majority to reject segregation, since obviously segregation is contrary to the Golden Rule, among other precepts.

The Golden Rule isn't Christian.

Indeed, had there not been a substantial number of Christians among the segregationists, it is likely that segregation would still exist at present.

What?

Likewise, I would argue that had De Klerk not been at least nominally Christian, he would not have dismantled the Apartheid policies enforced with such brutality by his predecessor PW Botha in South Africa.

I would argue, since it is the Christian religion in which the arguments were chiefly made against segregation. It was the Christianity of Martin Luther King Jr. that prevailed, as opposed to the Marxist ideology embraced by other more extreme persons. In addition, it was the Christianity of Martin Luther King Jr. which greatly reduced the amount of violence that could otherwise have resulted from that very tense situation.

You've lost the plot and ultimately failed to address my points

 

[Nithavela]

Yeah, that goes both ways. Roe vs. Wade was sacred for decades until it wasn't. It still is in the minds of many. It may swing back the other way someday, but I suspect the issue will never be resolved until one side or the other gets a constitutional amendment passed.

Do you have any examples of left wing groups trying to overturn the interpretation of the us constitution by the supreme court?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do you have any examples of left wing groups trying to overturn the interpretation of the us constitution by the supreme court?

Democrats have proposed Constitutional Amendments to alter the ruling in Citizens United. This is a different tactic from proposing multiple lawsuits hoping to obtain a different judicial opinion.

Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives

Shaheen Reintroduces Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United Ruling, Get Dark Money Out of Our Elections | U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire

**Amendment would help put power back in the hands of the American people.** (Washington, DC) -...

www.shaheen.senate.gov

 

[rjs330]

How is the teacher directed to answer questions about it? The first question which comes to mind is, "Teacher, how come those Ten Commandments aren't the same as the ones I learn about in Sunday School?"

I've heard this before as if its some sort of major point. You really think a lot of kids are going to ask this question? I spent years in Sunday School. I taught Sunday School and children's church. Nobody cares if a shortened form or the long form is used. The only people who really care are those who don't want them posted anywhere because it reminds them how they fall short.

And they are so afraid that Christains will start using their own tactics to force people to proclaim their faith or be fired or disciplined. If there's one thing we've learned is the left is very good at this, but they are afraid the right will learn from them.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Federal judge temporarily blocks Louisiana law requiring classrooms to display Ten Commandments​

US District Judge John W. deGravelles in Baton Rouge, issued the order in an ongoing lawsuit filed by a group of parents of Louisiana public school children.

 

[The Liturgist]

Democrats have proposed Constitutional Amendments to alter the ruling in Citizens United. This is a different tactic from proposing multiple lawsuits hoping to obtain a different judicial opinion.

Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives

Shaheen Reintroduces Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United Ruling, Get Dark Money Out of Our Elections | U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire

**Amendment would help put power back in the hands of the American people.** (Washington, DC) -...

www.shaheen.senate.gov

The US should move forward on a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and abortion and legalize all public displays of Christianity and Judaism, loosely defined so as to include as many as possible regardless of denomination, to include anyone who identifies as Christian, Jewish or Samaritan, and also Zoroastrians because d the relationship between their religion and Christianity. Likewise Sikhs would enjoy this privilege, and Jainists, Taoists, Confucianists and Shinto practitioners, to support the Sikh community in the US and the excellent I would support extending this privilege to Hinduism and Buddhism if India and certain Southeast Asian countries such as Bhutan agreed to grant religious liberty to Christians, or in the case of India, to act to stop the violence against Christians that has increased since the BJP came to power.

In the case of Islam, those forms of Islam that are non-violent and which do not persecute Christians at present and which lack any current or recent involvement in terrorism, which consist largely of Sufi groups such as the Mevlevi (whirling dervishes) and crypto-Christian groups such as the Alevi and Bektasi, and other groups known to be supportive of Christians such as the Alawis of Syria and the Ibadi Muslims of Oman (who unlike the rest I mentioned, are not Sufi, but are rather unique among Muslims as they are neither Sunni nor Shi’a, but worship in basically the same way, the only difference being one of posture during the start of prayers), and also other groups known for non-hostility to Christians, for example, the community of Nizari Shi’a led by His Highness the Aga Khan, as well as Muslims from US-allied countries which are known to tolerate Christianity, such as Jordan, Egypt, Morrocco snd the UAE, and individual Muslim immigrants that support rights for Christianity, but are not US allies, with this being presumptive in the case of Lebanon, Syria, Kurdistan and most Central Asian republics that have minorities of Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Christians, such as Kazakhstan and the other “stans” with the exception of Afghanistan and Pakistan, which actively persecute Christianity.

Finally, religions known to be persecuted by Islamist regimes such as the Mandaeans, Yazidis, Yarsanis, the aforementioned Zoroastrians (who are persecuted in Iran to such an extent that the majority now live in India, which include many who are not part of the Parsi caste which has been in India for a very long time), and the Falakhas of Pakistan.

Finally, indigenous religions, both of native Americans and of immigrants, should be positively supported (except in the case of immigrants where the religion is not really indigenous but a neo-Pagan revival, such as Rodnovery).

In summary, all religions that can demonstrate traditionality, which are not high-control groups also known as cults (that is to say, which do not engage in shunning practices), and which are known to reject violence against Christians and Jews, should be allowed to make exhibits and be visible in public. So only those groups such as fundamentalist Sunni and Shi’a Muslims and certain Hindu sects that currently engage in violence towards Christians, and Buddhist sects that are the state religion in countries that persecute Christianity, should be restricted, along with religions which are known to be “Parody religions” which make displays designed to mock other religions.

Among these groups, and also in the category of dangerous cults, I think such a proposed amendment should be designed to target parody religions such as the Church of the Sub-Genius, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and other thinly disguised atheist groups, including, at least ostensibly, Anton LaVey’s Satanic group (with theistic Satanists and practitioners of Voudon and related religions such as Louisiana Voodoo and Hoodoo, Juju and so on, which in many cases engage in dangerous practices such as eating red clay, which can cause pregnant women to miscarry, as well as the hunting of endangered species for use in fetish markets and animal cruelty, which are a staple of Voudon in its original Beninese form (but here, it must be stressed, it is a syncretic religion rather than an indigenous religion, one that resulted from the convergence of multiple religious groups and which borrows concepts from Islam and Christianity and many other sources, in contrast to, for example, the traditional religion of the Bantu people. Likewise religions which shun people, such as Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and certain Amish and Old Order Mennonite sects.

Also, Kwanzaa should of course be tolerated since it is not associated with any specific religion but rather is engaged in by a number of African Americans.

The basic criteria for participation in the public sphere should therefore be defined by such an ammendment according to these precepts:

1. Non-persecution and non-violence towards Christians and Jews at present, and a rejection of such violence by the leadership of the religion (if this changes, these religions would be excluded).
2. Indigenous status, absolute for religions originating in sovereign US territory such as the continental US, Alaska, Hawaii, Samoa, Guam, et cetera, and in the case of other countries, in all cases where this religion is authentic and not a re-creation of some ancient Pagan religion that has not been practiced in centuries, such as Wicca, neo-Paganism and Rodnovery.
3. Not shunning people, due to the emotional harm this causes, which is a fixture of the major cults like Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other high-control groups, also known as cults, including groups who are only now understood to be harmful such as the Amish and Old Order Mennonites. The Amish and Old Order Mennonites would not likely participate anyway, given that they avoid engaging with the government as much as possible.
4. Refraining from harmful practices, such as polygamy and child abuse in the case of the Fundamentalist LDS (who still regard the imprisoned child molester Warren Jeffs as the President and Prophet of their church, disturbingly), or large scale harm to animals and harmful and unhealthy practices involving the use of fetishes and the consumption of hazardous material like red clay in the case of the large number of religions that originated with Voudon in Benin, but which have developed in substantially different directions, such as with Hoodoo and Juju, but which retain the core concept of the use of sorcerers or witch doctors and extensive animal sacrifices and other abuses.
5. Being a bona fide religion that does not intentionally mock other religions, in the manner of “Parody religions” that exist to mock Christianity, Judaism and other religions, which include, in addition to the examples cited above, groups that observe “Festivus” and other groups which are basically atheists seeking to degrade and offend people of faith, which is an activity protected by the First Ammendment, but it should not be a requirement for government buildings to allow these groups to put up displays as a pre-condition to allowing, for example, a Creche or the display of the Ten Commandments or the Beatitudes or other material from traditional religions.

 

[BCP1928]

I've heard this before as if its some sort of major point.

It is a major theological point.

You really think a lot of kids are going to ask this question?

Some Christian parents are already asking that question in court. The answer is sure to be interesting.

I spent years in Sunday School. I taught Sunday School and children's church. Nobody cares if a shortened form or the long form is used.

You think that is the only difference? You don't seem to care about the divine inspiration of scripture as much as I thought.

The only people who really care are those who don't want them posted anywhere because it reminds them how they fall short.

And those who wonder why the State of Louisiana is requiring schools to post a crypto-Protestant cartoon version of the Ten Commandments at all.

And they are so afraid that Christains will start using their own tactics to force people to proclaim their faith or be fired or disciplined. If there's one thing we've learned is the left is very good at this, but they are afraid the right will learn from them.

A non-scriptural version of the Ten Commandments is being required to be displayed in public school classrooms and the teachers are being given no guidance in how to explain or interpret the display to students. That's hardly an evangelizing strategy likely to strike fear in the heart of any atheist liberal. It's disgusting to thoughtful Christians and Jews and just a right-wing Christian gang tag to everyone else.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The US should move forward on a federal constitutional amendment

Nope.

 

[The Liturgist]

Nope.

I think so. There is no reason not to do so. It is imperative that the persecution of Christians and Jews be discouraged as a matter of US foreign and domestic policy. This includes allowing them, and other religions that respect them, many of which I enumerated, to set up displays in state capitols, the US capital, the White House, and City Halls that feature Christian and Jewish religious content, without fear that some parody religion or abusive cult will set up a display next to theirs intended either to mock their faith or to encourage people to join a high control group or another form of abusive religion that will either alienate them from their families or encourage them to engage in cruelty to animals or to engage in harmful behaviors in lieu of medical treatment, such as in the Voudon derived religions (and in Christian Science, which also fits in this category due to its negative stance towards medical treatment, and likewise the J/Ws, aside from being a high control group that engages in shunning, also forbid members from receiving blood transfusions, which is life-threatening).

 

[BCP1928]

I think so. There is no reason not to do so. It is imperative that the persecution of Christians and Jews be discouraged as a matter of US foreign and domestic policy. This includes allowing them, and other religions that respect them, many of which I enumerated, to set up displays in state capitols, the US capital, the White House, and City Halls that feature Christian and Jewish religious content, without fear that some parody religion or abusive cult will set up a display next to theirs intended either to mock their faith or to encourage people to join a high control group or another form of abusive religion that will either alienate them from their families or encourage them to engage in cruelty to animals or to engage in harmful behaviors in lieu of medical treatment, such as in the Voudon derived religions (and in Christian Science, which also fits in this category due to its negative stance towards medical treatment, and likewise the J/Ws, aside from being a high control group that engages in shunning, also forbid members from receiving blood transfusions, which is life-threatening).

What does that have to do with barring civil marriages to non-Christians?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

There is no reason not to do so.

Aside from that pesky thing called the Constitution and the basic principles upon which the country was founded...

 

[rjs330]

It is a major theological point.

It's really not.

Some Christian parents are already asking that question in court. The answer is sure to be interesting.

That's interesting.

You think that is the only difference? You don't seem to care about the divine inspiration of scripture as much as I thought.

I think you understand when teaching children things you don't teach then the same way you teach an adult. It's interesting you don't understand that.

And those who wonder why the State of Louisiana is requiring schools to post a crypto-Protestant cartoon version of the Ten Commandments at all.

Because it's good morality.

A non-scriptural version of the Ten Commandments is being required to be displayed in public school classrooms and the teachers are being given no guidance in how to explain or interpret the display to students. That's hardly an evangelizing strategy likely to strike fear in the heart of any atheist liberal. It's disgusting to thoughtful Christians and Jews and just a right-wing Christian gang tag to everyone else.

It seems it is striking fear in the hearts of athiest liberals. No it's not really disgusting at all. The ten commandments aren't right wing. Is that why liberals are so afraid of them?

 

[The Liturgist]

Aside from that pesky thing called the Constitution

If atheists want to try to amend the constitution to legalize abortion, Christians can seek to amend it to protect our religion.

and the basic principles upon which the country was founded...

Which were, in the case of the vast majority of Founding Fathers, normative traditional Christianity, primarily Anglican, Presbyterian and Congregationalist. There were also some Quakers in Pennsylvania, and John Adams and a few others from Boston were swept up in the Unitarian schism that separated from the orthodox Congregationalists, but still considered themselves Christians.

And there were a couple of deists, most notably Thomas Jefferson, but he still regarded Christianity as the greatest philosophy and limited his disagreement to the supernatural aspects of the faith - and what is more, he became one of the less credible Founding Fathers due to his failure to emancipate his slaves, as he had planned, due to his debts at the time of his death, which was made even more perverse by the fact that some of those slaves were his own children.

But when even the worst of the founding fathers was closer to Christianity than even the majority of contemporary Unitarian Universalists, that is pretty compelling, and thus advocating for a constitutional amendment to ensure the constitution is not exploited by judicial activists in a manner contrary to the deeply held religious values of the very pious founders of this Christian land is entirely in keeping with the principles on which this country was originally founded, as opposed to those which rule at present, such ss unchecked materialism in both socialist and capitalist forms, and rampant secularism, and overall a dangerous Nihilism outside of the realm of political ideologies which are no substitute for religious piety.

Thus, insofar as Louisiana is being prevented from providing school children with access to much of the most important moral instruction from our Judeo-Christian heritage, this should be regarded as a departure from traditional American values. Let us not forget that as recently as the mid 20th century, prayer in public schools was routine and ubiquitous, and had been since the founding of this country. And we must recover that national piety in order to restore unity and bring an end to this polarization. It would probably be reasonable to grant autonomy or independence to certain urban areas, with some underutilized areas of Cleveland being the best prospect I think due to its ideal position for trade with Canada, along with certain exclaves along the Canadian border, so as to provide opportunities for those who object to such an amendment to avoid it, which is a generous concession not offered by those who want an amendment to legalize abortion.

 

[The Liturgist]

What does that have to do with barring civil marriages to non-Christians?

I have no idea what you are talking about since I never called for that policy. Rather I believe same sex marriage should be illegal whether performed by those mainline Protestant churches that embrace it, or by those of another religion, or a civil authority.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Thus, insofar as Louisiana is being prevented from providing school children with access to much of the most important moral instruction from our Judeo-Christian heritage, this should be regarded as a departure from traditional American values.

Let's stick to this, everyone, the topic of the thread.

Louisiana is not being prevented from providing anything.

Louisiana is being prevented from compelling a particular religious text to appear in all public classrooms.

Compulsory religion is certainly not a 'traditional American value'. Quite the opposite.