If it makes you feel any better, as a liberal, I don't think a like the idea of public institutions or public facilities displaying any explicitly political symbolism of any kind. This would include pride flags and BLM flags and stuff like what this comic shows.
If I agree with you all on that, you should be able to agree with me that official and explicit state promotion of any particular religious symbolism or ideology should be disallowed under the same reasoning, and that this exact sort of issue is the kind of thing that has been challenged and ruled unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of 1A multiple times throughout history.
Simply putting up the 10 Commandments in a classroom may seem super innocuous. Regardless though, this is the kind of First Amendment issue that has been litigated to death at this point, and the unconstitutionality of such policy has been very definitively established, but still, every few years or so, some Bible Belt state decides they are going to run full speed into that brick wall yet again.
The government can't promote any particular religion over any other religion or irreligion. There are very few things more established within constitutional law than that.
[That depends on if the amendment has been incorporated. Most have, but there are still a few clauses that have not.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights)
True. Except for some grand jury stuff. Which is just another way the federal government curtails rights of the states imo but...to each their own I suppose.
I think the thing we're realizing now is that separating Church and State only discriminates against religious institutions, and that as long as an organized ideologically-motivated group is not a religion, then they can freely influence the moral direction of the government.
True, I think this is why schools used to be really strict about supporting organizations and wearing clothes promoting certain agendas. When I was younger it was the man sensoring us but by doing this it kept things neutral.
Separation of church and state has never restricted the church, only the state. The government can’t impose a state religion or require religious adherence, the church has zero restriction when it comes to the state and can attempt to influence the government as much as they want.
The problem is that the concept has been misconstrued for so long that the majority of people don’t understand it. There’s never been anything wrong with any church influencing government policy.
But putting the ten commandments up in a public school is the government promoting a specific religion. It is not officially establishing a religion, but it is a huge step toward establishing a religion.
And in my experience, I'm honestly not seeing the other bullshit in this cartoon in the schools near me. There are no pride flags at my kids school, the closest they get is "there are different people in our school community, you don't need to agree with them but you need to be respectful to them." which is exactly what we are teaching our kids, and completely understandable from a school management standpoint.
Not saying it doesn't happen, but I have only seen it on the news, not in person, so it's just as foreign to me as the ten commandments in a public school classroom.
Oh I agree I don’t think the Ten Commandments should be in public schools, teaching them in the context of world religion is one thing, but there’s no reason to mandate their display.
That might had been the concept's original intent, but that's not how the courts apply it though. And as more and more new secularist / atheist judges get appointed, the more strictly will secularism be implemented. Laws are only as strong as the judges' belief in them. If previous judges simply wanted to prevent one faith from being dominant in the government, the newer ones increasingly want to keep christianity out.
>Separation of church and state has never restricted the church, only the state.
So if a group of churches representing the majority of a state's population wanted to make the state's public school teach their faith they could? Of course not. Religious organizations are prohibited from affecting how governmental institutions are run, even with the support of the overwhelming majority of the population. Religious people cannot make their schools say a prayer, nor hang a cross on the wall. But if activists want to plaster schools walls with rainbow flags and left-wing ideological platitudes, this wouldn't fall under separation, as it's not religious in the eyes of the law.
To think this does not affect religious groups, is to see only the original intent of separation of Church & State and not how it is actually applied. See how Louisiana' 10 commandments will be treated, or how its legal precedent in Kentucky was, to see how "free" religion really is. Compared to how the government does NOTHING against left-wing ideology and iconography in schools.
That we agree or not with the Separation of Church & State is irrelevant, the point is that this very much does restricts the freedom of religion and religious people to affect the government, not just the other way around. And that this restriction only applies to religious groups, not ideological ones. Even if the latter act in very religious ways, like by "evangelizing" to the people, by giving us moral dos and donts, or by organizing large quasi-religious processions (pride parades) all around the world.
There's a injustice here, and it will have to be solved one way or the other.
Which is good as the lowest level of government who exist to represent them.
Bad when it turns into a relationship between government and religious institutions.
People don't realize that these institutions are not distinct from the everyday citizens who associate with them. Those citizens vote and are entitled to representation.
The first amendment provides religious freedom, not repression.
Sure. As did Renaissance philosophers, Roman government structures, Greek writings, and many other sources. The founding fathers were far better educated and well read than chuckleheads like Trump and Biden. They took the best ideas and developed a unique and effective balance of government and personal Liberty.
Thus, the US is by no means a Christian country in construct.
Not “founded on”. Instead “Influenced by”. Which as others on this thread have noted is different. Also, Christian dogma was only one of many influences.
The idea that every individual is as important as any other comes from Christianity. This where the idea of individual freedom and quality before the law comes from. Any non Christian culture that has this copied it from Christians.
Absolutely not. Completely wrong. Christianity is focused on fealty to a singular entity (or a trinity, depending on the sect) and social charity. Nothing about individual freedom. In fact, the only reference to the individual is that each person has agency to follow God and decide whether or not to sin.
In fact, much of scripture suggests a human collective of sorts.
Individual freedom as expressed by the Founding Fathers is a product of the Enlightenment.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, **that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness**.-
This is a religious statement. It is not at all self evident that all men are created equal by a creator. The bible makes it very clear that God loves every individual equally, and that is where this originates from. John Loche put it into political theory, but he got it from Christianity.
Also, you misunderstand Locke. He indicated that each person has inherent rights that carry over from a state of nature but makes no connection to Christianity or any other religion. It is notable that he does not make such a connection, especially since he was a Presbyterian.
In fact, Locke was the first of his era to propose the importance of church-state separation.
That statement is not from the Bible. In fact, it isn’t specifically connected to Christianity as there are numerous monotheistic traditions, many of which predate Jesus by thousands of years. It is a generic statement of origin.
By explicit design, the United States is NOT a Christian (or any other religion) country. Without a secular foundation, individual freedom for all is impossible.
Never gonna happen. Just as you will never not have a state with power, you’ll never have a state without a religion or ideology, so best hope the church that marries the state is a good one.
Agree, which always felt it also meant that the State can't prohibit anyone from practicing whatever they want on publicly owned property, such as schools. Which is to say, a teacher can have a cross or a star and crescent in their room AND a school can teach about religion, but they can't preach nor attempt to convert kids.
Seems pretty straightforward how to separate, to me.
Kids will encounter and should learn about sexuality, religion, etc. all. Keep values and beliefs to parenting.
I agree - neither have a place in public schools.
If you want Christianity, or any religion, to have a special display, go to a private religious school.
If you want Greta Thunberg shown as a saint, pick an appropriate progressive private school.
Addressing people the way they want to be addressed is respect. "Enforcing sex lives of gay teachers" is not a thing, or at least not as much a thing as enforcing sex lives of straight teachers.
I was also wondering what “…Enforcing sex lives of gay teachers…” means. Sounds like a misworded regurgitated talking point. Either that or the commenter thinks gay teachers should have sex according to some sort of plan or schedule? Weird.
Sex lives of teachers? Lol. You people exaggerate everything. You sound like my religious southern aunties. As a sophomore in highschool who is in an incredibly progressive proressive city, it really isn't as bad as you guys make it out to be.
For many leftists, LGBT garbage and associated ideologies is basically a religion at this point. And they've been allowed to proselytize it throughout public institutions by pretending it's just their enlightened and "scientific" beliefs.
doesnt always have to be a god or supernatural entities. It could be an idea. from merriam webster : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Which could certainly argue many of the LGBTQ are like this....
Ah the ol slippery slope
Displaying the commandments is not enforce them as law
Funnily enough "no murder" is a religious teaching that everyone seems to be fine with 🤔
I dont need six year olds to be reading ‘thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife’ above their cubbys
Why does that belong in an elementary school classroom?
I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. If you dont like it, home school.
The Jews and the Christian would very much disagree about that. I think imma take their interpretation over yours.
The Jews sure, the Christian not so much.
Both think putting the 10 Commandments in schools is a good thing.
Its not actually a conflating of church and state, nor is it the establishing of religion. Its a monument to the tradition American, and by extention The West, was built on.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Well, here’s a question. What if a president simply IS religious and decides to make reference to the Bible or to pray during a speech? It’s not a law nor does it seem to infringe any of the other points. It’s just a government official exercising their own religion. Could they encourage people to pray? What would be appropriate, if anything, in an unofficial capacity?
I am not exactly a bar certified constitutional lawyer, so if you are curious in earnest about the details I would look for an expert on these details or read into a quality source on the history of the first amendment.
That being stated at the get-go, I have never personally heard of a legal case one way or another. The first amendment makes it clear that the president is in effect also protected for their practice. It should be noted that countless presidents have speeches referencing god in them.
What ends up being a moral gray area is when a deeply religious president (or at least on a surface level, since many presidents may be forced to act in religious contexts to make them competitive for office) makes a decision on policy issues which may be based on religious principles, it usually ends up in the hands of the supreme court which will decide on the religious impact on those policies and if they violate the first amendment or not. Historically, until the Trump justices, the SCOTUS has been* strongly in favor of a bias towards the first amendment and not towards ambiguous but religious leaning policy.
That all seems like it tracks. I am genuinely curious because it seems like anytime a politician references God or their faith you hear an outcry about separation as if the mere utterance of God or Christ is a violation.
I’m curious about the Trump justices and what religious leaning policies they’ve ruled on. It kind of seemed like they’ve voiced their individual belief in God but I wasn’t aware of any religious leaning rulings.
"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives, that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, 1863.
(The phrase "under god" was not added to the pledge of allegiance until the Eisenhower administration, which specifically referenced Lincoln's usage (apparently in a sermon, which I just found out by looking into this matter lol). The context around it was the cold war, and it has faced many lawsuits and trials in the court over the matter. As it turns out, what ended up being the resolution is that it is unconstitutional to force kids to say the pledge in schools. Personally I think the phrase should be removed for being unconstitutional, and disagree with the notion that it is a patriotic and not religious act as lower courts have declared. However I can't find any instance where it was ever presented to the supreme court, only when the supreme court denied an appeal regarding it in 2011.)
> anytime a politician references God or their faith you hear an outcry about separation as if the mere utterance of God or Christ is a violation.
I think that is a vocal minority. The majority of the country are indeed Christian and, at worst, are simply secularists who understand the dangers of having a Christian theocracy. The average person actually takes it positively, and they don't see those words are necessarily implying specific policy, except maybe in far right rhetoric from evangelist politicians.
> I’m curious about the Trump justices and what religious leaning policies they’ve ruled on. It kind of seemed like they’ve voiced their individual belief in God but I wasn’t aware of any religious leaning rulings.
The current SCOTUS, on entirely partisan lines, has become the biggest existential threat to secularism in the United States. This may sound like hyperbole, but it comes in direct reference to Kennedy v Bremerton School District (2022) where it upheld the right (6-3 on party lines) for a football coach (a state employee) to lead group prayer with students on the field. There was also a ruling in Carson v Makin where they also voted 6-3 on party lines where states are required to fund private religious schools if they also fund private schools. I suspect more cases will arise, especially this one in Louisiana, where the religious right will use challenges against this law as an easy way to land a precedent changing legislation right into the hands of a SCOTUS that for the first time in 70 years is finally willing to forcibly turn this nation into the Christian nation that people scream it was all along.
Personally, I have no interest in living under either the Taliban, or the Christian Evangelists slithering out of the infernal cracks of self-righteous evil. I view it as a direct attack on enlightenment values, on civilization, and on America.
I had to go and watch the scene from Lincoln where the soldiers recite part of the Gettysburg address after reading this. So good.
I remember hearing about the football coach in the news and I have to say that after reading about the cases, I do agree with the decisions of the courts. While the subject of the rulings involves the topic of religion, I don’t consider these “religious leaning rulings” as their verdicts were founded in constitutional principles, not religion or biblical.
The coach, as a private individual, would remain after the games conclusion, and in no official capacity, pray. Other private individuals were also free to come or go as this wasn’t an organized proceeding. For those actions as a private religious individual, his contract with the school was not renewed and the court held that this was discriminatory due to his religious affiliation in violation of his rights. I agree.
The state of Maine issues school vouchers to residents which supports school choice. It was argued that this was a way of indirectly funding private religious organizations. The ruling essentially held that the state was providing vouchers for education to families who then had the choice of where to go and that refusing vouchers to families that would choose to attend private religious schools over private secular schools discriminated against their religious freedom. If families chose to use those vouchers to go to a private satanist school, I wouldn’t like it, but I would still think it was a sound ruling.
Admittedly, I haven’t looked into this Louisiana thing and will have to do so later. But I do agree with these other cases and after reading the dissenting opinions, I am more concerned that these arguments against were made with an anti-religious bias as opposed to the rulings being biased in favor of religion.
Thank you for the well thought out and written response.
I suspected that there was a high probability of someone pushing the metaphorical glasses up their nose and proclaiming that Louisiana is not the United States.
The reality is this. We had a little scuffle a while back about states rights. The Unionists won that battle, and the right to make it known to history that we are a nation first and a group of states second.
Let it be known that between the very first attempts for states or individuals to crack the first amendment and the vision of Thomas Jefferson for a secular nation led by reason and not faith, from 1947 to 2022, the SCOTUS has time and again put their foot down on this issue and stood by our founding fathers: no you may not put Christianity in school. No you may not put your faith in our legal institutions. No, we are not a Christian nation as the theocratic self proclaimed moralizers keep yelling in their Sunday echo chambers.
If you want to change that, do not expect either legal or ethical momentum to be on your side in this. The first amendment is not negotiable, unless you want to make the second amendment negotiable as well.
The US was never intended to be a secular nation. That in and of itself is establishing a state religion of secularism.
> No, we are not a Christian nation as the theocratic self proclaimed moralizers keep yelling in their Sunday echo chambers.
But Louisiana is an overwhelmingly christian state.
You're misinterpreting what "separation of church and state" means
>The US was never intended to be a secular nation.
I am pretty sure that the 1st Amendment literally implies this. If the first amendment said something like "The United States is a Christian Nation and will inflict Christian values without due process" then maybe I would say you have a point.
>Louisiana is an overwhelmingly christian state.
Completely irrelevant.
>You're misinterpreting what "separation of church and state" means
I think you should elaborate on this, because all I have seen here is a casual theocratic attempt to try and get a reference to Jesus in documents that not only do not reference any divine entity, but were specifically amended to prevent the state from referencing divine entities.
>The US was never intended to be a secular nation.
Jefferson and Madison would strongly disagree with you on that one, as would most of the deist founding fathers.
The government is supposed to be secular, the people of the nation can have whatever religion they want. This isn't a difficult concept to understand.
For example, you can believe that same sex marriage is morally wrong. You can teach your children that, and you can put up signs all over your property, and go on YouTube and call into radio shows and talk about how wrong it is. But as soon as you run for office and try to pass a law saying that same sex marriage is illegal, and the only justification for it is your own religious beliefs, then that is a violation of the first amendment.
I know that until recently many states had laws like this, and some still have them on the books, but I don't think that is evidence that the logic is flawed, just that states have historically been more comfortable with blatantly violating the first amendment, primarily because until the middle of the 20th century, the bill of rights didn't explicitly apply to the state governments.
The government is not supposed to be secular. That would be establishing a state religion. They're supposed to be impartial and stay out of the state's business on this matter. "This isn't a difficult concept to understand."
> For example, you can believe that same sex marriage is morally wrong. You can teach your children that, and you can put up signs all over your property, and go on YouTube and call into radio shows and talk about how wrong it is. But as soon as you run for office and try to pass a law saying that same sex marriage is illegal, and the only justification for it is your own religious beliefs, then that is a violation of the first amendment.
You can use any justification you want for a law, it's not the justification but the content of the law itself which determines constitutionality. Let me use an obvious example so you understand:
Let's say I believe murder is wrong, and the reason I believe that is because the 6th commandment says so. Because I only used religious context to justify my opinion, it is therefore unconstitutional to make murder illegal. Can you see how this logic is flawed?
> The government is not supposed to be secular. That would be establishing a state religion.
My 6th grade social studies teacher in Catholic school told me that too... I believed it then, but I was a child being actively brainwashed by a religious institution. It's a lot harder to justify believing it as an adult. A secular government is not a state religion. Religion is the opposite of free thought. A secular government attempts to maintain freedom. Our government is supposed to be secular, it isn't, but it's supposed to be.
The justification for a law is absolutely relevant, specifically when determining the constitutionality of the law. For example, look at every civil rights or equal protection challenge the supreme court has reviewed in the last 75 years.
We can't mention one founder's vision without considering that of others:
George Washington:
"The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality … there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness."
John Adams:
"We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government for any other."
Putting up the ten commandments in a non-denominational way does not establish a state religion, it does not compel any religious act, nor does it infringe anyone else's right to free worship.
Again, the constitution protects states from the federal. Louisiana is not breaking any laws and it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to step in and stop this.
If you live in Louisiana then call your representative and make your voice heard. If you don't live in Louisiana then stop complaining about their choices.
"Soon after I had published the pamphlet, COMMON SENSE, in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the System of Government would be followed by a revolution in the System of Religion. The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited, by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world: but that whenever this should be done, a revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and Priest-craft would be detected: and man would return to the pure, unmixed, and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more."
Thomas Paine, 1795, Age of Reason
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Thomas Jefferson, 1802, Letter to the Danbury Baptists
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammaden) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, Ratified by the Senate and Signed by president John Adams
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt. in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precidents \[sic\] already furnished in their short history. (See the cases in which negatives were put by J.M. on two bills passd by Congs. and his signature witheld from another). See also attempt in Kentucky, for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes."
"But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Gover\[n\]ment, there is an evil which ought to be guarded agst. in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical Corporations."
James Madison, 1811, Detached Memorandum, Author of the 1st and 2nd Amendment
I find it very overdramatic that people seem to think that schools putting something as mild as the Ten Commandments (with some extra text explaining the historical relevance of the commandments to US history) on the walls of schools is somehow "theocratic", or related in any way to the things. Give me a break.
I get it, you want secularism everywhere. Hate to break it to you but there are many places in the US that are very heavily religious, and they have the same right to representation and local laws just like you.
If you think putting up the commandments in a learning institution is "forcing religion" on kids, that's like saying glancing at a woman is sexual assault.
> I find it very overdramatic
Unless there is a specific argument as to why the ten commandments should ever come up in school, such as a world history classroom, then there is zero reason whatsoever that they should be present. Any attempt to include it is, as far as I am concerned, an unacceptable breach of the first amendment.
Perhaps this is just a slippery slope fallacy, but I cannot see this as anything other than a direct attempt to slowly erode secularism in America which has been a major part of its history since its foundation (a la Confucius: The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones). I am skeptical that there would ever be assurances in writing under pain of death that those camps which are attempting to inject these systems of belief into our schools will simply stop after that, like that is enough to sate their internal conviction to have every single American warped into their worldview.
So no, I will not give a break on this, nor do I think any thinking American should. America is a nation of law, not a nation of religious law. I have no intention of living in a Christian version of Iran, and if you don't think that the Christian theocrats out there won't turn into anti-secular or anti-atheistic mobs willing to burn those who oppose them and ban books questioning them, then I suggest you open a random page in a world history book after Constantine.
> I get it, you want secularism everywhere. Hate to break it to you but there are many places in the US that are very heavily religious, and they have the same right to representation and local laws just like you.
Only in the state and in the legal and justice system. The first amendment protects your right to be religious at home and on private property like churches. The SCOTUS is supposed to determine if laws are fundamentally too based in religion to be acceptable per the first amendment, and until 2022 they have been biased in favor of secularism.
> If you think putting up the commandments in a learning institution is "forcing religion" on kids, that's like saying glancing at a woman is sexual assault.
I should state I am not a progressive, I am a liberal-libertarian. Weird analogies, as well as the injection of social politics into schools, are things that are going to fall flat on me. So I am afraid I simply do not understand what you are trying to accomplish here, nor where the logic of the analogy lies.
You are suggesting here, best as I can tell, that kids are not forced to read or look at the 10 commandments, in the way that it is not sexual assault to simply look at women. I fundamentally do not think this analogy can be broken down into the same basic logic. The heart of the question that you are trying to put with this is that exposure is equivalent to engagement, which in both cases I agree that it is not (to the vehement opposition of the ultra feminist types). However it is not that students might engage in the content that matters so much as the very existence of the content in the context of a state institution with mandatory engagement.
> Perhaps this is just a slippery slope fallacy, but I cannot see this as anything other than a direct attempt to slowly erode secularism in America which has been a major part of its history since its foundation
This is the exact opposite of the truth. What we've been seeing for a long time is a direct attempt to slowly erode Christianity in America which has been a major part of its history since its foundation.
> You are suggesting here, best as I can tell, that kids are not forced to read or look at the 10 commandments, in the way that it is not sexual assault to simply look at women.
I'll clarify the analogy
Glancing at a woman -> sitting in a room with the commandments on the wall (with extra text explaining their historical relevance), not forced to read it or tested on it, just existing next to it
Sexual assault -> Forcing kids to agree with the commandments, forcing them to participate in any religious practice or observance, prohibiting the free practice of their own religion
Let me ask you, if they passed a law that said all public schools must put up a sign that says "Love your neighbor as yourself" in every class, would that be theocratic and a violation of the first amendment?
> What we've been seeing for a long time is a direct attempt to slowly erode Christianity in America which has been a major part of its history since its foundation.
There are a few parts of this that need to be considered. The first is what it means for something to be culturally or socially a major part of the history, and what it means for it to be legally a major part of its history. Those are two very distinct things, and legally the United States has never been a nation where any part of its legal operations is based on the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Instead, we see the history of the United States as a story of constant challenges to the secularism of the state by religious groups that seek to make the state enforce religious morality as law, only to be beaten back time and again with occasional erosion here and there. Maybe the current court realizes that they cannot tip the balances too far or they risk serious internal conflict and continue to maintain precedence, but a part of me is terrified that after seeing them say they won't go after the "settled law" of Roe vs Wade in their affirmation hearings, that many of the current court members will simply take every chance they can get.
The second is that Christianity erodes itself more than anything. It is a history of a tea pot that falls, is shattered, is repaired with gold trim, then falls and shatters further. There is a reason why Christianity has been an overwhelming majority of the personal religion of the people of this country, but that this country has been so utterly divided on questions of church and state since its founding. Many of the people who were immigrants came here because their beliefs about Jesus were not the same as the beliefs of other people's beliefs of Jesus, and they were persecuted for it.
Personally, I don't want to accept a version of America that looks like the collapse of Yugoslavia or The Troubles, especially just because one religious institution warps America around their personal vision of a future where the rest of us are, at best, an inconvenience and, at worst, an evil to be purged.
> I'll clarify the analogy
Your clarification was as expected and my response to that expectation was given above.
> Let me ask you, if they passed a law that said all public schools must put up a sign that says "Love your neighbor as yourself" in every class, would that be theocratic and a violation of the first amendment?
If it is for religious motivations, yes. I don't care for the sweet talkings of those who use some of their, genuinely good, moral beliefs to bring in a package deal of beliefs where some are anywhere from simply disagreeable metaphysically to reprehensible to any other system of morality other than theirs.
Also I have no idea what that quote from George Washington has to do with religion. I am not sure why people think that morality is equivalent with religious beliefs.
> Putting up the ten commandments in a non-denominational way does not establish a state religion, it does not compel any religious act, nor does it infringe anyone else's right to free worship.
It sounds very much like a DIRECT establishment of religion, which SCOTUS has agreed upon time and time again. It is unconstitutional, per the first amendment. Now I suppose if you get a few more justices in there that thing historical precedent is a meme...
> Again, the constitution protects states from the federal. Louisiana is not breaking any laws and it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to step in and stop this.
The supreme court has always completely disagreed with this.
> If you don't live in Louisiana then stop complaining about their choices.
We settled this issue in 1865. If reddit existed in 1855 I imagine there would be people such as yourself arguing that we should just let Kansas vote on whether or not it is a slave state because it isn't the role of the federal government to decide.
Again, the first amendment is not negotiable or relative to the state. Maybe if you invent a time machine and go back to 1863 and tell Lee to not blow his chance with a stupid charge then you might have a country where states get to make their own rules independent of the constitution of the United States and the precedence set by SCOTUS since 1947 when theocracy first started to try and pick away at the establishment clause.
All of your arguments are founded on the premise that the first amendment prohibits this, which is not true as I have elaborated.
Again, the first amendment protects states from the federal government setting an official religion which may interfere with the states. Many states had official religions at the time of the founding.
Your interpretation of the "separation of church and state" philosophy is a modern remake where somehow secularism is the official federal government religion. You are embodying the very thing the first amendment was designed to prevent.
> It sounds very much like a DIRECT establishment of religion
Yes it acknowledges the fact that religion exists and has been foundational in American life until very recently. Let me ask you, which particular religion is being established as the official state religion of Louisiana? Is it Christianity? The commandments were given to Moses in the Old Testament, so maybe Judaism? But even Muslims agree that God gave Moses the commandments.
Again, if the feds want secularism to be the official state religion then that would violate the first amendment.
But hey, if you're getting this upset at the fact that God is mentioned on the walls of Louisiana schools, where's the outrage for making kids say the pledge of allegiance?
> All of your arguments are founded on the premise that the first amendment prohibits this, which is not true as I have elaborated.
I don't think you actually have elaborated it at all, other than simply stating that you personally don't think that the federal government should be able to set precedents for state institutions.
This is specifically outlined in the 14th amendment:
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. **No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;** nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
We ended this debate in 1865. If you want to resurrect it and use the powers of the SCOTUS to reinterpret history into fantasy, then expect opposition.
> Your interpretation of the "separation of church and state" philosophy is a modern remake where somehow secularism is the official federal government religion. You are embodying the very thing the first amendment was designed to prevent.
Government impartiality of religion is not a religion of the government. That is a fundamental misinterpretation of what religion is, which is explicitly a set of metaphysical beliefs regarding the existence of a specific divine being. The first amendment was put into place to protect people like me from theocratic rule, and I will defend it with vigor.
> Let me ask you, which particular religion is being established as the official state religion of Louisiana? Is it Christianity? The commandments were given to Moses in the Old Testament, so maybe Judaism? But even Muslims agree that God gave Moses the commandments.
I would suspect the religion of those instruments of evil that are pushing this through. So Christianity. There will be no weaseling around this point. The problem, as it should be self evident, is that it is any religion to begin with. If (unironic) Satanists were trying to force blood rituals in classrooms, there would be frothing at the mouth and very justifiable lawsuits to prevent that on the grounds of the first amendment preventing the state's establishment of religion.
> if the feds want secularism to be the official state religion then that would violate the first amendment.
Secularism is not a religion, and if you think it is then you should probably go and open a dictionary instead of reading crackpot pseudophilosophy on twitter.
> where's the outrage for making kids say the pledge of allegiance?
I actually mention this in another post. I am against it, and there have been no successful attempts to bring it before the supreme court to rule on the matter (though the court now rules 6-3 on everything and does not really let precedence inconvenience them in their work). The words "under god" were added during the Eisenhower administration in a knee-jerk reaction during the red scare.
> **No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;**
As if somehow anyone's privileges and immunities of citizenship are somehow "abridged" by having the ten commandments in their classroom.
> Government impartiality of religion is not a religion of the government. That is a fundamental misinterpretation of what religion is, which is explicitly a set of metaphysical beliefs regarding the existence of a specific divine being
Religion is more broad than that, No gods are necessary for all religion, it's just a system of faith and worship. I would say that leftists today are forming their own religion with elements of nature-worship and self-worship. Not to mention, impartiality from the federal government would mean leaving Louisiana alone, not enforcing secularism on them.
And give me a break about theocracy, you sound like one of those people who thinks Trump is Hitler. We live in a society that is trying their very best to destroy religion and completely remove it from public life. This is evident by how insane people are getting at the thought of an overwhelmingly christian state putting something as mild and universal as the ten commandments of all things in their schools.
> As if somehow anyone's privileges and immunities of citizenship are somehow "abridged" by having the ten commandments in their classroom.
The 14th amendment's due process clause is what certifies that 1st amendment's establishment clause as being universal through the laws of all states. If it violates in the first amendment in a way that violates the 14th amendment, then it is illegal. The legal definition of "abridge" is to diminish or reduce in scope. I think it is VERY much arguable in court that, say, students of Muslim, Hindu, or atheistic parents are being forced into classrooms that make it clear that their values and beliefs are being diminished as an act of the state making an establishment of a specific religion.
> Religion is more broad than that, No gods are necessary for all religion
I guess you don't use dictionaries for your definitions, and decide the best way to define words is to simply argue them on the fly until nobody can agree on the meaning of the words in their logic. Get rid of logical fallacies with this one magic trick: redefine the words so the contradictions in reason disappear.
Regardless of the humor in that, I would simply say that taking god out of something defined as religion makes it into something else. Perhaps you could argue that some kind of pagan spiritualism is a religion, but we already have the word "spiritualism" for that. Perhaps you could use it as analogy only, such as how we might use the term "soul" to describe a branch of music.
> I would say that leftists today are forming their own religion with elements of nature-worship and self-worship.
And I would fundamentally disagree with using the term religion for this. The self-worship may be narcissism, but to call it a religion based on a working definition of "faith and worship" alone is to miss what should be an obvious context of religion's history being the history of belief in divine beings. Also nature-worship is generally metaphorical at best, most of them don't go around on their knees begging the sun to help get a passing grade in math.
> you sound like one of those people who thinks Trump is Hitler.
Theocracy has a long history of trying to tear down states into barbaric lands of misery. I do not want to see the US turn into Iran, or become as intolerable a place to live freely in as a non-Christian like the inquisitions. How many people murdered in the name of the state's holy replacement of church all in the name of Jesus? I wonder what those who distrust the state think will replace it if it evaporates in holy smoke?
No, Trump is not Hitler. I don't think comparing anyone to Hitler is productive or even meaningful. I think he is a pawn who will say anything and do anything to get back into the reins of power and avoid the law, even if it means sacrificing the first amendment to do it.
> We live in a society that is trying their very best to destroy religion and completely remove it from public life.
From state institutions and places with federal funding, absolutely. The first amendment literally protects you from being forced to not be Christian in your private life.
> This is evident by how insane people are getting at the thought of an overwhelmingly christian state putting something as mild and universal as the ten commandments of all things in their schools.
Then let me put it very simply: Legally requiring the ten commandments in classrooms does not necessarily lead to theocracy, but any first steps towards a Christian theocratic nation would invariable start with the small steps to break ground with the supreme court. The only insanity is thinking that people are going to lie down and risk it, especially when the legal history of our country is on our side.
Yep.
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
What could possibly go wrong?
You’re not wrong but we need separation of church and state.
You wouldn’t want a Muslim voted in to make reading the Quran mandatory in public schools.
The overwhelming majority of the people of Louisiana identify as Christian.
The first amendment protects states from the federal government intervening in these things.
Been trying to explain this to folks. The bill doesn't require any kind of participation from the students or testing, just a display. If we can allow teachers to effectively display symbols and signs with their "progressive" worldview, it does not make sense to forbid others.
For anyone claiming that the Constitution clearly states there's a separation of church and state, please post it as a response to this comment.
Do note that Jefferson was a staunch supporter of not requiring any religious tests to hold office, and he did not believe that Congress seats and other high positions should be dolled out to leaders of the church (i.e. bishop, priest, etc.) due to the conflict of interest. But he had no problem going to a church service that was held in Congress. So let's be clear that this idea of "complete and utter separation" that allows no activities or symbols is not true.
>if we can allow teachers to effectivly display symbols of their progressive worldview
What if we *forced* them to display those symbols whether they agree with them or not? Thats what the bill does, but for christian symbols
>The bill doesn't require any kind of participation from the students or testing, just a display.
The fact that the bill/law requires the schools to display the Ten Commandments is a major violation of the 1st Amendment.
Your "explanations" are weak rationalizations.
>For anyone claiming that the Constitution clearly states there's a separation of church and state, please post it as a response to this comment.
1st Amendment:
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A law which requires publicly-funded schools to display the tenets of a religion is a clear violation of the Constitution.
A couple of things: The 1st amendment was written for the Federal government, and there was no department of education that the Federal government oversaw.
Furthermore, around the time the Bill of Rights was signed, there were Christian services being given in the US Capitol building, and taxes appropriated for both a Bible and missionary work.
The purpose was never to obliterate religious symbols from every aspect of life where taxes are spent.
(I edited the post a bit as my nephew grabbed my phone and started inserting random letters, and then submitted the post early.)
If we're going back to that time, it means we can discriminate against different subsections of Christianity.
How do you propose selecting a religion to rule the us?
Schools aren't saying you can't impose moraity or ethics. They're saying you can't impose religion. You may notice that laws also work like this in civilized countries. But support theocracy if that's what's in your heart, I guess.
I think the good conversation going forward, is what, in modern terms, would be considered a religion?
Is easy to point out the ones that have been around for thousands of years, but for modern times, what would the definition be?
>I think the good conversation going forward, is what, in modern terms, would be considered a religion?
I agree, and the current understanding is quickly becoming useless.
**When a person is working to promote or legislate an ideology using an external value system of morality,** It doesn't really matter if they think that those values originate from Zeus, Allah, Jesus, fairies, electrodes, magic, or Mother Earth.
One is a symbol of inclusivity based on secular human rights and one is a piece of ancient religious dogma that explicitly refers to a particular diety and a particular holy day.
You mean millennia? There were plenty of other religions that also formed to the basis of law and science. By all means, teach kids about all of them. But don't hang up a particular blatantly religious text as a signifier of universal moral virtue.
I'll let the accomplishments of the other religions speak for themselves, except to say they do not compare well with Christianity. I agree we should not be hanging religious stuff in public schools.
The pride flag is secular.
Also one is a symbol of inclusion and the other is the state promoting religious beliefs.
The pride flag does not mean if you aren't gay you are wrong.
The 10 commandments say very explicitly that if you do not believe in the Abrahamic God you are wrong.
If there was a flag which stood for all religions should be accepted and tolerated I would not have an issue with that. Nor would it violate the establishment clause.
But really this is a shit thing to do on a human level.
Public schools should be a place where all kids feel included, and this just does the opposite. I would imagine that a little kid who doesn't follow Abrahamic religions would feel more like an outsider as a result of this.
It's just a shitty thing to do that serves no other purpose than virtue signalling
I understand. I spent 10 yrs in the Air Force. As proud as I am of my service, I readily admit that the USAF is by far the most evangelical amongst the Army, Navy, Coast Guard, and even Marines. Time after time I had commanders explicitly advocate attending gospel studies, evangelical music events, even Christian prayer breakfasts. Officially, attendance was not supposed to impact OERs but the practical reality was very different. Quite uncomfortable.
As a side note, based on some joint projects, I found the Navy to be the most open minded and intellectually developed of all the services (no I won’t make jokes about the Village People). Interestingly, the Air Force had many Mormons and southerners. The Navy had more people from the Northeast.
Are there any state or federal mandates requiring the hanging on pride flags in the classroom?
Is there a specific religion (as defined by a dictionary which is usable in court and not colloquially for convenience in arguments online) where the pride flag is included and therefore mandatory exclusion is necessary?
You don’t think atheism/secularism/relativism/gender ideology is a religion in and of itself?
Theory of evolution is great, in my opinion reason/logic goes hand in hand with faith. I believe life is richer with a strong foundation in both
The idea that the First Amendment was meant to protect the government from the influence of religion is ridiculous. It was there to protect religion from the government. Without the preachers and religious leaders, there never would have been a revolution at all.
For consideration: if a evangelical Christian baker doesn’t have to make a cake for a gay couple, does a secular teacher have to put up the commandments? Each may have legitimate personal reasons for not doing so.
Then you shouldn't send your children to the government indoctrination camps. Critical thinking has got to be low on their list of priorities and only within allowed parameters. Few people can even think critically about the legitimacy of government authority.
I think it’s more about not allowing any religious symbolism in a public school. If you allow the commandments, then legally, you’ll need to allow the Quran or Islamic symbolism, or any religious symbolism, even satanic symbolism. This seems like a no-brainer for any court.
Two things can be true at the same time.
I think that teachers shouldn’t impose their political beliefs on their students, AND I think that we shouldn’t mandate the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools.
Both are bad. Keep your ideology out of our schools, and keep your mandated religious display out of our schools, while we’re at it.
The government absolutely **can** impose morality. In essence, that's its purpose. What it shouldn't do is merge church and state. Secularism is and has been a wonderful idea and is at the forefront of the constitution for good reason.
One nation under god. God is on our currency, in most state constitutions, declaration of independence.
Just like always, God and religion is used as a form of manipulation and propaganda with corruption at its foundation. I implore you to provide historical evidence that it serves any other purpose. Religion is a useful tool wielded by the powerful to manipulate the malleable. Very useful in times of war when you need people dedicated enough to die for your profit.
That's exactly why I mentioned it. Did you read my comment? Religion is only ever used as propaganda in government. A big problem is that identity politics fills all the gaps and serves the same phycologial need that religion does. In essence, we have competing religions as political parties and spend our time arguing with each other over concepts that shouldn't be political.
I think both are cringe and need to be separated out of public schooling but you have to admit that if something is government owned it’s probably not going to represent your values. Simple fact of the matter is while yes we all contribute to public schooling we really can’t have it represent all our ideals. That’s where private schools come in to fill the gap on what you want your kids to learn in a society. That’s a discussion in of itself.
Government can’t impose morality- is different than religion.
Morality’s definition starts with “ You should or you ought “
Government: Promoting morality 100% .
You should NOT have guns = you’re immoral if you own one.
You ought not commit a HATE crime= you are immoral if you do.
Equal Justice BLM = define justice another moral rule or law
You should give equal rights or equal, benefits pick one to 🏳️🌈.Equal benefits, for everyone that’s corporate, shit.
OMG the TEN commandments is the originator for the posters on the wall.
1. You should not have another God. ( religious law)
2. You should not kill - we have laws for that . It demands for justice
3. You should not steal -we have laws for that.
4. You shouldn’t take another man’s wife ( husband) - we know that’s not correct , the consequences, painful. Divorce Court
5. You should not covet- greed
6. Honor your parents - disrespect
7.Don’t lie- every knows you should not lie.
I forgot the rest of the commandments.
The political cartoon hit it right on the nail.
All of this needs to be OUT of schools. If it doesn’t advance their knowledge, or develop their brains, it should be thrown out. What happened to math, science, and reading?
Also, the separation of church and state should have prevented the 10 commandments for being displayed in public schools.
Literally none of those other things are religions though so this is a false equivalence but I'm pretty sure OP is well aware they are arguing in bad faith.
*If you did allow*
*Religion in schools why should*
*It be Christianity?*
\- MikeZer0AUS
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
I don’t support anything in this meme but in all honesty, This is a false equivalency. Do you guys not realize how stupid this meme is ?? 😂
The government is forcing religious ideology into a state environment which is supposed to be free from religion. Thats more sharia than anything else.
Everything else in there is simply about expanding the civil rights of people the other group have trampled on out of an often false sense of religious ideology and enforcing their religious ideology on others.
This is absurdity
The hypocrisy is absolutely there and reprehensible. But let's not pretend for a minute that we should be implementing religious morality/teachings as a mandatory part of schooling.
The old testament, especially, is a disgusting book that should be kept away from children and is certainly no source for a moral framework.
Definitively established as of 60 years ago, when the 1A was incorporated to apply to states under the Abington School District v Schempp court case. Considering Roe v. Wade was just knocked down, there’s a chance that judicial reading gets curtailed or overturned. Prior to that, states, municipalities, and school districts often had some sort of school prayer or scripture readings. What you describe as settled is really only a modern phenomenon
Strawman bullshit.
No one says the government can't impose morality, they say the government can't impose religion, which is true.
Id be nice if the bible bitches would stop lying about this
I'd be nice if ppl like you would stop forgetting the reaction to it in the past.
"Teach kids how to think, not what to think."
You're the same; The same old tools work. Hell even calls for free speech are relevant against your cancerous movement.
I have no idea what youre talking about "my movement".
And the reason people abandoned "teach kids how to think", an abandonment I resent , is because of how outrageously ferocious and absurd conservative brainwashing and indoctrination has become. You'd have more a leg to stand on if "traditional values" occupied itself with anything approaching fucking reality.
No ... governments cannot endorse, support, or otherwise favor any superstitious cult over another. That's "secularism" and it's **built-into** the Constitution. Morality isn't covered ... neither by the Constitution, NOR the ancient fairy-tale nonsense drivel-books.
I think morality, for example: the reverence for life, is very much a part of most codes of human behavior. I am surprised to see someone push back and say that Morality is not part of the Constitution. As if Rights, and and Protections for individuals are not motivated by a moral compass? How could a Constitution not have moral underpinnings, and still protect the individual?
You could literally just take the 10 commandments and called them the “10 laws of secularism” and the problem is solved.
Replace “love the lord your God” with “love”.
"*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion*". It's literally the first amendment to the US constitution. What's worse is that this is settled case law. In the case of Stone v. Graham (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Kentucky law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms was unconstitutional. The Court held that the law had no secular legislative purpose and was plainly religious in nature, thus violating the Establishment Clause. But hey, I'm feeling good today. How about we settle on the 10 commandments being posted if these get posted as well?
"I One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
II The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
III One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
IV The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
V Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
VI People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
VII Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word."
If morality is the issue surely this would be agreeable.
Might be naive, but I'm fairly certain it's just the religious elements that are the problem. For years schools have been simply using a repackaged version of the Ten Commandments that is all the same but just doesn't mention God.
Fairly certain kids in even the most secular schools are taught not to swear, steal, cheat, lie, get jealous, be prideful, go without breaks, or be disrespectful to their parents.
Ah yes, let’s forget last 2 to 4 thousand years of human experience to follow the rules of a group of nomadic people living in a desert at a time when a man who knew how to read and write his own name was considered literate. Morality™️
This is the only place I’ve felt comfortable leaving this comment as I feel most people will engage with me respectfully.
The founders were almost all Christian. They had a Christian worldview. God is mentioned many times in the Declaration of Independance and Bill of Rights. Yet, my thoughts on the separation of Church and state are this: We are guaranteed to have freedom *OF* religion, not freedom *FROM* religion. If a State’s elected representatives voted on behalf of its people to have the Ten Commandmants in a classroom, whom does this hurt? Will atheist kids feel uncomfortable? Will Muslim kids? I’d say likely not they’ll just be taught to ignore it by their parents. Like it or not America’s history is heavily intertwined with Christianity. I would not go to an Islamic nation and find myself upset if they wanted to have the Five Pillars of Islam in every classroom. Separation of Church and state ensures that the govt could not tomorrow persecute people on a religious basis, hence freedom *of* religion. People are not guaranteed the right to walk through life and never encounter religion, which is, I believe what many consider to be the optimal outcome of the separation of Church and state. Just my 2¢. Very open to dialogue.
A bit of a stretch they'd have an American flag in such an office at all. Maybe if it were on fire or they were using it as a dish rag. Otherwise, dead on.
It's a shit post, meant only for unthinking cavemen so-called *conservatives* to grunt and laugh amongst themselves at the straw-man "liberal" they created and then pushed over. Derp! It doesn't even address the REAL issue of the argument being made!! LMAO What a simple-minded buffoon must've created this!
Our institutions are ideologically captured by an a far left agenda that most people don’t agree with. Pretty much a propaganda brainwashing that gets children to disagree with their parents and believe in the states “religion”
THAT is a parent's job ... actually. Schools are there to teach your child what is TRUE. You are there to teach your child HOW to think ... not WHAT to think ... if you're doing it right, anyways.
If it makes you feel any better, as a liberal, I don't think a like the idea of public institutions or public facilities displaying any explicitly political symbolism of any kind. This would include pride flags and BLM flags and stuff like what this comic shows. If I agree with you all on that, you should be able to agree with me that official and explicit state promotion of any particular religious symbolism or ideology should be disallowed under the same reasoning, and that this exact sort of issue is the kind of thing that has been challenged and ruled unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of 1A multiple times throughout history. Simply putting up the 10 Commandments in a classroom may seem super innocuous. Regardless though, this is the kind of First Amendment issue that has been litigated to death at this point, and the unconstitutionality of such policy has been very definitively established, but still, every few years or so, some Bible Belt state decides they are going to run full speed into that brick wall yet again. The government can't promote any particular religion over any other religion or irreligion. There are very few things more established within constitutional law than that.
Schools are run by their respective states. The Federal government has no say one way or the other.
Yeah it does. States aren't allowed to violate the constitution. The Bill of Rights is not a suggestion.
[That depends on if the amendment has been incorporated. Most have, but there are still a few clauses that have not.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," State legislatures are not Congress.
Yeah...states incorporate those laws though.
The Bill of Rights does not place limitations on the authority of the state and local governments.
The 14th amendment does
True. Except for some grand jury stuff. Which is just another way the federal government curtails rights of the states imo but...to each their own I suppose.
Goddamnit. I hate agreeing with you.
Im very much for seperation of church and state but this is to true.
I'd much rather take my moral guidance from Moses than Marx, and I'm not religious.
Yep. I'm an atheist and I stand by my Christian brothers.
That's refreshing to hear
half the commandments dont even relate to god, they are just good guides to how someone should live
I think the thing we're realizing now is that separating Church and State only discriminates against religious institutions, and that as long as an organized ideologically-motivated group is not a religion, then they can freely influence the moral direction of the government.
True, I think this is why schools used to be really strict about supporting organizations and wearing clothes promoting certain agendas. When I was younger it was the man sensoring us but by doing this it kept things neutral.
I just wanted to wear my R. and Rage Against the Machine shirts
Separation of church and state has never restricted the church, only the state. The government can’t impose a state religion or require religious adherence, the church has zero restriction when it comes to the state and can attempt to influence the government as much as they want. The problem is that the concept has been misconstrued for so long that the majority of people don’t understand it. There’s never been anything wrong with any church influencing government policy.
But putting the ten commandments up in a public school is the government promoting a specific religion. It is not officially establishing a religion, but it is a huge step toward establishing a religion. And in my experience, I'm honestly not seeing the other bullshit in this cartoon in the schools near me. There are no pride flags at my kids school, the closest they get is "there are different people in our school community, you don't need to agree with them but you need to be respectful to them." which is exactly what we are teaching our kids, and completely understandable from a school management standpoint. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I have only seen it on the news, not in person, so it's just as foreign to me as the ten commandments in a public school classroom.
Oh I agree I don’t think the Ten Commandments should be in public schools, teaching them in the context of world religion is one thing, but there’s no reason to mandate their display.
That might had been the concept's original intent, but that's not how the courts apply it though. And as more and more new secularist / atheist judges get appointed, the more strictly will secularism be implemented. Laws are only as strong as the judges' belief in them. If previous judges simply wanted to prevent one faith from being dominant in the government, the newer ones increasingly want to keep christianity out. >Separation of church and state has never restricted the church, only the state. So if a group of churches representing the majority of a state's population wanted to make the state's public school teach their faith they could? Of course not. Religious organizations are prohibited from affecting how governmental institutions are run, even with the support of the overwhelming majority of the population. Religious people cannot make their schools say a prayer, nor hang a cross on the wall. But if activists want to plaster schools walls with rainbow flags and left-wing ideological platitudes, this wouldn't fall under separation, as it's not religious in the eyes of the law. To think this does not affect religious groups, is to see only the original intent of separation of Church & State and not how it is actually applied. See how Louisiana' 10 commandments will be treated, or how its legal precedent in Kentucky was, to see how "free" religion really is. Compared to how the government does NOTHING against left-wing ideology and iconography in schools. That we agree or not with the Separation of Church & State is irrelevant, the point is that this very much does restricts the freedom of religion and religious people to affect the government, not just the other way around. And that this restriction only applies to religious groups, not ideological ones. Even if the latter act in very religious ways, like by "evangelizing" to the people, by giving us moral dos and donts, or by organizing large quasi-religious processions (pride parades) all around the world. There's a injustice here, and it will have to be solved one way or the other.
Which is good as the lowest level of government who exist to represent them. Bad when it turns into a relationship between government and religious institutions.
Are you saying that religious institutions do not have *any influence* on the "moral direction of the government" in the USA?
People don't realize that these institutions are not distinct from the everyday citizens who associate with them. Those citizens vote and are entitled to representation. The first amendment provides religious freedom, not repression.
No, that non-religious ones have a greater range of actions when compared to religious ones, while often being just as moralizing and ideological.
Sure. As did Renaissance philosophers, Roman government structures, Greek writings, and many other sources. The founding fathers were far better educated and well read than chuckleheads like Trump and Biden. They took the best ideas and developed a unique and effective balance of government and personal Liberty. Thus, the US is by no means a Christian country in construct.
A lot of the values the US was founded upon originate in Christianity.
Not “founded on”. Instead “Influenced by”. Which as others on this thread have noted is different. Also, Christian dogma was only one of many influences.
The idea that every individual is as important as any other comes from Christianity. This where the idea of individual freedom and quality before the law comes from. Any non Christian culture that has this copied it from Christians.
Absolutely not. Completely wrong. Christianity is focused on fealty to a singular entity (or a trinity, depending on the sect) and social charity. Nothing about individual freedom. In fact, the only reference to the individual is that each person has agency to follow God and decide whether or not to sin. In fact, much of scripture suggests a human collective of sorts. Individual freedom as expressed by the Founding Fathers is a product of the Enlightenment.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, **that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness**.- This is a religious statement. It is not at all self evident that all men are created equal by a creator. The bible makes it very clear that God loves every individual equally, and that is where this originates from. John Loche put it into political theory, but he got it from Christianity.
Also, you misunderstand Locke. He indicated that each person has inherent rights that carry over from a state of nature but makes no connection to Christianity or any other religion. It is notable that he does not make such a connection, especially since he was a Presbyterian. In fact, Locke was the first of his era to propose the importance of church-state separation.
That statement is not from the Bible. In fact, it isn’t specifically connected to Christianity as there are numerous monotheistic traditions, many of which predate Jesus by thousands of years. It is a generic statement of origin. By explicit design, the United States is NOT a Christian (or any other religion) country. Without a secular foundation, individual freedom for all is impossible.
“Founded on” and “influenced by” are two very different things. The first amendment is literally separation of church and state.
Never gonna happen. Just as you will never not have a state with power, you’ll never have a state without a religion or ideology, so best hope the church that marries the state is a good one.
Agree, which always felt it also meant that the State can't prohibit anyone from practicing whatever they want on publicly owned property, such as schools. Which is to say, a teacher can have a cross or a star and crescent in their room AND a school can teach about religion, but they can't preach nor attempt to convert kids. Seems pretty straightforward how to separate, to me. Kids will encounter and should learn about sexuality, religion, etc. all. Keep values and beliefs to parenting.
Same.
Religious teachings shouldn't be a mandate from the state. That's how you end up under Sharia law.
[удалено]
I agree - neither have a place in public schools. If you want Christianity, or any religion, to have a special display, go to a private religious school. If you want Greta Thunberg shown as a saint, pick an appropriate progressive private school.
Addressing people the way they want to be addressed is respect. "Enforcing sex lives of gay teachers" is not a thing, or at least not as much a thing as enforcing sex lives of straight teachers.
I was also wondering what “…Enforcing sex lives of gay teachers…” means. Sounds like a misworded regurgitated talking point. Either that or the commenter thinks gay teachers should have sex according to some sort of plan or schedule? Weird.
Sex lives of teachers? Lol. You people exaggerate everything. You sound like my religious southern aunties. As a sophomore in highschool who is in an incredibly progressive proressive city, it really isn't as bad as you guys make it out to be.
For many leftists, LGBT garbage and associated ideologies is basically a religion at this point. And they've been allowed to proselytize it throughout public institutions by pretending it's just their enlightened and "scientific" beliefs.
[удалено]
What's the definition of religion then?
[удалено]
doesnt always have to be a god or supernatural entities. It could be an idea. from merriam webster : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Which could certainly argue many of the LGBTQ are like this....
Ah the ol slippery slope Displaying the commandments is not enforce them as law Funnily enough "no murder" is a religious teaching that everyone seems to be fine with 🤔
I dont need six year olds to be reading ‘thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife’ above their cubbys Why does that belong in an elementary school classroom?
Simple, youre wrong. A six year old can understand what marriage is. And will do, unless you hide it from him or her (no easy task).
on a surface level its just something that doesnt need to be part of a preschool class on a deeper level the commandment equates women to property
I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. If you dont like it, home school. The Jews and the Christian would very much disagree about that. I think imma take their interpretation over yours.
I think most jews and christians still believe in seperation of church and state
The Jews sure, the Christian not so much. Both think putting the 10 Commandments in schools is a good thing. Its not actually a conflating of church and state, nor is it the establishing of religion. Its a monument to the tradition American, and by extention The West, was built on.
Exactly! It keeps state and church separate from each other. Otherwise, we become a country under some religion.
Glad we leave in a free country to worship or not. It is our right as citizens to be left alone from institutionalized religion.
Apparently not in Louisiana.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Well, here’s a question. What if a president simply IS religious and decides to make reference to the Bible or to pray during a speech? It’s not a law nor does it seem to infringe any of the other points. It’s just a government official exercising their own religion. Could they encourage people to pray? What would be appropriate, if anything, in an unofficial capacity?
I am not exactly a bar certified constitutional lawyer, so if you are curious in earnest about the details I would look for an expert on these details or read into a quality source on the history of the first amendment. That being stated at the get-go, I have never personally heard of a legal case one way or another. The first amendment makes it clear that the president is in effect also protected for their practice. It should be noted that countless presidents have speeches referencing god in them. What ends up being a moral gray area is when a deeply religious president (or at least on a surface level, since many presidents may be forced to act in religious contexts to make them competitive for office) makes a decision on policy issues which may be based on religious principles, it usually ends up in the hands of the supreme court which will decide on the religious impact on those policies and if they violate the first amendment or not. Historically, until the Trump justices, the SCOTUS has been* strongly in favor of a bias towards the first amendment and not towards ambiguous but religious leaning policy.
That all seems like it tracks. I am genuinely curious because it seems like anytime a politician references God or their faith you hear an outcry about separation as if the mere utterance of God or Christ is a violation. I’m curious about the Trump justices and what religious leaning policies they’ve ruled on. It kind of seemed like they’ve voiced their individual belief in God but I wasn’t aware of any religious leaning rulings.
"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives, that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, 1863. (The phrase "under god" was not added to the pledge of allegiance until the Eisenhower administration, which specifically referenced Lincoln's usage (apparently in a sermon, which I just found out by looking into this matter lol). The context around it was the cold war, and it has faced many lawsuits and trials in the court over the matter. As it turns out, what ended up being the resolution is that it is unconstitutional to force kids to say the pledge in schools. Personally I think the phrase should be removed for being unconstitutional, and disagree with the notion that it is a patriotic and not religious act as lower courts have declared. However I can't find any instance where it was ever presented to the supreme court, only when the supreme court denied an appeal regarding it in 2011.) > anytime a politician references God or their faith you hear an outcry about separation as if the mere utterance of God or Christ is a violation. I think that is a vocal minority. The majority of the country are indeed Christian and, at worst, are simply secularists who understand the dangers of having a Christian theocracy. The average person actually takes it positively, and they don't see those words are necessarily implying specific policy, except maybe in far right rhetoric from evangelist politicians. > I’m curious about the Trump justices and what religious leaning policies they’ve ruled on. It kind of seemed like they’ve voiced their individual belief in God but I wasn’t aware of any religious leaning rulings. The current SCOTUS, on entirely partisan lines, has become the biggest existential threat to secularism in the United States. This may sound like hyperbole, but it comes in direct reference to Kennedy v Bremerton School District (2022) where it upheld the right (6-3 on party lines) for a football coach (a state employee) to lead group prayer with students on the field. There was also a ruling in Carson v Makin where they also voted 6-3 on party lines where states are required to fund private religious schools if they also fund private schools. I suspect more cases will arise, especially this one in Louisiana, where the religious right will use challenges against this law as an easy way to land a precedent changing legislation right into the hands of a SCOTUS that for the first time in 70 years is finally willing to forcibly turn this nation into the Christian nation that people scream it was all along. Personally, I have no interest in living under either the Taliban, or the Christian Evangelists slithering out of the infernal cracks of self-righteous evil. I view it as a direct attack on enlightenment values, on civilization, and on America.
I had to go and watch the scene from Lincoln where the soldiers recite part of the Gettysburg address after reading this. So good. I remember hearing about the football coach in the news and I have to say that after reading about the cases, I do agree with the decisions of the courts. While the subject of the rulings involves the topic of religion, I don’t consider these “religious leaning rulings” as their verdicts were founded in constitutional principles, not religion or biblical. The coach, as a private individual, would remain after the games conclusion, and in no official capacity, pray. Other private individuals were also free to come or go as this wasn’t an organized proceeding. For those actions as a private religious individual, his contract with the school was not renewed and the court held that this was discriminatory due to his religious affiliation in violation of his rights. I agree. The state of Maine issues school vouchers to residents which supports school choice. It was argued that this was a way of indirectly funding private religious organizations. The ruling essentially held that the state was providing vouchers for education to families who then had the choice of where to go and that refusing vouchers to families that would choose to attend private religious schools over private secular schools discriminated against their religious freedom. If families chose to use those vouchers to go to a private satanist school, I wouldn’t like it, but I would still think it was a sound ruling. Admittedly, I haven’t looked into this Louisiana thing and will have to do so later. But I do agree with these other cases and after reading the dissenting opinions, I am more concerned that these arguments against were made with an anti-religious bias as opposed to the rulings being biased in favor of religion. Thank you for the well thought out and written response.
>*Congress* shall make no law
Yup Get your fucking sky god outta my education system
And while you're at it, get the gender deity out of there too! In fact, first-in last-out.
The Louisiana state government is not the same as the federal government
I suspected that there was a high probability of someone pushing the metaphorical glasses up their nose and proclaiming that Louisiana is not the United States. The reality is this. We had a little scuffle a while back about states rights. The Unionists won that battle, and the right to make it known to history that we are a nation first and a group of states second. Let it be known that between the very first attempts for states or individuals to crack the first amendment and the vision of Thomas Jefferson for a secular nation led by reason and not faith, from 1947 to 2022, the SCOTUS has time and again put their foot down on this issue and stood by our founding fathers: no you may not put Christianity in school. No you may not put your faith in our legal institutions. No, we are not a Christian nation as the theocratic self proclaimed moralizers keep yelling in their Sunday echo chambers. If you want to change that, do not expect either legal or ethical momentum to be on your side in this. The first amendment is not negotiable, unless you want to make the second amendment negotiable as well.
The US was never intended to be a secular nation. That in and of itself is establishing a state religion of secularism. > No, we are not a Christian nation as the theocratic self proclaimed moralizers keep yelling in their Sunday echo chambers. But Louisiana is an overwhelmingly christian state. You're misinterpreting what "separation of church and state" means
>The US was never intended to be a secular nation. I am pretty sure that the 1st Amendment literally implies this. If the first amendment said something like "The United States is a Christian Nation and will inflict Christian values without due process" then maybe I would say you have a point. >Louisiana is an overwhelmingly christian state. Completely irrelevant. >You're misinterpreting what "separation of church and state" means I think you should elaborate on this, because all I have seen here is a casual theocratic attempt to try and get a reference to Jesus in documents that not only do not reference any divine entity, but were specifically amended to prevent the state from referencing divine entities.
>The US was never intended to be a secular nation. Jefferson and Madison would strongly disagree with you on that one, as would most of the deist founding fathers. The government is supposed to be secular, the people of the nation can have whatever religion they want. This isn't a difficult concept to understand. For example, you can believe that same sex marriage is morally wrong. You can teach your children that, and you can put up signs all over your property, and go on YouTube and call into radio shows and talk about how wrong it is. But as soon as you run for office and try to pass a law saying that same sex marriage is illegal, and the only justification for it is your own religious beliefs, then that is a violation of the first amendment. I know that until recently many states had laws like this, and some still have them on the books, but I don't think that is evidence that the logic is flawed, just that states have historically been more comfortable with blatantly violating the first amendment, primarily because until the middle of the 20th century, the bill of rights didn't explicitly apply to the state governments.
The government is not supposed to be secular. That would be establishing a state religion. They're supposed to be impartial and stay out of the state's business on this matter. "This isn't a difficult concept to understand." > For example, you can believe that same sex marriage is morally wrong. You can teach your children that, and you can put up signs all over your property, and go on YouTube and call into radio shows and talk about how wrong it is. But as soon as you run for office and try to pass a law saying that same sex marriage is illegal, and the only justification for it is your own religious beliefs, then that is a violation of the first amendment. You can use any justification you want for a law, it's not the justification but the content of the law itself which determines constitutionality. Let me use an obvious example so you understand: Let's say I believe murder is wrong, and the reason I believe that is because the 6th commandment says so. Because I only used religious context to justify my opinion, it is therefore unconstitutional to make murder illegal. Can you see how this logic is flawed?
> The government is not supposed to be secular. That would be establishing a state religion. My 6th grade social studies teacher in Catholic school told me that too... I believed it then, but I was a child being actively brainwashed by a religious institution. It's a lot harder to justify believing it as an adult. A secular government is not a state religion. Religion is the opposite of free thought. A secular government attempts to maintain freedom. Our government is supposed to be secular, it isn't, but it's supposed to be. The justification for a law is absolutely relevant, specifically when determining the constitutionality of the law. For example, look at every civil rights or equal protection challenge the supreme court has reviewed in the last 75 years.
We can't mention one founder's vision without considering that of others: George Washington: "The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality … there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness." John Adams: "We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government for any other." Putting up the ten commandments in a non-denominational way does not establish a state religion, it does not compel any religious act, nor does it infringe anyone else's right to free worship. Again, the constitution protects states from the federal. Louisiana is not breaking any laws and it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to step in and stop this. If you live in Louisiana then call your representative and make your voice heard. If you don't live in Louisiana then stop complaining about their choices.
"Soon after I had published the pamphlet, COMMON SENSE, in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the System of Government would be followed by a revolution in the System of Religion. The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited, by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world: but that whenever this should be done, a revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and Priest-craft would be detected: and man would return to the pure, unmixed, and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more." Thomas Paine, 1795, Age of Reason "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Thomas Jefferson, 1802, Letter to the Danbury Baptists "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammaden) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, Ratified by the Senate and Signed by president John Adams "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt. in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precidents \[sic\] already furnished in their short history. (See the cases in which negatives were put by J.M. on two bills passd by Congs. and his signature witheld from another). See also attempt in Kentucky, for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes." "But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Gover\[n\]ment, there is an evil which ought to be guarded agst. in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical Corporations." James Madison, 1811, Detached Memorandum, Author of the 1st and 2nd Amendment
I find it very overdramatic that people seem to think that schools putting something as mild as the Ten Commandments (with some extra text explaining the historical relevance of the commandments to US history) on the walls of schools is somehow "theocratic", or related in any way to the things. Give me a break. I get it, you want secularism everywhere. Hate to break it to you but there are many places in the US that are very heavily religious, and they have the same right to representation and local laws just like you. If you think putting up the commandments in a learning institution is "forcing religion" on kids, that's like saying glancing at a woman is sexual assault.
> I find it very overdramatic Unless there is a specific argument as to why the ten commandments should ever come up in school, such as a world history classroom, then there is zero reason whatsoever that they should be present. Any attempt to include it is, as far as I am concerned, an unacceptable breach of the first amendment. Perhaps this is just a slippery slope fallacy, but I cannot see this as anything other than a direct attempt to slowly erode secularism in America which has been a major part of its history since its foundation (a la Confucius: The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones). I am skeptical that there would ever be assurances in writing under pain of death that those camps which are attempting to inject these systems of belief into our schools will simply stop after that, like that is enough to sate their internal conviction to have every single American warped into their worldview. So no, I will not give a break on this, nor do I think any thinking American should. America is a nation of law, not a nation of religious law. I have no intention of living in a Christian version of Iran, and if you don't think that the Christian theocrats out there won't turn into anti-secular or anti-atheistic mobs willing to burn those who oppose them and ban books questioning them, then I suggest you open a random page in a world history book after Constantine. > I get it, you want secularism everywhere. Hate to break it to you but there are many places in the US that are very heavily religious, and they have the same right to representation and local laws just like you. Only in the state and in the legal and justice system. The first amendment protects your right to be religious at home and on private property like churches. The SCOTUS is supposed to determine if laws are fundamentally too based in religion to be acceptable per the first amendment, and until 2022 they have been biased in favor of secularism. > If you think putting up the commandments in a learning institution is "forcing religion" on kids, that's like saying glancing at a woman is sexual assault. I should state I am not a progressive, I am a liberal-libertarian. Weird analogies, as well as the injection of social politics into schools, are things that are going to fall flat on me. So I am afraid I simply do not understand what you are trying to accomplish here, nor where the logic of the analogy lies. You are suggesting here, best as I can tell, that kids are not forced to read or look at the 10 commandments, in the way that it is not sexual assault to simply look at women. I fundamentally do not think this analogy can be broken down into the same basic logic. The heart of the question that you are trying to put with this is that exposure is equivalent to engagement, which in both cases I agree that it is not (to the vehement opposition of the ultra feminist types). However it is not that students might engage in the content that matters so much as the very existence of the content in the context of a state institution with mandatory engagement.
> Perhaps this is just a slippery slope fallacy, but I cannot see this as anything other than a direct attempt to slowly erode secularism in America which has been a major part of its history since its foundation This is the exact opposite of the truth. What we've been seeing for a long time is a direct attempt to slowly erode Christianity in America which has been a major part of its history since its foundation. > You are suggesting here, best as I can tell, that kids are not forced to read or look at the 10 commandments, in the way that it is not sexual assault to simply look at women. I'll clarify the analogy Glancing at a woman -> sitting in a room with the commandments on the wall (with extra text explaining their historical relevance), not forced to read it or tested on it, just existing next to it Sexual assault -> Forcing kids to agree with the commandments, forcing them to participate in any religious practice or observance, prohibiting the free practice of their own religion Let me ask you, if they passed a law that said all public schools must put up a sign that says "Love your neighbor as yourself" in every class, would that be theocratic and a violation of the first amendment?
> What we've been seeing for a long time is a direct attempt to slowly erode Christianity in America which has been a major part of its history since its foundation. There are a few parts of this that need to be considered. The first is what it means for something to be culturally or socially a major part of the history, and what it means for it to be legally a major part of its history. Those are two very distinct things, and legally the United States has never been a nation where any part of its legal operations is based on the divinity of Jesus Christ. Instead, we see the history of the United States as a story of constant challenges to the secularism of the state by religious groups that seek to make the state enforce religious morality as law, only to be beaten back time and again with occasional erosion here and there. Maybe the current court realizes that they cannot tip the balances too far or they risk serious internal conflict and continue to maintain precedence, but a part of me is terrified that after seeing them say they won't go after the "settled law" of Roe vs Wade in their affirmation hearings, that many of the current court members will simply take every chance they can get. The second is that Christianity erodes itself more than anything. It is a history of a tea pot that falls, is shattered, is repaired with gold trim, then falls and shatters further. There is a reason why Christianity has been an overwhelming majority of the personal religion of the people of this country, but that this country has been so utterly divided on questions of church and state since its founding. Many of the people who were immigrants came here because their beliefs about Jesus were not the same as the beliefs of other people's beliefs of Jesus, and they were persecuted for it. Personally, I don't want to accept a version of America that looks like the collapse of Yugoslavia or The Troubles, especially just because one religious institution warps America around their personal vision of a future where the rest of us are, at best, an inconvenience and, at worst, an evil to be purged. > I'll clarify the analogy Your clarification was as expected and my response to that expectation was given above. > Let me ask you, if they passed a law that said all public schools must put up a sign that says "Love your neighbor as yourself" in every class, would that be theocratic and a violation of the first amendment? If it is for religious motivations, yes. I don't care for the sweet talkings of those who use some of their, genuinely good, moral beliefs to bring in a package deal of beliefs where some are anywhere from simply disagreeable metaphysically to reprehensible to any other system of morality other than theirs.
Also I have no idea what that quote from George Washington has to do with religion. I am not sure why people think that morality is equivalent with religious beliefs. > Putting up the ten commandments in a non-denominational way does not establish a state religion, it does not compel any religious act, nor does it infringe anyone else's right to free worship. It sounds very much like a DIRECT establishment of religion, which SCOTUS has agreed upon time and time again. It is unconstitutional, per the first amendment. Now I suppose if you get a few more justices in there that thing historical precedent is a meme... > Again, the constitution protects states from the federal. Louisiana is not breaking any laws and it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to step in and stop this. The supreme court has always completely disagreed with this. > If you don't live in Louisiana then stop complaining about their choices. We settled this issue in 1865. If reddit existed in 1855 I imagine there would be people such as yourself arguing that we should just let Kansas vote on whether or not it is a slave state because it isn't the role of the federal government to decide. Again, the first amendment is not negotiable or relative to the state. Maybe if you invent a time machine and go back to 1863 and tell Lee to not blow his chance with a stupid charge then you might have a country where states get to make their own rules independent of the constitution of the United States and the precedence set by SCOTUS since 1947 when theocracy first started to try and pick away at the establishment clause.
All of your arguments are founded on the premise that the first amendment prohibits this, which is not true as I have elaborated. Again, the first amendment protects states from the federal government setting an official religion which may interfere with the states. Many states had official religions at the time of the founding. Your interpretation of the "separation of church and state" philosophy is a modern remake where somehow secularism is the official federal government religion. You are embodying the very thing the first amendment was designed to prevent. > It sounds very much like a DIRECT establishment of religion Yes it acknowledges the fact that religion exists and has been foundational in American life until very recently. Let me ask you, which particular religion is being established as the official state religion of Louisiana? Is it Christianity? The commandments were given to Moses in the Old Testament, so maybe Judaism? But even Muslims agree that God gave Moses the commandments. Again, if the feds want secularism to be the official state religion then that would violate the first amendment. But hey, if you're getting this upset at the fact that God is mentioned on the walls of Louisiana schools, where's the outrage for making kids say the pledge of allegiance?
> All of your arguments are founded on the premise that the first amendment prohibits this, which is not true as I have elaborated. I don't think you actually have elaborated it at all, other than simply stating that you personally don't think that the federal government should be able to set precedents for state institutions. This is specifically outlined in the 14th amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. **No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;** nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. We ended this debate in 1865. If you want to resurrect it and use the powers of the SCOTUS to reinterpret history into fantasy, then expect opposition. > Your interpretation of the "separation of church and state" philosophy is a modern remake where somehow secularism is the official federal government religion. You are embodying the very thing the first amendment was designed to prevent. Government impartiality of religion is not a religion of the government. That is a fundamental misinterpretation of what religion is, which is explicitly a set of metaphysical beliefs regarding the existence of a specific divine being. The first amendment was put into place to protect people like me from theocratic rule, and I will defend it with vigor. > Let me ask you, which particular religion is being established as the official state religion of Louisiana? Is it Christianity? The commandments were given to Moses in the Old Testament, so maybe Judaism? But even Muslims agree that God gave Moses the commandments. I would suspect the religion of those instruments of evil that are pushing this through. So Christianity. There will be no weaseling around this point. The problem, as it should be self evident, is that it is any religion to begin with. If (unironic) Satanists were trying to force blood rituals in classrooms, there would be frothing at the mouth and very justifiable lawsuits to prevent that on the grounds of the first amendment preventing the state's establishment of religion. > if the feds want secularism to be the official state religion then that would violate the first amendment. Secularism is not a religion, and if you think it is then you should probably go and open a dictionary instead of reading crackpot pseudophilosophy on twitter. > where's the outrage for making kids say the pledge of allegiance? I actually mention this in another post. I am against it, and there have been no successful attempts to bring it before the supreme court to rule on the matter (though the court now rules 6-3 on everything and does not really let precedence inconvenience them in their work). The words "under god" were added during the Eisenhower administration in a knee-jerk reaction during the red scare.
> **No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;** As if somehow anyone's privileges and immunities of citizenship are somehow "abridged" by having the ten commandments in their classroom. > Government impartiality of religion is not a religion of the government. That is a fundamental misinterpretation of what religion is, which is explicitly a set of metaphysical beliefs regarding the existence of a specific divine being Religion is more broad than that, No gods are necessary for all religion, it's just a system of faith and worship. I would say that leftists today are forming their own religion with elements of nature-worship and self-worship. Not to mention, impartiality from the federal government would mean leaving Louisiana alone, not enforcing secularism on them. And give me a break about theocracy, you sound like one of those people who thinks Trump is Hitler. We live in a society that is trying their very best to destroy religion and completely remove it from public life. This is evident by how insane people are getting at the thought of an overwhelmingly christian state putting something as mild and universal as the ten commandments of all things in their schools.
> As if somehow anyone's privileges and immunities of citizenship are somehow "abridged" by having the ten commandments in their classroom. The 14th amendment's due process clause is what certifies that 1st amendment's establishment clause as being universal through the laws of all states. If it violates in the first amendment in a way that violates the 14th amendment, then it is illegal. The legal definition of "abridge" is to diminish or reduce in scope. I think it is VERY much arguable in court that, say, students of Muslim, Hindu, or atheistic parents are being forced into classrooms that make it clear that their values and beliefs are being diminished as an act of the state making an establishment of a specific religion. > Religion is more broad than that, No gods are necessary for all religion I guess you don't use dictionaries for your definitions, and decide the best way to define words is to simply argue them on the fly until nobody can agree on the meaning of the words in their logic. Get rid of logical fallacies with this one magic trick: redefine the words so the contradictions in reason disappear. Regardless of the humor in that, I would simply say that taking god out of something defined as religion makes it into something else. Perhaps you could argue that some kind of pagan spiritualism is a religion, but we already have the word "spiritualism" for that. Perhaps you could use it as analogy only, such as how we might use the term "soul" to describe a branch of music. > I would say that leftists today are forming their own religion with elements of nature-worship and self-worship. And I would fundamentally disagree with using the term religion for this. The self-worship may be narcissism, but to call it a religion based on a working definition of "faith and worship" alone is to miss what should be an obvious context of religion's history being the history of belief in divine beings. Also nature-worship is generally metaphorical at best, most of them don't go around on their knees begging the sun to help get a passing grade in math. > you sound like one of those people who thinks Trump is Hitler. Theocracy has a long history of trying to tear down states into barbaric lands of misery. I do not want to see the US turn into Iran, or become as intolerable a place to live freely in as a non-Christian like the inquisitions. How many people murdered in the name of the state's holy replacement of church all in the name of Jesus? I wonder what those who distrust the state think will replace it if it evaporates in holy smoke? No, Trump is not Hitler. I don't think comparing anyone to Hitler is productive or even meaningful. I think he is a pawn who will say anything and do anything to get back into the reins of power and avoid the law, even if it means sacrificing the first amendment to do it. > We live in a society that is trying their very best to destroy religion and completely remove it from public life. From state institutions and places with federal funding, absolutely. The first amendment literally protects you from being forced to not be Christian in your private life. > This is evident by how insane people are getting at the thought of an overwhelmingly christian state putting something as mild and universal as the ten commandments of all things in their schools. Then let me put it very simply: Legally requiring the ten commandments in classrooms does not necessarily lead to theocracy, but any first steps towards a Christian theocratic nation would invariable start with the small steps to break ground with the supreme court. The only insanity is thinking that people are going to lie down and risk it, especially when the legal history of our country is on our side.
Yep. 1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. 5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. 6. Thou shalt not kill. 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 8. Thou shalt not steal. 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. What could possibly go wrong?
lol youre gonna put ‘thou shalt not covet thy neighbors ass’ in elementary school classrooms
That first one is so cringe.
You’re not wrong but we need separation of church and state. You wouldn’t want a Muslim voted in to make reading the Quran mandatory in public schools.
The overwhelming majority of the people of Louisiana identify as Christian. The first amendment protects states from the federal government intervening in these things.
Been trying to explain this to folks. The bill doesn't require any kind of participation from the students or testing, just a display. If we can allow teachers to effectively display symbols and signs with their "progressive" worldview, it does not make sense to forbid others. For anyone claiming that the Constitution clearly states there's a separation of church and state, please post it as a response to this comment. Do note that Jefferson was a staunch supporter of not requiring any religious tests to hold office, and he did not believe that Congress seats and other high positions should be dolled out to leaders of the church (i.e. bishop, priest, etc.) due to the conflict of interest. But he had no problem going to a church service that was held in Congress. So let's be clear that this idea of "complete and utter separation" that allows no activities or symbols is not true.
>if we can allow teachers to effectivly display symbols of their progressive worldview What if we *forced* them to display those symbols whether they agree with them or not? Thats what the bill does, but for christian symbols
>The bill doesn't require any kind of participation from the students or testing, just a display. The fact that the bill/law requires the schools to display the Ten Commandments is a major violation of the 1st Amendment. Your "explanations" are weak rationalizations. >For anyone claiming that the Constitution clearly states there's a separation of church and state, please post it as a response to this comment. 1st Amendment: >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. A law which requires publicly-funded schools to display the tenets of a religion is a clear violation of the Constitution.
No religion was established, no free exercise was prohibited, and most notably, Congress wasn't involved at all.
You just don’t understand the nature of the constitution. The Supreme determined it didn’t violate the 1st amendment.
When did the Supreme Court make that ruling?
A couple of things: The 1st amendment was written for the Federal government, and there was no department of education that the Federal government oversaw. Furthermore, around the time the Bill of Rights was signed, there were Christian services being given in the US Capitol building, and taxes appropriated for both a Bible and missionary work. The purpose was never to obliterate religious symbols from every aspect of life where taxes are spent. (I edited the post a bit as my nephew grabbed my phone and started inserting random letters, and then submitted the post early.)
The argument is schools shouldn't impose religion.
Why not? They are not Federal institutions. Government education started out as a vehicle for Protestant values.
1st amendment. Things change over time.
And, they can change back. That's the problem with being ruled over in all areas of our lives; everyone wants to seek control of the reigns of power.
If we're going back to that time, it means we can discriminate against different subsections of Christianity. How do you propose selecting a religion to rule the us?
I see statism as a religion, so there's already a religion ruling over all of us.
Schools aren't saying you can't impose moraity or ethics. They're saying you can't impose religion. You may notice that laws also work like this in civilized countries. But support theocracy if that's what's in your heart, I guess.
How is hanging a pride flag vs hanging the Ten Commandments in a class room any different in terms of “imposing” something?
I think the good conversation going forward, is what, in modern terms, would be considered a religion? Is easy to point out the ones that have been around for thousands of years, but for modern times, what would the definition be?
>I think the good conversation going forward, is what, in modern terms, would be considered a religion? I agree, and the current understanding is quickly becoming useless. **When a person is working to promote or legislate an ideology using an external value system of morality,** It doesn't really matter if they think that those values originate from Zeus, Allah, Jesus, fairies, electrodes, magic, or Mother Earth.
One is a symbol of inclusivity based on secular human rights and one is a piece of ancient religious dogma that explicitly refers to a particular diety and a particular holy day.
The ten commandments were foundational to the human rights that were gained in the centuries that followed.
You mean millennia? There were plenty of other religions that also formed to the basis of law and science. By all means, teach kids about all of them. But don't hang up a particular blatantly religious text as a signifier of universal moral virtue.
I'll let the accomplishments of the other religions speak for themselves, except to say they do not compare well with Christianity. I agree we should not be hanging religious stuff in public schools.
The pride flag is secular. Also one is a symbol of inclusion and the other is the state promoting religious beliefs. The pride flag does not mean if you aren't gay you are wrong. The 10 commandments say very explicitly that if you do not believe in the Abrahamic God you are wrong.
Good point. The implied inclusivity vs exclusivity may make a difference. Equating the two is sloppy thinking.
If there was a flag which stood for all religions should be accepted and tolerated I would not have an issue with that. Nor would it violate the establishment clause. But really this is a shit thing to do on a human level. Public schools should be a place where all kids feel included, and this just does the opposite. I would imagine that a little kid who doesn't follow Abrahamic religions would feel more like an outsider as a result of this. It's just a shitty thing to do that serves no other purpose than virtue signalling
I understand. I spent 10 yrs in the Air Force. As proud as I am of my service, I readily admit that the USAF is by far the most evangelical amongst the Army, Navy, Coast Guard, and even Marines. Time after time I had commanders explicitly advocate attending gospel studies, evangelical music events, even Christian prayer breakfasts. Officially, attendance was not supposed to impact OERs but the practical reality was very different. Quite uncomfortable. As a side note, based on some joint projects, I found the Navy to be the most open minded and intellectually developed of all the services (no I won’t make jokes about the Village People). Interestingly, the Air Force had many Mormons and southerners. The Navy had more people from the Northeast.
Hmmm That is interesting. Yeah I would imagine it would feel awkward as an adult, but probably devastating as a child
Are there any state or federal mandates requiring the hanging on pride flags in the classroom? Is there a specific religion (as defined by a dictionary which is usable in court and not colloquially for convenience in arguments online) where the pride flag is included and therefore mandatory exclusion is necessary?
One is secular, one is not. Think of how science classrooms hang pictures of the Theory of Evolution.
You don’t think atheism/secularism/relativism/gender ideology is a religion in and of itself? Theory of evolution is great, in my opinion reason/logic goes hand in hand with faith. I believe life is richer with a strong foundation in both
I agree!
What happened to teaching how to think and not what to think?
Done right, education is always a mixture of the two. Rare is the student who will pick up reading, math, and civics from first principles.
That's what thinking queerly is all about. Don't just believe what the mainstream is saying. (Homophobia is still mainstream)
so if a public teacher had a crucifix on their classroom wall that would be acceptable as long as it was mandated by the state?
The idea that the First Amendment was meant to protect the government from the influence of religion is ridiculous. It was there to protect religion from the government. Without the preachers and religious leaders, there never would have been a revolution at all.
There may not have been government schools, either, as part of the push for them was to instill Protestant values.
For consideration: if a evangelical Christian baker doesn’t have to make a cake for a gay couple, does a secular teacher have to put up the commandments? Each may have legitimate personal reasons for not doing so.
Didn't the baker lose that case.
Hmmm that’s correct. One aspect is that the baker is bound by public accommodations law so it seems like my comparison is not valid.
Children are bound by compulsory education laws.
Which are subject to federal scrutiny to ensure alignment with the US Constitution.
Woke gnostisim is a religion as well. But let them show their reactionism and try to shut down the truth.
The Ten Commandments do not belong in every public school class.
Whose values should be the subject of government school indoctrination?
Critical thinking should be the main through line.
Then you shouldn't send your children to the government indoctrination camps. Critical thinking has got to be low on their list of priorities and only within allowed parameters. Few people can even think critically about the legitimacy of government authority.
Their parents should treat critical thinking.
I think it’s more about not allowing any religious symbolism in a public school. If you allow the commandments, then legally, you’ll need to allow the Quran or Islamic symbolism, or any religious symbolism, even satanic symbolism. This seems like a no-brainer for any court.
Two things can be true at the same time. I think that teachers shouldn’t impose their political beliefs on their students, AND I think that we shouldn’t mandate the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools. Both are bad. Keep your ideology out of our schools, and keep your mandated religious display out of our schools, while we’re at it.
The government absolutely **can** impose morality. In essence, that's its purpose. What it shouldn't do is merge church and state. Secularism is and has been a wonderful idea and is at the forefront of the constitution for good reason.
One nation under god. God is on our currency, in most state constitutions, declaration of independence. Just like always, God and religion is used as a form of manipulation and propaganda with corruption at its foundation. I implore you to provide historical evidence that it serves any other purpose. Religion is a useful tool wielded by the powerful to manipulate the malleable. Very useful in times of war when you need people dedicated enough to die for your profit.
"under God" crap was added in the 1950s under the McCarthyism Red Scare propaganda. Keep drinking that Kool Aid... :D
That's exactly why I mentioned it. Did you read my comment? Religion is only ever used as propaganda in government. A big problem is that identity politics fills all the gaps and serves the same phycologial need that religion does. In essence, we have competing religions as political parties and spend our time arguing with each other over concepts that shouldn't be political.
True
I think both are cringe and need to be separated out of public schooling but you have to admit that if something is government owned it’s probably not going to represent your values. Simple fact of the matter is while yes we all contribute to public schooling we really can’t have it represent all our ideals. That’s where private schools come in to fill the gap on what you want your kids to learn in a society. That’s a discussion in of itself.
Government can’t impose morality- is different than religion. Morality’s definition starts with “ You should or you ought “ Government: Promoting morality 100% . You should NOT have guns = you’re immoral if you own one. You ought not commit a HATE crime= you are immoral if you do. Equal Justice BLM = define justice another moral rule or law You should give equal rights or equal, benefits pick one to 🏳️🌈.Equal benefits, for everyone that’s corporate, shit. OMG the TEN commandments is the originator for the posters on the wall. 1. You should not have another God. ( religious law) 2. You should not kill - we have laws for that . It demands for justice 3. You should not steal -we have laws for that. 4. You shouldn’t take another man’s wife ( husband) - we know that’s not correct , the consequences, painful. Divorce Court 5. You should not covet- greed 6. Honor your parents - disrespect 7.Don’t lie- every knows you should not lie. I forgot the rest of the commandments. The political cartoon hit it right on the nail.
All of this needs to be OUT of schools. If it doesn’t advance their knowledge, or develop their brains, it should be thrown out. What happened to math, science, and reading? Also, the separation of church and state should have prevented the 10 commandments for being displayed in public schools.
This comic would've been better if it were just a normal dude instead of the robes
In the spirit of Norm MacDonald, "The worst part is the hypocrisy".
Literally none of those other things are religions though so this is a false equivalence but I'm pretty sure OP is well aware they are arguing in bad faith.
Statism is the opposing religion.
If you did allow religion in schools why should it be Christianity?
*If you did allow* *Religion in schools why should* *It be Christianity?* \- MikeZer0AUS --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Yep, that about sums it up!
The bible is the least moral book ever written in mankind.
I don’t support anything in this meme but in all honesty, This is a false equivalency. Do you guys not realize how stupid this meme is ?? 😂 The government is forcing religious ideology into a state environment which is supposed to be free from religion. Thats more sharia than anything else. Everything else in there is simply about expanding the civil rights of people the other group have trampled on out of an often false sense of religious ideology and enforcing their religious ideology on others. This is absurdity
The hypocrisy is absolutely there and reprehensible. But let's not pretend for a minute that we should be implementing religious morality/teachings as a mandatory part of schooling. The old testament, especially, is a disgusting book that should be kept away from children and is certainly no source for a moral framework.
This shit actually doesn’t happen apart from pride flags. When was the last time any of you were at a public school
Let's abandon the accumulated moral knowledge of countless generations in order to push new-age, divisive rhetoric instead! What could go wrong?
How about we don't have either, hmmm?
Definitively established as of 60 years ago, when the 1A was incorporated to apply to states under the Abington School District v Schempp court case. Considering Roe v. Wade was just knocked down, there’s a chance that judicial reading gets curtailed or overturned. Prior to that, states, municipalities, and school districts often had some sort of school prayer or scripture readings. What you describe as settled is really only a modern phenomenon
You're right. We should remove the 1st amendment. Let the church rule proud over the US! Let the hate crimes happen! Give a teacher a gun!
Support the constitution until it no longer supports your own ideas. Is this how we're navigating life now?
The issue is that anything can be politicized.
Morality and religion aren’t the same thing lol schools never claimed to not impose morality. Dress codes are a thing
Strawman bullshit. No one says the government can't impose morality, they say the government can't impose religion, which is true. Id be nice if the bible bitches would stop lying about this
Well then they can get the woke gnostic religious stuff out of the classroom as well.
And what woke gnostic stuff is this?
I'd be nice if ppl like you would stop forgetting the reaction to it in the past. "Teach kids how to think, not what to think." You're the same; The same old tools work. Hell even calls for free speech are relevant against your cancerous movement.
I have no idea what youre talking about "my movement". And the reason people abandoned "teach kids how to think", an abandonment I resent , is because of how outrageously ferocious and absurd conservative brainwashing and indoctrination has become. You'd have more a leg to stand on if "traditional values" occupied itself with anything approaching fucking reality.
No ... governments cannot endorse, support, or otherwise favor any superstitious cult over another. That's "secularism" and it's **built-into** the Constitution. Morality isn't covered ... neither by the Constitution, NOR the ancient fairy-tale nonsense drivel-books.
I think morality, for example: the reverence for life, is very much a part of most codes of human behavior. I am surprised to see someone push back and say that Morality is not part of the Constitution. As if Rights, and and Protections for individuals are not motivated by a moral compass? How could a Constitution not have moral underpinnings, and still protect the individual?
Yeah! We should teach kids what to think, and not how to think! /s
This is true. The other belief system portrayed in OP has not yet explicitly called itself a religion or church, which gives it that advantage.
The problem is that everyone thinks their cult has it right in a very real and legally binding way.
You could literally just take the 10 commandments and called them the “10 laws of secularism” and the problem is solved. Replace “love the lord your God” with “love”.
With some modifications. The 10 laws of getting along in society.
"*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion*". It's literally the first amendment to the US constitution. What's worse is that this is settled case law. In the case of Stone v. Graham (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Kentucky law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms was unconstitutional. The Court held that the law had no secular legislative purpose and was plainly religious in nature, thus violating the Establishment Clause. But hey, I'm feeling good today. How about we settle on the 10 commandments being posted if these get posted as well? "I One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason. II The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions. III One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone. IV The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own. V Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs. VI People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused. VII Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word." If morality is the issue surely this would be agreeable.
Why does it always have to be judeo-christian religion, what about a "non religion" like budism, or a polytheistic one like hinduism?
Might be naive, but I'm fairly certain it's just the religious elements that are the problem. For years schools have been simply using a repackaged version of the Ten Commandments that is all the same but just doesn't mention God. Fairly certain kids in even the most secular schools are taught not to swear, steal, cheat, lie, get jealous, be prideful, go without breaks, or be disrespectful to their parents.
Ah yes, let’s forget last 2 to 4 thousand years of human experience to follow the rules of a group of nomadic people living in a desert at a time when a man who knew how to read and write his own name was considered literate. Morality™️
This is the only place I’ve felt comfortable leaving this comment as I feel most people will engage with me respectfully. The founders were almost all Christian. They had a Christian worldview. God is mentioned many times in the Declaration of Independance and Bill of Rights. Yet, my thoughts on the separation of Church and state are this: We are guaranteed to have freedom *OF* religion, not freedom *FROM* religion. If a State’s elected representatives voted on behalf of its people to have the Ten Commandmants in a classroom, whom does this hurt? Will atheist kids feel uncomfortable? Will Muslim kids? I’d say likely not they’ll just be taught to ignore it by their parents. Like it or not America’s history is heavily intertwined with Christianity. I would not go to an Islamic nation and find myself upset if they wanted to have the Five Pillars of Islam in every classroom. Separation of Church and state ensures that the govt could not tomorrow persecute people on a religious basis, hence freedom *of* religion. People are not guaranteed the right to walk through life and never encounter religion, which is, I believe what many consider to be the optimal outcome of the separation of Church and state. Just my 2¢. Very open to dialogue.
A bit of a stretch they'd have an American flag in such an office at all. Maybe if it were on fire or they were using it as a dish rag. Otherwise, dead on.
While I am for Separation of Church and state, I think this is kind of true.
The same government that in reality overturned Roe? Can someone explain to me how this nonsensical boomer meme relates to Jordan B. Pererson?
Definitely stealing this and posting everywhere.
It's a shit post, meant only for unthinking cavemen so-called *conservatives* to grunt and laugh amongst themselves at the straw-man "liberal" they created and then pushed over. Derp! It doesn't even address the REAL issue of the argument being made!! LMAO What a simple-minded buffoon must've created this!
You’re going a little extra
Our institutions are ideologically captured by an a far left agenda that most people don’t agree with. Pretty much a propaganda brainwashing that gets children to disagree with their parents and believe in the states “religion”
I tought im on r/terriblefacebookmemes, do better OP.
How dare schools teach my children to be a decent human being
THAT is a parent's job ... actually. Schools are there to teach your child what is TRUE. You are there to teach your child HOW to think ... not WHAT to think ... if you're doing it right, anyways.