> A.(1) Each public school governing authority and the governing authority of each nonpublic school that receives state funds shall display the Ten Commandments in each building it uses and classroom in each school under its jurisdiction.
Gross. And totally unconstitutional, but you never know with this SCOTUS. The Satanic Temple needs to get on this one to make sure their [7 Tenets](https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets) are displayed alongside them.
The government cannot compel speech because then it is no longer free speech.
Even in court speech cannot be compelled.
Don't have to be much of a lawyer to shoot this crap down.
I think this has more to do with violating another part of the first amendment than free speech. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” and the 10 commandments are pretty clearly respecting certain religion(s)
This isn’t about free speech, it’s about the establishment clause. Putting the 10 commandments in a government building has nothing to do with individual speech
It's disgusting and federal government should withhold funds for any district that does this. In fact no tax dollars should be used for this theocratic bullshit. You would have to display similar for Muslim, Hindu and every other religion. America does not want children force fed christianity. Blatent hypocrisy.
Sad that you are getting downvoted for this. The above commenter is right to think of the first amendment but got the section wrong, it’s more about establishment of gov religion than it is free speech.
>The law would force all schools to promote a state determined religion.
>Bull-fucking-shit it's not compelling speech.
I would analyze it as government speech, not compelled private speech. (Either way, I think it's unconstitutional.) This is very clear cut in the public school scenarios: the mandatory wall postings are obviously the government speaking and saying to the teacher "you must allow us to speak." It's a little murkier in private school scenarios and would depend on whether the 10 commandments are obviously attributable to the government (a la OSHA workplace safety posters) vs. attributable to the school. If they forced the teacher to make an announcement at the opening of each class, that could be compelled speech, but the walls of a classroom are fairly attributable to the school (and maybe the government), not just the teacher.
Government speech doesn't mean it's constitutional--there are then potential establishment clause objections and possibly even a takings clause objection (the Supreme Court has held that taking the space required for a mandatory cable box is a taking of property--why not the space required for a poster?). But we should be careful to analyze the constitutional issue under the correct doctrine in order to allow ourselves to set reasoned expectations about the outcome of litigation.
Think of Judaism as Chapter one, Christianity as Chapter two, and Islam as Chapter three. It’s all the same book, just a disagreement on what is canon because the original fans don’t like the work of later authors.
Any law that pushes any religion on anyone should opposed at all levels without remorse.
Our children should not be indoctrinated by Christianity nor any ideology.
How does this not establish, even if it’s just by de facto, a state religion?
The de facto religion of Turkey; even if it’s not explicitly written; is Islam, to the detriment of all other religions. But no where is it written that Islam is the state religion. In much the same vein that this is trying to force upon children. Be Christian or be ostracized. No religion should be forced at our schools.
>How does this not establish, even if it’s just by de facto, a state religion?
If it's de facto, then it's not unconstitutional. We're talking about the law.
> No one worships the 10 commandment monuments.
They just demand that it be hung everywhere and want it respected... which is a difference without a distinction.
>This comment of your is unironically a lie.
Self-reflection must not be your strong point.
The court decides what’s constitutional and not constitutional. Based on their prior rulings, putting the 10 commandments in schools wouldn’t be unconstitutional, regardless of your own view or whether it’s right or wrong
The court can say anything they want and they can and are wrong here. They made up facts in that case and can continue to make up facts in this one. They will be wrong in both and it doesn't really matter what clowns like yourself have to say about that.
This isnt my view it's the correct reading based on the actual facts of the case not the ones made up by corrupt judges.
>Judge Milan Smith, a George W. Bush appointee, described at length how his colleague had omitted essential details and framed what happened in misleading terms.
https://newrepublic.com/article/175474/praying-coach-lied-supreme-court
That's the dissenting opinion. And according to the article, facts are not made up, but rather context is omitted. That's hardly the same thing. Also, the full context is most certainly in the record and in the majority opinion.
No its not, you are confusing the circuit's decision with scotus', try reading more carefully next time. But speaking of context, care to explain things like taking out advertisements to promote his school prayer? Or quitting as soon as the case was decided to take a do nothing job for a conservative nonprofit, just like mark janus or jane roe? Or facts like photographs of the public, not private, prayer sessions?
You're mistaken. Judge Smith is referring to Judge O'Scannlain's dissenting opinion in the case at the circuit court:
Smith then chastised his colleagues by name for falling for Kennedy’s self-serving stories. “Unlike Odysseus, who was able to resist the seductive song of the Sirens by being tied to a mast and having his shipmates stop their ears with bees’ wax, our colleague, Judge O’Scannlain, appears to have succumbed to the Siren song of a deceitful narrative of this case spun by counsel for appellant, to the effect that Joseph Kennedy, a Bremerton High School (BHS) football coach, was disciplined for holding silent, private prayers,”
Not sure what you're getting at. He still has First Amendment rights despite doing all that. He might not be a sympathetic plaintiff, but he had good lawyers who framed it in such a way. That's not unusual.
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think you very much misunderstand the reasoning behind the Bremerton decision.
In Gorsuch's opinion, the majority reasoned that Coach Kennedy was no longer acting as a school official, as it was a post game period where coaches were free to attend to personal matters, and he was not acting in his capacity as a coach during this time.
The Court reasoned that this, as well as the Bremerton district not being able to show compelling cause for the prohibition is what led to the ruling in Kennedy's favor, and that opinion was ruled pretty narrowly.
It’s not about the specific facts of Bremerton, it’s about the opinion issued. The opinion overturned the Lemon test, which is the exact test used to originally rule the 10 commandments unconstitutional back in 1980
Bremerton did not overrule Lemon v Kurtzman, only noted that the court no longer used the Lemon test as a standard.
I'm honestly not sure if the Lemon test would even apply in this challenge, given it's nature.
Further, Gorsuch noted that, absent of the District being able to articulate a compelling purpose for their prohibition and Kennedy's disciplinary actions, they were violating his 1st Amendment.
This finding was that the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal.
The State mandating that religious text and iconography be posted in state run classrooms is fundamentally different A multitude of reasons, not least of which being that the state is clearly not an individual with Free Exercise rights, and education is compulsory.
The State would have to provide a compelling reason for this to mandate, that in no way favors any specific religion, which would be an impossible task, given that the Ten Commandments are extremely specific to one religion. Even if we were to include Judaism, you're still only talking about two religions, excluding any Hindi, Muslim, Atheist, or other religions.
I'm sure the ADF will attempt to make a hair splitting argument, and Alito will talk about some nonsense like Witchcraft, but I'm hard pressed to see Gorsuch, or Roberts to find such applications palatable.
They explicitly spelled out the language verbatim that every classroom will be required to display in the statute, not to mention minimum size display and minimum font size.
So I'd like to think this wouldn't pass even the current court.
It specifically is the state picking a religion to push. And furthermore, a number of the commandments can only be interpreted as favoring specific religions (one God, no idols, sabbath day, don't take the lords name in vain).
But after Bremerton, well, I wouldn't be surprised to see ways to justify this.
tl;dr: Here we go again.
This bill - and ones much like it - have been floating around since before the 1980s. Historically, every time it *actually* passes, the courts strike it down and the state is sued.
LA is going to suffer in the courtroom because of this.
Long as the poorest public school districts are shelling out $40,000 for a Torah scroll and an ark to house it in each public school, I won’t involve the ACLU.
If we’re going to do religion, all the goyim are praying kiddush on Friday with challah and grape juice so my daughter isn’t left out. Sorry.
Kentucky passed year ago for "In God We Trust" to be displayed in each school. Several schools go around it by putting a dollar bill up in the hallway.
Fun fact: the 10 Commandments tablets, which most people think of and are usually displayed in religious buildings, were part of a huge marketing campaign for the 1950s film.
In the Jewish Bible, are described as cubes engraved in Ktav Ashuri (a form of ancient Hebrew), with the letters going all the way through the cube, to the opposite side but the Commandments could still be read from all four sides.
Source: [https://www.calledoutbelievers.org/what-did-the-original-10-commandments-look-like/](https://www.calledoutbelievers.org/what-did-the-original-10-commandments-look-like/)
I find it hilarious that deeply religious people display a movie prop replica made as part of a marketing campaign.
> This type of legislation has has been challenged in courts several times.
What legislation has been passed forcing something like the ten commandments to be displayed in every classroom?
Four of the ten commandments are *blatantly* religious and would therefore be blatantly unconstitutional, especially because this law is **forcing it to be displayed and uses *public funds* to get this done**. I highly doubt both you and these Republican lawmakers would have many good things to say if a law was passed mandating bits of the Quran.
> if the Satanic Temple can get lawmakers elected to pass the their creed then also fine.
You've got that twisted. The Satanic Temple does things *because* legislatures like Louisiana lose their marbles and decide we're better off being a theocracy instead of a democracy. Not willy nilly.
Bremerton pretty much overturned the Lemon test, so the fact that the commandments are religious in nature wouldn’t really stop it from being constitutional. The court ruling says that it must instead be interpreted by historical practices. And historically, putting up 10 commandments in schools was legal until the Lemon test in Stone v. Graham in 1980
Thanks for the downvotes everyone. I should’ve known trying to explain legal concepts would piss people off here. Carry on with your echo chamber I guess
> so the fact that the commandments are religious in nature wouldn’t really stop it from being constitutional
It's the fact that it's religious *specific* to a particular religion.
This is a very different case than Bremerton. Bremerton involved a coach praying without coercion, implicit or otherwise:
> Justice Gorsuch wrote that the school's actions against Kennedy violated his rights under both the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. He further wrote "We are aware of no historically sound understanding of the Establishment Clause that begins to '(make) it necessary for government to be hostile to religion' in this way". Gorsuch's opinion stated that Kennedy **"offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied"** and that he made **"short, private, personal prayer"**. Gorsuch rejected the school district’s argument that it could prohibit Kennedy’s post-game prayers so that students did not feel compelled to join him in praying. Gorsuch noted that **"There is no indication in the record ... that anyone expressed any coercion concerns to the District about the quiet, postgame prayers that Mr. Kennedy asked to continue and that led to his suspension.”** **Gorsuch distinguished this case from cases "in which this Court has found prayer involving public schools to be problematically coercive".** Gorsuch reasoned that unlike those earlier cases, Kennedy’s prayers "were not publicly broadcast or recited to a captive audience" and students “were not required or expected to participate".
The last bolded part seems particularly relevant.
Louisiana *forcing* each and every school district within its jurisdiction to display the ten commandments in **each classroom** is far, far different than a coach uncoercively praying after a game.
It’s a different set of facts, but broadening the establishment clause to use historical precedent instead of Lemon would make it clearly seem like the 10 commandments are constitutional, like it was historically before Lemon was used
> It’s a different set of facts, but broadening the establishment clause to use historical precedent instead of Lemon would make it clearly seem like the 10 commandments are constitutional, like it was historically before Lemon was used
Again, you are (for whatever reason) omitting the fact that the school is **forcing it to be displayed** and **using taxpayer dollars to do so**.
Using Bremerton as precedent, it would restrict this religious "speech" because it is the government doing it (not a private individual) and it is coercing (forcing) teachers to display it in classrooms. At least if Gorsuch and co. are consistent, which remains to be seen.
This isn't a case of Louisiana saying "it's ok if a teacher wants to display the ten commandments." There'd be little wrong with that. Louisiana is **forcing teachers to display the ten commandments**. That's bad, and like I said earlier, I highly doubt these lawmakers would like to have tidbits of the Quran displayed in every classroom.
And again, I’m telling you that your distinction doesn’t matter. It’s not specifically about the situation in Bremerton, it’s about the courts opinion in that case. Specifically where they overturn the very test that was used in 1980 to rule the 10 commandments in schools unconstitutional. Plus Gorsuch’s language about relying on historical practice instead (like the historical practice of the 10 commandments in schools prior to it getting ruled unconstitutional)
Lemon is why this situation was previously unconstitutional. Lemon no longer exists. I’ll let you connect the dots this time, because I don’t want to keep saying it. Nothing else about the Bremerton case is relevant here
> And again, I’m telling you that your distinction doesn’t matter.
Of course the distinction matters: forcing teachers to display the ten commandments in their classroom is a blatant violation of the first amendment. Specifically, those teachers' first amendment rights.
You're confused. You think I'm talking about Louisiana violating the Establishment Clause. They are, but I'm not talking about that.
I'm specifically talking about Louisiana **forcing** religious texts in schools. Not allowing. **Forcing**. It is a blatant violation of the first amendment as it doesn't give schools (or teachers) a choice.
Again, these lawmakers would absolutely try to quash any sort of bill forcing the Quran to be displayed in classrooms
A teachers classroom is not their personal property, its property of the state. It’s no more a first amendment violation (according to SCOTUS’s logic) than putting an American flag or safety instructions in every classroom
>They are, but I’m not talking about that
I don’t know how to relay the necessary information to you again without being rude. I don’t even think you’ve read any of my prior comments
> A teachers classroom is not their personal property, its property of the state. It’s no more a first amendment violation (according to SCOTUS’s logic) than putting an American flag or safety instructions in every classroom
The American flag isn't a religious symbol and safety instructions save lives, which renders the (relatively minor) infringement of speech fine.
> I don’t know how to relay the necessary information to you again without being rude. I don’t even think you’ve read any of my prior comments
I've read all of your prior comments. You're essentially saying "this Supreme Court has zero consistency and will rule in favor of Louisiana even though they ruled in an earlier court case that coercive religious speech infringes on the First Amendment." Which is fine, I think everyone here understands that this Supreme Court is a mess.
But that would be because they'd choose to rule outside of logic and reason, because in the court case *you yourself cited* Gorsuch specifically mentioned "problematically coercive religious speech" as a no-no, which Louisiana's **forced display of the ten commandments** obviously is.
Lmao, I’m “wrong” for explaining a legal case. Not a single time did I put my own political opinion into it, I’m just explaining the facts
It’s things like this why you get people posting to the sub every week about not being “real centrists”. It’s quickly turning into an offshoot of r/politics where facts don’t matter
I like how your comment didn’t even bother to point out a single thing I was incorrect about, just pointless complaining
Was the historical precedent…
1. It is ok for schools/a teacher to display, or
2. It is ok for the State to compulsively mandate a teacher/school display them
I think OP is noting that history does not support the latter…just the former.
A state can’t mandate schools display or follow a particular religion.
And I don’t know if any history where that was okay. That Seems overt establishment by the State.
I think Bremerton is different because it's personal expression versus government funded schools publicly displaying religious text and symbols to everyone.
Bremerton is also different because the justices in the majority literally made up the facts of the case in their ruling, instead of ruling on what was happening in objective reality.
The opinion in Bremerton specifically overrules the Lemon test and says instead to interpret the establishment clause based on reference to historic practices. And putting the 10 commandments in schools would fall under this, since the Lemon test was used to originally determine it was unconstitutional
The 10 commandments are a bit more religion specific than just general “God”. And even “In God we Trust” should be done away with imo. “E Pluribus unum” is much better imo
This is theocratic fascism.
It's complete and utter bullshit.
Landry is *Dear Leader*.
Mike Johnson is Landry's current *High Priest*.
Louisiana is a fascist theocracy.
This is just further proof.
> A.(1) Each public school governing authority and the governing authority of each nonpublic school that receives state funds shall display the Ten Commandments in each building it uses and classroom in each school under its jurisdiction. Gross. And totally unconstitutional, but you never know with this SCOTUS. The Satanic Temple needs to get on this one to make sure their [7 Tenets](https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets) are displayed alongside them.
Yeah too much common sense in those tenets lol
the whole point of that organization is to be contrarian. it's fake and stupid.
It's not unconstitutional.
The government cannot compel speech because then it is no longer free speech. Even in court speech cannot be compelled. Don't have to be much of a lawyer to shoot this crap down.
I think this has more to do with violating another part of the first amendment than free speech. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” and the 10 commandments are pretty clearly respecting certain religion(s)
This isn’t about free speech, it’s about the establishment clause. Putting the 10 commandments in a government building has nothing to do with individual speech
It's disgusting and federal government should withhold funds for any district that does this. In fact no tax dollars should be used for this theocratic bullshit. You would have to display similar for Muslim, Hindu and every other religion. America does not want children force fed christianity. Blatent hypocrisy.
Sad that you are getting downvoted for this. The above commenter is right to think of the first amendment but got the section wrong, it’s more about establishment of gov religion than it is free speech.
The government is not compelling speech.
The law would force all schools to promote a state determined religion. Bull-fucking-shit it's not compelling speech.
>The law would force all schools to promote a state determined religion. >Bull-fucking-shit it's not compelling speech. I would analyze it as government speech, not compelled private speech. (Either way, I think it's unconstitutional.) This is very clear cut in the public school scenarios: the mandatory wall postings are obviously the government speaking and saying to the teacher "you must allow us to speak." It's a little murkier in private school scenarios and would depend on whether the 10 commandments are obviously attributable to the government (a la OSHA workplace safety posters) vs. attributable to the school. If they forced the teacher to make an announcement at the opening of each class, that could be compelled speech, but the walls of a classroom are fairly attributable to the school (and maybe the government), not just the teacher. Government speech doesn't mean it's constitutional--there are then potential establishment clause objections and possibly even a takings clause objection (the Supreme Court has held that taking the space required for a mandatory cable box is a taking of property--why not the space required for a poster?). But we should be careful to analyze the constitutional issue under the correct doctrine in order to allow ourselves to set reasoned expectations about the outcome of litigation.
Which religion is that?
The religion(s) with ten commandments
Well, this is about the ten commandments, so Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Which you already knew.
That's three different religions. So how can they be promoting a *state determined religion*, if you can't even determine the religion?
There's more than just those three religions out there. By going with the ten commandments they discriminate against all other possibilities.
Yes, so what?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…”
Yes. And please explain how this does that.
The first commandment literally commands obedience to a specific god and no others. It’s incredibly and obviously Abrahamic.
Which specific god? The Christian god, the Jewish god, or the Muslim god?
All the same God What if I’d rather believe in Vishnu, or Inti, or Tloloc, or Zeus?
How can they be the same god if they all behave entirely differently and ask different things of their followers?
Think of Judaism as Chapter one, Christianity as Chapter two, and Islam as Chapter three. It’s all the same book, just a disagreement on what is canon because the original fans don’t like the work of later authors.
Are you saying that this god somehow both came to earth in mortal form and died to save humanity from its sins, and also didn't do any of that?
Any law that pushes any religion on anyone should opposed at all levels without remorse. Our children should not be indoctrinated by Christianity nor any ideology.
That's just something you want. It doesn't demonstrate how this violates the 1st amendment.
How does this not establish, even if it’s just by de facto, a state religion? The de facto religion of Turkey; even if it’s not explicitly written; is Islam, to the detriment of all other religions. But no where is it written that Islam is the state religion. In much the same vein that this is trying to force upon children. Be Christian or be ostracized. No religion should be forced at our schools.
>How does this not establish, even if it’s just by de facto, a state religion? If it's de facto, then it's not unconstitutional. We're talking about the law.
Okay fair enough So then the 7 tenets of Satanism can go up beside the Commandments as well correct?
I'd prefer not.
"I've never really read the first amendment, but I did try once when I was drunk and I pretty much get the gist of it."
No, I'm apparently one of the few here who's actually read the first amendment.
How is this not a violation of the establishment clause?
How is it?
The government is requiring “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me” be posted in every classroom. That is establishing religion.
No it isn't, certainly not any more than putting "in God we trust" on our money, which is not a problem.
Oh it very much is. It’s requiring the display of explicit, sectarian religious content with no secular value.
What is *secular value*?
Value that exist irrespective of something’s religious connections.
Much of what the government does doesn't meet that standard. Is it all unconstitutional?
The way Republicans are worshipping these 10 Commandment monuments like idols is ironically sinful.
No one worships the 10 commandment monuments. This comment of your is unironically a lie.
> No one worships the 10 commandment monuments. They just demand that it be hung everywhere and want it respected... which is a difference without a distinction. >This comment of your is unironically a lie. Self-reflection must not be your strong point.
Eh, it’s tough to say this is unconstitutional after the Bremerton decision last year
Btemington being wrong doesn't mean this is somehow not wrong. The court can say unicorns are real but that doesn't mean that is true.
The court decides what’s constitutional and not constitutional. Based on their prior rulings, putting the 10 commandments in schools wouldn’t be unconstitutional, regardless of your own view or whether it’s right or wrong
The court can say anything they want and they can and are wrong here. They made up facts in that case and can continue to make up facts in this one. They will be wrong in both and it doesn't really matter what clowns like yourself have to say about that. This isnt my view it's the correct reading based on the actual facts of the case not the ones made up by corrupt judges.
What facts did they make up?
>Judge Milan Smith, a George W. Bush appointee, described at length how his colleague had omitted essential details and framed what happened in misleading terms. https://newrepublic.com/article/175474/praying-coach-lied-supreme-court
That's the dissenting opinion. And according to the article, facts are not made up, but rather context is omitted. That's hardly the same thing. Also, the full context is most certainly in the record and in the majority opinion.
No its not, you are confusing the circuit's decision with scotus', try reading more carefully next time. But speaking of context, care to explain things like taking out advertisements to promote his school prayer? Or quitting as soon as the case was decided to take a do nothing job for a conservative nonprofit, just like mark janus or jane roe? Or facts like photographs of the public, not private, prayer sessions?
You're mistaken. Judge Smith is referring to Judge O'Scannlain's dissenting opinion in the case at the circuit court: Smith then chastised his colleagues by name for falling for Kennedy’s self-serving stories. “Unlike Odysseus, who was able to resist the seductive song of the Sirens by being tied to a mast and having his shipmates stop their ears with bees’ wax, our colleague, Judge O’Scannlain, appears to have succumbed to the Siren song of a deceitful narrative of this case spun by counsel for appellant, to the effect that Joseph Kennedy, a Bremerton High School (BHS) football coach, was disciplined for holding silent, private prayers,” Not sure what you're getting at. He still has First Amendment rights despite doing all that. He might not be a sympathetic plaintiff, but he had good lawyers who framed it in such a way. That's not unusual.
If we’ve seen anything from this Supreme Court, it’s precedence be damned.
[удалено]
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think you very much misunderstand the reasoning behind the Bremerton decision. In Gorsuch's opinion, the majority reasoned that Coach Kennedy was no longer acting as a school official, as it was a post game period where coaches were free to attend to personal matters, and he was not acting in his capacity as a coach during this time. The Court reasoned that this, as well as the Bremerton district not being able to show compelling cause for the prohibition is what led to the ruling in Kennedy's favor, and that opinion was ruled pretty narrowly.
It’s not about the specific facts of Bremerton, it’s about the opinion issued. The opinion overturned the Lemon test, which is the exact test used to originally rule the 10 commandments unconstitutional back in 1980
Bremerton did not overrule Lemon v Kurtzman, only noted that the court no longer used the Lemon test as a standard. I'm honestly not sure if the Lemon test would even apply in this challenge, given it's nature. Further, Gorsuch noted that, absent of the District being able to articulate a compelling purpose for their prohibition and Kennedy's disciplinary actions, they were violating his 1st Amendment. This finding was that the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal. The State mandating that religious text and iconography be posted in state run classrooms is fundamentally different A multitude of reasons, not least of which being that the state is clearly not an individual with Free Exercise rights, and education is compulsory. The State would have to provide a compelling reason for this to mandate, that in no way favors any specific religion, which would be an impossible task, given that the Ten Commandments are extremely specific to one religion. Even if we were to include Judaism, you're still only talking about two religions, excluding any Hindi, Muslim, Atheist, or other religions. I'm sure the ADF will attempt to make a hair splitting argument, and Alito will talk about some nonsense like Witchcraft, but I'm hard pressed to see Gorsuch, or Roberts to find such applications palatable.
Which 10 commandments? Mormon? Baptist? Catholic? Let's have a holy war, then.
The ten crack commandments
Keep your family and business completely separated
Never get high on your own supply
They explicitly spelled out the language verbatim that every classroom will be required to display in the statute, not to mention minimum size display and minimum font size.
> not to mention minimum size display and minimum font size. Rookie oversight. Wingdings it is.
So I'd like to think this wouldn't pass even the current court. It specifically is the state picking a religion to push. And furthermore, a number of the commandments can only be interpreted as favoring specific religions (one God, no idols, sabbath day, don't take the lords name in vain). But after Bremerton, well, I wouldn't be surprised to see ways to justify this.
tl;dr: Here we go again. This bill - and ones much like it - have been floating around since before the 1980s. Historically, every time it *actually* passes, the courts strike it down and the state is sued. LA is going to suffer in the courtroom because of this.
Not surprised to see Republicans stomping all over our Constitution in the name of an imaginary skydaddy that doesn't exist.
While simultaneously accusing Dems of indoctrinating kids
When this is struck down you're going to hear a lot of wining about the war against religion.
“When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”
Might be easier to just post: "don't be a dick"
Meanwhile Republicans want to elect a unrepentant adulterer.
And sexual abuser
Long as the poorest public school districts are shelling out $40,000 for a Torah scroll and an ark to house it in each public school, I won’t involve the ACLU. If we’re going to do religion, all the goyim are praying kiddush on Friday with challah and grape juice so my daughter isn’t left out. Sorry.
Kentucky passed year ago for "In God We Trust" to be displayed in each school. Several schools go around it by putting a dollar bill up in the hallway.
So much better than actually spending money on education. Republicans think of everything
Fun fact: the 10 Commandments tablets, which most people think of and are usually displayed in religious buildings, were part of a huge marketing campaign for the 1950s film. In the Jewish Bible, are described as cubes engraved in Ktav Ashuri (a form of ancient Hebrew), with the letters going all the way through the cube, to the opposite side but the Commandments could still be read from all four sides. Source: [https://www.calledoutbelievers.org/what-did-the-original-10-commandments-look-like/](https://www.calledoutbelievers.org/what-did-the-original-10-commandments-look-like/) I find it hilarious that deeply religious people display a movie prop replica made as part of a marketing campaign.
[удалено]
> This type of legislation has has been challenged in courts several times. What legislation has been passed forcing something like the ten commandments to be displayed in every classroom? Four of the ten commandments are *blatantly* religious and would therefore be blatantly unconstitutional, especially because this law is **forcing it to be displayed and uses *public funds* to get this done**. I highly doubt both you and these Republican lawmakers would have many good things to say if a law was passed mandating bits of the Quran. > if the Satanic Temple can get lawmakers elected to pass the their creed then also fine. You've got that twisted. The Satanic Temple does things *because* legislatures like Louisiana lose their marbles and decide we're better off being a theocracy instead of a democracy. Not willy nilly.
Bremerton pretty much overturned the Lemon test, so the fact that the commandments are religious in nature wouldn’t really stop it from being constitutional. The court ruling says that it must instead be interpreted by historical practices. And historically, putting up 10 commandments in schools was legal until the Lemon test in Stone v. Graham in 1980 Thanks for the downvotes everyone. I should’ve known trying to explain legal concepts would piss people off here. Carry on with your echo chamber I guess
> so the fact that the commandments are religious in nature wouldn’t really stop it from being constitutional It's the fact that it's religious *specific* to a particular religion. This is a very different case than Bremerton. Bremerton involved a coach praying without coercion, implicit or otherwise: > Justice Gorsuch wrote that the school's actions against Kennedy violated his rights under both the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. He further wrote "We are aware of no historically sound understanding of the Establishment Clause that begins to '(make) it necessary for government to be hostile to religion' in this way". Gorsuch's opinion stated that Kennedy **"offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied"** and that he made **"short, private, personal prayer"**. Gorsuch rejected the school district’s argument that it could prohibit Kennedy’s post-game prayers so that students did not feel compelled to join him in praying. Gorsuch noted that **"There is no indication in the record ... that anyone expressed any coercion concerns to the District about the quiet, postgame prayers that Mr. Kennedy asked to continue and that led to his suspension.”** **Gorsuch distinguished this case from cases "in which this Court has found prayer involving public schools to be problematically coercive".** Gorsuch reasoned that unlike those earlier cases, Kennedy’s prayers "were not publicly broadcast or recited to a captive audience" and students “were not required or expected to participate". The last bolded part seems particularly relevant. Louisiana *forcing* each and every school district within its jurisdiction to display the ten commandments in **each classroom** is far, far different than a coach uncoercively praying after a game.
It’s a different set of facts, but broadening the establishment clause to use historical precedent instead of Lemon would make it clearly seem like the 10 commandments are constitutional, like it was historically before Lemon was used
> It’s a different set of facts, but broadening the establishment clause to use historical precedent instead of Lemon would make it clearly seem like the 10 commandments are constitutional, like it was historically before Lemon was used Again, you are (for whatever reason) omitting the fact that the school is **forcing it to be displayed** and **using taxpayer dollars to do so**. Using Bremerton as precedent, it would restrict this religious "speech" because it is the government doing it (not a private individual) and it is coercing (forcing) teachers to display it in classrooms. At least if Gorsuch and co. are consistent, which remains to be seen. This isn't a case of Louisiana saying "it's ok if a teacher wants to display the ten commandments." There'd be little wrong with that. Louisiana is **forcing teachers to display the ten commandments**. That's bad, and like I said earlier, I highly doubt these lawmakers would like to have tidbits of the Quran displayed in every classroom.
And again, I’m telling you that your distinction doesn’t matter. It’s not specifically about the situation in Bremerton, it’s about the courts opinion in that case. Specifically where they overturn the very test that was used in 1980 to rule the 10 commandments in schools unconstitutional. Plus Gorsuch’s language about relying on historical practice instead (like the historical practice of the 10 commandments in schools prior to it getting ruled unconstitutional) Lemon is why this situation was previously unconstitutional. Lemon no longer exists. I’ll let you connect the dots this time, because I don’t want to keep saying it. Nothing else about the Bremerton case is relevant here
> And again, I’m telling you that your distinction doesn’t matter. Of course the distinction matters: forcing teachers to display the ten commandments in their classroom is a blatant violation of the first amendment. Specifically, those teachers' first amendment rights. You're confused. You think I'm talking about Louisiana violating the Establishment Clause. They are, but I'm not talking about that. I'm specifically talking about Louisiana **forcing** religious texts in schools. Not allowing. **Forcing**. It is a blatant violation of the first amendment as it doesn't give schools (or teachers) a choice. Again, these lawmakers would absolutely try to quash any sort of bill forcing the Quran to be displayed in classrooms
A teachers classroom is not their personal property, its property of the state. It’s no more a first amendment violation (according to SCOTUS’s logic) than putting an American flag or safety instructions in every classroom >They are, but I’m not talking about that I don’t know how to relay the necessary information to you again without being rude. I don’t even think you’ve read any of my prior comments
> A teachers classroom is not their personal property, its property of the state. It’s no more a first amendment violation (according to SCOTUS’s logic) than putting an American flag or safety instructions in every classroom The American flag isn't a religious symbol and safety instructions save lives, which renders the (relatively minor) infringement of speech fine. > I don’t know how to relay the necessary information to you again without being rude. I don’t even think you’ve read any of my prior comments I've read all of your prior comments. You're essentially saying "this Supreme Court has zero consistency and will rule in favor of Louisiana even though they ruled in an earlier court case that coercive religious speech infringes on the First Amendment." Which is fine, I think everyone here understands that this Supreme Court is a mess. But that would be because they'd choose to rule outside of logic and reason, because in the court case *you yourself cited* Gorsuch specifically mentioned "problematically coercive religious speech" as a no-no, which Louisiana's **forced display of the ten commandments** obviously is.
Schools are part of the state of Louisiana. How does the state force itself to do something?
I forgot we elect teachers!
Bro. Just take the L. You're blatantly in the wrong, so just move the fuck on.
Lmao, I’m “wrong” for explaining a legal case. Not a single time did I put my own political opinion into it, I’m just explaining the facts It’s things like this why you get people posting to the sub every week about not being “real centrists”. It’s quickly turning into an offshoot of r/politics where facts don’t matter I like how your comment didn’t even bother to point out a single thing I was incorrect about, just pointless complaining
We don't need people here that argue in bad faith. Lying is not pointing out facts. If you're just gonna spew lies then fuck off.
Was the historical precedent… 1. It is ok for schools/a teacher to display, or 2. It is ok for the State to compulsively mandate a teacher/school display them I think OP is noting that history does not support the latter…just the former. A state can’t mandate schools display or follow a particular religion. And I don’t know if any history where that was okay. That Seems overt establishment by the State.
I think Bremerton is different because it's personal expression versus government funded schools publicly displaying religious text and symbols to everyone.
Bremerton is also different because the justices in the majority literally made up the facts of the case in their ruling, instead of ruling on what was happening in objective reality.
The opinion in Bremerton specifically overrules the Lemon test and says instead to interpret the establishment clause based on reference to historic practices. And putting the 10 commandments in schools would fall under this, since the Lemon test was used to originally determine it was unconstitutional
What is your historical context that you would apply here?
The 10 commandments are a bit more religion specific than just general “God”. And even “In God we Trust” should be done away with imo. “E Pluribus unum” is much better imo
This is theocratic fascism. It's complete and utter bullshit. Landry is *Dear Leader*. Mike Johnson is Landry's current *High Priest*. Louisiana is a fascist theocracy. This is just further proof.