The Ten Commandments to be posted in Louisiana schools, lefties go bananas

[User]

37 minutes ago, Hodad said:

That's a lie. 
"I AM the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

The local school puts up posters for all sorts of stuff... you read them or you don't. No one there is telling kids they have to believe what they say... 
 

38 minutes ago, Hodad said:

That's a straw man. Never have I--nor anyone else to my knowledge--proposed that displayed flags aren't consumed. They are. But the fact is that they don't symbolize anything exclusive--and more importantly do not communicate anything prohibited by the Constitution. 

It is called the LGBTQ Pride Flag... it is exclusive to all others. 

It is the same reason you refuse to say you support the straight pride flag... or the Christian Flag... or the Pro-Life Flag... 

[Hodad]

12 hours ago, User said:

The local school puts up posters for all sorts of stuff... you read them or you don't. No one there is telling kids they have to believe what they say... 
 

That's specious and lazy. You know full well that schools are designed and intended to be an authoritative source of information for students. Their design and purpose is literally to tell children what to believe, from basic literacy and math to history and social studies, the premise is to teach them what is true. The expectation and trust is that they will deliver valuable, factual information. It's the place we send them to learn and we ask the children to trust and learn. 

Public schools should NEVER be promoting any mythology as fact.

 

Quote

It is called the LGBTQ Pride Flag... it is exclusive to all others. 

It is the same reason you refuse to say you support the straight pride flag... or the Christian Flag... or the Pro-Life Flag... 

It's not actually called that, but that's a trivial point. It is not in any way exclusive. People in the LGBTQ community show it. Allies show it. Businesses show it. Other organizations show it. All to communicate support for an oppressed minority. Messages are pride, self-acceptance and tolerance. 

Again, the only persons to whom those messages could possibly be antagonistic or exclusive are the hateful homophobes--the intolerant-- who think that LGBTQ people have no right to pride in themselves and no right to exist. You apparently count yourself among them. I have no sympathy. 

[User]

5 minutes ago, Hodad said:

That's specious and lazy.

No more so than saying kids are being told what to believe here...

5 minutes ago, Hodad said:

the premise is to teach them what is true.

Except when it comes to sex/gender for you...

6 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Public schools should NEVER be promoting any mythology as fact.

How is hanging this up on a wall "promoting any mythology as fact?"

8 minutes ago, Hodad said:

It is not in any way exclusive.

Neither is the straight pride flag, Christian flag, or Pro-Life flag...

I am glad you support those being in school too now. 

[impartialobserver]

Stories like this make the idea of moving away from Nevada even less palatable. One of the underrated qualities to being here is the very mellow, subdued political atmosphere most of the time. Even with the most contentious races.. you can avoid it as long as you do not register as an independent. 

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Their design and purpose is literally to tell children what to believe... to teach them what is true.

I've been public school teacher for 20 years. I think this statement would be widely and vigorously rejected by educators.

Obviously you're right that they're there are some facts we want students to know. But I think the concensus would be that the purpose of schools is not to tell students what conclusions or judgments to draw from those facts, but rather how to be a skilled and critical thinker able to ask questions, navigate information, and have some boarder perspective of different points of view.

[Hodad]

21 minutes ago, Matthew said:

I've been public school teacher for 20 years. I think this statement would be widely and vigorously rejected by educators.

Obviously you're right that they're there are some facts we want students to know. But I think the concensus would be that the purpose of schools is not to tell students what conclusions or judgments to draw from those facts, but rather how to be a skilled and critical thinker able to ask questions, navigate information, and have some boarder perspective of different points of view.

This is a very nice post and it takes a more nuanced view of what education really is, but it doesn't really apply to this scenario. I didn't think it worth trying to go to a deeper level when we can't get agreement on basic facts--which is what I'm talking about: basic facts. 

A sign on the wall of the classroom that says "Hydrogen is the lightest element" is understood by students to be a statement of fact. By virtue of presenting that unqualified statement of fact in the classroom, we are telling them that it's true and that they should believe it.  The expectation is that it is presented as a statement of fact because it is true. It has been endorsed. 

The same thing is true when you put a sign on the wall that says that the (Christian) god is the one true god. That's an unqualified statement of fact.

In no way is it appropriate for the government to be mandating religious indoctrination of any kind to students. And it's really quite absurd that this is even a matter of debate. America exists because people were forced to flee religious government simply to have the freedom to worship (or not worship) as they pleased. That's why the establishment clause exists, to explicitly create the wall between church and state so that both might flourish. 

Edited June 27 by Hodad

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, User said:

No more so than saying kids are being told what to believe here...

Except when it comes to sex/gender for you...

How is hanging this up on a wall "promoting any mythology as fact?"

Neither is the straight pride flag, Christian flag, or Pro-Life flag...

I am glad you support those being in school too now. 

Come back when you have an actual argument to make instead of just waving your hands and making proclamations and false attributions.

[Matthew]

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

The same thing is true when you put a sign on the wall that says that the (Christian) god is the one true god. That's an unqualified statement of fact.

A couple years ago Republicans in my state passed a law to require the pledge of allegiance every morning. It's all very North Korea-esque ands in a high school setting actually makes one more aware of the oppressive nature of their system. It does nothing to evoke patriotism. Its a forced exercise by an authoritarian republican legislature and 90% of students stand up and silently stare off into space for 20 second.  10% of students stay seated and wait for it to end. Imagine how much less students would care about a bronze age religous quote in 1600s style English on a small poster in the corner of the room.

[User]

15 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Come back when you have an actual argument to make instead of just waving your hands and making proclamations and false attributions.

LOL, you realize how bad your arguments are and can't defend them anymore. 

[impartialobserver]

maybe unrelated but LA has seen a declining population (https://www.nola.com/news/politics/louisiana-population-falls-in-cities-rural-areas-data-show/article_72e326a2-e231-11ee-bcc8-43800939b6fc.html#:~:text=Louisiana saw its population shrink,were spread throughout the state.). Additionally according to QCEW for 2023 q4 in comparison to 2020 q1.. they are losing jobs. If this is their attempt to stop the population decline and recruit folks to their state.. my guess is that it fails to do so. 

[CdnFox]

16 hours ago, Hodad said:

That's a lie. 
"I AM the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

so if you believe in him don't have any gods before him.  Pretty simple. Doesn't even say you can't have beliefs that are equal or different. 

I would argue in today's context not to put any religion or ideology before christianity. They should have equal standing not be elevated to  higher place.  You know  like by flying their flag or something.   

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

A couple years ago Republicans in my state passed a law to require the pledge of allegiance every morning. It's all very North Korea-esque ands in a high school setting actually makes one more aware of the oppressive nature of their system. It does nothing to evoke patriotism. Its a forced exercise by an authoritarian republican legislature and 90% of students stand up and silently stare off into space for 20 second.  10% of students stay seated and wait for it to end. Imagine how much less students would care about a bronze age religous quote in 1600s style English on a small poster in the corner of the room.

It's unclear what your position is, but it sounds a lot like you are proposing that this law is okay (in spite of the constitution) because some students in some classrooms might not take it seriously?

If that's the case, it's really quite beside the point. The Constitution doesn't constrain the government only in cases in which something might be effective. And I'm not worried about students being converted by a single poster. I'm rightly concerned that this is the first leap down the very slippery slope. There is every reason to take this law very seriously. 

I mean, the question of a law mandating the Ten Commandments in the classroom was before the SCOTUS in 1980 and the answer was so obvious they didn't even need to hear the case to strike down the law. And now, nearly 50 years later the fanatics are taking another run at it because of this crazy court. 

[Matthew]

7 minutes ago, Hodad said:

it's unclear what your position is

I am opposed to it. But I'm not greatly moved by it and I find it thoroughly meaningless. Republicans like to make these kinds of meaningless virtue-signaling laws, which do their particular cause more harm than good. 

11 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I'm rightly concerned that this is the first leap down the very slippery slope. There is every reason to take this law very seriously. 

I love it when people have the courtesy to label their own logical fallacies. You're quite right that my claim of its non-effectiveness is not an argument favoring it. Likewise, your fears of a slippery slope do not add much to the alleged gravity you claim this has.

It does violate the First Amendment, on the same low tier as "In God We Trust" or prayers before city council meetings. The Court will swing back the other way someday. But for now, this will be a moot point.

Republicans ARE doing far worse things with schools. In Iowa, they are using taxpayer money to fund people's private school tuition. Poorer Republican-dominant counties actually voted to siphon money away from their local community schools toward the wealthy people of cities that have private schools. Essentially a giant government handout to wealthy families and religious institutions. So what I'm saying is that you're assuming they need a slippery slope to gradually ease the population into their awful socially destructive policy ideas. In reality, when they are in power they will simply do the worst thing they can get their colleagues to go along with.

[Rebound]

4 hours ago, Hodad said:

That's specious and lazy. You know full well that schools are designed and intended to be an authoritative source of information for students. Their design and purpose is literally to tell children what to believe, from basic literacy and math to history and social studies, the premise is to teach them what is true. The expectation and trust is that they will deliver valuable, factual information. It's the place we send them to learn and we ask the children to trust and learn. 

Public schools should NEVER be promoting any mythology as fact.

 

It's not actually called that, but that's a trivial point. It is not in any way exclusive. People in the LGBTQ community show it. Allies show it. Businesses show it. Other organizations show it. All to communicate support for an oppressed minority. Messages are pride, self-acceptance and tolerance. 

Again, the only persons to whom those messages could possibly be antagonistic or exclusive are the hateful homophobes--the intolerant-- who think that LGBTQ people have no right to pride in themselves and no right to exist. You apparently count yourself among them. I have no sympathy. 

And lots of people display the Ten Commandments, too.  

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

I am opposed to it. But I'm not greatly moved by it and I find it thoroughly meaningless. Republicans like to make these kinds of meaningless virtue-signaling laws, which do their particular cause more harm than good. 

I love it when people have the courtesy to label their own logical fallacies. You're quite right that my claim of its non-effectiveness is not an argument favoring it. Likewise, your fears of a slippery slope do not add much to the alleged gravity you claim this has.

It does violate the First Amendment, on the same low tier as "In God We Trust" or prayers before city council meetings. The Court will swing back the other way someday. But for now, this will be a moot point.

Republicans ARE doing far worse things with schools. In Iowa, they are using taxpayer money to fund people's private school tuition. Poorer Republican-dominant counties actually voted to siphon money away from their local community schools toward the wealthy people of cities that have private schools. Essentially a giant government handout to wealthy families and religious institutions. So what I'm saying is that you're assuming they need a slippery slope to gradually ease the population into their awful socially destructive policy ideas. In reality, when they are in power they will simply do the worst thing they can get their colleagues to go along with.

I agree with all of this EXCEPT that these brazen attacks on the establishment clause shouldn't be taken seriously. The slippery slope isn't always a fallacy, sometimes it's just a reasonable warning, and specifically in reference to laws that are obvious and deliberate test cases meant to generate lawsuits and make their way to the SCOTUS. 

And if they can get this bizarre bench to take a bite out of the first amendment, they will come back immediately for more. It's not just possible, or even probable, but an absolute certainty. Classroom prayer. Bible study. Etc. 

Edited June 27 by Hodad

[Yakuda]

18 hours ago, Hodad said:

That's a lie. 
"I AM the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

That's a straw man. Never have I--nor anyone else to my knowledge--proposed that displayed flags aren't consumed. They are. But the fact is that they don't symbolize anything exclusive--and more importantly do not communicate anything prohibited by the Constitution. 

You are 

You arent required to believe or do that. 

Gay flags sure as sh*t symbolize something exclusive. Communicating religion is not prohibited by the constitution even by the govt. You can't just make stuff up as you go. 

[Matthew]

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

taken seriously

Personally I think the best way to approach things like this with seriousness is to have a sense of perspective about it and to not be trolled by it and to scale one's reactions according to the actual impact the thing will have.  80% of the motivation behind bills like this is to own the libs etc (refer to thread title) with no expected actual societal impact on anyone. But you're right that trying to win Supreme Court precedents is a thing, and one you'll be seeing a lot of for the foreseeable future.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

And lots of people display the Ten Commandments, too.  

Hindus? Muslims? Buddhists? Wiccan? Satanists? Followers of the celestial teapot?

See, the point isn't that a lot of people display the pride flag, it's that a message of tolerance and welcome and safety isn't exclusive to LGBTQ+ people. In fact, it's not exclusive of anyone. The only people who could possibly find that message antagonistic are those who don't feel that LGBTQ+ people don't have a right to be proud, or to be safe--or even to exist.

The lovely people who dragged Matthew Sheppard to death might find a pride flag antagonistic, but it's a pretty well established feature of this society that we are entitled to our non-harm liberties. We don't get to decide for others whether they have a right to existence. 

9 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

You are 

You arent required to believe or do that. 

Gay flags sure as sh*t symbolize something exclusive. Communicating religion is not prohibited by the constitution even by the govt. You can't just make stuff up as you go. 

I am what? The lord, thy god? -- Flattered, but no.

Feel free to make an actual argument some time.

Edited June 27 by Hodad

[User]

18 minutes ago, Hodad said:

And if they can get this bizarre bench to take a bite out of the first amendment, they will come back immediately for more. It's not just possible, or even probably, but an absolute certainty. Classroom prayer. Bible study. Etc. 

And yet... the concept of this was only ruled on in 1960... 

Your notion and understanding of what the First Amendment called for are only recent precedents in American history, not anything that was understood, practiced, or followed when it was founded. 

You are pushing some absolutist understanding that isn't even the case today for what the Establishment Clause means. 

 

[Hodad]

16 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Personally I think the best way to approach things like this with seriousness is to have a sense of perspective about it and to not be trolled by it and to scale one's reactions according to the actual impact the thing will have.  80% of the motivation behind bills like this is to own the libs etc (refer to thread title) with no expected actual societal impact on anyone. But you're right that trying to win Supreme Court precedents is a thing, and one you'll be seeing a lot of for the foreseeable future.

Eh, to each his own. In my view "don't feed the trolls" is a fine strategy for a debate forum (using that label very generously in this case), but not when we're talking about state laws that will actually affect a million+ children. It's real at that point, and due for smiting.

Stage 1 cancer is, in most ways, more urgent than stage 4, because the worst effects are still avoidable. If you act quickly and decisively, you can avoid an enormous amount of suffering later. If you let it metastasize because it wasn't really bothering you at stage 1, it's just inviting mortal peril. This is the time to push back.  

Edited June 27 by Hodad

[Hodad]

7 minutes ago, User said:

And yet... the concept of this was only ruled on in 1960... 

Your notion and understanding of what the First Amendment called for are only recent precedents in American history, not anything that was understood, practiced, or followed when it was founded. 

You are pushing some absolutist understanding that isn't even the case today for what the Establishment Clause means. 

 

Totally false. I point you again to Madison and Jefferson, both of whom wrote extensively about the establishment clause, the separation of church and state and why it is essential to both institutions. 

[Matthew]

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

will actually affect a million+ children

How will it do that? 

[User]

5 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Totally false. I point you again to Madison and Jefferson, both of whom wrote extensively about the establishment clause, the separation of church and state and why it is essential to both institutions. 

And yet... immediately after they wrote on that... what you say they meant was not practiced, followed, or precedent in the Courts. 

You are wrong.

The issue is not about the concept of separation of church and state, it is about your absolutist extreme belief of what that means. 

[impartialobserver]

you have to be a subscriber ( or at least I think so) but here is an interesting one. More evidence that I live in the right place

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/us/oklahoma-public-schools-bible.html

[Hodad]

2 minutes ago, Matthew said:

How will it do that? 

They are the ones who have to sit in the classrooms, looking at posters of the 10 commandments, being told to worship the one true god and to drop their sculpture elective. Not a single Muslim or Hindu (or whatever) student should have to go home and ask their parents why his school is telling him to believe in a different god. Not one. 

And eventually, they will be the ones targeted by morning prayers and bible study.