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

[West]

5 minutes ago, Hodad said:

The indoctrination is the minor point. What they clearly want is for this to go to this twisted SCOTUS in the hope of weakening or defeating the establishment clause. Mandatory religious messages in classrooms is the gateway to mandatory religious messages and rituals elsewhere/everywhere. 

Yes, I "demand" you accept tolerance. You know, so other people are allowed to live, and whatnot. 🙄

Big picture it's about detaching school oversight from the federal government and returning it back to local school boards

[Hodad]

12 minutes ago, West said:

The Muslims and Jews both believe in the 10 commandments as well.

Seems better to tie your beliefs to something than whatever the new marketing scam is. 

Jews do. Muslims, not really. They have some parallels and others not. 

As for the second remark, luckily you can kill two birds with one stone. The latest marketing scam wants you to read the 10 commandments from a $60 bible hawked by a man who's never read one. 😜

Edited June 20, 2024 by Hodad

[West]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

I don't really approve of religious symbology in schools, but then again I also don't really approve of other special interest groups symbols in schools either. How do we say that it's okay to fly the Pride flag but the ten commandments are just intolerable? I would rather see that kind of stuff on both sides kept out of schools. But if we're going to allow the one then we have to allow the other or else we're just teaching people how to hate and be divided

The only way to solve it is through individualized schooling and school choice

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, Hodad said:

 

Yes, I "demand" you accept tolerance. You know, so other people are allowed to live, and whatnot. 🙄

Then why can't they put up their ten commandments?  

You're a little all over the map here. 

[User]

5 minutes ago, Hodad said:

The indoctrination is the minor point. What they clearly want is for this to go to this twisted SCOTUS in the hope of weakening or defeating the establishment clause. Mandatory religious messages in classrooms is the gateway to mandatory religious messages and rituals elsewhere/everywhere. 

You have gone from one absurd assertion about their wanting a theocracy to more. 

There are already "religious" messages in  government buildings; the Establishment Clause has never been a complete ban on such things. 

That aside, none of what you just said answered my question, so again:
 

Theocracy?

Where do you get that is what they are pushing towards and want?

9 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Yes, I "demand" you accept tolerance. You know, so other people are allowed to live, and whatnot. 🙄

Yet again, as I pointed out in discussions you ran away from, you demand acceptance, not tolerance. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, West said:

The only way to solve it is through individualized schooling and school choice

Well that's one way that would probably. Or just leave it out of the schools altogether. But i'm not sure there's an 'in between' where we support one special interest group and not the other universally that works out well. 

[Hodad]

8 minutes ago, User said:

Nope. There is no such thing. Freedom of religion means the other kids in that class get to talk about their faith, wear religious materials, slogans, etc... those who disagree or don't like it don't get to be free from it. 

Comfort is subjective. 

Kids can talk about their faith. The government can't. Keep up. -- And kids are free to sloganeer only insomuch as it is not disruptive. 

[CdnFox]

 

Just now, Hodad said:

Kids can talk about their faith. The government can't. Keep up. -- And kids are free to sloganeer only insomuch as it is not disruptive. 

Same for gays then?  And muslims? And trans?  Or are we back to advocating for segregation of rights?

[User]

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Kids can talk about their faith. The government can't. Keep up. -- And kids are free to sloganeer only insomuch as it is not disruptive. 

You said freedom "from" religion. No such thing. 

People in government certainly can and do get to talk about their faith. They have freedom OF religion. 

[Hodad]

3 minutes ago, User said:

You have gone from one absurd assertion about their wanting a theocracy to more. 

There are already "religious" messages in  government buildings; the Establishment Clause has never been a complete ban on such things. 

That aside, none of what you just said answered my question, so again:
 

Theocracy?

Where do you get that is what they are pushing towards and want?

Yet again, as I pointed out in discussions you ran away from, you demand acceptance, not tolerance. 

Government by god--their god. A Christian Taliban. Inch-by-inch. 

No, I demand tolerance. You an repeat yourself ad nauseum as much as you like. Your chances of convincing me that I am confused about what I want is pretty low. 

[Nationalist]

39 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You shouldn't have to. The whole point of a constitutional system (as opposed to a pure democracy) is that core values are safeguarded from the whim majority. The establishment clause is there for a reason. We shouldn't roll over to extremists. 

LOL...look who's all of the sudden concerned with the US Constitution.

I guess we can now expect you to do an about face on the abortion decision to return authority of it back to the states...as the US Constitution dictates...right?

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

LOL...look who's all of the sudden concerned with the US Constitution.

I guess we can now expect you to do an about face on the abortion decision to return authority of it back to the states...as the US Constitution dictates...right?

That's racist. 

[Deluge]

12 hours ago, West said:

https://apnews.com/article/louisiana-ten-commandments-displayed-classrooms-571a2447906f7bbd5a166d53db005a62?taid=66731eff5988a9000164aaff&utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

Who would've thought telling people not to steal or murder would be such a controversial topic? 

Woke rainbow flags? Yes. Telling people not to mess around with another person's spouse? Nah

I think it's awesome.

Doing something like this is a great counterattack against woke cultists. 

[User]

7 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Government by god--their god. A Christian Taliban. Inch-by-inch. 

Another non-answer. Putting the 10 Commandments in school is not a theocracy nor have those supporting this pushed it as part of some plan to enact one. 

8 minutes ago, Hodad said:

No, I demand tolerance. You an repeat yourself ad nauseum as much as you like. Your chances of convincing me that I am confused about what I want is pretty low. 

No, you demand acceptance. Tolerance is live and let live, you demanding others lie to themselves and the world and agree that a man is a woman just because he says he is one is not tolerance, that is you demanding acceptance and participation in the lie. 

I explained this all repeatedly to you... you ran away from those discussions. 

[Deluge]

54 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Government by god--their god. A Christian Taliban. Inch-by-inch. 

No, I demand tolerance. You an repeat yourself ad nauseum as much as you like. Your chances of convincing me that I am confused about what I want is pretty low. 

Christian and Taliban are diametrically opposed. 

Left-wingers and Taliban are pretty closely aligned, though. At least that's the case with you ldiots - the Taliban hates everybody. lol

Edited June 20, 2024 by Deluge

[Nationalist]

19 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Government by god--their god. A Christian Taliban. Inch-by-inch. 

No, I demand tolerance. You an repeat yourself ad nauseum as much as you like. Your chances of convincing me that I am confused about what I want is pretty low. 

Just outta curiosity...what do you have against Gawd? Or more to the point...here's the Ten Commandments...

Now...which one of these do you object to so much?

Is it the very idea that there is a Gawd? What is it?

Because after reading this, I have to conclude there is nothing harmful in this list and will promote positive results in the kids who read it daily.

 

Edited June 20, 2024 by Nationalist

[Hodad]

1 minute ago, User said:

You said freedom "from" religion. No such thing. 

People in government certainly can and do get to talk about their faith. They have freedom OF religion. 

You're like the people who think "free speech" means speech free of consequences in all circumstances everywhere. It never has. It refers to the government curtailing of speech. 

In the exact same way that freedom of religion and from religion refer to government action. Religiously indoctrinated children can chatter in schools all they like. The government must remain free of religion, and mandatory indoctrination in school classrooms absolutely shatters the wall between the two.

There is no mystery behind the establishment clause and no question about the separation of church and state. Jefferson and Madison both wrote on it extensively. We know full well what the original language means and why they believed it was important. This Louisiana law is making another run at it with a favorable court. 

21 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

LOL...look who's all of the sudden concerned with the US Constitution.

I guess we can now expect you to do an about face on the abortion decision to return authority of it back to the states...as the US Constitution dictates...right?

I'm sure this makes sense in your head, but no, the right to personal sovereignty, to privacy, should be protected for all citizens, not just those lucky enough to live in decent states. 

[Nationalist]

22 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I'm sure this makes sense in your head, but no, the right to personal sovereignty, to privacy, should be protected for all citizens, not just those lucky enough to live in decent states. 

It makes perfect sense in my head...and if you remove yours from your butt, you'll see the sense of my question.

The US Constitution says that any issues not covered by it and not allocated to the federal government, lands on the state governments by default. That is exactly why the SCOTUS undid Roe V Wade. It was unconstitutional and even Ginsberg and other Libbie judges had admitted it.

So again...do you support the US Constitution or not?

Edited June 20, 2024 by Nationalist

[User]

5 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You're like the people who think "free speech" means speech free of consequences in all circumstances everywhere. It never has. It refers to the government curtailing of speech. 

No, I am not like that at all. You were the one who asserted some freedom "from" religion nonsense here as a right, when there is no such thing. 

6 minutes ago, Hodad said:

In the exact same way that freedom of religion and from religion refer to government action. Religiously indoctrinated children can chatter in schools all they like. The government must remain free of religion, and mandatory indoctrination in school classrooms absolutely shatters the wall between the two.

Except... the government has never remained free of religion in its entire existence. Please define what exactly you mean by free of religion and how that translates into freedom "from" it.

7 minutes ago, Hodad said:

There is no mystery behind the establishment clause and no question about the separation of church and state. Jefferson and Madison both wrote on it extensively. We know full well what the original language means and why they believed it was important. This Louisiana law is making another run at it with a favorable court. 

Well, no, there are plenty of questions and debate around the extent to which the establishment clause functions... as we are here debating it and the precedents for this are not black and white like you seem to be arguing. 

 

[Hodad]

21 minutes ago, User said:

Another non-answer. Putting the 10 Commandments in school is not a theocracy nor have those supporting this pushed it as part of some plan to enact one. 

No, you demand acceptance. Tolerance is live and let live, you demanding others lie to themselves and the world and agree that a man is a woman just because he says he is one is not tolerance, that is you demanding acceptance and participation in the lie. 

I explained this all repeatedly to you... you ran away from those discussions. 

Yes, you repeated yourself endlessly, without understanding, so I got bored and let it drop.

I don't care what you "agree to" or what you think privately, as long as you treat others with tolerance and respect. It's not hard. Just be a decent person. God didn't command you personally to go be shitty to people and antagonize them. If Luke wants to be known as Leia, it's no skin off your nose, or anyone else's. It's really none of your business. As long as they aren't harming anyone, let people be. 

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Yes, you repeated yourself endlessly, without understanding, so I got bored and let it drop.

I don't care what you "agree to" or what you think privately, as long as you treat others with tolerance and respect. It's not hard. Just be a decent person. God didn't command you personally to go be shitty to people and antagonize them. If Luke wants to be known as Leia, it's no skin off your nose, or anyone else's. It's really none of your business. As long as they aren't harming anyone, let people be. 

Oh PL...EASE!

Who's being sh1tty to people? Who's antagonizing people? If Luke wants to be called Leia...Luke can expect many to be confused by a male wanting to be called Leia. They will react accordingly. But when Leia decides he can swim competitively with biological women...THAT'S OUT.!

Now...Do you support the US Constitution or not?

[Hodad]

19 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Just outta curiosity...what do you have against Gawd? Or more to the point...here's the Ten Commandments...

Now...which one of these do you object to so much?

Is it the very idea that there is a Gawd? What is it?

Because after reading this, I have to conclude there is nothing harmful in this list and will promote positive results in the kids who read it daily.

 

I don't have anything more against your god than I have against the celestial teapot. 

You should be aware that those are rather loosely translated and summarized, but points 1, 2 , 3, 4 and 10 are all problematic. Potentially 5 as well, though only for a smaller subset of people. But the rest are generally good advice. 

However, even for the ones that are okay it's problematic that they are ungrounded directives from a purported higher power. God says X,Y,Z as a directive denies the recipient a chance to understand why those things should not be done. The rough equivalent of a parent's "because I said so" rather than the rationale for why. And worse, that kind of superficial moral code is easily--and often--perverted by people pretending to relay the words of gods. "Thou shalt not kill" then easily becomes, "Thou shalt not kill, except for those outside the faith." We see that over and over and over again in our world. Simple people without a robust internal sense of what is right, wrong and why follow self-proclaimed holy men into decidedly unholy acts. 

And the KJV translation of #2 will pose a particular challenge for art classes. 🙄

[User]

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Yes, you repeated yourself endlessly, without understanding, so I got bored and let it drop.

I don't care what you "agree to" or what you think privately, as long as you treat others with tolerance and respect. It's not hard. Just be a decent person. God didn't command you personally to go be shitty to people and antagonize them. If Luke wants to be known as Leia, it's no skin off your nose, or anyone else's. It's really none of your business. As long as they aren't harming anyone, let people be. 

So... just giving up on trying to explain where you get that they were pushing for a theocracy...

LOL, what I think "privately" and now you bring up "respect" and to "be a decent person" (whatever your take on that is)

You don't want tolerance, you want to demand I behave a certain way to accept a lie or things I don't agree with. That is not tolerance. 

 

[Hodad]

8 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Oh PL...EASE!

Who's being sh1tty to people? Who's antagonizing people? If Luke wants to be called Leia...Luke can expect many to be confused by a male wanting to be called Leia. They will react accordingly. But when Leia decides he can swim competitively with biological women...THAT'S OUT.!

Now...Do you support the US Constitution or not?

How long do you think it would take people to become un-confused? Seems pretty easy. 

And yes, of course I support the constitution. Though our interpretations surely differ on several key points. 

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I don't have anything more against your god than I have against the celestial teapot. 

You should be aware that those are rather loosely translated and summarized, but points 1, 2 , 3, 4 and 10 are all problematic. Potentially 5 as well, though only for a smaller subset of people. But the rest are generally good advice. 

However, even for the ones that are okay it's problematic that they are ungrounded directives from a purported higher power. God says X,Y,Z as a directive denies the recipient a chance to understand why those things should not be done. The rough equivalent of a parent's "because I said so" rather than the rationale for why. And worse, that kind of superficial moral code is easily--and often--perverted by people pretending to relay the words of gods. "Thou shalt not kill" then easily becomes, "Thou shalt not kill, except for those outside the faith." We see that over and over and over again in our world. Simple people without a robust internal sense of what is right, wrong and why follow self-proclaimed holy men into decidedly unholy acts. 

And the KJV translation of #2 will pose a particular challenge for art classes. 🙄

Do you realize that when the doors are closed and the SCOTUS is in session, that the sign on the door IS The Ten Commandments?

Now...do you support the US Constitution or not?

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

How long do you think it would take people to become un-confused? Seems pretty easy. 

And yes, of course I support the constitution. Though our interpretations surely differ on several key points. 

So if you're not lying...then you agree that abortion is a matter for the states to rule over...right?