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

[Hodad]

2 minutes ago, User said:

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

 

🤨Not sure what you're not getting. What do you think the point is of taking on the establishment clause head on? Whimsy? Is it so that they can NOT establish a state religion? Why break down the wall if they don't intend to expand further and further into government?

For decades, conservatives have relied on and used the religious right as a critical voting bloc, but in the process it's empowered and emboldened the religious right. They are not simply to be used anymore. They are demanding more of what was promised when that marriage was made. We'll continue to see more and more "biblical" legislation. This is not the first and certainly not the last, just the opening of the floodgate.  

Quote

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. 

It's simply not your place to agree or disagree with who a person is or wants to be. Not your business. If someone says "My name is William but I prefer to be called Bill," is it your place to "reject their lie" and refuse to respect that simple request? Is it your job to define their identity? Just address people how they prefer to be addressed. Basic civility and decency. It's not hard. Well, not hard for most people. 

[Hodad]

30 minutes ago, User said:

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. 

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.

 

Yes, as far as the government is concerned there is freedom from religion. That's the whole damn point of the establishment clause. Religions are, by default exclusive of and hostile to other religions. Madison and Jefferson understood that a government that acts to establish or promote one religion cannot hope to successfully govern a people of many faiths. You can't have freedom of religion while the government makes religious law. Therefore the government must be free of religion, secular and not permitted to alienate and oppress its own people. 

Quote

 

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. 

Sorry, but no. Read Madison. Read Jefferson. Their explanation and rationale for the establishment cause is explicit. 

[Rebound]

4 hours ago, Legato said:

So if the ten commandments were separated from the church would they lose their validity?

“You shall have no G-d before me.”

How can you separate that from a church? I support the Ten Commandments, but the Government is not permitted to establish a religion.  People came to America to flee religious persecution, which was mostly Christian vs Christian violence — they had war after war over religion.  Ireland was at war over religion for hundreds of years, until Bill Clinton brought it to an end in the 1990’s.  
 

The government should not favor one religion over another. Religion and government should not mix. 

[Hodad]

17 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

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?

Eh, not quite. The SCOTUS building is adorned with many depictions of cultural and historical artifacts from our past. A history of law, as it were. Moses and the ten commandments are certainly a part of that tradition and will be depicted, but AFAIK you won't actually see the ten commandments written anywhere. In other words, it's in keeping with the United States commitment to pluralism--not just one religious or historical tradition represented, but many.

You see how that's very different from mandating the 10 commandments--and exclusively the 10 commandments--in classrooms?

It's rather like why public institutions can teach religious history or comparative religion but cannot teach one religious tradition as truth.

 

Quote

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

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

Yes, I support it. There are MANY constitutional arguments for the individual right to abortion, including the first, fourth, ninth and thirteenth amendment, among others. 

No state, no matter how bible-thumping religious the general population, should be able to deny a woman the right to choose. 

[Rebound]

9 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Eh, not quite. The SCOTUS building is adorned with many depictions of cultural and historical artifacts from our past. A history of law, as it were. Moses and the ten commandments are certainly a part of that tradition and will be depicted, but AFAIK you won't actually see the ten commandments written anywhere. In other words, it's in keeping with the United States commitment to pluralism--not just one religious or historical tradition represented, but many.

You see how that's very different from mandating the 10 commandments--and exclusively the 10 commandments--in classrooms?

It's rather like why public institutions can teach religious history or comparative religion but cannot teach one religious tradition as truth.

 

Yes, I support it. There are MANY constitutional arguments for the individual right to abortion, including the first, fourth, ninth and thirteenth amendment, among others. 

No state, no matter how bible-thumping religious the general population, should be able to deny a woman the right to choose. 

Muslims have state-imposed religion and it isn’t working at all.  There’s war between Sunnis and Shites all over the Muslim world. 
 

But there’s practically no Christian vs Christian or Christian v Jew warfare anywhere in the world, because predominantly Christian nations outlaw the establishment of a government religion, and they forbid the intrusion of religion in government affairs. 
 

You may think that putting the Ten Commandments in classrooms is innocent, but it is not.  Children of other faiths are ostracized by this, and it gets even worse when children ask their teachers whether it means G-d or Jesus, and the teacher has to answer.  This is a very bad idea and will not make our nation more ethical or moral, even though the Ten Commandments is a fundamental part of the religion of my people. 

Edited June 20, 2024 by Rebound

[Hodad]

10 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Muslims have state-imposed religion and it isn’t working at all.  There’s war between Sunnis and Shites all over the Muslim world. 
 

But there’s practically no Christian vs Christian or Christian v Jew warfare anywhere in the world, because predominantly Christian nations outlaw the establishment of a government religion, and they forbid the intrusion of religion in government affairs. 
 

You may think that putting the Ten Commandments in classrooms is innocent, but it is not.  Children of other faiths are ostracized by this, and it gets even worse when children ask their teachers whether it means G-d or Jesus, and the teacher has to answer.  This is a very bad idea and will not make our nation more ethical or moral.  

Indeed. That "peacefulness" is not inherent to the religion. We don't have to look very far back to see Christian sectarian violence like Catholics and protestants at war in England and Ireland. Or the discrimination against Catholic immigrants by US Protestants. 

It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties... Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?

James Madison -- From the "Memorial and Remonstrance," 1785

Indeed, who does not see? Apparently a lot of people here, and the legislature of Louisiana. This Ten Commandments nonsense is not the first experiment on our liberties, but it's the biggest in recent memory and it's wrong and terribly dangerous to the religious and non-religious alike.

Edited June 20, 2024 by Hodad

[User]

34 minutes ago, Hodad said:

🤨Not sure what you're not getting. What do you think the point is of taking on the establishment clause head on? Whimsy? Is it so that they can NOT establish a state religion? Why break down the wall if they don't intend to expand further and further into government?

Asking me a bunch of questions doesn't answer the question. You made the assertion. What I am getting at is asking you to explain what you base that assertion on. 

34 minutes ago, Hodad said:

It's simply not your place to agree or disagree with who a person is or wants to be. Not your business. If someone says "My name is William but I prefer to be called Bill," is it your place to "reject their lie" and refuse to respect that simple request? Is it your job to define their identity? Just address people how they prefer to be addressed. Basic civility and decency. It's not hard. Well, not hard for most people. 

Of course it is my place. Of course it is my business. YOU make it my business when YOU demand I accept a lie. I reject your lies, I do not have to agree with your lies. I do not have to behave a certain way to play into the fantasy you want me to. 

That has nothing to do with tolerance. 

You are having an argument about what you consider to be basic civility and decency now. 

Your example is dishonest anyhow, as what you are asking is not as simple as your name... it is that you want me to buy into a lie, that Bill a man, wants to be called Nancy now and wants me to act like he is a woman when he isn't... and not just that, but then demand I let him beat up on actual women in physical sports, share the bathroom with women, get naked in front of women in the changing room... 

That is not tolerance. That is madness. I do not have to buy into it, accept it, or respect it. 

 

 

[User]

41 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Sorry, but no. Read Madison. Read Jefferson. Their explanation and rationale for the establishment cause is explicit. 

Sorry, but yes. Read court precedents on this. 

42 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Yes, as far as the government is concerned there is freedom from religion.

I still have no idea what you really mean by this at this point. 

So..., the government can't have a national day of prayer? Congress can't have a chaplain? The Military can't employ Chaplains and have religious buildings? Government leaders and employees can't express themselves on their faith?

There is no freedom from religion. 

[Hodad]

9 minutes ago, User said:

Asking me a bunch of questions doesn't answer the question. You made the assertion. What I am getting at is asking you to explain what you base that assertion on. 

 

I'm basing that assertion on the fact of watching them do it year after year. There is no other end game for people passing religious legislation. Laws against sodomy, laws against IVF, mandatory indoctrination of children, challenges to contraception, the end of the Lemon test. That's simply where the road goes.

 

Quote

Of course it is my place. Of course it is my business. YOU make it my business when YOU demand I accept a lie. I reject your lies, I do not have to agree with your lies. I do not have to behave a certain way to play into the fantasy you want me to. 

That has nothing to do with tolerance. 

You are having an argument about what you consider to be basic civility and decency now. 

Your example is dishonest anyhow, as what you are asking is not as simple as your name... it is that you want me to buy into a lie, that Bill a man, wants to be called Nancy now and wants me to act like he is a woman when he isn't... and not just that, but then demand I let him beat up on actual women in physical sports, share the bathroom with women, get naked in front of women in the changing room... 

That is not tolerance. That is madness. I do not have to buy into it, accept it, or respect it. 

Fine. You're allowed to be shitty. Tell Bill--er... William... that you reject his lie, his feelings don't matter, and that you are the one entitled to define is identify. 

But don't be surprised when the rest of us reject the lie that you're not a sociopath.

[User]

8 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I'm basing that assertion on the fact of watching them do it year after year. There is no other end game for people passing religious legislation. Laws against sodomy, laws against IVF, mandatory indoctrination of children, challenges to contraception, the end of the Lemon test. That's simply where the road goes.

Watching "them" who? Do what year after year?

There is plenty of other motivations for passing legislation like this other than wanting a theocracy. 

You seem to be conflating the fact that religious people exist in this Constitutional Republic and they are allowed to have thoughts, opinions, and beliefs on what kind of norms we live by and legislate by just like anyone else does. That doesn't make us a theocracy because you can't buy beer on Sunday. 

 

10 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Fine. You're allowed to be shitty. Tell Bill--er... William... that you reject his lie, his feelings don't matter, and that you are the one entitled to define is identify. 

But don't be surprised when the rest of us reject the lie that you're not a sociopath.

See, so much for your notion of respect. It is a one way street with you, just like I pointed out in past discussions. You preach about this, but offer very little of your own. 

But to the point, this is not tolerance, it is acceptance. I hope you have learned the difference. I doubt it though. 

[robosmith]

2 hours 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?

Of course you KNOW YOU don't get to draw the line. Esp not in OUR COUNTRY.

You don't get to draw the line even in your OWN COUNTRY.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

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?

Show us where:

 

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

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

Do you know what you're talking about or not?

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

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

For 50 years, regulating abortion was a Federal issue according to the 14 amendment. Dobbs is in its infancy with no guarantee of survival.

[Hodad]

56 minutes ago, User said:

Sorry, but yes. Read court precedents on this. 

I still have no idea what you really mean by this at this point. 

So..., the government can't have a national day of prayer? Congress can't have a chaplain? The Military can't employ Chaplains and have religious buildings? Government leaders and employees can't express themselves on their faith?

There is no freedom from religion. 

The government shouldn't have those things (we are an imperfect union) but at least they are defensibly non-denominational.  Leaders and employees can express themselves where situationally appropriate. 

To have freedom of religion, we must have freedom from religion. Can't have one without the other. 

[User]

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

The government shouldn't have those things (we are an imperfect union) but at least they are defensibly non-denominational.  Leaders and employees can express themselves where situationally appropriate. 

To have freedom of religion, we must have freedom from religion. Can't have one without the other. 

If you are here saying freedom from religion is that the government shouldn't have those things, then clearly and obviously, you are wrong here. 

Now, you may want more, but what you want and what actually exists as a right are two different things. 

[BeaverFever]

5 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

If I lived in Louisiana.. I would simply move. No need to be outraged and protest. I would quietly get another job and move. 

Oh yeah!

Just uproot your family and move to another part of the country. Quit your job and just get another one I hear you can order them up with a snap of your fingers. So easy and risk-free!

 

🙄

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

“You shall have no G-d before me.”

How can you separate that from a church? I support the Ten Commandments, but the Government is not permitted to establish a religion.  People came to America to flee religious persecution, which was mostly Christian vs Christian violence — they had war after war over religion.  Ireland was at war over religion for hundreds of years, until Bill Clinton brought it to an end in the 1990’s.  
 

The government should not favor one religion over another. Religion and government should not mix. 

That's  a fine position to take, but then the state should not favour gays over non gays, blacks over other races, etc etc. 

And i don't see you putting that forward at all. 

[impartialobserver]

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Oh yeah!

Just uproot your family and move to another part of the country. Quit your job and just get another one I hear you can order them up with a snap of your fingers. So easy and risk-free!

 

🙄

No.. would not be easy and probably would be costly. However, it would have a greater impact than complaining

 

[BeaverFever]

15 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

What a load of dishonest crap from you

 

First All religions say those same things. 

Second Most of the Ten Commandments are about forbidden religious rituals like worshipping idols and false gods and have nothing to do with things that are actual crimes 

Speaking of worshipping false gods the the you worship is guilty of adultery at the very least and I would argue “thou shalt not steal” also covers his attempt to steal the 2020 election.  Does the 10 commandments cover failed attempts?

 

All this law does is once again prove that Republican claims to be the party of freedom and local decision making is 100% BULLSHIT:  the highest level state politicians in the far away capital mandate that the display of a religious text is now the law of the land under threat of legal punishment by the state.   Republicans sound more like the Taliban every day. 

Edited June 20, 2024 by BeaverFever

[Hodad]

26 minutes ago, User said:

Watching "them" who? Do what year after year?

There is plenty of other motivations for passing legislation like this other than wanting a theocracy. 

You seem to be conflating the fact that religious people exist in this Constitutional Republic and they are allowed to have thoughts, opinions, and beliefs on what kind of norms we live by and legislate by just like anyone else does. That doesn't make us a theocracy because you can't buy beer on Sunday. 

 

Other motivations like what? Lol

Legislating that all children must consume your religious dogma, just like anyone else...

What is the rational reason for restricting a seller from selling beer on Sunday? What is the rational reason for restricting a buyer from buying been on Sunday. What is the rational reason for impinging on their freedoms? -- Oh, that's right. There isn't one. It's because an old book told you so, and you believed it, so your forced them to live according to your beliefs. 

In that case, is there any belief you wouldn't or couldn't legislate?

The obvious answer is that if you want to keep your version of the "Sabbath" holy, go for it, but when you try to force other people to live according to your superstitions you are going against the very reason this country was founded and the constitution upon which it is built.

Quote

See, so much for your notion of respect. It is a one way street with you, just like I pointed out in past discussions. You preach about this, but offer very little of your own. 

But to the point, this is not tolerance, it is acceptance. I hope you have learned the difference. I doubt it though. 

If you don't give respect, you don't deserve it. People who are uncivil and intolerant forfeit any expectation of civility and tolerance. 

16 minutes ago, User said:

If you are here saying freedom from religion is that the government shouldn't have those things, then clearly and obviously, you are wrong here. 

Now, you may want more, but what you want and what actually exists as a right are two different things. 

Well, as long as you can just wave your hands and dismiss the establishment clause without even making an argument, then no worries! 

[User]

30 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Other motivations like what? Lol

Again... you made this assertion about a theocracy. I keep asking you to explain it. You keep dodging and ignoring that and acting like this is some kind of legitimate back and forth where you keep asking me questions instead of answering those posed to you. 

Do you think you are living under a theocracy because you can't buy beer on Sunday?

I am starting to question if you even understand what a theocracy is. 

32 minutes ago, Hodad said:

In that case, is there any belief you wouldn't or couldn't legislate?

Up to what is protected by rights... State Legislatures and the Federal Government and Counties and Cities are passing laws non-stop on a million different things. 

There is no expectation or rule that somehow only atheist beliefs count. 

34 minutes ago, Hodad said:

If you don't give respect, you don't deserve it. People who are uncivil and intolerant forfeit any expectation of civility and tolerance. 

Translation: If no one accepts and agrees with you, then screw em. That is not respect. That is spite you have. 

35 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Well, as long as you can just wave your hands and dismiss the establishment clause without even making an argument, then no worries! 

Nope. The establishment clause has never meant what you are saying it does here. 

[West]

45 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

What a load of dishonest crap from you

 

First All religions say those same things. 

Second Most of the Ten Commandments are about forbidden religious rituals like worshipping idols and false gods and have nothing to do with things that are actual crimes 

Speaking of worshipping false gods the the you worship is guilty of adultery at the very least and I would argue “thou shalt not steal” also covers his attempt to steal the 2020 election.  Does the 10 commandments cover failed attempts?

 

All this law does is once again prove that Republican claims to be the party of freedom and local decision making is 100% BULLSHIT:  the highest level state politicians in the far away capital mandate that the display of a religious text is now the law of the land under threat of legal punishment by the state.   Republicans sound more like the Taliban every day. 

Look. 

Keep your religious woke bullshit away from my kids and I'll let you mutilate your junk if you choose to do so. 

Deal?

[Hodad]

1 minute ago, User said:

Again... you made this assertion about a theocracy. I keep asking you to explain it. You keep dodging and ignoring that and acting like this is some kind of legitimate back and forth where you keep asking me questions instead of answering those posed to you. 

I've explained it pretty thoroughly. I can't understand it for you. When you use laws to shape society based on religious dogma rather than a rational compromise between liberty and harm, then you are building a theocracy.

Quote

Do you think you are living under a theocracy because you can't buy beer on Sunday?

I am starting to question if you even understand what a theocracy is. 

Up to what is protected by rights... State Legislatures and the Federal Government and Counties and Cities are passing laws non-stop on a million different things. 

There is no expectation or rule that somehow only atheist beliefs count. 

Translation: If no one accepts and agrees with you, then screw em. That is not respect. That is spite you have. 

Nope. The establishment clause has never meant what you are saying it does here. 

Oh, look. More hand waving, with nary an argument in sight. I think it's pretty clear that once a question goes deeper than a Fox news headline, you run out of new things to say. Hence the unsupported repetitions. Have you no thought behind your proclamations?

 

[User]

13 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I've explained it pretty thoroughly. I can't understand it for you. When you use laws to shape society based on religious dogma rather than a rational compromise between liberty and harm, then you are building a theocracy.

Nowhere have you explained anything about your assertion thoroughly at all.

You appear to have an absurdly outlandish and wrong understanding of theocracy, that means if religious people participate in Democracy to pass laws they believe in, then if you can't buy a beer on Sunday... OMG THEOCRACY!

This is not a serious position, it is just silly ignorant bigotry. 

15 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Oh, look. More hand waving, with nary an argument in sight. I think it's pretty clear that once a question goes deeper than a Fox news headline, you run out of new things to say. Hence the unsupported repetitions. Have you no thought behind your proclamations?

Talk about projection. 

[BeaverFever]

37 minutes ago, West said:

Look. 

Keep your religious woke bullshit away from my kids and I'll let you mutilate your junk if you choose to do so. 

Deal?

Lol so as usual I dismantle the bullshit claims in your OP so you come back with some gibberish nonsense insult that has nothing to do with the thread you created and doesn’t even make sense. 
 

It never ceases to amaze me how intellectually deficient you crackpots are. 
 

From what anyone can understand of your idi0tic post, I can promise you that as an atheist I fully support keeping religious bullshit away from everyone. Too bad your bible-thumping Christian Taliban conservatives can’t promise the same. 
 

While my wife I are quite happy with my junk, it will greatly disappoint you to learn that you don’t get any say in what I chose to we do with it….fascists like you always try to control other peoples’ genitals, another vulgarity you share in common with the Taliban 

[West]

7 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Lol so as usual I dismantle the bullshit claims in your OP so you come back with some gibberish nonsense insult that has nothing to do with the thread you created and doesn’t even make sense. 
 

It never ceases to amaze me how intellectually deficient you crackpots are. 
 

From what anyone can understand of your idi0tic post, I can promise you that as an atheist I fully support keeping religious bullshit away from everyone. Too bad your bible-thumping Christian Taliban conservatives can’t promise the same. 
 

While my wife I are quite happy with my junk, it will greatly disappoint you to learn that you don’t get any say in what I chose to we do with it….fascists like you always try to control other peoples’ genitals, another vulgarity you share in common with the Taliban 

You dismantled nothing 😆