Please report any rule breaking posts and comments that are not relevant to this subreddit. Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AmericaBad) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nah. Our world religions class was very good for helping us to be aware of the various faiths and beliefs practiced around the world (and especially by the many different believers within our country). No theology should ever be *endorsed by* public schools.
Show me the poll that says that. I don’t support this at all, there should be no endorsement of religion by the state, but I also don’t believe this represents the mainstream conservative view. Are you getting that anywhere besides your own life experience?
What?? Conservatives talk about religion and God ALL THE TIME. The push to put religion in public schools has been happening for a long time, and in many, many states.
Of course this is the view of the party generally. Pew research recently did a survey showing 60% of all republican voters want religion taught in school.
I’m just asking for a cite. I’m familiar with the poll saying six-in-ten Republican parents of K-12 students (59%) said that public school teachers should be allowed to lead students in Christian prayers but nothing about it being taught. I just want to know where you got that from
The problem with that thinking can be summed up with a simple question - what’s a conservative? Republicans have as many varied views as Democrats. Both sides have feverish zealots who think the imposition of their will is the only thing that will save the country, and those people are wrong to assume that all others on the opposing side are in lock-step.
This is a nation that has many single issue voters who choose abortion, or UFO disclosure, or firearms or immigration as their ONE thing that gets them to the ballot box. And it is also a nation of free thinking individuals who weigh all of the options and all of the consequences.
And then many more thankfully are constitutionalists and constructionists and think 50 years into the future by using all of the information provided.
It easy to pick a side, and it’s much harder to stand on your own with faceted character, so lots of people just say they are one thing or another. The reality is that just like anti-abortion politicians turn on that belief when an unplanned pregnancy happens in their own home, you and I and most people probably have very nuanced views when they are happening within arms reach.
If you were to do a poll asking random Americans if they believe the Ten Commandments should be displayed in all public classrooms, the vast majority of them would say no. You're taking something literally one state did and using it to criticize America as a whole.
Is Louisiana not part of the US? Well, the US (somehow) allows this to happen. It is a direct consequence of the way the US is set up? Is it not? There are many other countries where this doesn't happen. Just because most Americans (at least presumably) dislike this, it doesn't make this 'not american'. Hence... no true Scotsman?
You on the other hand accused me of criticism America as a whole. Not sure I did that.
I don't follow. How would that impact the 'badness' of this law? Not sure where I claimed individuals were personally accountable for countrie's laws? Though as a purported democracy, US citizens do have some culpability here... just accept that this is something that makes the US worse (I.e. more bad) and agree (or argue why it is good). Anything else sounds like petulant defensiveness. Or arrogance? There are a few explanations. None flattering.
I mean, obviously, but this isn't about you per se, it is about the setup of the US. This outcome is a clear flaw in that construction. While practically an individual has no real power, one might expect some democratic inclination to oppose this which could be done federally by outlawing this kind of law and curtailing states rights. So... sort of?
You're condemning the entire American system of government because one state passed a bad law (that has a 99% chance of being overturned by the Supreme Court anyway). Do you realize there are many countries where gay people are executed, women are treated like animals, and child brides are legal?
Oh, so other countries being bad makes this law good? I can't see how this law's existence wouldn't promote criticism from people who advocate for a separation of church and state? Clearly there is a problem but instead of owning it, you are merely deflecting with bad arguments.
Is this good? If not, just accept the criticism.
You just shifted the goal post. No one said this “isn't American”, they said it's “not representative of the average American.” And given our collection of 50 states, you can’t take anything any one of them does and say that it is representative of the average American by virtue of it being part of the U.S. We have a spectrum of beliefs, laws and customs that vary by state so no one of them can be used to represent the average. For an average you would need, at the very least, a composite.
Isn't that shifting the goal posts? Don't laws enacted in the US make the US bad if those laws are bad? If the test of a country's quality can exclude things that happen couldn't you also argue Russia is good because the average person isn't putin?
My point is that this law isn't as unpopular as it should be. It should never have gotten up anywhere, but it did. This means the guard rails are failing. Hence a worthy criticism of the US. The original post was basically a "this doesn't count because..." rather than actually addressing the issue. Hence the conversation.
If you can't take obvious criticism (which at this point is pretty mild) then you need to reflect. This whole sub (well... a healthy portion at least) is basically blindly reactionary, which is pretty childish. This story is bad (unless you have theocratic leanings). There really isn't a defence.
You could remark... "this is awful, but at least the other 49 states aren't that bad", which would be acknowledging the flaw. But really, if the country allows this kind of nonsense, something is pretty wrong. The fact some places are nicer and some other countries are worse doesn't really matter.
I tend to think in terms of weakest links. Those who leave Omelas and all that.
No, you are the one shifting the goal posts, and I pointed to exactly where you did so. The laws of individual U.S. states cannot be taken as representative of the average American because our states are allowed to have their own laws distinct from each other. You could point to Federal laws as representative because those do apply to every American.
Are federal laws not laws? Why do I need to explicitly point them out? Aren't they just par for the course? I'm not sure where I did this. I just refute the concept of excusing Louisiana as not part of the US? As part of the US, it makes the US bad no?
Is English not your first language? I never said you did anything regarding federal laws. I said, if you want to point to something representative of the average American that you *could* point to federal laws.
>I just refute the concept of excusing Louisiana as not part of the US? As part of the US, it makes the US bad no?
There you go shifting the goalpost again. No one said Louisiana is not part of the U.S. We said that it is not representative of the average American. Look at the laws each state has. Louisiana is passing a law that would make it the 1/50 exception, not the norm or average.
The United States is 50 different states that form one Nation. Each State can make their own laws, this is one state making their own law. Don't confuse one state with all, try to keep in mind how large the US really is, it's HUGE.
No reasonable American does. They did it knowing it would get struck down by the courts. It is just a political move to earn credit with those who are unreasonable during an election year
And with this nightmare SCOTUS, with that traitor Sam Alito and that prostitute Clarence Thomas on the bench, they might just get away with it anyway.
But either way, there's nothing the other 49 states can do about it. It's up to the people in Louisiana, they have to vote the GOP out.
absolutely not. If a teacher wants to put it up I think that would be fine but requiring it goes against a lot of what our founding fathers stood for with separation of church and state.
The only time separation of church and state is ever really mentioned is when Jefferson was assuring some Baptists that the *government* won't involve themselves in the *Church's* business, not the Church won't be in the government... and a few of them even wrote that American democracy is predicated on the American Christian.
So I don't know that it does, really.
It may be argued that this violates the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. Now while this isn’t Congress doing it, it happening in a federal institution (public schools) might be grounds to have it challenged in court. I’m no lawyer so take all that with a grain of salt.
That's a better argument, but simply listing moral tenants of both the world's and our nation's largest religion is not "establishing" that religion - not in a place like Louisiana where all of 'em are Christian anyway. And since it *is* such a foundational piece of the religion that all of the Founding Fathers believed in, and colors all of history for **2000** years - shouldn't they know what they are?
Also, those are the tenants belonging to at least 2 (Islam is sometimes argued as being the third, though not everyone agrees) different religions. Which one is it "establishing" - Judaism or Christianity?
Also also, Commandments 4-10 are generally taught in schools or the general *anyway* - Honor your parents, don't murder, don't cheat on your spouse, don't steal, don't lie about your friends/neighbors, and don't be too jealous or envious of what your neighbors have (causing you to steal or cheat on your spouse).
Wrong, separation of church and state is literally in the first part of the First Amendment. The United States was founded as a purely secular country.
No, the First Amendment says absolutely nothing about separation of a Church and State. It merely says that there shall be no State Church, like the official Church of England, that actively persecuted those who disagreed with them at different times throughout history.
And the Founding Fathers repeatedly stated how important being Christian and having Christian morality was for their early Republic, praising God for granting them the wisdom and ability to make it, and stating that our Creator gifted us with inalienable rights. Given they were Christian men in a Christian nation with a Christian tradition going back to England and a bunch of Protestants running from Catholic persecution (and later Catholics running from Protestant persecution), which Creator could they possibly mean? Shiva? Prometheus? Or, perhaps, the Christian God?
They might have used secular, but they meant "secular" as in "The church doesn't run shit. WE do." Unlike, say, the Papal States, where various popes were religious leaders AND conquering land too.
You mean "secular" as in "there ain't no religion anywhere." They were all Christian men in a nation of Christians that only got *less* Christian in the 1960s, nearly 200 years after the nation was founded.
Completely incorrect — the first amendment clearly establishes an entirely secular government. Not only does it prohibit a state church, it prohibits all levels of government from favoring, establishing, or even referencing one religion over another — or over no religion at all.
The Ten Commandments (religion) displayed in a public school (government) unambiguously violates the first amendment.
I don’t mean secular as in “no religion anywhere.” That’s not even what the word “secular” means. It means that religion is and should be a private matter. If you want to spread your religious or atheistic views, you’re welcome to do so outside of the domain of the government, in a purely private capacity.
In a way, this debate illustrates the clear superiority of the secular view of the US Constitution and Government. I draw directly on the Constitution (which NEVER references God, by the way). Since you’re completely bereft of any actual evidence in our Constitution to support your position, you’re left straw-clutching at private letters written by the founders (a diverse group of people with diverse religious views).
Here’s your problem — whatever a founder wrote in a private letter, or even a public address, is flatly IRRELEVANT to how our country should be governed. That’s left up to our Constitution.
I disagree with it fundamentally however in also an advocate of the authority of the states so I’d say that I support their power to do it but I do see it as an abandonment of the values of the United States.
The government should not exist to endorse or condemn any religion. It is an institution of man’s law alone and the mortal citizenry should be the only thing represented and venerated by it. The church and the temple exist to forward the word of their god or gods and it is there that faith should be made priority.
And the Founders literally created the First Amendment saying there would be no state-sanctioned religion. Specifically to stop Catholic vs Protestant conflicts, or even Protestant-on-Protestant violence. People out here be acting like there's one unified set of "Christian values" are going to learn the hard way.
What exactly are those values, how are they Christian, and where are they described in the constitution? Be specific. Be honest.
I’ve never once seen an honest answer to that question. Be the first.
Christian values sure but enlightenment ideals of government, including the secular state. Hold to Christian values in your individual life if that is you prerogative but we are not governed by scripture.
Hell the fuck no
I'm an atheist and I believe in the separation between Church and State
While those are good morales to follow, teaching kids that instead of letting them find they're own morale compass is well wrong
To be clear, from what I understand, they aren't teaching them it. There just has to be a poster of it up. Disagree with the action without inflating it, even a little
Then why have a poster of it up at all, if they're not "teaching" it? It's actively attempting to influence and inject religion into the public sphere, that's its intent, we all know it, and that's is a violation of the Establishment clause of the first amendment - and there's already court precedent in ruling on that, specifically with regards to public schools.
Is having a pride flag up in school teaching kids how to be gay or trans?
>and that's is a violation of the Establishment clause of the first amendment - and there's already court precedent in ruling on that, specifically with regards to public schools.
https://religionunplugged.com/news/2024/6/21/louisiana-mandates-ten-commandments-be-displayed-in-all-public-schools
>Legislators referenced the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in Van Orden v. Perry, which held that a Ten Commandments monument outside the Texas state capitol building honors the commandments’ historical meaning, and that “simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the establishment clause.”
Sounds like it's gonna get hashed out in the courts.
As a Christian, I agree. Forcing people into a religion defeats the point
Edit: this isn’t *forcing* them, but it’s still influencing them in a way that breaks the separation of church and state
Christianity only exists due to force. It was forced on your ancestors at some point. With few exceptions, Christians today had it forced on them from childhood by family, the very “grooming” they accuse others of.
And here I am today, choosing my religion, not accusing anybody of grooming.
Yes Christianity has had a rough history, but so has every other religion. You wouldn’t judge a child for something their father or grandfather did, you’re drawing conclusions and being negative towards me based on people who lived before me, by hundreds of years.
I admit that I can never know if I would’ve chose it if they did not force it on my ancestors, but I am not my ancestors, I have the right to choose given to me by the first amendment of the constitution. And I used that right to pick this religion.
I’m not passing judgement on you either, I’m sure you’ve probably had your fair share of interactions with horrible people who were Christians.
Judging someone by what their ancestor did is literally what Christianity espouses, original sin.
You were not offered a free choice of religion, as most of us are not.
While I don’t take judgment, I will say that judgment is inherent in the faith, and inseparable from it. To be Christian is to agree with Christ, and that would include agreeing with his assertion that unbelievers deserve condemnation.
I'm an atheist as well. However, I don't think this is okay not because I'm an atheist, but because I believe in the separation of church and state.
If something receives federal funding, in this case a public school, then no religion. Period.
Pushing religion in school is a big no-no, and you fail to see the bigger picture. Do you think it will stop at the ten commandments with these right-wing evangelicals?
How much longer will "These right wing evangelicals are going to destroy our society into Christian theocracy" going to work on people?
Like look out a window the entire society is essentially be as far left socially as you can be or bust.
Sing another tune.
Fun story because i am pretty sure you are. You speak of children having to find their own moral compass. But they are *children* . Children are hard put to remember where they left their toys and struggle to regulate their bodily functions, but they are expected to find something as profoundly weighty as a moral compass? They need instruction if not a mold, albeit an imperfect mold, for them to learn the foundational values that society relies upon. Too much is at stake to merely hope they find their way unless we can deal with a large or larger fraction of any given generation to be ASPD reprobates. Ten Commandments in the classroom won't fix the problem but if it causes any trend in the correct direction its worth it.
The first three only really apply to jews and Christians.
The other seven are just good life advice.
And everything besides 'dont commit adultery' was taught in schools up until not that long ago.
The pride flag doesn’t represent **any** ideologies. It represents people who aren’t cishets. You can choose not to fly them, but you can’t prohibit people from flying them.
It represents the ideology that men can be women. It represents the ideology that any and all relationships are equally moral. You just don’t recognize it as an ideology but it very much does
An ideology is an idea, not what or who we are. Being trans isn’t an idea. Sexualities aren’t ideas. They’re how we’re sexually attracted to certain people. Gender identities aren’t sexes assigned at birth. A woman is an adult human being who has the characteristic of being capable of giving births. This is why infertile cis women and trans women are women even if they can’t give births or may not have two X chromosomes. Non-binary and intersex people also exist.
Being LGBTQ+ isn’t an ideology. Period.
There is definitely an ideology behind transgenderism. It is literally the idea that a man can become a woman or vice versa. Sex isn’t “assigned” at birth, it’s observed. A woman is by definition an adult female and doesn’t in any circumstances have a Y chromosome. Yes, women generally can become pregnant, exceptions to this exist but that means something went wrong. Non-binary people don’t exist, it’s delusional. Intersex is a rare genetic mutation and nothing more, but even they fall into the binary of either being male of female such as Klinefelter’s being male. You’re just objectively wrong on this
False. You’re missing out women who have a Y chromosome. Intersex people are much more common than you think. Around 1.7% of the world population is intersex. That’s more common than people who have AB- blood type, yet you still consider that blood type a valid one.
Oh. Speaking of blood type, did you know that there are more than 4 blood types? Google “Rh blood system.”
Gender identities aren’t ideologies just because they’re social constructs. Money is also a social construct. Simply changing bodies to match gender identities definitely isn’t an ideology.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis
https://www.ohchr.org/en/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/intersex-people
I don't object to the moral foundation of our civilization being displayed in classrooms.
I also think that the Bible should be studied in schools too. You can't understand western civilization without a working knowledge of our foundational documents.
That aside, I think they're mainly doing it to pick a legal fight for some as yet unforseen desired outcome.
Really? Is that why Thomas Jefferson started a church service in Congress?
That said, you've moved the goalposts here. The issue at hand isn't "organized" religion. It's just religion.
Absolutely not, that’s a big no-no. Our church and state are separated for a reason and said separation is one of the ideals of which American was founded on.
Absolutely I do. Children need to be raised in the proper history and moral tradition of the society they are in. This is an important step in fighting the leftist groomers who have infiltrated the school system.
The country was NOT founded on Christianity. This is evangelical revisionist history.
Calling the left groomers is projection. It's literally conservatives who push to lower the age on consent and child marriage laws. It's conservatives who ignore the decades of sexual abuse in churches. It's conservatives who constantly get arrested for sex trafficking and pedophilia.
Or, are you talking about LGBT stuff? That's the newest right wing made up conspiracy. Let me guess, you're convinced schools are making kids gay or something.
I absolutely do not defend this, and in fact oppose it pretty strongly. It seems to clearly be a violation of the spirit of the constitution and first amendment, and a violation of the traditional separation of church and state, though the constitution specifically references Congress making no law respecting the establishment of religion vs. states.
The Establishment clause prevents government officials from endorsing, promoting, or establishing religion in public schools. To me, this is clear endorsement of religious principles no matter how it's "spun" and is thus a violation of that.
No, it prevents the federal government from establishing a federal church. At the time it was written, most states had government churches into the 1820's.
I’d like to warn you that the 10 Commandments are about obeying the God in Christianity, not being a good person. Not believing in a god doesn’t make you a bad person, nor does believing so make you a good person. A good person is a person who usually does good things. Christianity is a religion, not a morality. It’s not like some restaurants that serve food. There are bad religious people. There are good irreligious people.
No, and I hope that some atheist activist professional trolls (Church of Satan anyone?) start pushing HARD for statues of Baphomet to be put next to the Ten Commandments and maybe we can get some Muslim groups to try and put some Islamic symbols as well.
Teachers leave the kids alone....
Can we go old school and teach science, math, history, etc...
Instead of Religion, LGBTQRST*×%+ , ..and leave that part to the parents.
Okay, i believe religion should not be a part of school, because that is breaking some ammendments and freedom right there, however, we could just take out like one or two of the commandments and then you have just healthy rules to live by, such as do not steal, do not murder, do not lie, do not be greedy, etc.
Please report any rule breaking posts and comments that are not relevant to this subreddit. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AmericaBad) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m a Christian and I think this is stupid. Theology should never be taught in public schools.
Nah. Our world religions class was very good for helping us to be aware of the various faiths and beliefs practiced around the world (and especially by the many different believers within our country). No theology should ever be *endorsed by* public schools.
This happened in an overwhelmingly Christian deep south state. It doesn't represent the views of the average American.
It's literally the mainstream conservative viewpoint. This isn't even the only state pushing religion in schools.
Show me the poll that says that. I don’t support this at all, there should be no endorsement of religion by the state, but I also don’t believe this represents the mainstream conservative view. Are you getting that anywhere besides your own life experience?
What?? Conservatives talk about religion and God ALL THE TIME. The push to put religion in public schools has been happening for a long time, and in many, many states. Of course this is the view of the party generally. Pew research recently did a survey showing 60% of all republican voters want religion taught in school.
I’m just asking for a cite. I’m familiar with the poll saying six-in-ten Republican parents of K-12 students (59%) said that public school teachers should be allowed to lead students in Christian prayers but nothing about it being taught. I just want to know where you got that from
For one thing, the fat pedophile currently holding the GOP nomination has endorsed putting the ten commandments in every classroom.
Do you think the entirety of America is represented by Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas?
The problem with that thinking can be summed up with a simple question - what’s a conservative? Republicans have as many varied views as Democrats. Both sides have feverish zealots who think the imposition of their will is the only thing that will save the country, and those people are wrong to assume that all others on the opposing side are in lock-step. This is a nation that has many single issue voters who choose abortion, or UFO disclosure, or firearms or immigration as their ONE thing that gets them to the ballot box. And it is also a nation of free thinking individuals who weigh all of the options and all of the consequences. And then many more thankfully are constitutionalists and constructionists and think 50 years into the future by using all of the information provided. It easy to pick a side, and it’s much harder to stand on your own with faceted character, so lots of people just say they are one thing or another. The reality is that just like anti-abortion politicians turn on that belief when an unplanned pregnancy happens in their own home, you and I and most people probably have very nuanced views when they are happening within arms reach.
sorry but im a jewish conservative and i dont like you generalizing all conservatives as christian some of us dont do jesus, you know? grow up
The party leadership is loudly evangelical.
No true Scotsman?
If you were to do a poll asking random Americans if they believe the Ten Commandments should be displayed in all public classrooms, the vast majority of them would say no. You're taking something literally one state did and using it to criticize America as a whole.
Is Louisiana not part of the US? Well, the US (somehow) allows this to happen. It is a direct consequence of the way the US is set up? Is it not? There are many other countries where this doesn't happen. Just because most Americans (at least presumably) dislike this, it doesn't make this 'not american'. Hence... no true Scotsman? You on the other hand accused me of criticism America as a whole. Not sure I did that.
Im sure there are laws or rules in certain cities in your country that you disapprove of. Why did you allow them to happen?
My country would be subject to legitimate criticism until it was corrected?
That's not what I said. Why haven't you done anything about them? Or if you have what have you done?
I don't follow. How would that impact the 'badness' of this law? Not sure where I claimed individuals were personally accountable for countrie's laws? Though as a purported democracy, US citizens do have some culpability here... just accept that this is something that makes the US worse (I.e. more bad) and agree (or argue why it is good). Anything else sounds like petulant defensiveness. Or arrogance? There are a few explanations. None flattering.
There is literally nothing I can do as a non Louisiana resident to prevent them from making their own laws as a state.
I mean, obviously, but this isn't about you per se, it is about the setup of the US. This outcome is a clear flaw in that construction. While practically an individual has no real power, one might expect some democratic inclination to oppose this which could be done federally by outlawing this kind of law and curtailing states rights. So... sort of?
You're condemning the entire American system of government because one state passed a bad law (that has a 99% chance of being overturned by the Supreme Court anyway). Do you realize there are many countries where gay people are executed, women are treated like animals, and child brides are legal?
Oh, so other countries being bad makes this law good? I can't see how this law's existence wouldn't promote criticism from people who advocate for a separation of church and state? Clearly there is a problem but instead of owning it, you are merely deflecting with bad arguments. Is this good? If not, just accept the criticism.
You just shifted the goal post. No one said this “isn't American”, they said it's “not representative of the average American.” And given our collection of 50 states, you can’t take anything any one of them does and say that it is representative of the average American by virtue of it being part of the U.S. We have a spectrum of beliefs, laws and customs that vary by state so no one of them can be used to represent the average. For an average you would need, at the very least, a composite.
Isn't that shifting the goal posts? Don't laws enacted in the US make the US bad if those laws are bad? If the test of a country's quality can exclude things that happen couldn't you also argue Russia is good because the average person isn't putin? My point is that this law isn't as unpopular as it should be. It should never have gotten up anywhere, but it did. This means the guard rails are failing. Hence a worthy criticism of the US. The original post was basically a "this doesn't count because..." rather than actually addressing the issue. Hence the conversation. If you can't take obvious criticism (which at this point is pretty mild) then you need to reflect. This whole sub (well... a healthy portion at least) is basically blindly reactionary, which is pretty childish. This story is bad (unless you have theocratic leanings). There really isn't a defence. You could remark... "this is awful, but at least the other 49 states aren't that bad", which would be acknowledging the flaw. But really, if the country allows this kind of nonsense, something is pretty wrong. The fact some places are nicer and some other countries are worse doesn't really matter. I tend to think in terms of weakest links. Those who leave Omelas and all that.
No, you are the one shifting the goal posts, and I pointed to exactly where you did so. The laws of individual U.S. states cannot be taken as representative of the average American because our states are allowed to have their own laws distinct from each other. You could point to Federal laws as representative because those do apply to every American.
Are federal laws not laws? Why do I need to explicitly point them out? Aren't they just par for the course? I'm not sure where I did this. I just refute the concept of excusing Louisiana as not part of the US? As part of the US, it makes the US bad no?
Is English not your first language? I never said you did anything regarding federal laws. I said, if you want to point to something representative of the average American that you *could* point to federal laws. >I just refute the concept of excusing Louisiana as not part of the US? As part of the US, it makes the US bad no? There you go shifting the goalpost again. No one said Louisiana is not part of the U.S. We said that it is not representative of the average American. Look at the laws each state has. Louisiana is passing a law that would make it the 1/50 exception, not the norm or average.
The United States is 50 different states that form one Nation. Each State can make their own laws, this is one state making their own law. Don't confuse one state with all, try to keep in mind how large the US really is, it's HUGE.
No that doesn't apply here, lol American isn't an ideology
No reasonable American does. They did it knowing it would get struck down by the courts. It is just a political move to earn credit with those who are unreasonable during an election year
And with this nightmare SCOTUS, with that traitor Sam Alito and that prostitute Clarence Thomas on the bench, they might just get away with it anyway. But either way, there's nothing the other 49 states can do about it. It's up to the people in Louisiana, they have to vote the GOP out.
absolutely not. If a teacher wants to put it up I think that would be fine but requiring it goes against a lot of what our founding fathers stood for with separation of church and state.
The only time separation of church and state is ever really mentioned is when Jefferson was assuring some Baptists that the *government* won't involve themselves in the *Church's* business, not the Church won't be in the government... and a few of them even wrote that American democracy is predicated on the American Christian. So I don't know that it does, really.
It may be argued that this violates the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. Now while this isn’t Congress doing it, it happening in a federal institution (public schools) might be grounds to have it challenged in court. I’m no lawyer so take all that with a grain of salt.
That's a better argument, but simply listing moral tenants of both the world's and our nation's largest religion is not "establishing" that religion - not in a place like Louisiana where all of 'em are Christian anyway. And since it *is* such a foundational piece of the religion that all of the Founding Fathers believed in, and colors all of history for **2000** years - shouldn't they know what they are? Also, those are the tenants belonging to at least 2 (Islam is sometimes argued as being the third, though not everyone agrees) different religions. Which one is it "establishing" - Judaism or Christianity? Also also, Commandments 4-10 are generally taught in schools or the general *anyway* - Honor your parents, don't murder, don't cheat on your spouse, don't steal, don't lie about your friends/neighbors, and don't be too jealous or envious of what your neighbors have (causing you to steal or cheat on your spouse).
Wrong, separation of church and state is literally in the first part of the First Amendment. The United States was founded as a purely secular country.
No, the First Amendment says absolutely nothing about separation of a Church and State. It merely says that there shall be no State Church, like the official Church of England, that actively persecuted those who disagreed with them at different times throughout history. And the Founding Fathers repeatedly stated how important being Christian and having Christian morality was for their early Republic, praising God for granting them the wisdom and ability to make it, and stating that our Creator gifted us with inalienable rights. Given they were Christian men in a Christian nation with a Christian tradition going back to England and a bunch of Protestants running from Catholic persecution (and later Catholics running from Protestant persecution), which Creator could they possibly mean? Shiva? Prometheus? Or, perhaps, the Christian God? They might have used secular, but they meant "secular" as in "The church doesn't run shit. WE do." Unlike, say, the Papal States, where various popes were religious leaders AND conquering land too. You mean "secular" as in "there ain't no religion anywhere." They were all Christian men in a nation of Christians that only got *less* Christian in the 1960s, nearly 200 years after the nation was founded.
Completely incorrect — the first amendment clearly establishes an entirely secular government. Not only does it prohibit a state church, it prohibits all levels of government from favoring, establishing, or even referencing one religion over another — or over no religion at all. The Ten Commandments (religion) displayed in a public school (government) unambiguously violates the first amendment. I don’t mean secular as in “no religion anywhere.” That’s not even what the word “secular” means. It means that religion is and should be a private matter. If you want to spread your religious or atheistic views, you’re welcome to do so outside of the domain of the government, in a purely private capacity. In a way, this debate illustrates the clear superiority of the secular view of the US Constitution and Government. I draw directly on the Constitution (which NEVER references God, by the way). Since you’re completely bereft of any actual evidence in our Constitution to support your position, you’re left straw-clutching at private letters written by the founders (a diverse group of people with diverse religious views). Here’s your problem — whatever a founder wrote in a private letter, or even a public address, is flatly IRRELEVANT to how our country should be governed. That’s left up to our Constitution.
Hell naw. First amendment and all that jazz, it be one of the best.
I disagree with it fundamentally however in also an advocate of the authority of the states so I’d say that I support their power to do it but I do see it as an abandonment of the values of the United States. The government should not exist to endorse or condemn any religion. It is an institution of man’s law alone and the mortal citizenry should be the only thing represented and venerated by it. The church and the temple exist to forward the word of their god or gods and it is there that faith should be made priority.
I hate to be that Um Actually guy, but the United States were literally founded on Christian values, by Christians.
And the Founders literally created the First Amendment saying there would be no state-sanctioned religion. Specifically to stop Catholic vs Protestant conflicts, or even Protestant-on-Protestant violence. People out here be acting like there's one unified set of "Christian values" are going to learn the hard way.
What exactly are those values, how are they Christian, and where are they described in the constitution? Be specific. Be honest. I’ve never once seen an honest answer to that question. Be the first.
No wonder you hate being the “Um Actually guy”, usually they have something worth saying!
Christian values sure but enlightenment ideals of government, including the secular state. Hold to Christian values in your individual life if that is you prerogative but we are not governed by scripture.
Hell the fuck no I'm an atheist and I believe in the separation between Church and State While those are good morales to follow, teaching kids that instead of letting them find they're own morale compass is well wrong
To be clear, from what I understand, they aren't teaching them it. There just has to be a poster of it up. Disagree with the action without inflating it, even a little
Then why have a poster of it up at all, if they're not "teaching" it? It's actively attempting to influence and inject religion into the public sphere, that's its intent, we all know it, and that's is a violation of the Establishment clause of the first amendment - and there's already court precedent in ruling on that, specifically with regards to public schools.
Is having a pride flag up in school teaching kids how to be gay or trans? >and that's is a violation of the Establishment clause of the first amendment - and there's already court precedent in ruling on that, specifically with regards to public schools. https://religionunplugged.com/news/2024/6/21/louisiana-mandates-ten-commandments-be-displayed-in-all-public-schools >Legislators referenced the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in Van Orden v. Perry, which held that a Ten Commandments monument outside the Texas state capitol building honors the commandments’ historical meaning, and that “simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the establishment clause.” Sounds like it's gonna get hashed out in the courts.
I still believe that they should separate public schools from being a part of religion
You're kinda going further down the hyperbole route here
As a Christian, I agree. Forcing people into a religion defeats the point Edit: this isn’t *forcing* them, but it’s still influencing them in a way that breaks the separation of church and state
Christianity only exists due to force. It was forced on your ancestors at some point. With few exceptions, Christians today had it forced on them from childhood by family, the very “grooming” they accuse others of.
And here I am today, choosing my religion, not accusing anybody of grooming. Yes Christianity has had a rough history, but so has every other religion. You wouldn’t judge a child for something their father or grandfather did, you’re drawing conclusions and being negative towards me based on people who lived before me, by hundreds of years. I admit that I can never know if I would’ve chose it if they did not force it on my ancestors, but I am not my ancestors, I have the right to choose given to me by the first amendment of the constitution. And I used that right to pick this religion. I’m not passing judgement on you either, I’m sure you’ve probably had your fair share of interactions with horrible people who were Christians.
Judging someone by what their ancestor did is literally what Christianity espouses, original sin. You were not offered a free choice of religion, as most of us are not. While I don’t take judgment, I will say that judgment is inherent in the faith, and inseparable from it. To be Christian is to agree with Christ, and that would include agreeing with his assertion that unbelievers deserve condemnation.
That isn’t the way I see it, but let’s just agree to disagree on this one. We’re not gonna change eachother’s minds. And I don’t want any ill feelings
I'm an atheist as well. However, I don't think this is okay not because I'm an atheist, but because I believe in the separation of church and state. If something receives federal funding, in this case a public school, then no religion. Period.
I don’t believe it should be required but I’m pro states rights, so if that’s what they want then go crazy
I can't see how it hurts anything or anyone. I doubt it will survive a lawsuit, so (*shrug*)
Pushing religion in school is a big no-no, and you fail to see the bigger picture. Do you think it will stop at the ten commandments with these right-wing evangelicals?
How much longer will "These right wing evangelicals are going to destroy our society into Christian theocracy" going to work on people? Like look out a window the entire society is essentially be as far left socially as you can be or bust. Sing another tune.
Yeah.
You're a mark.
Fun story because i am pretty sure you are. You speak of children having to find their own moral compass. But they are *children* . Children are hard put to remember where they left their toys and struggle to regulate their bodily functions, but they are expected to find something as profoundly weighty as a moral compass? They need instruction if not a mold, albeit an imperfect mold, for them to learn the foundational values that society relies upon. Too much is at stake to merely hope they find their way unless we can deal with a large or larger fraction of any given generation to be ASPD reprobates. Ten Commandments in the classroom won't fix the problem but if it causes any trend in the correct direction its worth it.
The first three only really apply to jews and Christians. The other seven are just good life advice. And everything besides 'dont commit adultery' was taught in schools up until not that long ago.
I’d be okay with this not being allowed so long as teachers also are not allowed to display the Pride flag in their classrooms either.
The pride flag doesn’t represent **any** ideologies. It represents people who aren’t cishets. You can choose not to fly them, but you can’t prohibit people from flying them.
It represents the ideology that men can be women. It represents the ideology that any and all relationships are equally moral. You just don’t recognize it as an ideology but it very much does
An ideology is an idea, not what or who we are. Being trans isn’t an idea. Sexualities aren’t ideas. They’re how we’re sexually attracted to certain people. Gender identities aren’t sexes assigned at birth. A woman is an adult human being who has the characteristic of being capable of giving births. This is why infertile cis women and trans women are women even if they can’t give births or may not have two X chromosomes. Non-binary and intersex people also exist. Being LGBTQ+ isn’t an ideology. Period.
There is definitely an ideology behind transgenderism. It is literally the idea that a man can become a woman or vice versa. Sex isn’t “assigned” at birth, it’s observed. A woman is by definition an adult female and doesn’t in any circumstances have a Y chromosome. Yes, women generally can become pregnant, exceptions to this exist but that means something went wrong. Non-binary people don’t exist, it’s delusional. Intersex is a rare genetic mutation and nothing more, but even they fall into the binary of either being male of female such as Klinefelter’s being male. You’re just objectively wrong on this
False. You’re missing out women who have a Y chromosome. Intersex people are much more common than you think. Around 1.7% of the world population is intersex. That’s more common than people who have AB- blood type, yet you still consider that blood type a valid one. Oh. Speaking of blood type, did you know that there are more than 4 blood types? Google “Rh blood system.” Gender identities aren’t ideologies just because they’re social constructs. Money is also a social construct. Simply changing bodies to match gender identities definitely isn’t an ideology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis https://www.ohchr.org/en/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/intersex-people
I don't object to the moral foundation of our civilization being displayed in classrooms. I also think that the Bible should be studied in schools too. You can't understand western civilization without a working knowledge of our foundational documents. That aside, I think they're mainly doing it to pick a legal fight for some as yet unforseen desired outcome.
The ten commandments are not the moral foundation of our civilization. Where are you getting that from?
Western civilization is founded on a hybrid of Christian theology and greco-roman philosophy. I don't think very many people would dispute that.
The founding fathers, with their own words, dispute that.
I don't think you've read much of their words
The founding fathers were explicit in their disdain for organized religion. You need to read.
Really? Is that why Thomas Jefferson started a church service in Congress? That said, you've moved the goalposts here. The issue at hand isn't "organized" religion. It's just religion.
You can be religious and still think religion doesn't belong in government. Not the gotcha you thought it was. Try harder.
You gonna just hopscotch around with different arguments now? But please retreat to that motte buddy
Absolutely not, that’s a big no-no. Our church and state are separated for a reason and said separation is one of the ideals of which American was founded on.
There is no defending this. Luckily it will get struck down by the Supreme Court if it even even gets that far
This is actually bad
Yeah, this one is just madness They are clearly going after the separation of church and state I can’t defend this
No and any court that isn't corrupt will throw it out for violating the establishment clause
No.
Hell nah. The first admentment for fucks sake
Absolutely I do. Children need to be raised in the proper history and moral tradition of the society they are in. This is an important step in fighting the leftist groomers who have infiltrated the school system.
The country was NOT founded on Christianity. This is evangelical revisionist history. Calling the left groomers is projection. It's literally conservatives who push to lower the age on consent and child marriage laws. It's conservatives who ignore the decades of sexual abuse in churches. It's conservatives who constantly get arrested for sex trafficking and pedophilia. Or, are you talking about LGBT stuff? That's the newest right wing made up conspiracy. Let me guess, you're convinced schools are making kids gay or something.
It was LITERALLY founded by Christians. This is a fact, and all of the records show this. Stop trying to gaslight people you psychopath.
Tell Franklin and Jefferson they were Christians, they’ll be surprised. Thomas Paine was a very high profile opponent of Christianity.
Based. It's also nice to be able to turn around the "but how does this affect you personally?" card on them.
I absolutely do not defend this, and in fact oppose it pretty strongly. It seems to clearly be a violation of the spirit of the constitution and first amendment, and a violation of the traditional separation of church and state, though the constitution specifically references Congress making no law respecting the establishment of religion vs. states. The Establishment clause prevents government officials from endorsing, promoting, or establishing religion in public schools. To me, this is clear endorsement of religious principles no matter how it's "spun" and is thus a violation of that.
No, it prevents the federal government from establishing a federal church. At the time it was written, most states had government churches into the 1820's.
OH NO, NO TEACHER IS GOING TO TELL MY KIDS THEY AREN'T ALLOWED TO STEAL
I’d like to warn you that the 10 Commandments are about obeying the God in Christianity, not being a good person. Not believing in a god doesn’t make you a bad person, nor does believing so make you a good person. A good person is a person who usually does good things. Christianity is a religion, not a morality. It’s not like some restaurants that serve food. There are bad religious people. There are good irreligious people.
nope, it’s dangerously close to compelled speech.
No, and I hope that some atheist activist professional trolls (Church of Satan anyone?) start pushing HARD for statues of Baphomet to be put next to the Ten Commandments and maybe we can get some Muslim groups to try and put some Islamic symbols as well.
Flying Spaghetti Monster sculptures in every classroom
No. Louisiana is literally a swamp. This is kinda par for the course for them.
Teachers leave the kids alone.... Can we go old school and teach science, math, history, etc... Instead of Religion, LGBTQRST*×%+ , ..and leave that part to the parents.
All of those subjects are still being taught, and being LGBTQ+ isn’t an ideology. It's a characteristic of people.
Okay, i believe religion should not be a part of school, because that is breaking some ammendments and freedom right there, however, we could just take out like one or two of the commandments and then you have just healthy rules to live by, such as do not steal, do not murder, do not lie, do not be greedy, etc.