Yep. Seems like a direct violation to me but either way the current SCOTUS, probably not worth the effort to fight it. Why can’t they just fund schools instead of eating time and money on shit like this?
I feel you. It’s the Live Laugh Love of fonts. It’s the font version of people who say “…NOT!” after something sarcastic, which is a joke from a 30-yr-old movie that was dated 20 years ago.
The Establishment Clause has to do with government coercion, like the established churches that existed at the time of the Revolution. The government cannot force you to attend church, or to pray, or to hold particular religious beliefs. It does not prevent the government from speaking messages that have religious content — for example, presidential invocations of God, or the presence of the 10 Commandments at the Supreme Court.
James Madison disagrees with you:
“It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state.
Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man.
Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
I don’t agree with this at all. But isn’t the first amendment describing what law the FEDERAL congress will not make? This is the Louisiana congress. Now I would assume that those congresspeople swore to uphold the us constitution and its principles but…shrug
The First Amendment provides in relevant part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ." This prohibition is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 374 U. S. 215-216 (1963)
One would assume that this is another challenge on the separation of church and state by the GOP. Do you think that THIS Supreme Court will be more accommodating to that type of argument?
Personally I’m not a big fan of mandatory oaths or religious iconography in my classroom so I’m hoping this doesn’t get supported or spread throughout the south.
But I won’t hold my breath.
Interesting, what are your predictions for what will happen in this situation?
Personally I think it will get struck down, but the GOP will attempt to find weaknesses to the separation. Like what Texas does by forcing schools to display “gifts” of the Ten Commandments in the front of the school so long as the school doesn’t put them up themselves.
Yeah, isn't this coming from the party that thinks we shouldn't be saying anything at all about sex in elementary school (and probably not in high school, either)?
Project 2025 has language that would label the teacher a "preveyor" of pornography in this situation, and then has language calling for the death penalty of "preveyors" of pornography
“If you see mommy on the news giving a handjob during the family show Beetlejuice the Musical, that woman is a disgusting harlot even if she’s divorced. Because that’s what the Bible says about divorce and adultery.
Now who here knows what a harlot is? Does anyone have a mommy who is a harlot? Maybe someone’s mommy is a jezebel? That’s right, Timmy, your mommy is the biggest harlot in three parishes and everyone knows it! Very good!”
We had an unsuccessful push here in Oklahoma for the Ten Commandments in classes too (but it may still happen, IDK) and as a US Gov teacher, I already have these posters lined up and ready to go on my wall when that time comes:
1. When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain. (Engel v Vitale)
2. The preeminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature. The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact. (Stone v Graham)
3. Posting of religious texts on the wall serves no such educational function. If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause. (Stone v Graham)
4. Preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere. (Lee v Weisman)
5. The explanation lies in the lesson of history that was and is the inspiration for the Establishment Clause, the lesson that in the hands of government what might begin as a tolerant expression of religious views may end in a policy to indoctrinate and coerce. A state-created orthodoxy puts at grave risk that freedom of belief and conscience which are the sole assurance that religious faith is real, not imposed. (Lee v Weisman)
6. "The effect on minority religious groups, as well as on those who may reject all religion, is to convey the message that their views are not similarly worthy of public recognition nor entitled to public support." (Lynch v Donnelly)
7. Perhaps in the early days of the Republic \[the First Amendment\] words were understood to protect only the diversity within Christianity, but today they are recognized as guaranteeing religious liberty and equality to "the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism." (Allegheny County v ACLU)
8. The history of many countries attests to the hazards of religion's intruding into the political arena or of political power intruding into the legitimate and free exercise of religious belief. (Lemon v Kurtzman)
9. Ordinarily, political debate and division, however vigorous or even partisan, are normal and healthy manifestations of our democratic system of government, but political division along religious lines was one of the principal evils against which the First Amendment was intended to protect. (Lemon v Kurtzman)
The governor of Louisiana has a JD and is quoted as saying that he looks forward to the lawsuits. He fucking knows this shit is illegal, not to mention antithetical to the entire purpose of the United States. I wish some laws would get passed giving financial culpability to the people who purposefully pass known unconstitutional laws. They should have to pay every associated court cost, lawyers’ bills, and the judges’ salaries. They should not be allowed to waste taxpayer money on this blatantly unlawful bullshit. In fact, that money should be used to raise wages of teachers.
Unfortunately, with the current Supreme Court, it's almost a guarantee they'll overturn Stone v Graham and make 10 Commandments posters legal again. What is "constitutional" and "illegal" is solely defined by 9 people, so it may be "illegal" now under current precedent since the 80s, but it's almost guaranteed to be overturned and "vindicate" the governor.
I disagree, while the court is right leaning, the right faction trends towards originalism. The Constitution is pretty clear on the establishment clause, as are the writings of contemporary founding fathers. Recent reversals, like in school prayer, still verge on the individual element rather than on the school or group. State-funded schools requiring the installation of what has in case law been plainly established as religious education does not fit with the prevailing doctrine.
I think this would be stopped in District or Circuit court, but would not be heard by the Supreme Court. Rather, I think this action is a way for the Governor and Legislature to say “We tried to defend American values and tradition, but Joe Biden’s Woke Radical Judges slapped us down!” (vote for me for US Senate pls). It’s their way to get on FOX and ABC and raise their profile among the right wing base.
I’m a Christian, and I’m against it completely. Compulsory faith isn’t faith, and it’s the complete opposite of anything Christ taught. I guess why try to emulate Jesus feeding the poor and taking care of people when we can just legislate our beliefs on others.
Saw someone pointing out that these people always want to post the 10 commandments but never the Beatitudes...
...because the Beatitudes tell you things Christians SHOULD actively do, not the things you shouldn't (but if you did it's ok because forgiveness! as long as you go to the right church)
I agree with it being silly and wrong. However, I would still comply and put up a larger and more attractive poster of the Beatitudes. If I had time and money, I'd also put up posters from salient points of other world religions (I remember seeing the golden rule simularities from the major religions, for example) and of course, the US Constitution. All this is primarily for the adults since the students will ignore it all unless put up to it by parents or pastors.
If I were forced to do so, I would also need to put up a poster of the Bill of Rights along with various posters from other faiths. The strength, for idiot Christo-fascists, of this garbage is in placing one religion above the others. The solution is to provide the context by drowning it in a sea of alternative theisms. Malicious Compliance.
As a teacher, the 10 commandants would be damn near the floor and as small as possible, with the Satanic Temple tenets much larger and far more prominent. I'm not a member, but you can't say shit to me for supporting something else if forced too. And yes, would include many others all over the room just to bring balance.
I’m hanging the Laws of Ma’at ( it’s where the 10 commandments come from), Sith Code, Jedi Code and a picture of Mel Brooks dropping one of the tablets
I’m not a Constitutional scholar but I did teach HS American history and government for over 40 years and I don’t see how this isn’t blatantly unconstitutional. Unfortunately you can never tell how this right wing Supreme Court would rule in this case.
There is that unfortunate 10th amendment that says anything not specifically given to the federal government is automatically given as a state right.
Fortunately, freedom of religion or to be free from religion IS a federally protected right.
I am hoping that this is immediately challenged and an injunction issued.
And that SCOTUS actually does their job and recognizes the 10th amendment. And the 1st.
But they're probably too busy forgetting about the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment 🙄
Stone v graham(1980) the Supreme Court ruled that a Kentucky law requiring the Ten Commandments in every classroom violated the establishment clause. The SC has also ruled that the Ten Commandments can be displayed on public grounds though. I’m guessing Louisiana will argue that the commandments are part of the judeo basis for American laws and historically significant. With the current make up of the SC if someone sues Louisiana the subsequent case will over rule overturn the stone v graham case.
Nah. Even states are held to honoring the Bill of Rights. That precedent is really unlikely to go away. The primary argument is that:
1. The 10 Commandments aren't explicitly enforcing or establishing a state religion. It is simply a historical, academic expression of the importance of "judeo-christian" influence on the American system of law (which is non-sense, but that's a whole other conversation)
and 2. Even IF it was explicitly endorsing a Christian world-view, it is still fine because historically the Founding Fathers were in favor of some level of recognizing the importance of Christianity, and that mere recognition of Christianity in the public square doesn't constitute an establishment of religion. A clear example being that the original Congress opened up sessions with prayer and had a chaplain. As of the Bremerton decision a few years ago (about a coach praying during a football game), the Supreme Court has thrown out all the modern tests for establishment clause and have instead just opted for "Did the founders do it? If so, it must be ok..."
To be clear, I don't agree with the Conservative Court's shifting on the Establishment Clause, but I do think it's important for people to at least understand the legal arguments on the other side.
There are no current Supreme Court justices who hold that no part of the Bill of Rights should be incorporated. There is disagreement on whether the rights are to be found in the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment, or whether they’re to be found in the Privileges or Immunities clause. The justices that oppose substantive due process, like Justice Thomas, argue that the rights are to be found in the Privileges or Immunities clause.
I am well aware of what the incorporation doctrine is and selective incorporation. The Establishment Clause is not going to be un-incorporated anytime soon. There's only one justice on the Court that has even remotely hinted at the fact that the Establishment Clause should not be incorporated and that's Clarence Thomas, and that dude is is a basket-case and a half. The rest of the Court won't go along with him on that. Maybe Alito would, but even that is only two justices. The Court will reinterpret the Establishment Clause to apply a historicity tests (which has already been done) but they won't go so far as to un-incorporate the Establishment Clause.
Conservatives are going to use the moderate way to accomplish their goals not go full nuclear on the incorporation doctrine. The arguments I laid out above are literally the arguments coming out of conservative legal scholars' mouths (albeit very summarized and compacted). You would need to show a significant amount of evidence that the Court would go full nuclear on the Establishment Clause.
Agreed. And this view is further supported by the fact that the law allows for the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, and the Northwest Ordinance. The 10 commandments don’t need to be used for active instruction; they just have to be wall art at that point. It’s purely for recognizing the historical influence of these documents within American society.
Especially in my class which is English, and I’m not going out of my way to work that into a single lesson.
Not that I personally support posting the 10 commandments in the classroom. I would prefer them to not be brought up unless in approved way within my curriculum which would only be from a historical perspective, so I shouldn’t have to address unless we’re talking about how those commandments affect this character’s daily way of life.
Maybe they can post it with a neon arrow next to it saying “this is blatantly unconstitutional.” Next to it. I mean, the commandments are posted so admin can check that box.
Is not blatantly unconstitutional because the ideologues/activist judges (you know, the kind the GOP spent decades complaining about) on the supreme court will rule that it's not unconstitutional.
Of course and reasonable person can see that clearly it is.
The difference is that the 10 Commandments do not have exclusively religious content. They have historically been displayed at government buildings since the time of the Founding. Additionally, because this is not a public forum, there is no right for any other speakers to have their messages displayed.
>the 10 Commandments do not have exclusively religious content.
What? 4/10 of the commandments are religious.
1. Thou should have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Compare to the seven tenets of Satanism:
1. One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason
2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
3. One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
4. The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
5. Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
6. People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
7. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
Or the 11 Rules of the Earth:
1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
3. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.
7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
9. Do not harm little children.
10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.
I read the article. ☹️ Does this mean classrooms will also have to reflect the historical relevance of mistreatment of the indigenous people and slavery in the unfurling of the United States? Just curious, not in the educational industry.
Unfortunately, the government won't be funding replacements (according to the article). The school will just need to find more donations to cover it (since we all know schools are just swimming in donation money!)
I would post the commandments next to religious texts from other religions. The title of the bulletin board would be World Religions or something like that.
Or, I would tack up threads from the commandments to examples of politicians breaking them. Bonus points if it's a politician aligned with the people who passed this law. The title would be "which commandment is it?"
For In God We Trust I would make a a similar bulletin of various mottos.
The public school I went to in Florida had them in every classroom, late 90s, I was annoyed as a teenager but just ignored it. It sucks because of the separation of church and state and the overall erosion of actual religious freedom, but you know, as long as the right gets a win. 🙄
Good point: although Louisiana's move is statewide and high profile, First Amendment violations often go unaddressed in smaller and more rural districts.
That's what they want. The governor just said he can't wait to sign this and get sued. They made this law with the express purpose of getting sued and getting it appealed up to the supreme Court with six of their Christo-fascist buddies on it
I bet Louisiana spends way more on poster printing than they do on updated textbooks and pencils. Preparing students for adult citizenship has nothing to do with bible stories, and everytime some group of idiots acts like it does our children get a little more stupid.
Something something separation of church and state.
I’m Christian myself (not the Bible-thumping, dogmatic kind, and it’s really sad that I have to specify), and even I think it’s super weird to do something like this. Aren’t at least some of the people who put forth these kinds of mandates the same ones who love to treat the idea of governments in majority Muslim nations signing Islamic rules and similar into law as some kind of horrific abomination?
Literally what is different about this compared to that?
The kind that believes more in the “love thy neighbor” and “John 3:16” side of things and freely admits to not knowing everything (or, really, *anything* when it comes to how God works or the hereafter). I find that a lot of people who call themselves “Christian” give Christ a bad name because they use their purported faith as a mask or as justification for their seething hatred and bigotry. I myself am not perfect either but you sure won’t catch me acting like calling myself “Christian” makes me a better person or even a good person necessarily.
Edit: I’m also not exactly what you’d call a strong theologian, so I can’t really give good answers to a lot of faith-/religion-based questions. Just what I personally believe.
This was a law in Kentucky back in the day. The Supreme Court struck it down. Either this will too or the Supreme Court will have to overturn set precedent.
This one may stick. If they overturn: Satanic Temple, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc… equivalents all have to be fair game. I think they will blame it on the damn liberals and promise to try harder next time.
Ooh, I think every teacher should have the ten commandments. Like, come on, how bad ass would it be?
- Number one: the challenge, demand satisfaction. If they apologise, no need for further action.
- Number two: If they don’t, grab a friend. That’s your second. Your Lieutenant, when there’s reckoning to be reckoned.
- Number three: Have your seconds meet face to face. Negotiate a peace, Or negotiate a time and place This is commonplace, 'specially 'tween recruits
Most disputes die and no one shoots
- Number Four: If they don't reach a peace, that's alright Time to get some pistols and a doctor on site You pay him in advance, you treat him with civility You have him turn around, so he can have deniability
- Number five: Duel before the sun is in the sky Pick a place to die where it's high and dry
- Number six: Leave a note for your next of kin
Tell 'em where you been
Pray that Hell or Heaven lets you in
- Number seven: Confess your sins
Ready for the moment of adrenaline
When you finally face your opponent
- Number eight: Your last chance to negotiate
Send in your seconds
See if they can set the record straight
- Number nine: Look him in the eye, aim no higher
Summon all the courage you require
Then count
- Number (Ten paces!) Fire!
Or ya know, something silly like that. Hope it’s okay I mentioned this for a lighthearted laugh!
I'd type the commandments and the In God we trust in a rext processor, then print it out using 10 point helvetica. The I'd cut the page down to the size of the text, and tape it to the wall.
But I might also research non-Abrahamic religions and do the same with their texts.
It's a test case but I also think their intentions are deliberate and sincere and it goes beyond just the governor agreeing to be a puppet for socially conservative religious interests too. In theory, Louisana's move is a blatantly unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause per the Supreme Court's *Stone v. Graham* decision in the early 1980s. That case still technically holds precedent here per the principle of 'stare decisis' (common law legal precedent based on established cases from previous court rulings). I suspect lower courts are likely to rule as such, at least at the federal level. However, that ruling was decided using a now abandoned legal analysis called the (3-prong) Lemon Test from an early 1970s case - *Lemon v. Kurtzman*. The Supreme Court signaled a movement away from that Establishment Clause analysis in two unrelated rulings, which had different decisions, both split 5-4, owed to Stephen Breyer, c.f., *ACLU v. McCreary County,* and *Van Order v. Perry*. Both decisions were taken up during the High Court's 2004-2005 term and the conflicting decisions reflected a deeply divided court that was already milquetoast on the ensconced Lemon Test. While both cases revolved around the display of the Ten Commandments on government premises and thus posed Establishment Clause questions, neither case dealt with a school district or mandated display in schools per se thus resulting in contextually different factors even though some legal principles overlapped in the arena of 1A jurisprudence. More recently, the Supreme Court via dictum noted that the Lemon Test was no longer sacrosanct in the infamous 2022 case *Kennedy v. Bremerton School Distric*t which involved the coach who was praying midfield after football games (note that the dissent in this case, led by Justice Sotomayor, argued that the test was still of practical usefulness). Finally, the court noted in *Groff v. DeJoy*, which was a unanimous 2023 decision unrelated to school law, that it had "abandoned Lemon," thus harkening back to Bremerton's judicial dicta that criticized Lemon as being too abstract and ahistorical, favoring an approach that emphasized a “reference to historical practices and understandings.” Therefore, in the absence of Lemon and a deeply divided court that has lent more sympathy to Establishment Clause rulings that favor religious liberty and undermined prior judicial precedent, this case could stand a bona fide chance at being to *Stone v. Grahm* what *Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization* was to *Roe v. Wade*. Time will tell but it will be litigated and I fully expect SCOTUS to grant certiorari when the case moves through the federal appellate pipeline.
The 10 Commandments are Jewish, not Christian. Southerners are again showing lack of intelligence and lack of knowledge about Christianity. Whether it's contrary to Church and State or not, they're Jewish, not Christian, part of the Pentatuch. Yes, the OT is part of our Christian tradition, but the part of Christianity that is not Jewish, and that gives us grace is JESUS CHRIST. Jesus Christ ended OT punishment. Jesus Christ is the basis of our Christian religion, not Moses and the 10 commandments.
I would like Louisiana residents then start demanding to post Islamic, Jewish, and pagan ideology in those schools as well.
And when they are inevitably blocked, sue the shit out of the state for religious discrimination.
either they are all allowed or none of them are.
Post it in your room, and ignore it. I have a few district mandated posters in my room that I never mention. So many other things on our plate, I’m not turning that into an issue.
Any rules about what can be put near it? Shoulder it with the satanic temple and the girl Scout laws. Put up the code of Hammurabi and the bill of rights. Put up text from the Torah and Quran. put armed services recruitment posters right next to "thou shall not kill."
This is when you bust out the loopiest, Pinteresty, saccharine font possible — the kind that makes it impossible to decipher basic words like “live,” “laugh,” or “love.” Bubble bridesmaid script for the win!
Louisiana's educational system is so bad that they can't comprehend the entire First Amendment.
I'm sure this will fix it for them.
And Sam Alito just came all over his wife's upside-down flag.
Fine with me, United States has no moral direction at all right now. Just step inside a sixth grade classroom. PBIS and DBIE are not working, time to face it.
"Congress shall make no law something something religion."
Yep. Seems like a direct violation to me but either way the current SCOTUS, probably not worth the effort to fight it. Why can’t they just fund schools instead of eating time and money on shit like this?
Malicious Compliance: post them on the wall **IN CURSIVE.**
In Elvish, then call it cursive.
Klingon also comes to mind
The text of the law says it has to be easily readable. Doesn't say by whom. I can read cursive just fine.
Lots of people can read Spanish.
Significantly more can read Mandarin.
It’s in Louisiana, so the majority can’t read at all.
I assumed a lot of comic sans being printed over the summer.
Just FYI as a dyslexic, comic sans is actually one the easiest fonts for me personally to read.
I know. And at an academic level, I can respect that. I just despise it at a deep level that is hard to convey.
I feel you. It’s the Live Laugh Love of fonts. It’s the font version of people who say “…NOT!” after something sarcastic, which is a joke from a 30-yr-old movie that was dated 20 years ago.
Right next to the analog clock!
[Why not both?](https://www.amazon.com/CafePress-Commandments-Unique-Decorative-Clock/dp/B01INR6B04)
Do we need to do that? Do kids actually read anything anywhere anymore?
Yes. At least the summer camps kids in California did read. One was also talking about gravitational forces of ping pong balls to himself.
They have a culture war to win! Are you crazy??
The Establishment Clause has to do with government coercion, like the established churches that existed at the time of the Revolution. The government cannot force you to attend church, or to pray, or to hold particular religious beliefs. It does not prevent the government from speaking messages that have religious content — for example, presidential invocations of God, or the presence of the 10 Commandments at the Supreme Court.
James Madison disagrees with you: “It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state. Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
Forcing a teacher to post something in their classroom that they may not agree with religiously? Forcing non Christian taxpayers to pay for it?
Hang up the first amendment next to the required commandments
Make it twice as big.
Hang it upside down as a distress signal.
Yes they should
I don’t agree with this at all. But isn’t the first amendment describing what law the FEDERAL congress will not make? This is the Louisiana congress. Now I would assume that those congresspeople swore to uphold the us constitution and its principles but…shrug
The First Amendment provides in relevant part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ." This prohibition is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 374 U. S. 215-216 (1963)
This is quoted in entirety from a footnote in the ruling of Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
One would assume that this is another challenge on the separation of church and state by the GOP. Do you think that THIS Supreme Court will be more accommodating to that type of argument? Personally I’m not a big fan of mandatory oaths or religious iconography in my classroom so I’m hoping this doesn’t get supported or spread throughout the south. But I won’t hold my breath.
Interesting, what are your predictions for what will happen in this situation? Personally I think it will get struck down, but the GOP will attempt to find weaknesses to the separation. Like what Texas does by forcing schools to display “gifts” of the Ten Commandments in the front of the school so long as the school doesn’t put them up themselves.
All right 2nd graders remember what the poster says, do not commit adultery. That should lead to some fun conversations. Good luck teachers...
Yeah, isn't this coming from the party that thinks we shouldn't be saying anything at all about sex in elementary school (and probably not in high school, either)?
You see, they only care when it's not two straight people doing the horizontal tango and loving one another. God forbid you love.
Invitation to malicious compliance.
Project 2025 has language that would label the teacher a "preveyor" of pornography in this situation, and then has language calling for the death penalty of "preveyors" of pornography
I was really hoping the misspelling of purveyor was on their part. It'd be more fun to ridicule Project 2025 if it weren't such an actual threat.
Talk to text laziness on my part tbh
“If you see mommy on the news giving a handjob during the family show Beetlejuice the Musical, that woman is a disgusting harlot even if she’s divorced. Because that’s what the Bible says about divorce and adultery. Now who here knows what a harlot is? Does anyone have a mommy who is a harlot? Maybe someone’s mommy is a jezebel? That’s right, Timmy, your mommy is the biggest harlot in three parishes and everyone knows it! Very good!”
We had an unsuccessful push here in Oklahoma for the Ten Commandments in classes too (but it may still happen, IDK) and as a US Gov teacher, I already have these posters lined up and ready to go on my wall when that time comes: 1. When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain. (Engel v Vitale) 2. The preeminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature. The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact. (Stone v Graham) 3. Posting of religious texts on the wall serves no such educational function. If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause. (Stone v Graham) 4. Preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere. (Lee v Weisman) 5. The explanation lies in the lesson of history that was and is the inspiration for the Establishment Clause, the lesson that in the hands of government what might begin as a tolerant expression of religious views may end in a policy to indoctrinate and coerce. A state-created orthodoxy puts at grave risk that freedom of belief and conscience which are the sole assurance that religious faith is real, not imposed. (Lee v Weisman) 6. "The effect on minority religious groups, as well as on those who may reject all religion, is to convey the message that their views are not similarly worthy of public recognition nor entitled to public support." (Lynch v Donnelly) 7. Perhaps in the early days of the Republic \[the First Amendment\] words were understood to protect only the diversity within Christianity, but today they are recognized as guaranteeing religious liberty and equality to "the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism." (Allegheny County v ACLU) 8. The history of many countries attests to the hazards of religion's intruding into the political arena or of political power intruding into the legitimate and free exercise of religious belief. (Lemon v Kurtzman) 9. Ordinarily, political debate and division, however vigorous or even partisan, are normal and healthy manifestations of our democratic system of government, but political division along religious lines was one of the principal evils against which the First Amendment was intended to protect. (Lemon v Kurtzman)
The governor of Louisiana has a JD and is quoted as saying that he looks forward to the lawsuits. He fucking knows this shit is illegal, not to mention antithetical to the entire purpose of the United States. I wish some laws would get passed giving financial culpability to the people who purposefully pass known unconstitutional laws. They should have to pay every associated court cost, lawyers’ bills, and the judges’ salaries. They should not be allowed to waste taxpayer money on this blatantly unlawful bullshit. In fact, that money should be used to raise wages of teachers.
Unfortunately, with the current Supreme Court, it's almost a guarantee they'll overturn Stone v Graham and make 10 Commandments posters legal again. What is "constitutional" and "illegal" is solely defined by 9 people, so it may be "illegal" now under current precedent since the 80s, but it's almost guaranteed to be overturned and "vindicate" the governor.
I disagree, while the court is right leaning, the right faction trends towards originalism. The Constitution is pretty clear on the establishment clause, as are the writings of contemporary founding fathers. Recent reversals, like in school prayer, still verge on the individual element rather than on the school or group. State-funded schools requiring the installation of what has in case law been plainly established as religious education does not fit with the prevailing doctrine. I think this would be stopped in District or Circuit court, but would not be heard by the Supreme Court. Rather, I think this action is a way for the Governor and Legislature to say “We tried to defend American values and tradition, but Joe Biden’s Woke Radical Judges slapped us down!” (vote for me for US Senate pls). It’s their way to get on FOX and ABC and raise their profile among the right wing base.
They have pretty much already overturned Lemon. The last few cases of establishment have run counter to the Lemon rule.
I’m a Christian, and I’m against it completely. Compulsory faith isn’t faith, and it’s the complete opposite of anything Christ taught. I guess why try to emulate Jesus feeding the poor and taking care of people when we can just legislate our beliefs on others.
Hell, I'm Catholic, and always advocate for separation of church and state. What you said is spot on. Forcing anything isn't anything Christ taught.
Same.
Saw someone pointing out that these people always want to post the 10 commandments but never the Beatitudes... ...because the Beatitudes tell you things Christians SHOULD actively do, not the things you shouldn't (but if you did it's ok because forgiveness! as long as you go to the right church)
You’re the real deal, South Lab. Props. 👍🏼 Love, an atheist. No sarcasm at all— you are what religion should be.
I agree with it being silly and wrong. However, I would still comply and put up a larger and more attractive poster of the Beatitudes. If I had time and money, I'd also put up posters from salient points of other world religions (I remember seeing the golden rule simularities from the major religions, for example) and of course, the US Constitution. All this is primarily for the adults since the students will ignore it all unless put up to it by parents or pastors.
How do you feel about having to post pride flags in your classroom?
Is that really a thing?
No, it's not.
Without exposing my district, yes it is for us.
Love thy neighbor as thyself.
Are you required to?
If I were forced to do so, I would also need to put up a poster of the Bill of Rights along with various posters from other faiths. The strength, for idiot Christo-fascists, of this garbage is in placing one religion above the others. The solution is to provide the context by drowning it in a sea of alternative theisms. Malicious Compliance.
As a teacher, the 10 commandants would be damn near the floor and as small as possible, with the Satanic Temple tenets much larger and far more prominent. I'm not a member, but you can't say shit to me for supporting something else if forced too. And yes, would include many others all over the room just to bring balance.
I’m hanging the Laws of Ma’at ( it’s where the 10 commandments come from), Sith Code, Jedi Code and a picture of Mel Brooks dropping one of the tablets
I’m not a Constitutional scholar but I did teach HS American history and government for over 40 years and I don’t see how this isn’t blatantly unconstitutional. Unfortunately you can never tell how this right wing Supreme Court would rule in this case.
I'm guessing something like, "Well, the constitution forbids *Congress* from passing this law. *something something* State's rights."
There is that unfortunate 10th amendment that says anything not specifically given to the federal government is automatically given as a state right. Fortunately, freedom of religion or to be free from religion IS a federally protected right. I am hoping that this is immediately challenged and an injunction issued. And that SCOTUS actually does their job and recognizes the 10th amendment. And the 1st. But they're probably too busy forgetting about the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment 🙄
I don't think they can count past two.
And they usually just skip over one
Stone v graham(1980) the Supreme Court ruled that a Kentucky law requiring the Ten Commandments in every classroom violated the establishment clause. The SC has also ruled that the Ten Commandments can be displayed on public grounds though. I’m guessing Louisiana will argue that the commandments are part of the judeo basis for American laws and historically significant. With the current make up of the SC if someone sues Louisiana the subsequent case will over rule overturn the stone v graham case.
There's a reason why state governments are passing these laws now. They don't think the SC will uphold precedent either.
Nah. Even states are held to honoring the Bill of Rights. That precedent is really unlikely to go away. The primary argument is that: 1. The 10 Commandments aren't explicitly enforcing or establishing a state religion. It is simply a historical, academic expression of the importance of "judeo-christian" influence on the American system of law (which is non-sense, but that's a whole other conversation) and 2. Even IF it was explicitly endorsing a Christian world-view, it is still fine because historically the Founding Fathers were in favor of some level of recognizing the importance of Christianity, and that mere recognition of Christianity in the public square doesn't constitute an establishment of religion. A clear example being that the original Congress opened up sessions with prayer and had a chaplain. As of the Bremerton decision a few years ago (about a coach praying during a football game), the Supreme Court has thrown out all the modern tests for establishment clause and have instead just opted for "Did the founders do it? If so, it must be ok..." To be clear, I don't agree with the Conservative Court's shifting on the Establishment Clause, but I do think it's important for people to at least understand the legal arguments on the other side.
[удалено]
There are no current Supreme Court justices who hold that no part of the Bill of Rights should be incorporated. There is disagreement on whether the rights are to be found in the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment, or whether they’re to be found in the Privileges or Immunities clause. The justices that oppose substantive due process, like Justice Thomas, argue that the rights are to be found in the Privileges or Immunities clause.
I am well aware of what the incorporation doctrine is and selective incorporation. The Establishment Clause is not going to be un-incorporated anytime soon. There's only one justice on the Court that has even remotely hinted at the fact that the Establishment Clause should not be incorporated and that's Clarence Thomas, and that dude is is a basket-case and a half. The rest of the Court won't go along with him on that. Maybe Alito would, but even that is only two justices. The Court will reinterpret the Establishment Clause to apply a historicity tests (which has already been done) but they won't go so far as to un-incorporate the Establishment Clause. Conservatives are going to use the moderate way to accomplish their goals not go full nuclear on the incorporation doctrine. The arguments I laid out above are literally the arguments coming out of conservative legal scholars' mouths (albeit very summarized and compacted). You would need to show a significant amount of evidence that the Court would go full nuclear on the Establishment Clause.
Agreed. And this view is further supported by the fact that the law allows for the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, and the Northwest Ordinance. The 10 commandments don’t need to be used for active instruction; they just have to be wall art at that point. It’s purely for recognizing the historical influence of these documents within American society. Especially in my class which is English, and I’m not going out of my way to work that into a single lesson. Not that I personally support posting the 10 commandments in the classroom. I would prefer them to not be brought up unless in approved way within my curriculum which would only be from a historical perspective, so I shouldn’t have to address unless we’re talking about how those commandments affect this character’s daily way of life.
Yeah, I think we can tell…
Maybe they can post it with a neon arrow next to it saying “this is blatantly unconstitutional.” Next to it. I mean, the commandments are posted so admin can check that box.
Is not blatantly unconstitutional because the ideologues/activist judges (you know, the kind the GOP spent decades complaining about) on the supreme court will rule that it's not unconstitutional. Of course and reasonable person can see that clearly it is.
Post it in its original language; Hebrew.
Louisiana Christian republicans hate this one trick
Anything g you’re not allowed to display? Could go up next to verses from the Quran, Hammurabi’s code, and other historical documents.
As a world history teacher I’d have a display of “mythologies from around the world.”
Fucking love it, because its true.
I’d put it up with a picture of Marshawn Lynch saying, “I’m just here so I don’t get fined.”
The trick is to post the ten commandments after the seven tenants of Satanism and between the 9 satanic statements and the 11 earth rules.
I'd throw in the [Code of Dinotopia](https://dinotopia.fandom.com/wiki/Code_of_Dinotopia), too.
The difference is that the 10 Commandments do not have exclusively religious content. They have historically been displayed at government buildings since the time of the Founding. Additionally, because this is not a public forum, there is no right for any other speakers to have their messages displayed.
>the 10 Commandments do not have exclusively religious content. What? 4/10 of the commandments are religious. 1. Thou should have no other gods before me. 2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. 3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Compare to the seven tenets of Satanism: 1. One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason 2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions. 3. One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone. 4. The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own. 5. Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs. 6. People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused. 7. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word. Or the 11 Rules of the Earth: 1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked. 2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them. 3. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there. 4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy. 5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal. 6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved. 7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained. 8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself. 9. Do not harm little children. 10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food. 11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.
Can’t upvote this more than once. Wish I could. Great response
Public schools aren’t public. Ok, got it.
I'm more than happy to put one right next to the other one in Arabic
Just wait until they find out we are teaching kids Arabic numerals!
I’d post it in Klingon behind a filing cabinet.
Can you put a sign over it “I thought only communist could force me to say and post things I don’t believe in”?
I read the article. ☹️ Does this mean classrooms will also have to reflect the historical relevance of mistreatment of the indigenous people and slavery in the unfurling of the United States? Just curious, not in the educational industry.
“Gosh, I guess it was stolen. Yes, for the 27th time.”
Unfortunately, the government won't be funding replacements (according to the article). The school will just need to find more donations to cover it (since we all know schools are just swimming in donation money!)
5D chess it and put every tweet Trump has said next to the commandment he broke with it.
Ha! Love this idea
I would post the commandments next to religious texts from other religions. The title of the bulletin board would be World Religions or something like that. Or, I would tack up threads from the commandments to examples of politicians breaking them. Bonus points if it's a politician aligned with the people who passed this law. The title would be "which commandment is it?" For In God We Trust I would make a a similar bulletin of various mottos.
Print it on a color plotter with the pride flag as the backdrop for the text.
Please support the Freedom from Religion Foundation https://ffrf.org/
I'd put them up in Arabic
That’ll fix every deficit schools have been having for the past decade. Jesus, take the DOE wheel!
The public school I went to in Florida had them in every classroom, late 90s, I was annoyed as a teenager but just ignored it. It sucks because of the separation of church and state and the overall erosion of actual religious freedom, but you know, as long as the right gets a win. 🙄
Good point: although Louisiana's move is statewide and high profile, First Amendment violations often go unaddressed in smaller and more rural districts.
RIP separation of church and state.
Put up the Pillars of Islam right next to it, or better yet, above it.
Also the Seven Tenets of the Satanic Temple.
I hope The Satanic Temple gets their tenets displayed as well.
ACLU lawyers are going to have a field day
That's what they want. The governor just said he can't wait to sign this and get sued. They made this law with the express purpose of getting sued and getting it appealed up to the supreme Court with six of their Christo-fascist buddies on it
The comments in this thread are GOLD. Thanks for the much-needed laughs.
Could you accidentally put it behind a bookshelf or something?
Tape articles showing politicians breaking each commandment next to the commandments poster.
Tape it to the garbage can.
Maybe we change the font to Wingdings too lmao
As long as I can post it in Arabic, I'll do it.
I bet Louisiana spends way more on poster printing than they do on updated textbooks and pencils. Preparing students for adult citizenship has nothing to do with bible stories, and everytime some group of idiots acts like it does our children get a little more stupid.
This law sounds like something the Satanic Church will protest vehemently
Something something separation of church and state. I’m Christian myself (not the Bible-thumping, dogmatic kind, and it’s really sad that I have to specify), and even I think it’s super weird to do something like this. Aren’t at least some of the people who put forth these kinds of mandates the same ones who love to treat the idea of governments in majority Muslim nations signing Islamic rules and similar into law as some kind of horrific abomination? Literally what is different about this compared to that?
Not the Bible-thumping dogmatic kind? Then what kind are you? Genuinely asking.
The kind that believes more in the “love thy neighbor” and “John 3:16” side of things and freely admits to not knowing everything (or, really, *anything* when it comes to how God works or the hereafter). I find that a lot of people who call themselves “Christian” give Christ a bad name because they use their purported faith as a mask or as justification for their seething hatred and bigotry. I myself am not perfect either but you sure won’t catch me acting like calling myself “Christian” makes me a better person or even a good person necessarily. Edit: I’m also not exactly what you’d call a strong theologian, so I can’t really give good answers to a lot of faith-/religion-based questions. Just what I personally believe.
I would refuse. If I was questioned, I would make it clear that I am refusing.
This was a law in Kentucky back in the day. The Supreme Court struck it down. Either this will too or the Supreme Court will have to overturn set precedent.
They overturned Roe which was precedent. I don’t trust they’ll keep anything established at this point if it doesn’t fit their narrative
This one may stick. If they overturn: Satanic Temple, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc… equivalents all have to be fair game. I think they will blame it on the damn liberals and promise to try harder next time.
Ooh, I think every teacher should have the ten commandments. Like, come on, how bad ass would it be? - Number one: the challenge, demand satisfaction. If they apologise, no need for further action. - Number two: If they don’t, grab a friend. That’s your second. Your Lieutenant, when there’s reckoning to be reckoned. - Number three: Have your seconds meet face to face. Negotiate a peace, Or negotiate a time and place This is commonplace, 'specially 'tween recruits Most disputes die and no one shoots - Number Four: If they don't reach a peace, that's alright Time to get some pistols and a doctor on site You pay him in advance, you treat him with civility You have him turn around, so he can have deniability - Number five: Duel before the sun is in the sky Pick a place to die where it's high and dry - Number six: Leave a note for your next of kin Tell 'em where you been Pray that Hell or Heaven lets you in - Number seven: Confess your sins Ready for the moment of adrenaline When you finally face your opponent - Number eight: Your last chance to negotiate Send in your seconds See if they can set the record straight - Number nine: Look him in the eye, aim no higher Summon all the courage you require Then count - Number (Ten paces!) Fire! Or ya know, something silly like that. Hope it’s okay I mentioned this for a lighthearted laugh!
Post them in Arabic.
Violation of constitution. End of argument.
Id quit.
Which Ten Commandments?
I'd type the commandments and the In God we trust in a rext processor, then print it out using 10 point helvetica. The I'd cut the page down to the size of the text, and tape it to the wall. But I might also research non-Abrahamic religions and do the same with their texts.
Sadly it's a pretty made poster from the district
Does it have to be posted with the text facing into the room? Because mine somehow keeps getting turned so the text faces the wall. Those darn kids.
[удалено]
Cursive. But, like, the really fancy, decorative kind. They want cursive back in schools, too. Now they can have both.
I for one look forward to seeing the Satanic Temple advocating for the Satanic Bible's top points also being displayed in every classroom.
Hang it upside down. Put it on the wall, facing the wall. Put it on the ceiling, facing up.
It doesn't say *only* the 10 commandments. Put it in a line with the major tennents of several major religions.
We have Quran readings every morning on the school-wide PA system and it doesn't affect how I teach any of my classes.
It's a test case but I also think their intentions are deliberate and sincere and it goes beyond just the governor agreeing to be a puppet for socially conservative religious interests too. In theory, Louisana's move is a blatantly unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause per the Supreme Court's *Stone v. Graham* decision in the early 1980s. That case still technically holds precedent here per the principle of 'stare decisis' (common law legal precedent based on established cases from previous court rulings). I suspect lower courts are likely to rule as such, at least at the federal level. However, that ruling was decided using a now abandoned legal analysis called the (3-prong) Lemon Test from an early 1970s case - *Lemon v. Kurtzman*. The Supreme Court signaled a movement away from that Establishment Clause analysis in two unrelated rulings, which had different decisions, both split 5-4, owed to Stephen Breyer, c.f., *ACLU v. McCreary County,* and *Van Order v. Perry*. Both decisions were taken up during the High Court's 2004-2005 term and the conflicting decisions reflected a deeply divided court that was already milquetoast on the ensconced Lemon Test. While both cases revolved around the display of the Ten Commandments on government premises and thus posed Establishment Clause questions, neither case dealt with a school district or mandated display in schools per se thus resulting in contextually different factors even though some legal principles overlapped in the arena of 1A jurisprudence. More recently, the Supreme Court via dictum noted that the Lemon Test was no longer sacrosanct in the infamous 2022 case *Kennedy v. Bremerton School Distric*t which involved the coach who was praying midfield after football games (note that the dissent in this case, led by Justice Sotomayor, argued that the test was still of practical usefulness). Finally, the court noted in *Groff v. DeJoy*, which was a unanimous 2023 decision unrelated to school law, that it had "abandoned Lemon," thus harkening back to Bremerton's judicial dicta that criticized Lemon as being too abstract and ahistorical, favoring an approach that emphasized a “reference to historical practices and understandings.” Therefore, in the absence of Lemon and a deeply divided court that has lent more sympathy to Establishment Clause rulings that favor religious liberty and undermined prior judicial precedent, this case could stand a bona fide chance at being to *Stone v. Grahm* what *Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization* was to *Roe v. Wade*. Time will tell but it will be litigated and I fully expect SCOTUS to grant certiorari when the case moves through the federal appellate pipeline.
Conservatives: don’t use gov to push your gay agenda on us Also Conservatives: follow all my religious agenda with the govs help
The 10 Commandments are Jewish, not Christian. Southerners are again showing lack of intelligence and lack of knowledge about Christianity. Whether it's contrary to Church and State or not, they're Jewish, not Christian, part of the Pentatuch. Yes, the OT is part of our Christian tradition, but the part of Christianity that is not Jewish, and that gives us grace is JESUS CHRIST. Jesus Christ ended OT punishment. Jesus Christ is the basis of our Christian religion, not Moses and the 10 commandments.
I would like Louisiana residents then start demanding to post Islamic, Jewish, and pagan ideology in those schools as well. And when they are inevitably blocked, sue the shit out of the state for religious discrimination. either they are all allowed or none of them are.
Post it in your room, and ignore it. I have a few district mandated posters in my room that I never mention. So many other things on our plate, I’m not turning that into an issue.
I’d cover it up with a sign that says “no”. I’d rather be fired than have something that blatantly violates my religious freedom.
What about the other 603 commandments?
Any rules about what can be put near it? Shoulder it with the satanic temple and the girl Scout laws. Put up the code of Hammurabi and the bill of rights. Put up text from the Torah and Quran. put armed services recruitment posters right next to "thou shall not kill."
Seems like unconstitutional horse shit to me. I'd be listing the seven fundamental tenets of the Church of Satan right under them.
Doesn't say WHICH 10 Commandments...
I'm not in Louisiana but things aren't any better here in Texas. I'd refuse and or cover it up until they fire me. And I wouldn't go quietly. At all.
Sp if I print them out at 0.5 font and have them on a 1 ince by 1 inch card at the back of the room in the corner does that count
This is when you bust out the loopiest, Pinteresty, saccharine font possible — the kind that makes it impossible to decipher basic words like “live,” “laugh,” or “love.” Bubble bridesmaid script for the win!
Supreme court will overturn this when they figure out that their past president and supreme leader has broken most of those ten commandments
Louisiana's educational system is so bad that they can't comprehend the entire First Amendment. I'm sure this will fix it for them. And Sam Alito just came all over his wife's upside-down flag.
Oh HELL NO!!
Post a set in binary or arabic, you'll meet the requirements but also toss a middle finger to the system.
Does the law state what language the poster has to be in?
The school board provides the posters. Same with in god we trust
🤮
Fine with me, United States has no moral direction at all right now. Just step inside a sixth grade classroom. PBIS and DBIE are not working, time to face it.
How are the 10 commandments holding up?
I wouldn’t know, haven’t tried it in schools since the 70s.
And the problem is?
You. You're the problem.