States Are Trying To Force the Bible Into the Classroom
“The separation of church and state appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution," a top Oklahoma education official said in defense of the state's Ten Commandments decree.

In June, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, signed a bill mandating that all public school classrooms display a poster of the Ten Commandments. Just over a week later, Oklahoma's State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters declared that "every teacher, every classroom in the state will have a Bible in the classroom and will be teaching from the Bible in the classroom," later telling PBS News Hour, "the separation of church and state appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution."
Since 2023, four states have attempted to mandate or are considering legislation mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. Arizona legislators actually passed a Ten Commandments mandate, but Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs ultimately vetoed the bill. In Utah, lawmakers passed a watered-down version of a bill that originally mandated classroom posters of the Ten Commandments but by the time it became law in March instead required the text be incorporated in classroom instruction.
Many critics insist that mandates forcing schools to display the Ten Commandments or teach from the Bible are obviously unconstitutional attempts to put religious instruction in public schools. Louisiana's "law violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and long standing Supreme Court precedent," says Heather Weaver, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. "The separation of church and state means that the government can't use our public schools to religiously indoctrinate or convert students."
In July, a group of parents sued Louisiana, arguing that its law violates their own and their children's First Amendment rights. The law "unconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state's favored religious scripture," their suit reads. "It substantially interferes with and burdens the right of parents to direct their children's religious education and upbringing."
But many lawmakers don't seem concerned about potential legal challenges.
"Look, there are people that don't believe in our Constitution and we can post that on the walls," Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill told Newsmax in June. "This is a document that has historical roots in our country's foundations. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that."
"If we get sued and we get challenged, we will be victorious," Walters told PBS News Hour. "The Supreme Court justices [Donald Trump] appointed actually are originalists that look at the Constitution and not what some left-wing professor said about the Constitution."
Why are so many states attempting to infuse religious texts into the classroom?
The most obvious reason is that the Ten Commandments have become yet another front in our never-ending education culture war. As public schools in some blue states have come under fire for pushing progressive politics in the classroom, some Republican politicians seem to be attempting to squeeze in some ideological indoctrination of their own. The debate around Louisiana's bill, for example, was dominated by lawmakers who insisted that a Ten Commandments mandate would make children behave better and in accordance with Christian values.
"I really believe that we are lacking in direction. A lot of people, their children, are not attending churches or whatever," said state Rep. Sylvia Taylor (D–LaPlace), a co-author and co-sponsor of the Louisiana bill, debating in its favor. "We need to do something in the schools to bring people back to where they need to be."
It's hard not to view these bills and directives as pure political theater.
Even if a bill mandating that schools display the Ten Commandments gets struck down, legislators supporting the bill still get to tout their record as strident Christian conservatives. In Oklahoma the memo following Walters' announcement bore little resemblance to his original statement. It stated that the Bible and the Ten Commandments would be "referenced as an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like"—a directive much more likely to pass constitutional muster. Formal guidance released in July inched closer to the line, adding a requirement that every classroom be provided with a Bible, along with directives that students be taught skills like literary analysis using Bible stories as examples.
For now, a federal judge will decide whether Louisiana's Ten Commandments mandate can be enforced.
"Hundreds of thousands of kids are going to be required to see these displays every day in every classroom," Weaver says. "This is an obvious attempt to use our public schools to convert kids to Christianity. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Ignorance is strength.
Ignorance is bliss.
Truth is the only thing we all share in peace.
Peace of mind comes from the resolution of conflicts.
Schools should teach students about all religions and let them decide when they are informed if they wish to become members to any.
Paging Mr. Misek . . .
""Schools should teach students about all religions and let them decide when they are informed if they wish to become members to any.""
Or teach none of it and let it be a family matter.
Considering some of the greatest conflicts resulting from ignorance are already a significant problem for society, it’s apparent that families don’t possess the required knowledge and just aren’t up to the task to teach their children the facts about different religions.
What makes the state more qualified than religious leaders regarding the teaching of religion?
I'm not saying the family is doing the teaching, but that the family would decide where to go to learn.
The state, ostensibly “separated” from religion wouldn’t be in any position to indoctrinate, as conflicting religious leaders purposely do.
The state would teach about all religions clearing up some of the conflict resulting from ignorance.
There will always be wilfully ignorant people creating conflicts but this would give children a chance to learn unbiasedly about religion.
We’re either going to have a complex society of many religions, a free society, or a theocracy that persecutes people with different religions.
""The state would teach...""
The state knows best for you?
We are talking about schools. What do you think schools do?
Citizens have the responsibility to hold ALL public services accountable for their actions. Including the curriculum in public schools. What do you think we’re talking about?
It wouldn’t be any different if everything was done through private third parties. We’d still have to monitor and protest when they’re wrong.
The Federal Constitution limits the ability of the Federal Government to "establish" a Federal religion. ("Establishment clause")
The 10th Amendment says all rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the Federal government are reserved for the states and citizens.
Thomas Jefferson said there was nothing in the Federal Constitution that would prevent a state from establishing a state religion. (See his letter to the ....... baptists - I forget which colony they were from)
Posting a quote from a religious book isn't establishing a state religion, and we should really stop acting like it is.
One wonders how exactly this jives with the government recognizing tax free status of particular faiths while forcing other faiths that aren't as widespread or popular to pay taxes.
That seems like a pretty blatant establishment violation to me, personally.
Definitely a much bigger violation than a school district putting up the ten commandments, of which only 4 could be considered objectionable by any sane individual. In fact, I'm pretty sure the last 6 are written into U.S. law in one form or another.
Yes. Your ignorance is certainly problematic. As are you.
Have you finally figured out whether you’re a neo Nazi or an Islamist? Or are you just too ashamed to admit which one?
And then there is conflicts based on ignorant interpretation of 'religious text' Its apparent that people don't possess the required knowledge and thus aren't up to the task of indoctrinating children about the myths of THEIR religion.
Well, teaching children about all religions will definitely expose the bigots who don’t want their children to learn.
End the taxpayer funded public education industrial complex. Immediately.
Fun fact: In 1978-79, my high school English curriculum included reading from the King James Bible.
It is considered by some scholars as one of the foundational books of the English language.
We were also taught comparative religion in Social Studies classes.
This took place in Vermont. Not exactly the Bible Belt.
It is considered by some scholars as one of the foundational books of the English language.
Uh... pretty much every scholar recognizes the Gutenberg Bible as a pretty foundational text of Western Culture.
And if you consider it to have been the religious text fueling or associated with the rise of the British Empire, yeah, it's a pretty foundational text of the English language. Especially given the number of historical copies and readers of other foundational/potentially texts like Beowulf, The Odessey, The Magna Carta, etc.
And if you consider it
It being the KJV.
None of which is to say either should be taught as requisite policy in public schools, but to act like public school children shouldn't regard or shouldn't be taught to regard various versions of The Bible as foundational to Western Society is as retarded as saying they shouldn't be taught the Magna Carta or 96 Theses or Beowulf, even if they only rightly conclude that Grendel isn't a real creature.
Uh… pretty much every scholar recognizes the Gutenberg Bible as a pretty foundational text of Western Culture.
Doth they? Art thou jesting?
Vulgate of Saint Jerome!
Teaching the Bible as English and comparative religious studies are fine. Teaching the Bible as word of god is not acceptable.
Tell us again about 97 genders and how kindergarteners are systematically racist and so is math.
Yes, let's use the Bible to develop reasoning skills. First test - explain how a 600 year old man living in the desert built a boat capable of carrying pairs of every animal on Earth. Bonus points if you can explain where he found the armadillos and the kangaroos.
The armadillo and marsupials were not around at the time of Noah and later evolved from the animals that had been saved from the flood.
What is this evolution thing you speak of?
It's just a theory.
If it were true, mothers would have more than two hands.
mothers would have more than two hands.
My biology textbooks all say that every human mother throughout history (arguably save one) has had an extra pair of hands attached to a Dad, but my Critical Theory textbooks clearly demonstrate that that's evil, sexist, Christian, bigot, gender role, traditional family talk.
Nice.
lol four barrel middle finger.
Yes, let’s use the Bible to develop reasoning skills.
We’ve already got plenty of evidence that public education system doesn’t develop critical thinking skills without The Bible. We don’t need your own ideas that no one else is advocating to provide us with more, thanks.
Your next line is, “I was only pretending to be retarded.”
Notably, Paulo Freire made this point explicitly and he is widely regarded as the father of American education.
American public education is not intended to foster critical thinking, and so it doesn't. If critical thinking does occur, it is quashed outright by design.
Not sure why anyone actually believes that public school is intended to foster critical thinking outside of being abjectly stupid themselves. It is not, nor has it ever been, a goal of public school.
It's called a miracle, son.
Now if only progressive cunts could explain how a person born a man becomes a woman just by declaring it so.
Yes, let’s use the Bible to develop reasoning skills
I had a philosophy professor in college, when lecturing through the philosophical proofs of the existence of god that said, "the bible is a most unhandy document" in proving an perfectly good god.
I tried so hard to believe this growing up.
Anyway, dinosaurs were on the ark, right?
Why didn't god just give everyone an exploding pager? You know sudden death rather than slowly drowning all the children. Oh well, maybe I'll get an explanation during eternity in Hell.
""Why didn’t god just give everyone an exploding pager? ""
I think that was Moses.
Yes, Moses gave exploding pagers to the Egyptian army.
Dude was so ahead of his time.
""Yes, let’s use the Bible to develop reasoning skills.""
Reasoning based on logic is currently be called white supremacy.
That's the problem they have with 2+2=4. It's not that the math is racist, it's using 2+2=4 as a logical truth is racist.
Also, according to anti racists training, your 6 year old is considered an oppressor.
The irony is that we largely use Arabic math.
1. Noah lived in Mesapotamia - not the desert.
2. It was a big boat.
3. The animals all came to Noah.
So the answer is magic (miracles)?
I think that's kind of obvious. Huge floods that kill everyone in the world don't really happen either (though there have been events that might have looked that way to some people at the time).
The drainage of the massive glacial meltwater lakes after the LGM was massive, catastrophic and could occur over a couple of months.
Some of those lakes were the size of Texas and when it was all over they raised the entire planet's sea level by 300 feet. There were no coastal societies unaffected. And any interior cultures in the way of the drainage flood, sometimes hundreds of miles wide, would be wiped out too.
That’s why flood legends worldwide are so valuable. They’re a peek into one of the most dramatic climactic shifts in human history.
Yes.
"So the answer is magic (miracles)?"
Kind of the whole point of miracles, isn't it? Supernatural events that violate causality and the natural order?
People rising from the dead, the Red Sea parting, water becoming wine, etc...
Sort of like a code author inserting an inline patch into reality.
Including the penguins, North American cougars, koala bears, polar bears, etc...
Yes.
Is allowing religious symbols on grave markers at Arlington National Cemetery also a violation of separation of church and state?
There may be an exemption since the land was confiscated from the American hero that stopped the Harper’s Ferry armed insurrection.
No, because it's the speech of the deceased or their survivors, not the government.
"...says Heather Weaver, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. "The separation of church and state means that the government can't use our public schools to religiously indoctrinate or convert students.""
So that means Pride flags and LGBTQ+ books like "Genderqueer" are disallowed as well, right?
That doesn't count
Yes. Neither is appropriate for public schools. Public schools aren't appropriate for a free country, either, but the answer to your question is neither should be in public schools.
Not a church. Disallow it under some other principle.
The stated goal of such books and symbology is to indoctrinated the students into a moral framework that accepts and even celebrates such sexual acts. This may be in direct opposition to the moral framework of the religion the child is being raised in. To allow it on the basis that it does not represent the beliefs of some formal church is rank sophistry.
Or it may be in direct alignment to the moral framework of the religion the child is being raise in.
On what basis do you tell the school what religion it can or cannot pander to ? To avoid religious favoritism & maintain neutrality for all religions ... the 'separation of church and state' is applicable.
How many religions in this culture do not consider physical acts of same sex Eros a moral wrong?
Judaism-Reform, Judaism Reconstructionist, Society for Humanistic Judaism, Unitarian Universalist, United Church of Christ (ratified 2005), various Native American religions, Paganism, Wicca, Hinduism , and a smattering of all sorts of smaller religions practiced in the United States.
The word "church" is not used. "Religion" is the word used. So the question is what counts as a religion, and does a government run school merely teaching some of the beliefs of said religion actually run afoul of that clause?
The real difference is that Christians are icky, and the non-cisgendered are the vanguard of the proletariat so that's why one is okay and the other isn't.
No, he specifically said "separation of church and state."
So if it is not connected to something that is officially a church the government can indoctrinate and convert the students who are compelled to attend government schools?
That is a convenient loophole.
No, that is the transitive position of the true argument, which works in math ... but not in logic. The true argument is no religion should be proffered by the state to indoctrinate and convert the students who are compelled to attend government schools.
Separate from ... but related to ... that same position, there should be no relation between church and state.
This covers all the fuzzy areas people want to bring up about formless and/or church-less religions and doctrines.
You can elect clergy to national office if you want. Does anyone think if a Priest ran for office they would be specifically barred from doing so? They can also pass legislation enshrining those views in law if they had enough Congresscritters on board, which of course they don't. In fact it's happened before, and often. There isn't any specific rule constraining that.
The Ten Cummandments of The Ruthugglican Church SHALL be posted in skuuls everywhere!!!
1) Thou Shalt Hang Mike Pence!
2) Thou Shalt Execute General Milley!
3) Thou Shalt Honor the (metaphorically true) LIES about illegal sub-humans eating Our Precious Pets!
4) Thou Shalt threaten the lives of judges, their families, and of their pets, if Dear Leader doesn't LIKE the judges that hear His Cases!
5) Thou Shalt beat up peaceful protestors at Dear Leader rallies!
6) Dear Leader Shall then offer to pay the legal expenses of the beaters uppers.
7) Neither the Number Six above, nor the Sick-Sick-Sick Number of the Beast, shall be construed in ANY way, to mean that the Ten Cummandments are to be applied to The Supreme Dear Leader! We're SOOO sorry, Dear Leader, if SOME fools accuse us peons of telling YOU twat to do!
8) All the Days of your lives, thou shalt humble thyself, and HONOR The Chosen One, which is Dear Leader.
9) Thou Shalt have NO other Dear Leader, other than THE Chosen Dear Leader!
10) In your times of troubles, Thou Shalt not despair, butt remember that Government Almighty (of the Rethugglican Church; NOT of the impostors, the Demon-Craps) LOVES you and yours! In times of despair, Thou Shalt recall the Uplifting Words of Dear Leader...
“I come unto ye to bring messages of Joy and Peace! Do NOT be confused by the lamestream media, nor by the Demon-Craps, who speak of many strange wonders! They speak of many YUUGE lies, and of half-truths! Some say that I am the Son of God! Some say that I am the Son of Man! Some say that I am the Great White Father! Or the Great Pumpkin! Or the Great Whitish-Orangish Pumpkin-Feather-Father! But I am none of those things! I come to be before you, as an Humble Man, with MUCH bigness to my humbleness… You may simply call me the Chosen One! Even the lamestream media knows this! https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-49429661 The American voters, the REAL, legitimate voters… The NON-Demon-Crap ones, have overwhelmingly chosen MEEE! THAT is why I am the Chosen One!”
Unread.
HOW can ye Obey The Ruthugglican Church w/o reading their Ten Cummandments, oh infidel apostate unbeliever?!?!?
From being catfished by communists, to being DARE groomed by public union communists…
GOPtards are a fascinating idiot to observe.
Avast, ye indifel unBLEEVER!
And the 11th Cummandment shall be…
’11) Thou Shalt remember, all of the Days of Your Lives, that twatever BAD shit is at hand, that the Demon-Craps have ALWAYS done shit first! So then YOU can do shit EVEN MORE, since THEY did shit first! So long, that is, if’n ye faithfully Worshit Dear Leader. And Dear Leader Himself? HE can ALWAYS do shit! Without ANY ifs, ands, or butts!!!
You should see how retarded the democrats are. Truly breathtaking stupidity, with word salads that challenge the imagination.
OK. Once again, for the record.
There is no requirement to separate church and state; there is only a prohibition against designating one religion as a state supported religion which gets tax funding.
(funny how the same people who sanctify one line in a letter from Jefferson refuse to acknowledge other things he wrote)
Dude. "Shall not be infringed...", "Congress shall make no law.../Good Samaritan Protection for Blocking and Screening...", "governs least, governs best..." you're talking semantics with torch-bearing barbarian zealots who are sure that neutering your children and forcing people to wear masks are the right thing to do.
The tax funding wasn’t even it. Its you can’t go to jail or lose your life or be otherwise prohibited from worshipping the way you like (within some boundaries universally applied).
Again, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is pretty straightforward.
State and local courts can require you to swear an oath on a religious text of your choosing, or no religious text at all. State and local schools can require you to pledge 'under God' or not. The Reserve can mint coins with dead peoples' heads on them that say "In God We Trust" even if the people using them don't trust God or deify the dead guys.
Congress cannot pass a law making each/any/all of these practices the law of the land. Even if The President threatens to veto everything else they try and pass. It is not within their power (or the President's indirectly) to align the creation and enforcement of law with A/The Church. Interpretation via the judiciary is open and, as indicated regarding arguments about "binary thinking", you'd have to be pretty retarded to try and purge all Christianity/Religion/Spirituality from it. But, also as indicated, that doesn't deter retards from trying.
State and local courts can require you to swear an oath on a religious text of your choosing, or no religious text at all.
Isn't there an option to affirm rather than swear? Although if I recall correctly that was an accommodation for Quakers.
I know the completely insane left hates competition to their ideological monopoly in the publicly funded education industry.
More power to these states in rejecting the idea that there is such a thing as ideological neutrality in education. Maybe some competition will result in an increase in critical thinking skills.
We’ve tried the “secular” thing and we had better results when the Bible was in school than not. People who disagreed with the Bible had better critical thinking and those who agreed or didn’t care had a better standard to live by.
we had better results when the Bible was in school than not.
Define "better results".
Literacy?
The schools weren’t teaching kids that they were a gender that they were not.
How about we don't have public schools (I could end the sentence here and it would be even better) indoctrinating students into religion or the LGBTQ cult?
Biology?
For one, those rejecting it hadn’t devolved into conflating biological sex with gender whilst claiming “gender is a social construct.”
They had to actually contend with a competing viewpoint that meant the needed to think to reject instead of just absorbing the social atheist zeitgeist without thought.
And the ones accepting the religious social zeitgeist without thinking had profoundly better results in family formation, mental health, productivity, and self-reliance.
As opposed to current acceptance of the social atheist zeitgeist that produces depression, anxiety, single motherhood, absent fathers, entitlement, and government dependence.
Stone v. Graham (1980) struck down a Ten Commandments display via the Lemon Test, but Lemon v. Kurtzman was overruled by Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022). I am sure Stone v. Graham is a zombie decision (its holding is technically in effect, though its reasoning has been rejected) and SCOTUS will put down the zombie within the next two years.
The bigger issue is whether Kennedy will lead to the overruling of Engle v. Vitale (1962) and/or Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), thereby returning public-school led prayer and/or Bible readings by public-school teachers. There are already efforts to get such a case before this Court.
If SCOTUS overrules either Engle or Schempp, every Red State public school will become also a State-run church. I think it's bad for everyone, including the believers of the religion being advanced by the State, when religion is being run by a government. Government will view the religion as its property and will seek to impose its view of that religion on the People.
/\This. It's about worshiping the state as your god not your actual God. I'm saying this as a theistic-minded person, the state should stay out of religion to protect religion, otherwise it (the state) becomes religion.
The state is already religion to the entire democrat party.
A 10C display and teaching out of the Bible may be a step too far even for Gorsuch, because in Kennedy. the decision was based on the idea that the prayer was private - "personal religious observance" (though Gorsuch lied when he said so). It's hard to claim that in-class prayer and 10C displays are private and personal.
Not a SC precedent, but Glassroth v Moore in the 11th Circuit (cracker judge installs 5-ton 10C in front of the courthouse) went against Moore not just on the now murdered Lemon test but because there's no single English version of 10C - different religious traditions have slightly different versions, including what the first commandment is --whichever one they use favours one religious tradition over others.
A 10C display and teaching out of the Bible may be a step too far even for Gorsuch, because in Kennedy. the decision was based on the idea that the prayer was private – “personal religious observance” (though Gorsuch lied when he said so). It’s hard to claim that in-class prayer and 10C displays are private and personal.
I think the Kennedy majority will view it as a passive display not coercing any student to engage in a religious exercise and so no Establishment Clause problem. School-led prayer/Bible-readings require students to participate by listening or be forced to leave the classroom. That’s coercive and, IMO, would bother Kavanaugh and Barrett (possibly also Roberts and Gorsuch).
the now murdered Lemon test
Gives me a mental image of the Conservative Justices repeatedly stabbing a lemon, until all the juice leaks out.
Since 2023, four states have attempted to mandate or are considering legislation mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.
This actually makes no sense to me. I don't get the value these people are extracting from forcing the ten commandments be displayed in public schools.
Can anyone steel-man and explain what the reasoning is, other than "because religious people are dumb?" I actually can't parse any logic behind this.
It's not based on logic. It's just another battle in the culture wars. "Thou shalt rile up thy base, that they continue to turn out and vote for thee."
Kinda of like people who call Biden Genocide Joe will probably vote for his VP.
Can anyone steel-man and explain what the reasoning is, other than “because religious people are dumb?” I actually can’t parse any logic behind this.
I'm not exactly sure what your definition of 'steel-man' is in this context especially considering "religious people are dumb" but...
Is it not literally insane in a culture that forbids murder that the message "Thou shallt not kill" is barred from its education and socialization institutions? That instead, in a country riddled with divisiveness and rising social incoherence we actually do have "Diversity is strength" plastered on the walls in an "Arbeit Macht Frei" fashion?
I could go on to question why you presume your rationality to be the one, true rationality despite the numerous rational, secular texts that declare that an impossibility and how that presumption makes you any different from any Inquisitioner or Nazi or Marxist zealot or even the people the "Separation of Church and State" is specifically meant to prevent, but that seems to be getting a bit far afield from the 'steel-man this other than "because religious people are dumb?"' question that you're asking.
Thou shall not kill because it is against the law that the society you live in has deemed it mandatory, is valid to everyone that lives in that society. Thou shall not kill because the boogie-man says so is only valid if you believe in the boogie-man.
Thou shall not kill because the boogie-man says so is only valid if you believe in the boogie-man.
Are you steel-manning the rationalism or trying to prove nominally rational people like you and A Thinking Mind are every bit as superstitious and retarded, maybe even more, than any Christian zealot.
The words say "Thou shallt not kill". No more. No less. If you read the sky daddy part in, that's on you. Conversely, if someone is getting ready to murder someone and says, "This isn't what Jesus would want." are you going to say "No, no. My public education says that's the wrong reason. You can't not murder that person because Jesus says so!" like a goddamned retard?
Thou shall not kill is after "Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me" so no, its not as simple "no more. no less" about killing. The laws at issue are not about posting one or two commandments that everyone agrees with. Its all 10. Including to remember the sabbath and to keep it holy and not taking God's name in vain. And it is therefore an endorsement of a specific religion.
There is no semantic way to get around it considering the 1st amendment establishment clause is incorporated as against the States by the 14th amend. These laws will be struck down over an Alito dissent. Its not really even a close question one would hope.
"" Including to remember the sabbath and to keep it holy ""
Does that mean everyone would get out early on Friday?
""These laws will be struck down over an Alito dissent. Its not really even a close question one would hope."'
I agree.
No, I would say that can't murder that person because it is against the laws & norms of the society in which we live; your superfluous belief in pink ponies that drag sun across the sky before tucking it into it's bed beyond the sea horizon at night have no bearing on the morality of society.
I would say that can’t murder that person because it is against the laws & norms of the society in which we live;
Can you point to the society in which “we” live? Because the society that can’t distinguish between internal motivations and external motivations, can’t vs. shouldn’t and is vs. ought, and one person’s self-righteous and unaware interpretations of the laws and norms vs. the actual laws and norms sounds like an exceptionally shitty place where people get stabbed to death a lot despite what the law says because self-righteous morons are too busy white knighting on behalf of neutering children and banning gasoline in the name of equality and secularism.
I'm questioning why it's so important that this particular religious iconography needs to be on the walls of the classroom. For one, among the ten commandments is something against worshipping false idols, but it's like people are trying to insert the ten commandments as a specific idol.
But beyond that, I don't know why it needs to be in a school. If you want your child to know the ten commandments, you're probably a church-going person. Just take your kid to church with you. Send them to Sunday School after the morning service. Have a Bible study session with them. Send them to a Christian school if you really think that's so pertinent to the way they're educated.
Why does every single classroom a child ever walks into need a copy of the Ten Commandments? The Ten Commandments actually aren't the controlling law of the United States, it's the US and state legal codes. Why aren't we advocating for posting those on the walls?
Because the question here isn't whether a teacher is allowed to put this on the wall, it's people trying to mandate that every single classroom needs this thing, which is people trying to tell everyone else how to live. They're attempting to put their religion into everyone else's life, which is weird from a Protestant ideal about a relationship with God being personal. And it certainly runs afoul of the establishment clause because it's declaring that this religion is the one whose legal basis is posted in our schools rather than the Talmud or the Koran.
Here's where I'm misunderstanding:
1) Why does it need to be every classroom?
2) Why the Ten Commandments?
3) Why anything religious needs to be in the school at all?
If you're upset about CRT or other progressive messaging, just ban that stuff from being taught. Why is it necessary to mandate your own messaging inside the classroom?
If it was me I would say this is some 4D chess, firstly this kisses up to the traditional Christians with a law that will surely be over turned by the courts…they can then point to the results and say look we tried but. Second, this will pre-empt any attempt by Islamists to push sharia and the Koran. Most of the Christians I know are less interested in Bibles in school and more interested in teaching reading writing and arithmetic whilst not pushing ideologies however, it seems Muslims keep pushing the envelope.
For myself I am against things like this for the same reason I am against prayer in school, it takes up time and resources that should be spent on teaching what the really need to know.
For one, among the ten commandments is something against worshipping false idols, but it’s like people are trying to insert the ten commandments as a specific idol.
You know, there's an exceptionally modern, rational interpretation of this idea that roughly translates to "Don't fuck goats." Apparently they didn't put it up in enough places in whatever school of self-awareness, rational, and critical thinking you flunked out of.
If they did or if you had passed and you wound up really practicing rationalism and self-awareness the way you seem to think you do, or try to present to others that you do, you wouldn't be guessing and misunderstanding on behalf of the people you present as your opposition and asking people to steel-man them on behalf of your own stupidity.
It seems your response isn't to actually make any arguments, just to call me stupid and imply I'm a goatfucker. You have nothing to say about the matter itself, but quite a lot to say about someone who is weighing in on this thing. I would say it suggests a lack of the critical thinking you're implying I'm not using, despite my effort to make reasoned arguments.
I'm willing to accept that there are people who have rational thinking and have some premise that leads to the rational conclusion "We need to make it mandatory that the 10 Commandments are on the wall of every classroom." I don't believe it's a fit of pique or a silly whim. I just want to know what their premise is, what their starting point is, and the line of logic that leads them to this conclusion. You are obstinately refusing to engage with me like a rational person with a difference of opinion, and you're not offering up the rational argument. It's possible this is not a subject about which you can be rational.
Of course there is nothing insane about telling people don't kill, don't steal, don't lie about people, don't covet, don't cheat on your spouse. But the rest of it is specifically about the practice of a particular religion.
I don't see any problem with teaching the Bible as literature and as an important document that has played a huge role in history in government schools. But putting up the 10 commandments specifically seems awfully close to religious indoctrination.
If you put up:
Don’t murder
Don’t commit adultery
Don’t steal
Don’t lie about your neighbour
by themselves, that would be no problem, surely.
But the 10C have far more than that. almost all of which is specifically religious in nature and hence shouldn’t be there.
Get rid of public schools. Problem solved. It's really that easy folks.
What about lower-middle class and poor families? It's not realistic to expect them to pay for private schools and vouchers/tax-credits aren't going to be given out in Blue States.
That sounds like a blue state problem - - - - - - - - - - - -
Well, it's simple anyway.
Remember - diversity is our strength.
That is why we oppose Christianity and all classrooms must have the rainbow flag and the gender-unicorn poster in them.
The libertarian case for book banning.
>>For now, a federal judge will decide whether Louisiana’s Ten Commandments mandate can be enforced.
I kinda like those 5th Circuit judges.
I kinda like those 5th Circuit judges.
Of course. You're a right-wing authoritarian.
yes I said I'd marry a carrot.
If we're going to have public schools, there are going to be various things people don't want taught there. So how about this: no religious indoctrination, no political indoctrination and no gay shit.
I wholeheartedly agree. To me, that is the libertarian position, if public schools are a given. Obviously, I think most of us would not want public schools (the even more libertarian position).
no religious indoctrination, no political indoctrination and no gay shit.
"Very well. Reproductive and gender-affirming health(care) education it is."
Sounds like gay shit to me.
Ooh, denying women's rights like that'll get you a detention!
Sounds great to me, but then what would teachers do all day?
An ideological vacuum is unrealistic. Something will always fill that vacuum. It’s better to allow diverse ideologies compete for space than think you are controlling ideological neutrality while Trojan horsing foul ideologies.
Would a statue of a Bible holding confederate general on school property be ok?
No, but a 65 ft. Hot Dog supporting Gaia and protesting the immorality meat consumption should be kosher.
If made of an appropriately flammable material, absolutely.
Allowing religious beliefs in public schools is a bad idea...unless your talking about Saint Karl Marx.
> "the separation of church and state appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution."
But it IS in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States! What a disingenuous fuck. Let me quote for for illiterate Theocrats:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Since the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States applies these to the states, that means no state can impose a religion on others. It's okay to have a mayors prayer breakfast, or even to have a prayer before a legislative session, but the state cannot mandate that the Bible must be displayed or read in a government classroom.
Don't like it? Send you kids to a private school! Public schools should be abolished anyway.
"Established religion" explicitly means a religious organization supported financially by the State. The rest of it is an encrusted buildup of judicial precedent.
Stole a base there, shithead. Nowhere in DoI or The Constitution does is say anything about public education either.
Moreover, if you can bad faith your way into the idea that a ‘Federally-regulated state sponsored forced religiously secular but scientifically metaphysical education system’ is in the spirit of The Constitution or the FF or Independence, we’re getting to the point where only massive doses of medication or bullets will effectively correct your misconceptions.
I can agree that the Establishment Clause doesn't allow for public education indoctrination at all. I can agree that the Establishment Clause allows for education but doesn't specify religious content whatsoever. But the idea that the Establishment Clause supports "10 ways to curb your emissions and save the planet today." or "10 ways to support your genderqueer identifying classmates during their spirit animal transition." but opposes support "10 ways to save your mortal soul." is rather overtly an inversion of the spirit of The Establishment Clause.
I have yet to hear a good explanation for why ideological instruction is free speech but religious instruction is a violation of it.
I think the argument is that religious instruction violates the establishment clause, not free speech.
But establishment clause did not prevent states from establishment, just the federal government. Else there wouldn’t have been states with established religions.
what state has an established religion ?
Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire had established churches into the 1800s.
You are correct that that WAS the case. After the 14th Amendment, the 1st Amendment was incorporated to the states. The distinction is now moot. States are barred from establishing religion, as well as the federal government.
Sure, but from a purely libertarian standpoint, it makes no sense to say restrictions on ideological instruction in public schools infringe on our liberties and restrictions on religious instruction in public schools don't.
“We live in a democracy, not a theocracy.”
LMAO… Wait, wait; So wouldn’t that mean the majority [WE] mob gets to decide???
F’En Democrats say/are the dumbest things around. Get a brain Democrats!
We live in a *Constitutional* Republic. It’s that very *Constitution* that separates church and state leftards.
You Democrats have ran around with your ‘democracy’ violating that Constitution left and right and now all the sudden you want that ‘democracy’ to uphold Constitutional values. That’s not ‘democracy’ idiots.
Now; put the blame where the blame belongs.
Commie-Indoctrination camps.
The law "unconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state's favored religious scripture," their suit reads.
How?
"It substantially interferes with and burdens the right of parents to direct their children's religious education and upbringing."
How?
Why are so many states attempting to infuse religious texts into the classroom?
Wait wait wait - it's not like they're being made assigned reading material. It's not like there's curriculum being developed specifically devoted to making kids believe it.
Once upon a time, the Gideon's had a Bible in virtually every hotel room in America. Did that "infuse" the hotel stay with a religious experience or education?
Of course not. That's retarded, and you're retarded Emma for trying to imply it.
Unlike the racial/sexual curriculums that are specifically designed to program children into a certain way of thinking/acting, the mere presence of Christian materials in no way grooms them the way leftist indoctrination tries to. Nor does it offend the notions of "separation of church and state." No more so than a statute of Dike in a courthouse or or Nike in a stadium, respectively. They merely hearken back to the principles that define American culture.
Which, yes, IS a Christian culture.