Appeals Court Blocks Louisiana Ten Commandments in Classrooms Law
"If H.B. 71 goes into effect, Students will be subjected to unwelcome displays of the Ten Commandments for the entirety of their public school education. There is no opt-out option," the court's opinion reads.

On Friday, a federal appeals court affirmed an earlier ruling blocking a Louisiana law mandating that public school classrooms display posters of the Ten Commandments. The decision is the latest development in a series of state-level attempts to mandate religious instruction in public schools.
"This is a resounding victory for the separation of church and state and public education," Heather L. Weaver, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a Friday press release. "With today's ruling, the Fifth Circuit has held Louisiana accountable to a core constitutional promise: Public schools are not Sunday schools, and they must welcome all students, regardless of faith."
Last June, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, signed House Bill 71 into law, which mandates that all public school classrooms display the Ten Commandments "on a poster or framed document that is at least eleven inches by fourteen inches," printed "in a large, easily readable font." The state tried to avoid claims that the law violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from "respecting an establishment of religion," by requiring displays to either be donated or purchased with privately donated funds and allowing teachers to display the Ten Commandments next to other important historical legal documents. However, courts have not found these arguments convincing. In November, a Louisiana federal judge blocked the law, writing that it was "facially unconstitutional."
The state appealed, and last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit unanimously agreed that the lower court's injunction was correct and that the law likely violated the First Amendment.
While incorporating study of religious text into some classroom contexts is constitutional (for example, a study of world religions), "The statute does not require that the Ten Commandments be integrated into a curriculum of study," the court's majority opinion reads. "On the contrary, under the statute's minimum requirements, the posters must be indiscriminately displayed in every public school classroom in Louisiana regardless of class subject-matter."
"If H.B. 71 goes into effect, Students will be subjected to unwelcome displays of the Ten Commandments for the entirety of their public school education. There is no opt-out option. Plaintiffs are not mere bystanders," said the court.
Louisiana isn't the only state to attempt to force public schools to engage in explicit religious instruction. In Oklahoma, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters released a memo last year requiring public schools "to incorporate the Bible, which includes the Ten Commandments, as an instructional support into the curriculum." Walters has also sought to mandate that classrooms stock Bibles.
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
Shame on everyone diverting time and energy from a suffering world to argue about putting up a sign in a classroom. They were universal in colonial times. Uinversal, everywhere.
Shame on everyone for building Commie-Indoctrination camps for kids in a nation created specifically to avoid the curse of communism.
Speaking of diverting time and energy to criminal efforts of 'armed-theft' and Gov-Gun dictation. Course yelling and screaming like babies to get what you want with 'Guns' against those 'icky' people is what the "conquer and consume" mentality does. Never hesitating for even a second to consider what they want only requires them to *EARN* it in a Free & Just society.
“ Shame on everyone diverting time and energy from a suffering world to argue about putting up a sign in a classroom”
Shame on them for being anti-Constitutional theocrats. Religion has no place in public schools and the government has no business choosing any religion to support. Government, under the Constitution, is a secular thing and should always be separated from religion.
70% of the Ten Commandments would be unconstitutional if passed into law. If you want Christian’s propaganda in your life, buy a poster and put it up in your house.
"Public" government tax-supported education didn't become widespread until the later 1800s.
The problem with tax-supported government schools is that many people would pay to educate their children in a school with religious instruction but are taxed that money by the government for education that forbids religious instruction, thereby infringing their right to free exercise of religion. However, plenty of non-religious people are also taxed for those schools which their kids also attend. If there's going to be compulsory tax-supported government schools, then both religious and non-religious parents and tax-payers should be able to express their views on the tax-supported classroom walls. The religious people get to post the 10 Commandments and the non-religious parents get to put up a sign saying there's no god and why. It becomes a free speech wall for parents without any requirement that the government school itself post the 10 Commandments.
Hmmm.... Maybe the children should thoroughly study the 10 Commandments including the one about not committing adultery, with a good thorough study of exactly what adultery is. Yeah, teach the children about adultery (pun intended). Hey, we're preparing them for ADULThood, so teach 'em about ADULTery (pun intended).
Slaves are called "citizens". All are born indentured by "the social compact", obligated to obey authorities.
"The Powers That Shouldn't Be" exist because their victims submit to their exploitation. Why do we do that? Why do we excuse and obey inhumane authorities? Why do we grant them an exemption from morality? Why do we let them run our lives, treat us as inferiors?
If the parasites disappeared tomorrow, we would empower new ones. WHY? What makes us seek rulers? Why is suffering their theft (taxation) and psychological abuse (laws, regulations) excused or ignored?
Is it fear of freedom? Is it lack of self-esteem? Is it our childhood programing in the public indoctrination centers (govt. run schools)?
WE MUST OVER COME OUR AUTOMATIC OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY. It is ruining our life. It is illogical, suicidal.
Can we ban all other official religious displays in public schools, too? No more pride flags, Title IX shrines, Church of Climatology posters, etc.
you have 4 lawyer-prone words in what you think is clear : We (just voters, registered?), official ( so what about 10 commandments as historical document ?) displays(is a book or internet video a display, I use both in my Constitution Day lectures) and public ( is public just being in a public building? Is it the public of the city, the county, the state?)
The root problem is somebody not in Louisiana pretending that it affects them .
And most of all, everybody is concerned about death, evil, God so to call "religion' what is official misses the point. Anybody's view on ultimates is religious or its nothing. Eg taking the life of an innocent child in abortion is either killing or it isn't. That is an ultimate.
The root problem is somebody not in Louisiana pretending that it affects them .
The plaintiffs were Louisiana parents.
https://reason.com/2024/07/01/louisiana-parents-sue-over-law-mandating-10-commandments-displays-in-classrooms/
Anybody's view on ultimates is religious or its nothing.
Your example does not prove this. One can believe on religious grounds that abortion is murder, and one can believe on religious grounds that it's not murder and may on occasion be obligatory; but one can be an atheist and believe that a human life begins at conception, or be an atheist and believe that a fetus is not fully human until late on in pregnancy and so an earlier abortion is not killing.
By your own words it might be killing
And if you leave it at that you are a murderer
To doubt is a misfortune, but to seek when in doubt is an indispensable duty. So he who doubts and seeks not is at once unfortunate and unfair.
Blaise Pascal
And one can seek and conclude that there is no objective nor definitive answer.
But you are not a Louisianian, as virtually everybody on here knew me to be saying
But you are not a Louisianian, as virtually everybody on here knew me to be saying
No. You know what you intended, but what you wrote, in context, did not clearly state your intention, and made more sense when read the way I read it.
And you are wont to make claims about what (almost) everybody knows or thinks here without any supporting evidence.
But he says he’s a professor, so he’s right and you’re wrong.
Whether anyone believes his claim is an open question. Most people can read his “logic” and figure out he’s not, but there are paleocons here that may buy it.
Well, we do have lots of lawyers to keep busy, right?
What I meant by official and public is a legal requirement to display a recognized religious document in a facility funded by tax dollars. IMO we either allow any and all religion-inspired displays or none. You don't get to support Jesus or Allah but no Wicca or Gaia.
And while I would enjoy the shouting if anyone could post stuff, I recognized the distractions for an educational facility for children, and would accept "none" as policy.
You’re a professor like I’m a space alien.
“ The root problem is somebody not in Louisiana pretending that it affects them .”
Government pushing Christianity affects us all. The lunatic theocrats won’t stop in Louisiana. They think America should be a theocratic Christian government, not a secular one like the Constitution created.
“ Anybody's view on ultimates is religious or its nothing”
That would make almost everything in life religious, which is clearly nonsense. Wingnuts love to act like terms are way broader than they actually are so they can create false equivalence between the real thing and something that isn’t at all related.
“ Eg taking the life of an innocent child in abortion is either killing or it isn't”
It isn’t. And roughly 90% of Americans agree on that. There is only about 19% support for the “life begins at conception” delusion, so stop pretending that it’s a self-evident fact that everyone agrees on. It isn’t.
“Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” – Genesis 2:7
https://biblehub.com/niv/genesis/2-7.htm
This seems to justify abortion until birth since one would not be a living being until one breathes at birth according to Gen. 2:7. Maybe the schools should teach this when they teach the Commandment about thou shalt not murder.
“ Can we ban all other official religious displays in public schools, too? No more pride flags, Title IX shrines, Church of Climatology posters, etc.”
I see you’re doing that thing where you take things you don’t like and pretending they are a religion. Even as rhetoric it’s dumb.
"If H.B. 71 goes into effect, Students will be subjected to unwelcome displays of the Ten Commandments for the entirety of their public school education. There is no opt-out option," the court's opinion reads.
However, the sexual grooming and indoctrination may continue from kindergarten to graduation.
Perversion is permitted; piety is not.
The fact that the hard right shamelessly and falsely claim teachers are pedophiles and sexual groomers is one of the more despicable aspects of their virulent worldview. That is a serious and disgusting crime and casually slapping that accusation on almost 4 million Americans based solely on their profession is about as disgusting a behavior as there is.
Especially since it usually goes hand-in-hand with dismissing the century-plus history of support and facilitation of pedophiles that the Catholic Church has engaged in. And the Boy Scouts. And the Southern Baptists. And the Mormons. And the Jehova’s Witnesses. And the Hasidic Jews. And … well, you get the point.
Pedophilia in religious organizations is far, far more prevalent than in education and, when it’s discovered, educators almost always help prosecute the pedophiles and religious organizations almost always cover up and protect them.
Piety is a behavior-based accolade. Most religious people aren’t pious.
Given the legal precedents this was clearly DOA. The battle was lost a long time ago. Waste of taxpayer dollars in my view.
As it should be. Government and religion should never mix.
If the 5th Circuit finds against a state on a religious matter, you know that the state had gone too far.
A pleasant smattering of whataboutism, I see.
Is the Fifth Circuit known for siding with religion? Or perhaps a better question would be is the Fifth Circuit unusually supportive of cultural conservatism (conservatism imposed by the state, as opposed to social conservatism, which is personal beliefs and behavior, not projecting it onto others)?
I call that personal conservatism i.e. sexual conservatism, etc. One could be politically libertarian and be personally conservative in one's own behavior.
Agreed. It’s the coercion of others that is wrong, not the ideals themselves. Living by conservative values is great that’s what you want to do. But everyone should be allowed to have that same choice.
The Fifth Circuit is bound to follow Supreme Court precedent, even if it is undermined by other precedent. This means that the Fifth Circuit had to apply Stone v. Graham (1980) even though that decision was based on the Lemon Test, which was overruled, along with Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), by the 2022 Kennedy decision.
The Supreme Court is not so bound and will almost assuredly overrule Stone v. Graham. What I wonder is how far the Conservative majority will go. I hope it does not undermine decisions like Engle v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), respectively dealing with public school-led prayer and Bible readings that forced students to either take part in the exercises or be expelled from the classroom for the duration of the exercise.
Stone v. Graham was decided correctly. Ten Commandments in the classroom is establishment of religion.
It was decided based on Lemon. At the time, it was a proper application of the Lemon Test, but Lemon was overruled in 2022. This makes Stone v. Graham a hollow decision; its holding is binding, but its reasoning has been rejected. Under the current standard (Kennedy), the Court would have to decide that, based on American history, displaying the Ten Commandments in a public school was a form of religious coercion. I consider it very unlikely that two of the six Conservative Justices would join the three Liberal Justices to find coercion.
You may not like the above, but I'm just giving you the facts on the ground. Elections have consequences and this is one from the 2016 election.
“Elections have consequences” should never extend to violating the Constitution. That is a disgusting perspective.
Of course the Ten Commandments in schools is coercive. It is literally the government putting up signs telling kids what religion to believe in.
“Elections have consequences” should never extend to violating the Constitution. That is a disgusting perspective.
Elections determine who will be the President to make nominations to the Court and who will be in the Senate to decide whether to confirm the nominee. That determines who will be on the Court to decide whether it is Constitutional to display the Ten Commandments in public schools.
Of course the Ten Commandments in schools is coercive. It is literally the government putting up signs telling kids what religion to believe in.
A perfectly reasonable viewpoint, but one I believe will receive only three votes on the Court. As I said earlier, I'm giving the facts of the situation. I would not display any religious text in public schools. Even putting the Establishment Clause to one side, the government will treat the preferred religion as its property if given the chance. This has never been good historically for the People, even for those who are adherents to the preferred religion.
If an earlier SC precedent is overturned by subsequent SC cases, it surely is no longer binding on inferior courts?
True, but Stone v. Graham has not been overruled by SCOTUS.
It's an interesting jurisprudence question, whether the overturning of a precedential principle has the effect of overturning all cases based upon it even if no explicit overturning occurs, and whether, hence, a lower court is still bound. Certainly when it comes to laws (and treaties), a law is considered to have been repealed if a later law is passed which runs counter to the earlier, even if there's no explicitly stated repeal. I can see both sides of this, as I am sure you do.
I do, but the Supreme Court has consistently told the lower courts that there are no implied overrulings. The result is hollowed out decisions, like Stone v. Graham.
Thanks!
“ The Supreme Court is not so bound and will almost assuredly overrule Stone v. Graham”
Is there no precedent that has a foundation in the First Amendment? It seems like State posting of a religion’s core tenets is a violation of the Establishment Clause.
There is a reason that anyone not dedicated to Christian-izing the government understands the phrase “separation of Church and State” and views it as a good thing. Is there no SCOTUS precedent that addresses the “secular government” implications of the Establishment Clause?
Shut down all public schools. this is the only way
The negative repercussions to the country would be vast and largely negative.
It would stratify society into those who can afford education and those who can’t, with prosperity being available only if you can afford to educate your child.
‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947
If you substitute education for democracy and learning for government, it’s basically the best way to view public education.
Students will be subjected to unwelcome displays of the Ten Commandments for the entirety of their public school education. There is no opt-out option," the court's opinion reads.
I find multiplication charts to be an unwelcome display. Same goes for cursive handwriting illustrations. In fact, why'd you even give me a history book for my history class? That's not welcome. And don't even get me started on the human anatomy posters, you transphobes.
Public schools are not Sunday schools, and they must welcome all students, regardless of faith.
They do. The inclusion of the Ten Commandments doesn't make them less welcomed, it makes them MORESO.
If H.B. 71 goes into effect, Students will be subjected to unwelcome displays of the Ten Commandments for the entirety of their public school education. There is no opt-out option. Plaintiffs are not mere bystanders," said Satan.
FTFY.
Religion is very, very different than multiplication tables and cursive. Even you aren’t so vapid as to claim otherwise.
Religion is a personal, individual thing. If you want the Ten Commandments, put them up in your house. Don’t try to advertise your specific flavor of cult in public schools.
Religion is very, very different than multiplication tables and cursive.
How? The Ten Commandments are a simple recitation of fact. No different than a times table or an illustration of how to write cursive. It's not like you'll be punished in America for denying them. Might be regarded as an idiot, but that's all the more reason for displaying them - so you can avoid idiocy.
Wait, you're not one of those psychos that openly advocates for anarchistic defenses of blasphemy, idolatry, murder, theft, deceit, adultery, and covetousness, are you?
Religion is a personal, individual thing.
lol, no it's not. Violate the First Commandment a little harder why don't you.
The Ten Commandments are a simple recitation of fact.
LOL. Religious commandments are not facts
Name one line of them that isn't 100% accurate in its factuality, and tell me why it's wrong.
It seems you don't know what a fact is. But first, the existence of God is a belief, not a fact.
How is this factual? "I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."
Or this? "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day."
Or this? "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you."
We can start with “I am the Lord your God” … no, he isn’t. More people reject that the God described in the Bible exists than accept it, because it is an illogical thing to believe. So opinion, not fact.
Same with every other Commandment. They are all only “facts” if you start from a point of belief. Otherwise it’s just a list of things that most Christians mostly follow, but almost none follow completely.
Your definition of “fact” is badly mistaken.
“ How? The Ten Commandments are a simple recitation of fact”
It is a simple recitation of opinion. And only one religion’s opinion, at that. Even the adherents of that religion ignore a good number of them.
“ It's not like you'll be punished in America for denying them”
That isn’t pertinent to anything. Students shouldn’t be subjected to religious propaganda. And shoving it in everyone’s face is, basically, punishing students.
It is a purely religious document and has no place in public schools. The State is, and should always remain, secular.
“ Might be regarded as an idiot,”
It’s much more likely that someone who strictly adheres to them would be regarded as an idiot. Especially the “Sabbath Day” and “Lord’s name in vain” stuff that almost every Christian ignores on a regular basis.
“ lol, no it's not. Violate the First Commandment a little harder why don't you.”
I’m not a Christian, so I can’t. That’s the point. Religion is something each person chooses for themselves. It is personal. We are a nation of Christians (although less and less each year), but we are not a Christian nation. And that’s intentional. It’s by design.
It’s the Constitution, which is a much better guide to moral behavior than the Bible. It opposes genocide and wife beating, unlike the Bible. And since we fixed it while killing the most evil organization in American history, the Confederacy, it also opposes slavery (again, unlike the Bible).
It is a simple recitation of opinion.
Whose opinion do you think it's reciting?
Even the adherents of that religion ignore a good number of them.
Yea, humans are sinful. The fact that reality is ignored doesn't change reality. A particularly glaring illustration of this is LGBT Pedo.
Students shouldn’t be subjected to religious propaganda.
It's not religious propaganda. You can keep calling it that, but that's not going to make it true. And even if it were up for debate, which it's not, students are subjected to lots of debatable subjects - some of which they may even vociferously disagree with. For example, evolutionary theory. Or, again, LGBT Pedo.
Especially the “Sabbath Day” and “Lord’s name in vain” stuff that almost every Christian ignores on a regular basis.
Do you actually know any Christians?
Also, though it pains me to say so, there's Christians - and then there's Catholics. If they're not Catholic, they're not really doing Christianity correctly in the first place.
Martin Luther had some valid criticisms. Protestantism, on the other hand, is just "I make my own Christianity."
Not how it works.
Anyway, even floundering Catholics - and there are many, to be sure - doesn't change the fact that their ignoring the Commandments has no bearing whatsoever on the factual nature of them.
I’m not a Christian, so I can’t.
Yea, actually, you can. You're literally doing it right this minute.
I'll pray for you Nelson, but you need to make better choices. God gave you that freedom. Don't spit it in His face.
Religion is something each person chooses for themselves.
That's stupid. That's like saying, "I can fly," and jumping off a building. No, you can't fly. And you will CHOOSE to fall to your death. Your ignorant, stupid, pointless death.
The Ten Commandments - or, more appropriately, the Gospel - is your way to avoid such a thing.
It’s the Constitution, which is a much better guide to moral behavior than the Bible.
Anyone want to tell him?
Also, though it pains me to say so, there's Christians - and then there's Catholics. If they're not Catholic, they're not really doing Christianity correctly in the first place
"No true Christian"...
AT, it was Marx who said that religion is the opium of the people. I think he was correct. But, as a libertarian, I believe that opium should be legal, including the religious kind. As long as you're not forcing it on me, I don't care.
I think that the government school being forced to post a religious document, without equal opportunity for other religions or non-believers to have their statements posted, constitutes establishment of a religion.
However, if the law was rewritten so that everyone got to post their own statements, religious or not, then that would be freedom of speech and free exercise of religion rather than establishment. I think each kid should get his or her own wall space. So, all the Christian kids could post Ten Commandments and Bible verses and religious advocacy. Atheist kids could post atheist stuff. The queer kids get to post their gender idiocy crap and pictures of drag queens. The punks could post punk rock posters. Libertarians could post libertarian stuff. The kids get to post what they want. That's the most fair way to do it within the compulsory tax-supported government school.
“ Whose opinion do you think it's reciting?”
Christians. Everyone else (which includes the majority of people on the planet) have a different opinion about what God is or whether there’s a God at all.
“ The fact that reality is ignored doesn't change reality.”
But God, as described in the Bible, isn’t a fact. It’s something some people choose to believe. And it isn’t because people are sinful. It’s because most Christians don’t believe that working on Sunday or saying “God damn it” is immoral, never mind sinful.
“ It's not religious propaganda. You can keep calling it that, but that's not going to make it true.”
And yet the tenets of a religion that are rejected by most people in the world can only be described as propaganda. If you prefer we can call it marketing, but it certainly isn’t uncontested truth.
“ Do you actually know any Christians?”
Yes. My mother is a lifelong Catholic. We have discussed religion extensively. One of my close friends is a UCC minister. We also discuss religion regularly.
Granted, I don’t know anyone so deluded as to believe that their specific flavor of Christianity is the only truth and cannot be questioned, but that’s because I avoid delusional people.
“ I'll pray for you Nelson”
Thank you. It won’t change anything, but I appreciate the gesture.
“ but you need to make better choices.”
Not really. I have a full and fulfilling life that I have earned through my intellect, effort, and decisions. Religion would add nothing to it.
Now if we want to talk about whether or not there’s a larger blueprint to the universe that is so vast and complex that it defies comprehension, we’d be in full agreement. But the Bible is a narrative, not truth.
“ That's like saying, "I can fly," and jumping off a building.”
No, it isn’t. There are thousands of religions to choose from, as well as atheism, agnosticism, spirituality, and various takes that reject any supernatural forces in the universe. Catholicism isn’t the only truth. People (most of them, actually) choose other religions all the time.
“ The Ten Commandments - or, more appropriately, the Gospel - is your way to avoid such a thing.”
Here’s the thing. If I live my life in a moral way, when I die I’m not going to be damned just because I didn’t sign up for the right club and learn the secret handshake. What you do matters, not whether you got dipped by a priest.
If you believe that two people who lived identical lives died at the same time and one goes to Heaven because they were Catholic and one goes to Hell because they weren’t, you are fooling yourself.
“ Anyone want to tell him?”
What, that the Bible supports immoral things like genocide, murder, and slavery? We all know that already.
Christians
Bzzt. Try again.
But God, as described in the Bible, isn’t a fact.
...what part don't you think is factual?
I'll tell you what part I think is (*no offense God*) kinda tedious? SO MUCH genealogy. But you know what's interesting about the genealogy? It's a legit historical record. Probably the best preserved one in the world. And the Literal Word of God included it for a reason.
I, for one, think that reason was simple continuity. All the way back to the Fall of Man. Where we came from, how we got here, what God has done for us along the way through mankind and its sinful nature - it ties us back to our literal origins in an unbroken line of real actual history.
And it isn’t because people are sinful.
Oh yes they are. You, me, everyone. If you think you are without sin, please let me know because I know a whole bunch of people wearing white collars (and one in a large hat) who would love to meet you.
It’s because most Christians don’t believe that working on Sunday or saying “God damn it” is immoral, never mind sinful.
See, this is the folly of Protestantism. God says, "That's sinful," and they say, "Well, I interpret what You said this way instead." Now, I get it. They were mad at the Church (and apparently still are). But again, humans are not the arbiters of what is or is not sin.
Some demons go REALLY off the rails with this. Like Episcopalians? Pssh. 2 Peter 2 was practically written for them.
And yet the tenets of a religion that are rejected by most people in the world can only be described as propaganda.
Y'know, once upon a time a heliocentric universe was rejected by most people in the world. Worst part is, dude that was saying otherwise was like, "Bro, I BROUGHT a telescope! Just look through it!" And they were like, "Nuh uh, nope."
The lesson to take from that is: most people are idiots.
Now your fingers might be lighting up with an eagerness to point out that it was the Church who was the ignorant party in that little anecdote. The point isn't who was or wasn't wrong - the point was that "what most people think" is the absolute worst measurement for discerning Truth from Falsity.
And yet, you're taking that ad populum as the cornerstone of your argument.
One of my close friends is a UCC minister.
Oof, that actually explains a lot.
Listen to your mom. DTM your so-called "close friend." (Trust me, he is NOT your friend.)
I don’t know anyone so deluded as to believe that their specific flavor of Christianity is the only truth and cannot be questioned
So you don't know Jesus. Hmm. Would you like me to introduce you?
I have a full and fulfilling life that I have earned through my intellect, effort, and decisions. Religion would add nothing to it.
You can't get through the gate, bro. Maybe you comfort yourself by pretending that gate doesn't exist. (That's the sin of pride, by the way.) I'm going to defer to Pascal on that one.
No, it isn’t. There are thousands of religions to choose from
No. I think it was Ayn Rand who said something to the effect of, "If two reasonable people given the same set of premises come to two different logical conclusions - one (or both!) of them is wrong.
She was talking about Objective Truth. Now, granted, Rand was about as anti-Christian as it comes. But, hilariously enough, her point remains valid.
Yes, there are "thousands of religions to choose from." But there is only ONE correct religion.
It's Catholicism.
Catholicism isn’t the only truth. People (most of them, actually) choose other religions all the time.
Actually, it is. The people who think otherwise...
If I live my life in a moral way, when I die I’m not going to be damned just because I didn’t sign up for the right club and learn the secret handshake.
Willing to bet your eternal soul on that?
Do you even believe in such a thing (if so, why)? ????
If you believe that two people who lived identical lives died at the same time and one goes to Heaven because they were Catholic and one goes to Hell because they weren’t
Ahhh, OK, so THIS is your very gross misunderstanding of things. It's not just - not even close to just - "they were Catholics."
There's plenty of Catholics going to Hell. Belief isn't enough. Are you familiar with the term The Church Militant? Because what you just said now makes me think you aren't. Because it's not enough to just "be Catholic." You can go dip your hand in the water every Sunday, say grace before meals, kneel and stand at the appropiate times during liturgy, Baptize your kids, get Married in the Church, and take the Eucharist (though, if you're in a state of unconfessed mortal sin you should NOT be doing that, it's actually a worse sin).
Saying, "I accept the Lord Jesus Christ," - that's Step 1, but it's just words. Step 2-Death is you actually have to go LIVE those words. And living those words means accepting His Church (aka Catholicism), and that the Bible is the literal Word of God - not something for you to "interpret" (and therefore invariably twist) according to your own prejudices.
What, that the Bible supports immoral things like genocide, murder, and slavery? We all know that already.
It has done no such thing. Not in any single chapter, verse, or word. Again, this is a historical document. It honestly records history. It tells you what sin is, and then explains to you that sin. But not once - NOT ONCE - does it ever support, endorse, or otherwise suggest that immorality is OK.
NOT. ONCE.
That is projectionist nonsense from modernists who think they're are, can, or should be their own god.
What if the first 3 were removed? If nothing that referred to God remained, would it still be religious? Especially given that these words are pretty much thought of as moral precepts everywhere on earth?
I don't think either side would like that. Supporters of such displays would be upset that references to God had been removed. Opponents would point out that the seven commandments displayed would be direct quotes from the Bible.
“ What if the first 3 were removed?”
Well, #4 requires keeping the Sabbath day holy, so that’s out as well. Here is what we have, in a nutshell:
#1 I am the Lord, thy God. You shall have no other gods before Me.
—>This is unconstitutional (First Amendment, freedom of religion) and only immoral for Christians.
#2 You shall make no idols.
—>Also unconstitutional (First Amendment, freedom of expression) and is theoretically immoral for Christians only, but most of them don’t care.
#3 You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
—>Also unconstitutional (First Amendment, freedom of expression) and theoretically immoral for Christians, but largely ignored by the vast majority of them.
#4 Keep the Sabbath day holy.
—>Also unconstitutional (First Amendment, freedom of religion) and theoretically immoral for Christians, but completely ignored by the vast majority of them (except the Amish and Mennonite)
#5 Honor your father and your mother.
—>Also unconstitutional (First Amendment, freedom of expression) and theoretically immoral for Christians, but largely ignored by the vast majority of them.
#6 You shall not murder.
—> Finally something both constitutional and universally moral. It was universally immoral long before Moses, but imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I guess.
#7 You shall not commit adultery.
—> Back to unconstitutional, with the “universal morality” completely dependent on your willingness to accept that marriage isn’t “until death do us part”. Adultery isn’t inherently immoral, unless you believe marriage is a religious, not contractual, arrangement.
#8 You shall not steal.
—> Constitutional Commandment #2. Also fair to characterize as universally immoral. So #2 there as well.
#9 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
—> Back to unconstitutional, since lying is protected speech. And given how often everyone lies about things both large and small, calling it a universally immoral behavior is patently ridiculous.
If you read this as only applying to lying under oath in a court of law, then it would be constitutional. Calling it a universally immoral behavior would be a reach, so maybe we split the difference. So 2 1/2 constitutional Commandments and 2 1/2 universally moral principles.
I usually round this up to 3 when pointing out the inherent unconstitutional and Christian-specific morality of the Ten Commandments.
#10 You shall not covet.
—> Unconstitutional and completely moral. This is one of the cornerstones of capitalism, the single most important advancement in human history. It’s not only moral, it’s laudable.
So basically there are only 2-3 Commandments that are even constitutional. There are only 2 that could credibly be called universal morality (murder and stealing), with maybe adultery and lying thrown in as fluff, since they’re more honored in the breach. And the immoral character of murder and stealing predates Christianity (and the Old Testament itself), so there are exactly zero unique things that the Ten Commandments bring to the table that weren’t already viewed as immoral.
Pretending the Ten Commandments is some sort of moral guide to anyone other than the most strict Christians is nonsense. Even Christians don’t follow them all and wouldn’t consider many of them immoral behavior.
Perhaps you see it differently?
^^This.
Just say "I am my own god."
That's all your oh-so-thorough review comes down to. You think you're your own god. Tell me I'm wrong.
You've shrouded yourself in the Constitution to try and pretend it gives you legitimacy, but you've ignored all the morality behind the Constitution. Mostly because you want to twist and invert it to your own purposes.
All your blathering - it's all just relativism at the end of the day. This is particularly evidenced by how many times you proclaim that adherents fail to obey - as if that were somehow proof that the command is false and/or meant to be disobeyed.
What's hilarious in particular is when you use the term "universally moral." Like you don't see the hypocrisy of that at all.
There are four kinds of sins, Nelson:
Mortal sins against God (1-3)
Mortal sins against Society (4-5)
Venial sins against Others (6-8)
Venial sins against Self (9-10)
And they're written in order of just how sinful they are. You're intentionally reading them as secular, because you have decided yourself your own god and therefore choose not to recognize sin but instead regard it only as behavior.
Meaning you do not understand it at all, nor do you have any desire to.
Sin is a made up disease to sell you a made up cure.
IOW you concede the strongly religious nature of the 10C. "Sin" is a religious concept, not a secular one.
I don't know what dunk you think you just got with that, but apparently you were too busy celebrating to see that you bricked.
“ You think you're your own god. Tell me I'm wrong.”
You’re wrong. If there is a God, it isn’t a conscious or a supernatural force. Magic isn’t real. I am in no way, shape, or form a gid. And neither is the guy they talk about in the Bible.
“ You've shrouded yourself in the Constitution to try and pretend it gives you legitimacy”
I don’t need any document to give me legitimacy. No one does.
“ but you've ignored all the morality behind the Constitution”
You mean the document that never once talks about good and evil? The constitution is an organizational document, not a moral one. The fact that making individual right the core of a system results in moral behavior is a feature, but not the point, of the Constitution.
Morality is subjective and individual, which is why the Constitution leads to moral results. That’s the premise of the Constitution, that individuals have rights by virtue of being an individual. It doesn’t matter if you are good or evil, you have exactly the same rights. Morality is irrelevant.
“ it's all just relativism at the end of the day”
Moral relativism is all there is. There is no universal morality. There are very, very few things that everyone would agree are immoral, and those were known long before the Bible came along. Outside of that tiny core, what people believe is moral or not is completely subjective.
The Ten Commandments, for example, only contain two that would be considered by virtually everyone to be immoral (murder and stealing). Everything else is stuff that Christians have chosen to view as immoral, but most people wouldn’t.
People who think “moral relativism” is an insult are clueless about morality. They have deluded themselves into believing there is only one objective moral code that everyone must live by. It’s patently ridiculous.
“ There are four kinds of sins, Nelson:
Mortal sins against God (1-3)
Mortal sins against Society (4-5)
Venial sins against Others (6-8)
Venial sins against Self (9-10)”
According to Catholics. Most people disagree. I’m a recovering Catholic myself, so I’m painfully aware of the mental contortions necessary to pretend that there is only one universal truth and it’s called the Bible.
It isn’t truth, it’s opinion. And all you need to do is ask:
Is slavery immoral? The truth is yes, the Bible says no.
Is genocide immoral? The truth is yes, the Bible says no.
Is murdering children immoral? The truth is yes, the Bible says no.
When there is a disconnect between things that are easily determined to be immoral and a book that purports to be a moral guide that says they’re moral, it’s clear that the book is wrong.
“ You're intentionally reading them as secular”
Yes, because I have a brain so I can see that the Bible isn’t a moral guide. Religion is a choice, not an unassailable truth. That’s why there are so many of them and they disagree on almost everything.
Your argument is that your religion is true, therefore anyone who doesn’t believe the same as you is wrong. That’s not how it works. It’s the most expansive example of the “begging the question” fallacy that exists on the planet.
https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/begging-the-question/
“ Meaning you do not understand it at all, nor do you have any desire to.”
I understand it completely. I just reject it because it doesn’t make sense. There’s a difference.
If you don’t see that saying “Christianity is true because the Bible says it is” is begging the question, you can’t be helped.
You’re wrong. If there is a God, it isn’t a conscious or a supernatural force. Magic isn’t real. I am in no way, shape, or form a gid. And neither is the guy they talk about in the Bible.
Well then who determines your morality and human nature?
Are you the arbiter of Right and Wrong? Of Beauty and Ugly? Of Good and Evil? Of True and False? If not who, wannabe-god, then who?
Are you just a random collection of randomness somehow brought into conscious being with enough arrogance to be 100% certain of his own nature, but totally ignorant as to how he got here and why? Are you a happy cosmic accident that gets to enjoy pleasure and pain, but will never understand how and why your pleasure and pain occur?
I don’t need any document to give me legitimacy. No one does.
The point is that you're trying to detach the Constitution from the Bible - and that doesn't work. John Adams made this VERY clear.
You will never - ever - protect your Constitutional Rights if you don't understand the morality that makes those rights constitutional.
The term "constitution" doesn't just mean "a document that establishes rights." There's a reason we equate it with a man's character and values. If the Constitution were divorced from morality, it would simply be a code of laws.
It's not. It's much, much more than that.
Moral relativism is all there is. There is no universal morality.
Why is it wrong for me to shoot you in the face?
Because everyone says so? Remember, these were the same people who said the Sun revolves around the Earth.
The Ten Commandments, for example, only contain two that would be considered by virtually everyone to be immoral (murder and stealing).
Yea, but murder and stealing are actually OK. Because I said so. And who are you to tell me otherwise? That's just stuff you've chosen to view as immoral. Like your dumb/wrong geocentric universe belief.
They have deluded themselves into believing there is only one objective moral code that everyone must live by. It’s patently ridiculous.
Why?
According to Catholics. Most people disagree.
Most people are wrong.
Is slavery immoral? The truth is yes, the Bible says no.
Is genocide immoral? The truth is yes, the Bible says no.
Is murdering children immoral? The truth is yes, the Bible says no.
All three of these statements are unequivocally false.
When there is a disconnect between things that are easily determined to be immoral
By whom and on what basis?
and a book that purports to be a moral guide that says they’re moral, it’s clear that the book is wrong.
Or maybe there's some disconnect - perhaps even an intentional one - between what you're reading and what you're understanding.
Religion is a choice, not an unassailable truth.
It's actually both. As well as a moral guide.
That’s why there are so many of them and they disagree on almost everything.
Mm, see you're doing it again. Protestant A says A. Protestant B says B. They disagree, so obviously their book is wrong.
Catholic says Truth. Don't deny the Truth because you're obsessing over Protestant A and B's squabbling.
Your argument is that your religion is true, therefore anyone who doesn’t believe the same as you is wrong. That’s not how it works.
Not the "same as me."
My argument is that the math equation 2+2=4, therefore anyone who doesn't believe the same as me is wrong.
Yes, if you believe that 2+2=5, you ARE wrong. But not because you don't believe the same thing as me; rather because you refuse to accept reality.
I just reject it because it doesn’t make sense.
You don't want it to make sense. You intentionally go well out of your way to disrupt its ability to make sense. Because you want to be your own arbiter of Truth, Right, Good, Beauty, and Just.
Which brings me back to my original accusation.
Accident? It happened according to the absolute laws of nature. It was no "accident". It was natural forces whether we understand those forces or not. Personally, I think that consciousness is an electrical phenomenon, that it involves an electrical potential difference, a difference between, tension between or superposition of voltages. The exact process is still to be discovered. But, there is far more likely a true natural explanation than any supernatural one.
The problem with anything "super"natural is to ever be aware of it actually being supernatural occurrence, and to know that it is, in fact, supernatural. But to be aware of anything, it must be somewhere in time and space, it must have some distinguishable form some distinguishable effect upon us in the natural universe. For it to be distinguishable, there must be some places in space and time where it exists and others where it does not. Knowledge of that is transmitted according to the laws of physics, we know from observation. So, if it exists, it must conform to the laws of physics or we could never be aware of its effect upon us because it would have no detectable effect upon us in any way. Otherwise, it wouldn't be "super"natural. It either has detectable effect upon us, which can be measured by natural law, or it doesn't. If it can't be detected by natural law, then it has no effect upon us and cannot be truthfully said to exist.
If it can't be detected by natural law, then it has no effect upon us and cannot be truthfully said to exist.
Pluto couldn't be detected until 1930. Did it just magically pop into existence as soon as we observed it, or was it always there despite our inability TO detect it? Did it exist supernaturally, only becoming "real" once we became aware of it?
And do you not see how that just goes straight back to the "I am my own god" argument?
Which, incidentally, its adherents are weirdly reticent to say out loud.
(Also, ps - Jesus was a real, distinguishable, detectable person. Just saying. From His childhood, to His ministry, to His death and resurrection, and to all His events prior to the Ascension.)
You're wrong.
Exactly how does he think he is his own god? Or that he thinks there is any god at all - him or anyone or anything else?
Let's say that some scumbag - we'll randomly call him Kilmar Abrego Garcia - decided to rape your wife. Also, since he's gay, he's going to rape your son too. You protest and say, "You can't do that! That's not right!" He disagrees, and then rapes your wife and son in front of you. Also, he kills your baby just for the heck of it.
Who's right and who's wrong, and why? Kilmar says that rape is perfectly fine. Who the heck are you to dispute his claim? It's not like you have any factual basis for it.
This is, incidentally, the grotesquely toxic effect moral relativism has had on society when it comes to subjects like illegal immigration (or LGBT pedo or abortion).
When you think you can decide morality for yourself, you have made yourself your own god. And you have broken the most serious and soul-jeopardizing of all the Commandments. It's that simple.
Here's factual basis. Rape is a denial of consent, a violation of one's person, via initiation of force or fraud. By the Reflexive Property (and Transitive Property) of absolute natural laws of logic, if dude initiates force, then dude has no rational grounds to object if force is used against him in return. Reflexive Property: If A = B then B = A. If A can deny consent to B, then B (or anyone acting on behalf of B) can deny consent to A. That's a moral absolute, derivable from absolute observation and absolute logic or right reason. It does not involve non-absolute, totally subjective faith i.e. assumption without proof. So yeah, dude can morally be arrested and prosecuted, and force can morally be used against him in self-defense. All this is derivable from absolute reality using absolute logic. No supernatural nor faith is required.
Here's factual basis. Rape is a denial of consent, a violation of one's person, via initiation of force or fraud. By the Reflexive (and Transitive Properties) of absolute natural laws of logic, if dude initiates force, then dude has no rational grounds to object if force is used against him in return. Reflexive Property: If A = B then B = A. If A can deny consent to B, then B (or anyone acting on behalf of B) can deny consent to A. That's a moral absolute, derivable from absolute observation and absolute logic or right reason. Like the Golden Rule, it's logical. It does not involve non-absolute, totally subjective faith i.e. assumption without proof. So yeah, dude can morally be arrested and prosecuted, and force can morally be used against him in self-defense, because he used force against others. All this is derivable from absolute reality using absolute logic. No supernatural nor faith is required.
It IS possible for there to be issues in which the question of what the truly moral position is is reasonably subject to debate. Regarding immigration, one could assert the libertarian position that one has an absolute right to travel and establish residence. However, one does not necessarily have a right to come in, vote in elections, legally or illegally, to exert one's political will upon the established citizens. I don't want foreigners coming in here, voting overwhelmingly Democratic thereby giving the Democrats unchecked power to enact their own form of tyranny. It's not moral relativism, rather reasonable practical concerns to be considered when formulating the moral position.
Is it moral relativism or reasonable disagreement? Concerning LGBT pedo, the age of consent is 16 in most states, in some states it's 18, used to be under 16 or no specified age in many states earlier in our history. In much of the world, the age of consent is under 16. People have a prolonged childhood, nowadays.
https://www.ageofconsent.net/states
https://www.ageofconsent.net/world
So, what exactly is pedo? Under 21? 18? 16? 14? Hmmm....there's a lot of room for legitimate disagreement.
Concerning abortion, here's from Genesis 2:7,New International Version
"Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."-Genesis 2:7
https://biblehub.com/genesis/2-7.htm
This seems to imply that life as a living being, "personhood", begins at birth when one first breathes. This would justify abortion until birth.
But, I'm an atheist. And, I believe that there is a life worth protecting when there are enough actual braincells present that would enable rational thought eventually, without needing any additional braincells. This would happen sometime in the third trimester. So, I would ban abortion in the 3rd trimester as permitted by Roe v. Wade. But, if I was a Bible believer, I'd have to permit abortion until the baby breathes at birth according to Genesis 2:7.
No, one discovers or ascertains morality for oneself, one does not "decide" it. One doesn't "decide" or create morality any more than one decides or creates the laws of nature - one discovers them. One has not tried to make oneself g-d, rather one recognizes that nature itself rules absolutely and objectively, and independent of humans. The laws of morality are objective and logically derivable from the laws of nature by objective observation and right reason. The Founders used the term "nature's god" in the Declaration.
Rape is a denial of consent, a violation of one's person, via initiation of force or fraud.
So what. Kilmar doesn't believe that. Who are you to impose your beliefs on him.
By the Reflexive Property (and Transitive Property) of absolute natural laws of logic
Wait wait wait - who decided those laws and on what basis? Who gets to say what is or isn't natural?
That's a moral absolute, derivable from absolute observation and absolute logic or right reason.
According to whom?
It IS possible for there to be issues in which the question of what the truly moral position is is reasonably subject to debate.
Not if they're laws; absolutes.
Pick a lane dude.
Is it moral relativism or reasonable disagreement?
It's moral relativism.
So, what exactly is pedo? Under 21? 18? 16? 14? Hmmm....there's a lot of room for legitimate disagreement.
No, you said it's a natural moral law. An absolute. This means that some people are following it, and others aren't.
Right?
This seems to imply that
Ahh, there it is. The telltale sign of the would-be self-god declaring that his own (cherry picked and narrowly tailored) interpretation is what matters.
No, one discovers or ascertains morality for oneself, one does not "decide" it. One doesn't "decide" or create morality any more than one decides or creates the laws of nature - one discovers them.
How'd they come to exist, to be discovered?
By denial of consent, Kilmar is imposing HIS beliefs by force. By the Reflexive Property, we are entitled to use force in return and deny his consent. Doesn't matter what Kilmar thinks.
Which version of said 10 Commandments? The Jewish, Catholic or Protestant version?
If you allow the 10 Commandments then you open the door to any and all religious texts. Did they learn nothing from Nativities and Menorahs on public properties? That lead to the Satanists having their won displays.
Tis si why Christmas is recognized as a legal holiday, it having been secularized, which;le Easter, which is far less secularized is not.
Imagine if we had to recognize all legal holidays the practitioners demanded? There would be few, if any work days left!