• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Louisiana becomes first state to require that Ten Commandments be displayed in public classrooms

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
It is such a lucky thing that no one is giving a modern interpretation to the Ten Commandments.


My modern interpretation is that freedom of religion is incompatible with the government imposing religion on people. That is just true regardless of what any secular or religious document says.
The Constitution ruled out Congressional imposing of religion. Freedom of Religion dictates you can worship yourself if you want to.

Not sure where you are going with this.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
The puritans too. Just because they were Christian didn't mean they wanted religion entangled with the state.

How did the Puritans view politics?
Even though they believed that the primary purpose of government was to punish breaches of God's laws, few people were as committed as the Puritans to the separation of church and state. Not only did they reject the idea of establishing a system of church courts, they also forbade ministers from holding public office.
I’m sure you are trying to make a point here. If your religion says don’t hold public office… then don’t.
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
This is kind of like saying that people never had a reason to be concerned about lynching. Lynching was something that primarily happened in Bible Belt states and if you don't live in one of those states you don't have much of a reason to be upset about it and even if you did live in one of those states no one is forcing you to participate in lynchings
Are you seriously comparing lynching with posting words in a classroom right now?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Sorry but the due process clause makes the bill of rights something that individual states have to adhere to. So, no individual states cannot set up state religions
Again… look at the State Constitutions and their preamble and see if it matches your position.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I wonder why it bothers you so much. It is historical.
I wonder why it bothers you so much that we
want a secular government....not one where
Christians post their scripture at taxpayer expense,
& deny the same to other religions. You get to
practice your religion. You just don't get to
force it upon the unwilling.
You can't convert
us by coercion....you just engender enmity.

There is a practical side to keeping religion out of
government. As I've related before, when I testify
in court, I must either request a secular oath to
be truthful, or pretend to believe in the God the
court wants me to swear to, ie, be dishonest as
I swear to honesty.
The choice means either lying & knuckling under
to the Christian imposition of their religion upon
me, or making the judge & jury aware that I'm not
one of them. Christians are quite prejudiced
against us heathens, which is dangerous when
adjudicating a case.

Why would you care, eh. It's your religion that
would be enshrined. Not someone else's.
Consider the rights of others.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Are you seriously comparing lynching with posting words in a classroom right now?
I have found that by and large everyone against the posting of the Ten Commandments will compare anything - slavery, lynching, forcing of religion et al to that one act even though it has nothing to do with it.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
That is hardly a refutation of what I said.



creative.



No and yes




I wonder why it bothers you so much. It is historical.

View attachment 93061
How many times did they quote Shakespeare?

Even betterer when it is big and red.

 

Argentbear

Active Member
strawman arguments
Here is the definition of a strawman...since you don't seem to know.

A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.


Your argument, such as it was, indicated that since there was a prayer said at the 1774 Continental Congress "prayer is part of the history of our government. The Ten Commandments is part of the US History," Justifying their inclusion in modern schools and in daily life. I pointed out things that were also part of the history of our country indicating that just because something is historic does not make that thing good or acceptable. Not a strawman but a refutation of your point.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I just heard this on NPR and looked to see if anyone posted about it. Looks like we have seven pages worth of posts (most of which I didn't read), so I guess I'm late to the party.

A couple of thoughts on this. Take them for what they are...
  • Louisiana is a Bible Belt state, so something like this occurring is not surprising or unexpected.
  • No one is forcing you or your child to look at this and read it, let alone believe it.
  • If you don't live in Louisiana, how is this relevant to your day-to-day life? And before you say, "If it happens there, it can happen in my state," see my first bullet. If you live in one of the other nine Bible Belt states, yes, you have cause for concern. If you don't, then you've become outraged over something that doesn't affect you.
  • The ACLU and other civil rights group are already on this like white on rice.
I hate to say it, but that seems to be saying, "don't fight for any rights or against any injustices that aren't impacting you directly. Let somebody else (like ACLU) do it." As a Humanist, that could never be my response.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Here is the definition of a strawman...since you don't seem to know.

A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
Exactly! Fits like a hand in a glove of the same size.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Because it violates Article 1 in freedom of religion and the prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Really?
A secular government prohibits free exercise of your religion
simply because you cannot post your commandments in
public schools to the exclusion of all other beliefs?
It seems that your idea of liberty is the freedom to impose
your religion upon others. **** that ****!
 
Top