• 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
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 ****!
It’s historical

 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
What should we expect from Scholars that think Article one of the Constitution is about freedom of religion.
Maybe @Kenny can point out where?

Article I​

Article I Explained


Section 1​



All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.



Section 2​





The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.





No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.





Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.



continued here. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/





The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.





The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.





No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.





No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.





No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.





No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.





No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It’s historical
So is the Treaty Of Tripoli.
And Jefferson's writings.
And the Constitution of The United States.
But you'd wave those things aside in order
to establish your faith over us all, eh.

Before Christianity even existed, this continent
had aboriginal religions. And they were here first.
No wonder Christians invented Manifest Destiny
to kill & rob them. Sounds like a hideously violent
& immoral philosophical basis to govern a country, eh.
 
Last edited:

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
Yes -- for example "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his 2 cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."

And then the whole nation coveted everything that their native neighbors had, and not only coveted it, but took it. Way to obey God's Big Ten!
Which whole nation? It would make sense to me to at least consider the implications and potential consequence associated with coveting. Theft typically (as you stated) ensues, which then leads to your specific point, I think. Which was about laws and disagreements with the laws themselves...coveting specifically. I regard it as a general rule of thumb and good advice, but that's beside the point.


The counter-balance is on the flip side of the equation, which is where you either become the victim or the perpetrator of the crimes.

So, teaching very basic concepts such as avoiding covetous mentalities and the possible side effects of the behavior stemming from the mindset itself seems appropriate enough to encourage ... the teaching not the practice, which as you alluded to, leads to theft and imprisonment. Are you in agreement with learning these types of principles or do you prefer the kids to live and learn from personal experience, viewing the risk to be greater than the teaching of a basic principle?
 

Argentbear

Active Member
It’s historical

So is slavery. That history doesn't make slavery today legal or morally acceptable
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
No, Kentucky tried it back in 1980 and it was shot down then.
I’m talking about referring to it in the annals of Jurisprudence not to mention it is on the outside walls of the Supreme Court and in the House of Congress.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
That was very good and I thank you.

That being said, let us not forget Article 13 that corrected it.
There is no "Article 13", it was the 13th amendment which came long after the 1st amendment which corrected the oversight of not excluding religion to protect against religious misinterpretation by those who think that everyone should follow their religion.
That is the history.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Slavery isn’t in the Constitution. Where are you going with this?
It is in the Constitution, but they avoided the word "slave". For example Article I Section 1 Clause 1 protected the international slave trade until 1808:

"
  • Clause 1 Migration or Importation
  • The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

    Slavery was also the reason for the 3/5 Compromise. A compromise that many people get backwards. The free states did not think that the slave states should be able to count the number of slaves owned as people since they were not treated as people. Not counting the slaves at all would have given the South less political power. The South wanted to both count slaves as people and not treat them as people at the same time. One thing that the 13th and 14th Amendments did was to end this compromise and gave the South a power boost in the House of Representatives and also a bigger share of the electoral votes when it came to deciding who was going to be President:

    Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3:

    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [italics added].[2]


    So to claim that slavery was not in the Constitution is false. They did not use the term "slave" but it was obvious to everyone that the opposite of "free Persons" were slaves.






 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Because it violates Article 1 in freedom of religion and the prohibiting the free exercise thereof
No, it does quite the opposite. You are conflating "secular" and "atheistic". The two are not the same. Most people participate in secular activities every day. There may be some very odd exceptions, but going to the grocery store is a secular activity. No religion is involved. Secular only means "non-religious". Our government is supposed to be nonreligious.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Should the Pastafarians petition that The Eight I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts are also required to be posted?
1. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Act Like A Sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou *** When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If Some People Don’t Believe In Me, That’s Okay. Really, I’m Not That Vain. Besides, This Isn’t About Them So Don’t Change The Subject.​
2. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Use My Existence As A Means To Oppress, Subjugate, Punish, Eviscerate, And/Or, You Know, Be Mean To Others. I Don’t Require Sacrifices, And Purity Is For Drinking Water, Not People.​
3. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Judge People For The Way They Look, Or How They Dress, Or The Way They Talk, Or, Well, Just Play Nice, Okay? Oh, And Get This Through You Thick Heads: Woman=Person, Man=Person. Samey-Samey. One is Not Better Than The Other, Unless We’re Talking About Fashion And I’m Sorry, But I Gave That To Women And Some Guys Who Know The Difference Between Teal And Fuchsia.​
4. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As For Anyone Who Might Object, I Think The Expression Is Go F*** Yourself, Unless They Find That Offensive In Which Case They Can Turn Off The TV For Once And Go For A Walk For A Change.​
5. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Challenge The Bigoted, Misogynist, Hateful Ideas Of Others On An Empty Stomach. Eat, Then Go After The B*******.​
6. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Build multi million-Dollar Churches/Temples/Mosques/ Shrines To My Noodly Goodness When The Money Could Be Better Spent (Take Your Pick): A. Ending Poverty B. Curing Diseases C. Living In Peace, Loving With Passion, And Lowering The Cost Of Cable. I Might Be A Complex Carbohydrate Omniscient Being, But I Enjoy The Simple Things In Life. I Ought To Know. I AM The Creator.​
7. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Go around Telling People I Talk To you. You’re Not That Interesting. Get Over Yourself. And I Told You To Love Your Fellow Man, Can’t You Take A Hint?​
8. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You If You Are Into, Um, Stuff That Uses Alot Of Leather/Lubrication/Las Vegas. If The Other Person Is Into It However (Pursuant To #4), Then Have At It, Take Pictures, And For The Love Of Mike, Wear A CONDOM! Honestly It’s A Piece Of Rubber, If I Didn’t Want It To Feel Good When You Did It I Would Have Added Spikes, Or Something.​
 
Top