I note the absence of any attempt to justify your claim using the text of the Constitution. The problem isn't my lack of understanding. It's a lack of support in the Constitution for purging religious expression from the public schools which makes atheism the de facto state religion.You seem unable to understand this, but placing the Ten Commandments in public schools is government establishing a religion. Once more, it is ok to teach about religions, comparing and contrasting them, in public school. The public school just can't favor one religion over another.
I challenge this assumption that “religion forms the basis” for our laws and government. That is an absurdity erroneous conclusion. The values we all (or mostly) share form the basis of our laws. That those values are also shared by many religions is not surprising. None of this has anything to do with “offending” atheists. Anywho is free to “expose” their children to whatever religions they choose.Even though religion forms the basis for law and government public school students cannot be exposed to its teachings lest it offend atheists.
Again, the basis of western society is its values.Students are forced to learn the rules of grammar, spelling and mathematics, at least they used to be, but somehow informing them of the religious basis of Western society is forcing conformity. Nonsense.
Atheism is not religion.Teaching moral lessons with no reference to God is textbook atheism. Faith is placed in government to spontaneously do the right thing. It is the only approved state religion.
You are blind to anything you don't like. The Constitution is clear. Putting the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms is indoctrination in a particular religion and is therefore unconstitutional.I note the absence of any attempt to justify your claim using the text of the Constitution. The problem isn't my lack of understanding. It's a lack of support in the Constitution for purging religious expression from the public schools which makes atheism the de facto state religion.
It is absolutely not constitutional, and Louisiana knows this. They are attempting to create a theocracy. This attempt needs to cost the AG of Louisiana her licensure.The legal battle over Louisiana law requiring schools to display Ten Commandments
It's pretty specific. It says the Ten Commandments need to be displayed in large, easily readable font. The law also says posters displaying the commandments have to include a context statement, the exact wording of which was included in the law passed by Louisiana's Republican-controlled legislature. It's several paragraphs but, in short, says the Ten Commandments, quote, "were a prominent part of American public education for almost three centuries," though I should say some historians argue that isn't true.
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a similar law to Louisiana's in 1980. In that ruling, the court said requiring schools in Kentucky to post the Ten Commandments, quote, "had no secular legislative purpose," was plainly religious and therefore unconstitutional. Now, Louisiana's attorney general argues the state's law is different and constitutional. She says it passes a history and tradition test and that it's about teaching morals. Opponents aren't buying that, though. They say this case is about getting something that's already been decided back to the Supreme Court, which now has a conservative supermajority.
Let's explain the 7th Commandment to 3rd Graders.
Hmm... you offer so-called shared values as the basis for Western laws and government but there is no explanation where these shared values originate. Leftists love to co-opt Judeo Christian values as magically springing from the collective. Naturally an expanded government is responsible for enacting these values under the theory of so-called social justice.I challenge this assumption that “religion forms the basis” for our laws and government. That is an absurdity erroneous conclusion. The values we all (or mostly) share form the basis of our laws. That those values are also shared by many religions is not surprising. None of this has anything to do with “offending” atheists. Anywho is free to “expose” their children to whatever religions they choose.
Again, the basis of western society is its values.
Atheism is not religion.
You are babbling. These shared values are all shared by almost every religion out there. Where they originate is not relevant and does not need to be explained. They did not originate in any particular religion. They did not originate in our government.Hmm... you offer so-called shared values as the basis for Western laws and government but there is no explanation where these shared values originate. Leftists love to co-opt Judeo Christian values as magically springing from the collective. Naturally an expanded government is responsible for enacting these values under the theory of so-called social justice.
Repeating a nonsensical lie does not make it true. Atheism has a specific meaning and is not, by any definition, a religion.Atheism is the de facto religion...
Everyone is free to believe in whatever gods they want. Our founders considered that particular freedom to be of particular importance. Our Constitution was intended to provide for freedom of AND freedom from organized religion. No on is denying or suppressing anyone's belief. How ridiculous can you get?...of those who are wildly intolerant of public religious expression. The goal of denying and suppressing belief in God is a shared value of secular Leftists and atheists.
Atheism is not a religion.Atheism is the de facto religion of those who are wildly intolerant of public religious expression
Who is being denied belief in god? Are you saying belief in god is dependent on the government promoting your god or religion? Secularism is not the same as atheism.. The goal of denying and suppressing belief in God is a shared value of secular Leftists and atheists.
Yes, it is! You clearly do not know what you're talking about!The problem isn't my lack of understanding.
The Establishment Clause prevents that. SCOTUS precedent, such as the landmark case Engel v Vitale (1962) affirms that! Atheism is not a religon. Just because the government caanot endore or promote religion does not make it an endorsement of atheism by default.It's a lack of support in the Constitution for purging religious expression from the public schools which makes atheism the de facto state religion.
Shared values common to almost all religions! It's like these values have a common source, religion. Thanks for the recognition.You are babbling. These shared values are all shared by almost every religion out there. Where they originate is not relevant and does not need to be explained. They did not originate in any particular religion. They did not originate in our government.
Indeed, the central tenant of atheism is denial of God. It's the identical denial of those who insist on common values for the basis of law and government. The nonsensical lie is pretending the goals don't align.Repeating a nonsensical lie does not make it true. Atheism has a specific meaning and is not, by any definition, a religion.
Everyone is free to believe in whatever God they want as long as they keep it to themselves. Yeah sure that's free.Everyone is free to believe in whatever gods they want. Our founders considered that particular freedom to be of particular importance. Our Constitution was intended to provide for freedom of AND freedom from organized religion. No on is denying or suppressing anyone's belief. How ridiculous can you get?
That does not mean certain values are exclusive or unique to religion.Shared values common to almost all religions! It's like these values have a common source, religion. Thanks for the recognition.
You can't explain the shared values magic so you dismiss it as irrelevant. Brilliant.
False! Atheism is simply being unconvinced there are god/s. That's it. Neither can you prove there's a god.Indeed, the central tenant of atheism is denial of God. It's the identical denial of those who insist on common values for the basis of law and government. The nonsensical lie is pretending the goals don't align.
Believe whatever you like. That is your right. You do not have the right to expect the government to validate your belief for you.Everyone is free to believe in whatever God they want as long as they keep it to themselves. Yeah sure that's free.
The 1st Amendment also guarantees the separation of church and state. Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion by the government.The First Amendment explicitly guarantees the free exercise of religion. Kindly cite the Constitutional text guaranteeing freedom from religion. It isn't there.
Whoosh. Which religion? Unknowingly, you have supported my point.Shared values common to almost all religions! It's like these values have a common source, religion. Thanks for the recognition.
Can you? The shared values you speak of predate organized religion.You can't explain the shared values magic so you dismiss it as irrelevant. Brilliant.
I think you mean tenet. But you are still wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. That is all it is. It is a singular item - a lack of one specific belief. There are no other tenets to it. We aren't denying anything, we just don't believe it. Yes, there is a difference.Indeed, the central tenant of atheism is denial of God.
Identical? No. Relevant? Also no.It's the identical denial of those who insist on common values for the basis of law and government.
Where are you getting these imagined goals?The nonsensical lie is pretending the goals don't align.
Yes. Your faith or lack thereof is a personal matter - or should be.Everyone is free to believe in whatever God they want as long as they keep it to themselves. Yeah sure that's free.
It's right there in the same amendment.The First Amendment explicitly guarantees the free exercise of religion. Kindly cite the Constitutional text guaranteeing freedom from religion. It isn't there.
Which myths are they?Yet you accept the myths in the Bible.
The way to test whether this would bother you or not. Is put another faiths,other than christianity,in the classrooms on the wall. Would this bother you?
Which myths are they?
All of them. How about Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, Moses parting the Red Sea, Jesus being resurrected from being dead, a virgin giving birth,Noah in a whale, which the writers of this myth thought was a fish? Care to hear more?Which myths are they?
It was Jonah and the whale.All of them. How about Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, Moses parting the Red Sea, Jesus being resurrected from being dead, a virgin giving birth,Noah in a whale, which the writers of this myth thought was a fish? Care to hear more?
Myth.It was Jonah and the whale.
In what way are the 10 Commandments part of our form of government. The writings of the founders and the writings of those who wrote the Constitution do not mention them. They are not part of our history. Commandments 1-4 are specific to OT religion and very strange. Equally strange are 5 and 10. Commandments 6- 9 are basic and universal behaviors. Most cultures do not need to be told not to murder, lie or steal. What kind of culture did the Israelites have that they had to be told not to murder, lie or steal?I feel that the Ten Commandments are integral to our form of government and a key part of our history and values.
The Ten Commandments seem to be designed to control a very violent and willful culture. I suspect that neither Hindus nor Buddhists with their sophisticated religions do not regard the 10 Commandments with high respect.And Hindus and Buddhists have a high respect for the Ten Commandments.
Nobody is this naive. You can't possibly not understand the difference in posting the 10 Commandments and Exit signs.I don't see any more reason not to display the Ten Commandments than I would an EXIT/ENTRANCE sign. Both point the way and both are meaningful to one's safety and wellbeing in generic terms.
If one has no problem reciting the Pledge of Allegiance I see even less of an issue with viewing the Ten Commandments. No one is being asked to recite it.
As for any Wiccan Mission Statement, they would seem to be quite self absorbed and show a lack of regard apart from personal schemes and desires. Not the sort of thing that uplifts society in general.
Yes, my slip up. Thank you. But my point still stands.It was Jonah and the whale.
I would suggest that you read the account regarding Jonah. The book is short and the implications sound quite true and not like a fable at all.Yes, my slip up. Thank you. But my point still stands.
You believe that Jonah was swallowed by a "great fish," even though a whale is not a fish, and he lived inside of it, really? That sounds true to you? How gullible are you?I would suggest that you read the account regarding Jonah. The book is short and the implications sound quite true and not like a fable at all.
I discredited that story (using science and reason of course) in my old thread, The fallacy of biblical stories: Jonah & the whale. It boggles the mind that in today's day and age, some people still believe such stories as literally true.You believe that Jonah was swallowed by a "great fish," even though a whale is not a fish, and he lived inside of it, really? That sounds true to you? How gullible are you?
I would suggest that a Hindu would simply read such a verse in context of their own religious beliefs. generally the only ones who take issue are atheists. Everyone would rather not make waves. Before 1963 there never seemed to be any issue regarding religious connotations. Kids sang carols heard Christmas stores, and participated in Christmas parties and enjoyed them. Kinds dressed in Halloween costumes and enjoyed doing so. Kids handed out Valentine cards. The old fuddy duddies were the ones who wanted everything their way or nothing at all! Sad individuals are like that.No Hindu wants to see, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The Ten commandments need to be left in churches, synagogues, mosques, and parochial schools, not public schools, or any other government building.
They would not.I would suggest that a Hindu would simply read such a verse in context of their own religious beliefs. generally the only ones who take issue are atheists. Everyone would rather not make waves. Before 1963 there never seemed to be any issue regarding religious connotations. Kids sang carols heard Christmas stores, and participated in Christmas parties and enjoyed them. Kinds dressed in Halloween costumes and enjoyed doing so. Kids handed out Valentine cards. The old fuddy duddies were the ones who wanted everything their way or nothing at all! Sad individuals are like that.
Do YOU believe in GOD? I'm not sure if what Jonah was swallowed by a large fish or what we now refer to as a whale. When were whales classified as not being fish? If the choice was between a whale being a fish or an elephant, which one would you choose? The real questions are these: Do YOU believe that GOD exists and is GOD also capable of producing a large marine animal capable of swallowing a human, and permitting that human to survive that event? IS there GOD, and do you believe in HIM?You believe that Jonah was swallowed by a "great fish," even though a whale is not a fish, and he lived inside of it, really? That sounds true to you? How gullible are you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?