How can this possibly be constitutional?

[jaypatriot]

If you regard where you will spend eternity is important to you, you will set aside a little more time reading something worthwhile, and quit playing games on your cell phone. Heaven forbid you waste you time reading the Bible ---- or it would seem even reading front page of a newspaper...

You really are serious about proselytizing in front of all these Dems and Liberals and Progressives who are humoring you.
I admire your effort at missionary work.
I just think you're in the wrong venue.

 

[tonyeveland]

There is a requirement for keeping religion out of any government sponsored areas such as public education.

The first amendment, concerning religion, places two restrictions on government and none on citizens.

So. There is nothing a citizen can do regarding religion that would violate the Constitution

 

[tonyeveland]

The right answer is that religion belongs in your home and in your place of worship - if you have a religion.
Religion does NOT belong in public school.

You really are serious about proselytizing in front of all these Dems and Liberals and Progressives who are humoring you.
I admire your effort at missionary work.
I just think you're in the wrong venue.

If you want to waste your vote, why bother voting?

 

[StillServing]

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.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/22/nx-s1-5159697/the-legal-battle-over-louisiana-law-requiring-schools-to-display-ten-commandments

Let's explain the 7th Commandment to 3rd Graders.

Ok. I object to this law not because I object to showing the 10 Commandments which is a basis for law and societal order in western civilization.

I object because it’s a stupid law. It mandates that every classroom must display it. But at the same time it prohibits any public funds to be used to purchase the posters.

So if a teacher does not have it displayed, how is this remedied? The school or district cannot pay for it and you cannot compel donations. It just stupid law.

If a social studies teacher wants to display it as a demonstration of primary sources of our state of law and society. I see no problem. But this bill is simply stupid.

 

[BabaVoss]

Ok. I object to this law not because I object to showing the 10 Commandments which is a basis for law and societal order in western civilization.

I object because it’s a stupid law. It mandates that every classroom must display it. But at the same time it prohibits any public funds to be used to purchase the posters.

So if a teacher does not have it displayed, how is this remedied? The school or district cannot pay for it and you cannot compel donations. It just stupid law.

If a social studies teacher wants to display it as a demonstration of primary sources of our state of law and society. I see no problem. But this bill is simply stupid.

Religion has no place in public schools. Religion belongs at home and in your place of worship - if you so choose.

 

[StillServing]

Religion has no place in public schools. Religion belongs at home and in your place of worship - if you so choose.

Ok. But there is a context which religion taught in school is appropriate. As a teacher, I had students read sections from the Quran, the
Tripiṭaka, and the Vedas for context. And yes, from the 10 Commandments and even New Testament. The issue here is not what is displayed or discussed. It’s intent

 

[Loulit01]

Ok. I object to this law not because I object to showing the 10 Commandments which is a basis for law and societal order in

In what way? The first three aren't laws. Coveting isn't illegal. Theft and murder are illegal worldwide. What are you talking about?

western civilization.

I object because it’s a stupid law. It mandates that every classroom must display it. But at the same time it prohibits any public funds to be used to purchase the posters.

So if a teacher does not have it displayed, how is this remedied? The school or district cannot pay for it and you cannot compel donations. It just stupid law.

If a social studies teacher wants to display it as a demonstration of primary sources of our state of law and society.

The Ten Commandments have very little if anything to do with the laws of the United States. And plenty of religious organizations are happy to buy all the posters needed and more.

I see no problem. But this bill is simply stupid.

 

[StillServing]

In what way? The first three aren't laws. Coveting isn't illegal. Theft and murder are illegal worldwide. What are you talking about?

The Ten Commandments have very little if anything to do with the laws of the United States. And plenty of religious organizations are happy to buy all the posters needed and more.

In context of early precedents for guiding principles of society, absolutely. Just as the Vedas, Tripitaka, Quran, and Analects provided the basis for societal norms and were later expressed into laws.

 

[StillServing]

There is a requirement for keeping religion out of any government sponsored areas such as public education.

Where?

I know of no document that says this. Certainly you are not suggesting the 1st Amendment, are you?

Where in the amendment are the words “separation of church and state”? They are not there. They are the word from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. Interestingly, Jefferson was no primary source for the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. He wasn’t even I. The country at the time as he was our ambassador to France. Moreover, his letter was actually about safeguard religious freedom from the government, not government from religious expression.

the first amendment only discusses that we should not establish a religion which was a direct opposition to the Church of England. It was never meant to be an attack on religion.

 

[StillServing]

It is against the Constitution. You have no right to push your god onto my kids.

Where in the Constitution would I find that? I’m familiar with the no establishment clause, not sure what you are referring to

 

[StillServing]

What part of separation of church and state do you not understand?

Where would we find this?

 

[StillServing]

Indeed, imagine a Federal department of education that spent $269 billion in FY 2024 only to see more failure as shown by falling scores on standardized testing.

Right? That’s why we should get the federal
Government out in education as there is no authority for the federal government to do so.

 

[Loulit01]

In context of early precedents for guiding principles of society, absolutely. Just as the Vedas, Tripitaka, Quran, and Analects provided the basis for societal norms and were later expressed into laws.

Nonsense>

 

[Loulit01]

Where would we find this?

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists​

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Right here.

 

[Clothahump]

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?

Yes, it would. Schools are for education, not indoctrination (at least they used to be). The First Amendment is very clear about the separation of church and state.

 

[Gordy327]

T

Where would we find this?

The 1st Amendment, the writings of the FFs, and established legal precedent.

Right? That’s why we should get the federal
Government out in education as there is no authority for the federal government to do so.

Sure, let's make it even easier for people to be stupid.

 

[StillServing]

T
The 1st Amendment, the writings of the FFs, and established legal precedent.

Separation of church and state is not I. The Constitution. Simply isn’t. There is the 1st amendment which says that we can not establish our own church such as the Church of England.

There are Supreme Court cases that say you cannot coerce religious adoption. But that you cannot have students read the 10 commandments, portions of the Vedas, Quran, Analects, or Tripitaka? Nope

Sure, let's make it even easier for people to be stupid.

Because the federal spending equates to student performance? Of course not. There is no correlation of federal funding in K-12 to NAEP scores…none.

Scholars such as Hanushek have found correlation between school expenditures in total sums and student achievement.

I’m sorry to say your statement is not supported by any serous research.

 

[Gordy327]

Separation of church and state is not I. The Constitution. Simply isn’t. There is the 1st amendment which says that we can not establish our own church such as the Church of England.

Every legal scholar would disagree with you. The Establishment Clause is the basis of separation. Or do you seriously think something must be explicitly stated in the Constitution to be legally valid or applicable?

There are Supreme Court cases that say you cannot coerce religious adoption. But that you cannot have students read the 10 commandments, portions of the Vedas, Quran, Analects, or Tripitaka? Nope

Scotus rulings have affirmed the government cannot endorse or promote any religion over another or over non-religion.

Because the federal spending equates to student performance? Of course not. There is no correlation of federal funding in K-12 to NAEP scores…none.

Scholars such as Hanushek have found correlation between school expenditures in total sums and student achievement.

I’m sorry to say your statement is not supported by any serous research.

You haven't even provided any research. How do you think schools operate and function?

 

[StillServing]

Every legal scholar would disagree with you. The Establishment Clause is the basis of separation. Or do you seriously think something must be explicitly stated in the Constitution to be legally valid or applicable?

Scotus rulings have affirmed the government cannot endorse or promote any religion over another or over non-religion

And yet my statement stands. No where in the Constitution are the words “separation of church and state”. These words are from Jefferson within his letter to the Dansbury Baptists in 1803. Yet, while Jefferson was instrumental to the Declaration of Independence, he was no where in the US during the drafting of the Constitution.

Furthermore it wouldn’t be until 1947 that SCOTUS adopted the terminology, turning back 158 years of precedent. It is important to note that Justice Robert Jackson, while agreeing with the outcome which dealt with whether parochial schools should be reimbursed, he said that Hugo Black’s opinion went too far and could invite “extreme separation” that the framers never envisioned

Yet, you are overlooking that I agree that the courts have said that there are prohibitions on proselytizing a particular faith in a governmental setting. However, there is NOTHING that prevents or should prevent a teacher from having students read fro the 10 commandments, any other portion of the Torah, the Bible, the Quran, Vedas, Analects, or the Tripitika in a lesson about how religion has shaped societal laws or the differences between different customs and societies. As such, yes a teacher can have a copy of the 19 Commandments on their wall.

Even still this is a stupid law for the reasons I’ve previously stated.

 

[Gordy327]

And yet my statement stands. No where in the Constitution are the words “separation of church and state”. These words are from Jefferson within his letter to the Dansbury Baptists in 1803. Yet, while Jefferson was instrumental to the Declaration of Independence, he was no where in the US during the drafting of the Constitution.

Furthermore it wouldn’t be until 1947 that SCOTUS adopted the terminology, turning back 158 years of precedent. It is important to note that Justice Robert Jackson, while agreeing with the outcome which dealt with whether parochial schools should be reimbursed, he said that Hugo Black’s opinion went too far and could invite “extreme separation” that the framers never envisioned

Yet, you are overlooking that I agree that the courts have said that there are prohibitions on proselytizing a particular faith in a governmental setting. However, there is NOTHING that prevents or should prevent a teacher from having students read fro the 10 commandments, any other portion of the Torah, the Bible, the Quran, Vedas, Analects, or the Tripitika in a lesson about how religion has shaped societal laws or the differences between different customs and societies. As such, yes a teacher can have a copy of the 19 Commandments on their wall.

Even still this is a stupid law for the reasons I’ve previously stated.

Jefferson's words were taken as "declarative authority" on the matter of separation when the SCOTUS affirmed the separation of church and state in their landmark case, Reynolds v. US (1878.). Subsequent SCOTUS decisions regarding separation also reinforce it. But its obvious you think something must be explicitly stated in the constitution for it to be valid or legal, which demonstrates an ignorance regarding the Constitution on your part.

 

[StillServing]

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists​

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Right here.

Not exactly in the Constitution, is it. Nor was Jefferson with the framers during the writing and ratification of the Constitution—he was in France during this period.

 

[StillServing]

Jefferson's words were taken as "declarative authority" on the matter of separation when the SCOTUS affirmed the separation of church and state in their landmark case, Reynolds v. US (1878.). Subsequent SCOTUS decisions regarding separation also reinforce it. But it’s obvious you think something must be explicitly stated in the constitution for it to be valid or legal, which demonstrates an ignorance regarding the Constitution on your part.

If course you miss entirely Jefferson’s stated position which was the wall is to keep government out of religion. This was his point in his letter to the Danbury Baptists and was the context of its use in the 1878 case where SCOTUS acknowledged this interpretation of Jefferson’s words but declared that anti bigomy laws are legal, despite the wall. It was never argued at this time that the wall was to protect religion from entering government

 

[AZRWinger]

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists​

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Right here.

Thanks for including the entire letter. It makes it easy to see the deceptive editing foisted upon the People bt the SCOTUS.

Jefferson wrote in response to a letter expressing concern about potential government interference with a small congregation of Baptists in Danbury. Examining the clause preceeding the famous wall of separation we see Jefferson unambiguously referred to the legislature, government, being prohibited from interfering with religion.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should"

Italics added.

Jefferson was keenly aware of the English monarchy nationalization of the Catholic church in Britain transforming it into the Church of England with the king at his head.

Of course atheists completely flipped the meaning of wall of separation in furtherance of their agenda of purging public religious expression. The deceptive editing of the letter was just another example of the ends justify the means.

 

[jaypatriot]

Religion has no place in public schools. Religion belongs at home and in your place of worship - if you so choose.

Schools should focus on what is important. Namely, how to read, write, and use critical thinking skills to understand the real world.
I agree: "Religion belongs at home and in your place of worship".

 

[Gordy327]

If course you miss entirely Jefferson’s stated position which was the wall is to keep government out of religion. This was his point in his letter to the Danbury Baptists and was the context of its use in the 1878 case where SCOTUS acknowledged this interpretation of Jefferson’s words but declared that anti bigomy laws are legal, despite the wall. It was never argued at this time that the wall was to protect religion from entering government

The "wall" is separation itself. And since you acknowledge the wall of separation, which you earlier denied or didn't recognize its inclusion in the Constitution, was also affirmed by the SCOTUS. Therefore, separation is indeed in the Constitution. What you clearly fail (intentionally or otherwise) to understand is the wall of separation works both ways, the government cannot intrude in religion and vice versa. Several SCOTUS rulings have addressed and affirmed this. Other FFs also addressed the question of separation too.