Louisiana will require the 10 Commandments displayed in every public school classroom

[Uncensored2008]

That isn't a problem here now is it? (Our public schools follow Jewish holidays, etc.... No one seems to complain...)

Remember 6 months ago when these same Marxists were melting down that removing porn from elementary school libraries was "censorship?"

The level of hypocrisy from those like @Flash is laughable.

 

[TOP]

Remember 6 months ago when these same Marxists were melting down that removing porn from elementary school libraries was "censorship?"

The level of hypocrisy from those like @Flash is laughable.

View attachment 27310

Two sets of rules...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Two sets of rules...

"Freedom of speech" to the left means they say what they like, and you shut up.

 

[Flash]

The action, bitch, is paying for and requiring display. If you don’t define that as forcing, then you are more stupid than you portray yourself. If that’s fucking possible.

That is clearly not true. You seek to use the power of government to censor speech you oppose.

You've got your constitutional law backwards. In the case of the 10 commandments the government is not censoring free speech. The government is violating the establishment clause by mandating the display in public places supported by taxes.

The Supreme Court is restricting government power. You are the one who wants to use government power to require the display imposing speech on the school.

I would never favor government restrictions on free speech and the public can display, cite, or make any religious statements they choose in public places. Clearly, Libertarians favor greater free speech than those who want religious materials (if Christian) in schools. I support the court cases that struck down government mandates of religion. You want a government that has such a power.


W

"Secular" is not the established religion - though you demand it be.



No such law exists. As I said - you cannot defend your assault on free speech honestly - you have to make dishonest claims of forced prayers and other things that simply don't exist.



No conduct is required from passive displays.

You cannot defend your assault on free speech honestly - you have to make dishonest claims of forced prayers and other things that simply don't exist.

That is clearly not true. You seek to use the power of government to censor speech you oppose.



"Secular" is not the established religion - though you demand it be.



No such law exists. As I said - you cannot defend your assault on free speech honestly - you have to make dishonest claims of forced prayers and other things that simply don't exist.



No conduct is required from passive displays.

You cannot defend your assault on free speech honestly - you have to make dishonest claims of forced prayers and other things that simply don't exist.

And?

This compels no action by the students/



Only fascists seek to censor ideas they oppose using the power of the state.



Correct, libertarians oppose censorship of speech. Fascists support "managed speech" where government dictates what may or may not be said or displayed.



You do, though. You openly demand that government suppress ideas you oppose.



Passive displays mandate nothing. It appears you support an established religion of "secularism" and are offended that states may violate the official religion.



And yet those such as you routinely attack private organizations who dare express ideals in contrast to the established religion.



Can government prohibit that scene? Hint - they do all the time.

 

[Flash]

You've got your constitutional law backwards. In the case of the 10 commandments the government is not censoring free speech. The government is violating the establishment clause by mandating the display in public places supported by taxes.

The Supreme Court is restricting government power. You are the one who wants to use government power to require the display imposing speech on the school.

I would never favor government restrictions on free speech and the public can display, cite, or make any religious statements they choose in public places. Clearly, Libertarians favor greater free speech than those who want religious materials (if Christian) in schools. I support the court cases that struck down government mandates of religion. You want a government that has such a power.

 

[Flash]

You've got your constitutional law backwards. In the case of the 10 commandments the government is not censoring free speech. The government is violating the establishment clause by mandating the display in public places supported by taxes.

The Supreme Court is restricting government power. You are the one who wants to use government power to require the display imposing speech on the school.

I would never favor government restrictions on free speech and the public can display, cite, or make any religious statements they choose in public places. Clearly, Libertarians favor greater free speech than those who want religious materials (if Christian) in schools. I support the court cases that struck down government mandates of religion. You want a government that has such a power.


W

"Secular" is not the established religion - though you demand it be.

"Secular" is not a religion. Secular means non-religious which all governmental laws must be to not violate the 1st amendment. That is why the original Constitution included only one mention of religion--that no religious test is required to hold public office.

No such law exists. As I said - you cannot defend your assault on free speech honestly - you have to make dishonest claims of forced prayers and other things that simply don't exist.

They don't exist because the Supreme Court struck them down because they violate the establishment clause. There were laws requiring schools start the day with a mandated prayer (Engel v. Vitale).

There were laws requiring students stand and cite the pledge of allegiance. Those laws still exist but students who object for religious reasons are exempt.

No conduct is required from passive displays.

You cannot defend your assault on free speech honestly - you have to make dishonest claims of forced prayers and other things that simply don't exist.

 

[Flash]

"Secular" is not a religion. Secular means non-religious which all governmental laws must be to not violate the 1st amendment. That is why the original Constitution included only one mention of religion--that no religious test is required to hold public office.

They don't exist because the Supreme Court struck them down because they violate the establishment clause. There were laws requiring schools start the day with a mandated prayer (Engel v. Vitale).

There were laws requiring students stand and cite the pledge of allegiance. Those laws still exist but students who object for religious reasons are exempt.

And?
This compels no action by the students/

Again, your constitutional law is backwards. The 1st amendment in this case is about what government can require governmental entities to do (post the commandments, mandate a prayer, mandate the pledge), not about what it mandates students to do. If Congress created an estlished religion it would not mandate action, but it clearly violates the establishment clause. So, action is not required to violate the 1st amendment.

You are arguing with a straw man by claiming views I never expressed and do not believe. You see political views as black or white--if they do not agree with you they must favor the opposite.

You are arguing with our (posters) explanation of the 1st amendment as ruled by the courts. That does not necessarily mean we agree or support those decisions. We are explaining current law.

Can government prohibit that scene? Hint - they do all the time.

They cannot prohibit that scene on private property or public property open to all activities. Give us an example where they did it? (other than the court cases discussed in this thread).

 

[Flash]

Remember 6 months ago when these same Marxists were melting down that removing porn from elementary school libraries was "censorship?"

The level of hypocrisy from those like @Flash is laughable.

Now you are defending government suppression of free speech?

Nothing in the Constitution prohibts porn in schools but it does prohibit government mandated religion. What books are allowed in schools should be determined by that school and parents. Parents can always prohibit their child from reading something they oppose. Some of those books were only "porn" as defined by right-wing fascists (Huck Finn, Anne Frank).

 

[Flash]

That isn't a problem here now is it? (Our public schools follow Jewish holidays, etc.... No one seems to complain...)

The schools did not estbalish Jewish or Christian holidlays (Easter, Christmas). The courts ruled governments (schools, etc.) could recognize widely celebrated holidays in making their holidlay schedule. If a school was going to have 8 holildays a year it could choose Christmas, for example, since that is an almost universally celebrated holiday in the U. S. The government did not create that religious holiday.

 

[TOP]

"Freedom of speech" to the left means they say what they like, and

The schools did not estbalish Jewish or Christian holidlays (Easter, Christmas). The courts ruled governments (schools, etc.) could recognize widely celebrated holidays in making their holidlay schedule. If a school was going to have 8 holildays a year it could choose Christmas, for example, since that is an almost universally celebrated holiday in the U. S. The government did not create that religious holiday.

The point is it doesn't and shouldn't cause a problem to recognize and celebrate religious Beliefs and practices that are not those of all the students in a public school... Should schools not be able to have gospel choirs that practice during the school day?

 

[Flash]

The point is it doesn't and shouldn't cause a problem to recognize and celebrate religious Beliefs and practices that are not those of all the students in a public school... Should schools not be able to have gospel choirs that practice during the school day?

The problem is the 1st amendment establishment clause. Should we just ignore it and allow any and all religious activities? What about those religious beliefs that are those of all the students in a public school?

The issue isn't whether it is a "problem" but whether government should require religious activies. Students are already free to pray, study the Bible/Koran/.. in public schools. Religion has not been "banned" in public places. Only government mandated or prohibited activities. Clearly the founders wanted to keep our government secular (which is not a religion). Many of those men were Christian but did not wanted to keep religion out of government.

 

[TOP]

The problem is the 1st amendment establishment clause. Should we just ignore it and allow any and all religious activities? What about those religious beliefs that are those of all the students in a public school?

The issue isn't whether it is a "problem" but whether government should require religious activies. Students are already free to pray, study the Bible/Koran/.. in public schools. Religion has not been "banned" in public places. Only government mandated or prohibited activities. Clearly the founders wanted to keep our government secular (which is not a religion). Many of those men were Christian but did not wanted to keep religion out of government.

Schools Need to be more flexible these days... Needs to be more flexible.. I'm sure that eventually Louisiana schools will not Have to post the ten commandments... I guess the walls in every classroom should just be bare And schools should never have any kind of religion based activities such as baccalaureate services...or Religious based assemblies... Let schools decide what's necessary and best for their students...

 

[Uncensored2008]

You've got your constitutional law backwards. In the case of the 10 commandments the government is not censoring free speech.

Is a rose by any other name not as sweet?

No matter what euphemisms you fascists employ - it is censorship. You demand the power of government be used to prohibit the display of ideas you oppsoe.

The government is violating the establishment clause by mandating the display in public places supported by taxes.

The Court made this possible. Are you suddenly saying that SCOTUS doesn't decide what the Constitution says?

The Supreme Court is restricting government power. You are the one who wants to use government power to require the display imposing speech on the school.

Wrong - I simply oppose YOU using the government to censor ideas that offend you.

I would never favor government restrictions on free speech and the public can display, cite, or make any religious statements they choose in public places. Clearly, Libertarians favor greater free speech than those who want religious materials (if Christian) in schools. I support the court cases that struck down government mandates of religion. You want a government that has such a power.


W

Real Libertarians favor freedom of speech - clearly you of the Chomsky Marxist wing have a vastly different view.

Perhaps the only real answer is to abolish government schools.

I KNOW you would never go for that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Now you are defending government suppression of free speech?

And here we go with the double standard.

Removing porn is "suppression of free speech," but censoring the 10 Commandments is good and pure.

Nothing in the Constitution prohibts porn in schools but it does prohibit government mandated religion.

We've been through this, passive displays are not a mandated or official religion.

What books are allowed in schools should be determined by that school and parents. Parents can always prohibit their child from reading something they oppose. Some of those books were only "porn" as defined by right-wing fascists (Huck Finn, Anne Frank).

ROFL

None of which were opposed by "right wing," all of which were suppressed by you of the left.

Does the idea of "age appropriate" resonate with you?

What elements of the 10 Commandments would not be appropriate for a 6 year old to be exposed to? You strongly support censoring this.

What elements of "Gender Queer" would not be appropriate for a 6 year old to be exposed to? You demand it be provided to children.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The problem is the 1st amendment establishment clause. Should we just ignore it and allow any and all religious activities?

Yes, because that is what the 1st Amendment actually says.

Have you ever actually read the 1st? Or any of the Bill of Rights?

"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise therein."

This in simple terms allows any and all religious activities that don't harm others. (Yes, I know you'll trot out the "what about human sacrifice" straw man.)

 

[NakedHunterBiden]

By whom? This is predicated on a SCOTUS decision - who do you see censoring these displays?

Government schools are a bad idea. People have different values. The left wants to groom children to be trans or gay - the right wants to guide children to moral beliefs based on Biblical principles.

The left is outraged that the 10 Commandments aren't censored - for fear that exposure could hamper grooming efforts. The Right is angered that the left sexualizes very young children and grooms them to the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ lifestyle.

Government shouldn't be involved in this - in schools. Let parents alone decide what school their child attends and what values they wish to instill in those children.

None of the above is true.

If you want to raise your child christian, then place your child in a christian school. There problem solved.

 

[RB 60]

You've got your constitutional law backwards. In the case of the 10 commandments the government is not censoring free speech. The government is violating the establishment clause by mandating the display in public places supported by taxes.

The Supreme Court is restricting government power. You are the one who wants to use government power to require the display imposing speech on the school.

I would never favor government restrictions on free speech and the public can display, cite, or make any religious statements they choose in public places. Clearly, Libertarians favor greater free speech than those who want religious materials (if Christian) in schools. I support the court cases that struck down government mandates of religion. You want a government that has such a power.


W

Would you prefer a portrait of the words to the Battle Hymn of the Republic (that historical song written during the Civil War) being displayed (as educational)?

 

[Uncensored2008]

None of the above is true.

If you want to raise your child christian, then place your child in a christian school. There problem solved.

Government schools are a failure.

They do little to prepare children for life, and are purely indoctrination vehicles to groom children in to hyper-sexualized ideas and push them to Marxist ideologies such as the AGW hoax.

@Flash is aghast that I oppose censorship in public schools. But in reality it goes far further - I oppose public schools period.

For those like you and Flash, government is the greatest good and should be expanded to rule over every aspect of life. But this issue, where the left demands innocuous ideas like the 10 C's be suppressed by government shows that government schools dictate the values imposed on children - often contrary to the views and wishes of parents.

The real problem is the existence of compulsory public education.

Look, you're a troll - no need to reply - you'll offer nothing meaningful or intelligent. You just provided a platform to explain the root cause of this issue.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Would you prefer a portrait of the words to the Battle Hymn of the Republic (that historical song written during the Civil War) being displayed (as educational)?

That too must be censored - the fascist left forgets the second part of the sentence "or infringing the free exercise therein."

 

[Flash]

Government schools are a failure.

They do little to prepare children for life, and are purely indoctrination vehicles to groom children in to hyper-sexualized ideas and push them to Marxist ideologies such as the AGW hoax.

@Flash is aghast that I oppose censorship in public schools. But in reality it goes far further - I oppose public schools period.

For those like you and Flash, government is the greatest good and should be expanded to rule over every aspect of life. But this issue, where the left demands innocuous ideas like the 10 C's be suppressed by government shows that government schools dictate the values imposed on children - often contrary to the views and wishes of parents.

BS. We are the ones who want less government involvement and you are the one who wants government to dictate religious activites in public schools. That is because you are the right-wing fascist who wants to use government to shape society by your own moral beliefs.

I oppose government suppression of speech and you want government to mandate what that speech must include in the 10 commandments.

We both believe public schools are a failure, but I think it is because they teach little or nothing. You think they are indoctrinating students which shows you have little knowledge of education. If they were getting liberal indoctrination they would all be voting Democratic instead of 50% Republican. My county voted 90% for Trump--they must have been indoctrinated by the fascist right.

We want less government and you want more although you proclaim just the opposite.

The real problem is the existence of compulsory public education.

Look, you're a troll - no need to reply - you'll offer nothing meaningful or intelligent. You just provided a platform to explain the root cause of this issue.