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

[Uncensored2008]

The Supreme Court can't "step in."

The Anti-Civil Liberties Union has filed suit.

They must wait for somebody with standing to bring suit and be accepted on appeal by the lower courts. Then, the SC might hear the case (only 10% of cases appealed to the SC are accepted).

Ohhh, so you don't expect to be able to censor schools in a state you don't live in anytime soon?

That must be distressing for you.

The Civil Liberties Union is for freedom from government tyranny and oppression from those like yourself who want theocracy.

The ACLU is a radical Marxist organization that advocates totalitarian government - much as you do.

Are you always this bitter and full of hate and insults? Some people can engage in political debate without hate.

ROFL

The irony is overwhelming.

 

[Flash]

The Anti-Civil Liberties Union has filed suit.

Ohhh, so you don't expect to be able to censor schools in a state you don't live in anytime soon?

Filing suit does not mean the courts will accept it. Since the court already ruled on this issue in 1980 the appeals court could just dismiss it as already been decided.

Schools are not being censored. The government policy that required schools to post the commandments is being struck down because it violates the establishment clause. Anybody in that school is free to read, display, or promote those principles.

But, that is not enough for theocrats like youself. You want the views of a certain religion imposed on the school. Would you object if the government required Islamic writings posted in each classroom?

 

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Christian nationalism is the greatest threat to our country?!! These people want to make America a Christian Nation?!!

Is US democracy in danger from a movement that wants to see America governed according to the Bible? Sky News investigates the growth of Christian nationalism.

How Christian nationalism is going under the radar in this election​

(RNS) — Some far-right Christian lawmakers have proposed that nonreligious Americans are not fit to govern because, without Christ, they are “evil.” Is it possible, given their relative lack of concern about such statements, that nonreligious Americans don’t know what Christian nationalism is?

In fact, it may be expected. As the nonreligious population grows, and as people increasingly choose where they live based on religion and politics, this group has less exposure to conservative Christian politics. While many nonreligious Americans today are aware of the political stakes and players, substantial minorities are socially insulated from religious forces and their effect on political realities as we head toward the 2024 election.

Mobilizing groups into politics can mean introducing terminology that helps people quickly make sense of the political world. Christian nationalism, a worldview seeking and legitimating Christian dominion in the U.S., is the crucial term here. While it may seem obvious that the nonreligious would have interests at stake were Christian nationalists to gain power, it actually comes as a surprise to a number of the nonreligious that they are combatants in a war for America.

A good example of Christian nationalism at work is the Texas Republican Party. As Texas Tribune reporter Robert Downen put it on X recently, “The [2024] Texas GOP convention was one, long and open call for spiritual warfare.” Speaker after speaker reinforced the theme that “they” — a loosely defined set of tags like liberals, globalists and LGBTQ Americans — “want to take God out of the country, and they want the government to be God.”

This “they” also certainly includes anyone who isn’t a Christian: “People that aren’t in Christ have wicked, evil hearts,” said one participant, according to the Tribune.

Proposals passed in the Texas GOP convention have required teaching the Bible in public schools and changing election procedures to protect the interests of rural, largely white, conservative Christians. These measures are designed to allow the government to force Christianity on others and to reinforce the privileged position of white Christians in power — a canonical case of Christian nationalism.

With such blatant Christian nationalism on the march, why aren’t more nonreligious Americans concerned?

The simplest answer may be that they don’t know about it. A recent report by Pew Research Center showed that in February 2024 slim majorities of Americans (54%) said they had not read or heard anything about Christian nationalism. Of those who identify as atheists, agnostics or “nothing in particular,” Pew found that a substantial minority (44%) had not heard of Christian nationalism.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...-under-the-radar-in-this-election/ar-BB1oASuM

View attachment 27159View attachment 27158

nope.

internationalism or globalism is the biggest threat to all countries and humans that are not billionaires.

 

[Flash]

Restricting rights of communities to post passive displays of generally accepted ideals - that is infringing the free exercise is expressly forbidden in the 1st.

This is where you completely misunderstand what occurred in this case. Nobody restricted the rights of communities to post displays. The community did not choose to display this--it was mandated by government policy. The government action made it an establishment case. If government prohibited the community or individual from displaying this document it would be a freedom of religion case. Two separate rights.

Where does the Constitution make a distinction between "passive" displays and others?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Filing suit does not mean the courts will accept it. Since the court already ruled on this issue in 1980 the appeals court could just dismiss it as already been decided.

Schools are not being censored. The government policy that required schools to post the commandments is being struck down because it violates the establishment clause. Anybody in that school is free to read, display, or promote those principles.

But, that is not enough for theocrats like youself. You want the views of a certain religion imposed on the school. Would you object if the government required Islamic writings posted in each classroom?

I don't know what that derp is babbling about as he's on ignore. But did want to say something about this post. Schools ARE being censored -- in Florida where books in classrooms, even those belonging to and paid for by the teacher, must be reviewed by a government-appointed committee to determine if they pass state muster. Certain subjects are forbidden to be discussed, such as LGBTQ issues. A revisionist history of slavery is being taught.

Of course these sorts of things are perfectly fine with wannabe theocrats and/or fascists.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Filing suit does not mean the courts will accept it.

But you want to censor ideas that go against Marxist goals - they HAVE to take it, don't they?

Since the court already ruled on this issue in 1980 the appeals court could just dismiss it as already been decided.

Then what are you and your fellow Marxists melting down about?

Schools are not being censored. The government policy that required schools to post the commandments is being struck down because it violates the establishment clause. Anybody in that school is free to read, display, or promote those principles.

But, that is not enough for theocrats like youself. You want the views of a certain religion imposed on the school. Would you object if the government required Islamic writings posted in each classroom?

Marxist like you fear free speech.

Say, here's an idea Comrade - abolish government schools.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is where you completely misunderstand what occurred in this case. Nobody restricted the rights of communities to post displays. The community did not choose to display this--it was mandated by government policy. The government action made it an establishment case. If government prohibited the community or individual from displaying this document it would be a freedom of religion case. Two separate rights.

Where does the Constitution make a distinction between "passive" displays and others?

The Constitution prohibits infringement of free exercise. You anti-liberty types just ignore that part.

 

[Flash]

The Constitution prohibits infringement of free exercise. You anti-liberty types just ignore that part.

The free exercise clause prevents government from infringing on freedom of religion. When government mandates a religious practice you have not infringed on anybody's freedom of religion--government has violated the establishment clause;unless you are claiming the government has the freedom of religion to require others to follow its religious mandates.

Anti-liberty is when government can mandate your religious practices. Pro-liberty is when government cannot restrict or require the people to follow its religious demands but they are free to practice religion as they choose (unless it is a danger to others).

 

[Flash]

But you want to censor ideas that go against Marxist goals - they HAVE to take it, don't they?

Then what are you and your fellow Marxists melting down about?

Marxist like you fear free speech.

Say, here's an idea Comrade - abolish government schools.

Marxists want a government that can dictate religous practices. The American people want a government that cannot interfere with our religion. You fit the Marxist model since you support a government that can mandate that schools impose religious practices on students.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Marxists want a government that can dictate religous practices.

Marxists PROHIBIT religious practices and displays.

Just like you do.

The American people want a government that cannot interfere with our religion.

Yet you seek to interfere through censorship.

The party knows best.

You fit the Marxist model since you support a government that can mandate that schools impose religious practices on students.

Comrade, would you support abolishing government run schools so that parents can decide what is best for their children? Ah but that's the rub, isn't it? Children belong to the state - everything belongs to the state...

Or more likely...