Louisiana Governor knows this will increase his popularity

[elektra]

Accuse others a that which you are guilty off..........that is the NAZI way

as you dictate

 

[LordBrownTrout]

We posted the 10 Commandments in our Florida classroom in the late 90, but the legislature did not require it, and it was funded by outside sources. I believe it was also overturned after I left.

Here is the KY case:
A similar Kentucky statute mandating that the Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court 43 years ago. That case was Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980). In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments is, obviously, a religious text, and that the state’s requirement that it be posted in classrooms was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Establishment Clause forbids the government from establishing an official religion and also prohibits government from any action that favors one religion over another.

Do The Ten Commandments Belong In Public School Classrooms?

The Texas Senate has passed a bill that mandates posting the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom in the state. To become law, the bill still

www.patheos.com

I remember that. I grew up in Ky and saw the 10 commandments in the hall in grade school. I remember after that case, the school ignored the ruling. It was no big deal back then.

 

[elektra]

Holy shit WHAT!!!??? Still trying to gaslight me?? Not working ! How the fuck does my like support the ten commandments in the classroom? The FFRF is suing the state over the issue, This is from that link

FFRF, coalition to file lawsuit against new Louisiana 10 Commandments law

The Freedom from Religion Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana and Americans United for Separation of Church and State announced today that they will file suit to challenge a new Louisiana Ten Commandments law.

ffrf.org

Clearly you have lose what ever was left of your mind. If you do not understand by position it is because you either don't want to or are unable to. Not my problem. And you can stop hyperventilating over my initial lack of a comment on the link. Just get the fuck over it

TPP, the emotion you attach to me does not exist and is not part of this discussion. You are expressing a "soft" form of bigotry. Or should I say a little bigotry. Your comments attaching emotion to my post is more reflective to your frustration.

This is also from your link. The FFRF is working with the Satanic Temple, suing on behalf for their religious rights. I assumed if they support the Satanic Temple they must support the Ten Commandments. I can not imagine they would pic one religion over the other but you point out that they do. They will sue to remove Christianity, they will sue to place the Satanic Temple's meeting on schools. The Satanic Temple has supported the Ten Commandments, so how is the Freedom from Religion Foundation pick and choose which issues it addresses. They support the Satanic Temple's freedom express their religion but they do not support the Ten Commandments.

FFRF sues Memphis schools on behalf of The Satanic Temple

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of The Satanic Temple against the Shelby County Board of Education in Memphis, Tenn., over serious violations of

ffrf.org

 

[elektra]

The first test to determine if the Ten Commandments establish or promote a religion is to determine if the Ten Commandments are of one religion.

Catholics, Baptists, and Protestants have the Ten Commandments as part of their religion. Judaism have the Ten Commandments as part of their religion. The Moslems also have the Ten Commandments as part of their religion.

The Ten Commandments can not promote one religion, or all religions.

Recognizing the Ten Commandments by displaying them in a school does not promote or establish a religion or all religions.

People are attaching their opinion to the Ten Commandments, in order to abolish all references associated with Christianity. It is the continued revisionist history attack on our founding. Nothing more.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Accuse others a that which you are guilty off..........that is the NAZI way

... certainly the MAGA way.

 

[elektra]

... certainly the MAGA way.

prove it

 

[OKTexas]

The Court will no more get rid of the incorporation decision of the 14th Amendment (1866) than any of them will start for the Washington Nationals.

We'll see.

.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

TPP, the emotion you attach to me does not exist and is not part of this discussion. You are expressing a "soft" form of bigotry. Or should I say a little bigotry. Your comments attaching emotion to my post is more reflective to your frustration.

This is also from your link. The FFRF is working with the Satanic Temple, suing on behalf for their religious rights. I assumed if they support the Satanic Temple they must support the Ten Commandments. I can not imagine they would pic one religion over the other but you point out that they do. They will sue to remove Christianity, they will sue to place the Satanic Temple's meeting on schools. The Satanic Temple has supported the Ten Commandments, so how is the Freedom from Religion Foundation pick and choose which issues it addresses. They support the Satanic Temple's freedom express their religion but they do not support the Ten Commandments.

FFRF sues Memphis schools on behalf of The Satanic Temple

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of The Satanic Temple against the Shelby County Board of Education in Memphis, Tenn., over serious violations of

ffrf.org

View attachment 966360

It’s apparent that you are still trying make me to doubt my own sensibilities and perceptions. . You fail, and as expected, as soon as you have your back to a wall and realize you do not actually have an argument, you resort to the bigot . As far as that codswallop about emotion goes, don’t flatter yourself. This is just a fun exercise for me. I do not take your seriously enough to be emotional

No to get down to business, It does not take a genius to see that there is no contradiction or conflict as a result of the two FFRF law suits, but that does not stop you from twisting the facts in a desperate attempt to prove something.

They are pursuing the law suit to remove the ten commandments from the classroom because it amounts to a clear case of the schools promoting a religion. They are standing up for the rights of students who may feel alienated by to not have it shoved in their face as a captive audience. You have no reason to believe that, if any other religious group -including the Satanic Temple-sought to displace their doctrine in a classroom, that the FFRF would take a position that is different from their position on the Ten Commandments.

In the lawsuit on behalf of the Satanic Temple, the issue is equal treatment as a religious group since a Christian Group has meeting privileges on school property. Since that is a voluntary activity, there is no issue of religious coercion, and the Christian group is free to discuss the ten commandments and have whatever displays they want. So yes, in that context the do "support the ten commandments" but ONLY in the club, not in the classroom. To conflate the two issues is disgustingly dishonest. The FFRF simply wants the same rights for the Satanic group

Your argument that the FFRF is favoring one religion over another fails on so many levels. For starters it is a non sequitur logical fallacy . You premise, that the FFRF supports the right of the Satanic Temple to have a club at the school, does not support your conclusion that they are being discriminatory because of the reasons that I stated above.

Secondly, your implication that the FFRF is acting inconsistently, or hypocritically is another logical fallacy An appeal to hypocrisy is also known as the look who's talking fallacy, or the tu quoque fallacy in Latin. In this fallacy, Person 2 concludes Person 1's claim is false because it's not consistent with something else Person 1 had said in the past or what Person 1 says is not consistent with what Person 1 does.

In any case, there is no valid argument for allowing the ten commandments in the classroom and your interjecting the case about the religious club has no bearing on the actual issue

Finally, it is a false equivalency logical fallacy for the obvious reasons. Dig deep for your next boatload of inane equine excrement. You can't win this

Have a great day. I know that I am. I love destroying your banal blatherskite

 

[elektra]

It’s apparent that you are still trying make me to doubt my own sensibilities and perceptions. . You fail, and as expected, as soon as you have your back to a wall and realize you do not actually have charge. an argument, you resort to the bigot . As far as that codswallop about emotion goes, don’t flatter yourself. This is just a fun exercise for me. I do not take your seriously enough to be emotional

No to get down to business, It does not take a genius to see that there is no contradiction or conflict as a result of the two FFRF law suits, but that does not stop you from twisting the facts in a desperate attempt to prove something.

They are pursuing the law suit to remove the ten commandments from the classroom because it amounts to a clear case of the schools promoting a religion. They are standing up for the rights of students who may feel alienated by to not have it shoved in their face as a captive audience. You have no reason to believe that, if any other religious group -including the Satanic Temple-sought to displace their doctrine in a classroom, that the FFRF would take a position that is different from their position on the Ten Commandments.

In the lawsuit on behalf of the Satanic Temple, the issue is equal treatment as a religious group since a Christian Group has meeting privileges on school property. Since that is a voluntary activity, there is no issue of religious coercion, and the Christian group is free to discuss the ten commandments and have whatever displays they want. So yes, in that context the do "support the ten commandments" but ONLY in the club, not in the classroom. To conflate the two issues is disgustingly dishonest. The FFRF simply wants the same rights for the Satanic group

Your argument that the FFRF is favoring one religion over another fails on so many levels. For starters it is a non sequitur logical fallacy . You premise, that the FFRF supports the right of the Satanic Temple to have a club at the school, does not support your conclusion that they are being discriminatory because of the reasons that I stated above.

Secondly, your implication that the FFRF is acting inconsistently, or hypocritically is another logical fallacy An appeal to hypocrisy is also known as the look who's talking fallacy, or the tu quoque fallacy in Latin. In this fallacy, Person 2 concludes Person 1's claim is false because it's not consistent with something else Person 1 had said in the past or what Person 1 says is not consistent with what Person 1 does.

In any case, there is no valid argument for allowing the ten commandments in the classroom and your interjecting the case about the religious club has no bearing on the actual issue

Finally, it is a false equivalency logical fallacy for the obvious reasons. Dig deep for your next boatload of inane equine excrement. You can't win this

Have a great day. I know that I am. I love destroying your banal blatherskite

I already won, when you linked to an organization that is hypocritical, attacking Christianity while supporting the satanic temple. An organization that has proven they are against free speech.

Selective outrage has no place in politics

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

We'll see.

.

Keep watching that mouse hole, sylvester.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I remember that. I grew up in Ky and saw the 10 commandments in the hall in grade school. I remember after that case, the school ignored the ruling. It was no big deal back then.

I had graduated by then but do not recall seeing them in class, but I graduated in 1978.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Where is that written, well except in a court opinion.

.

In the 14th Amendment. Try reading it please!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Lets Stone to death a woman for getting raped huh.

Honor killing Dads. Hmmm

Some cultures DONT BELONG HERE

You do know honor killings transcend more than just one religion. It's cultural, not religious,

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I read where the dumb ass buttholes were running Santa Fe ISD in Houston and letting everyone use the PA for daily prayer. Nobody gave a fuck until the Catholics and Mormons wanted their turn, and the school admin went all

, said "no", and SCOTUS said, "Fuck you, nobody gets to do it." So Santa Fe ISD Houston did it again, and the feds came in and kneecapped everybody, then there was no more prayer and crippled officials crawling around everywhere. That's what the Christian nationalists want for you.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You do know honor killings transcend more than just one religion. It's cultural, not religious,

Go to those little villages on the Tug River. Buncha honor killing dads and moms.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Maybe, and maybe this one will go further than the others. Ya just never know.

.

Yeah, as a student of history I know. Culturally, we have not changed back for the pendulum to swing that far.

 

[OKTexas]

In the 14th Amendment. Try reading it please!

I did, no where does it say an amendment specifically directed at congress shall apply to the States as well.

.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I already won, when you linked to an organization that is hypocritical, attacking Christianity while supporting the satanic temple. An organization that has proven they are against free speech.

Selective outrage has no place in politics

You won??All that you have done is admit that you understood NOTHING about the actual issue. You are making absolutely no sense here . None of what you say is true AS I HAVE DEMONSTRATED. Go back and read my last post. get help from an adult if necessary.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I did, no where does it say an amendment specifically directed at congress shall apply to the States as well.

.

Try reading the 14th Amendment you moron! How many times do you have to be told? The applicable section was posted in this thread. Are you still working on that reading comprehension disability?

I'll be in Texas next month. I hope you are not representative of the local inhabitants reasoning ability.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Louisiana can do whatever it wants as a state; the establishment clause only restricted the Federal govt. from establishing a national sect. The individual state kept their established state favored sects. Massachusetts was the last to dis-establish their Congregationalists, in 1834' that was do to demographic changes and the demographics of the state's voters themselves, not Federal law or SC rulings.

No, its not. The Bill if Rights extends to states too. Or have you been asleep for the last 100 years?