Trump backs Louisiana law requiring Ten Commandments in schools

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha


None of it.

Then why are people's 2nd infringed on all the time in liberal States and cities?

This thread is about the State of Louisianan mandating the 10 Commandments being displayed in every classroom from kindergarten through college. You've claimed that this isn't a 1st Amendment "event", that it's a "States' right event". I've asked you, "What other parts of the 1st Amendment do you believe that states have a right to violate?", but you just keep changing the subject.

Why do you keep doing that? Why can't you answer the question?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Vermilion

Louisiana is now a sanctuary state for the Ten Commandments.
Other states haven’t got this much pushback for their sanctuary state laws.
Federalism is great 👍

I wasn’t aware that the Ten Commandments were illegal there prior to this bill.

I wasn’t either.
Where did you hear that?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
I've asked you, "What other parts of the 1st Amendment do you believe that states have a right to violate?", but you just keep changing the subject.

Why do you keep doing that? Why can't you answer the question?

We never agreed the 1st is being violated in the first place, so why are you asking me what other parts a state has rights to violate.

You are trying to establish something not there. This is why I’m asking you why is it a big deal when actual infringement happens you have no problem with it. This could be pushed to SC to decide in the end. I bet ya they rule it is OK.

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Vermilion

Louisiana is now a sanctuary state for the Ten Commandments.
Other states haven’t got this much pushback for their sanctuary state laws.
Federalism is great 👍

I wasn’t aware that the Ten Commandments were illegal there prior to this bill.

I wasn’t either.
Where did you hear that?

Guess I’m just confused.

You used an analogy for something that is illegal everywhere (except sanctuary cities) for something that is legal everywhere.

The 1st Amendment - in regard to Louisiana Ten Commandments.

Already, the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and other like-minded groups say they will file a lawsuit challenging the law.

The betting line favors the U.S. Supreme Court overturning it, based on precedent. The court rejected a similar 10 Commandments Kentucky law in 1980, ruling it served a religious purpose in violation of the First Amendment.

www.niagara-gazette.com...

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Vermilion

Louisiana is now a sanctuary state for the Ten Commandments.
Other states haven’t got this much pushback for their sanctuary state laws.
Federalism is great 👍

I wasn’t aware that the Ten Commandments were illegal there prior to this bill.

I wasn’t either.
Where did you hear that?

Guess I’m just confused.

You used an analogy for something that is illegal everywhere (except sanctuary cities) for something that is legal everywhere.

If something is illegal federally, how can a state just arbitrarily make it legal?
Federalism?
That’s happened in countless states and cities.
What exactly makes the Ten Commandments being posted on a school wall a legal issue when the state made it law?

originally posted by: Annee
The 1st Amendment - in regard to Louisiana Ten Commandments.

Already, the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and other like-minded groups say they will file a lawsuit challenging the law.

The betting line favors the U.S. Supreme Court overturning it, based on precedent. The court rejected a similar 10 Commandments Kentucky law in 1980, ruling it served a religious purpose in violation of the First Amendment.

www.niagara-gazette.com...

That Supreme Court ruling I believe was 5-4.
Very close.
A few of you here have professed your ultimate fear of a conservative Christian nationalist Supreme Court destroying the country.
When it gets to them this time around, what do you think the vote will be?

a reply to: Vermilion

Personally I don’t think there should be sanctuary cities. It’s a liability to other places in the country and undermines efforts to control immigration.

To your point though, the federal constitutional law is that government shouldn’t endorse or favor religions. A state deciding to do that is siding with state rights over personal rights.

I think the real argument would be if a teacher chose to have religious symbols or text in their classroom.

The Supreme Court did side with a school football coach who would pray on field after a game, where players could optionally join. That’s a bit different than a school or other government institution mandating something like prayer or the display of religious texts.

I agree, the Ten Commandments isn’t really a big deal to be on display. I can easily see something like that, and it doesn’t offend my world view, whether it be Christian, Budist, Hindu, Jewish, Islam or any other religion.

But it’s a slippery slope. It can start with something many would agree as minor, and cascade into something more. I see a lot of people defending it because they’ve voiced it’s their religion, find it as the most tolerable one, or just don’t see it as a big deal.

But if it stands here, what happens when more people start playing political football and the kids are collateral damage (which has happened with several wedge issues).

Personally, I just think it’s a bad idea. I won’t lose sleep over it, and Louisiana has never been on my short list of states I’ve considered moving to.

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Annee
The 1st Amendment - in regard to Louisiana Ten Commandments.

Already, the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and other like-minded groups say they will file a lawsuit challenging the law.

The betting line favors the U.S. Supreme Court overturning it, based on precedent. The court rejected a similar 10 Commandments Kentucky law in 1980, ruling it served a religious purpose in violation of the First Amendment.

www.niagara-gazette.com...

That Supreme Court ruling I believe was 5-4.
Very close.
A few of you here have professed your ultimate fear of a conservative Christian nationalist Supreme Court destroying the country.
When it gets to them this time around, what do you think the vote will be?

Legitimate question.

Christian Nationalism/Dominionism -- is definitely a serious threat. Something I have been following for many years -- even though it has only recently become mainstream news.

IMO -- this is a clear violation -- while others might walk a thin line.

Religion is diminishing with each generation. And with more and more people working remote -- the south and midwest have become the New Frontier for new homeowners -- who are less likely to be religious.

The strength of the Bible Belt is in decline -- even if recent politicians seem to be of the non-scientific type.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Personally I don’t think there should be sanctuary cities.

I agree.
Those sanctuary cities and states are unconstitutional.
Using taxpayer money to pay off individual’s student loans is also unconstitutional.
Slippery slope indeed.

a reply to: Xtrozero

We never agreed the 1st is being violated in the first place, so why are you asking me what other parts a state has rights to violate.

You keep saying that it's NOT a 1st Amendment issue, so of course you don't agree that it's a 1st Amendment violation! LOL

I keep asking, what other parts of the 1st Amendment aren't 1st Amendment issues, according to you and your theory?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Annee
The 1st Amendment - in regard to Louisiana Ten Commandments.

Already, the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and other like-minded groups say they will file a lawsuit challenging the law.

The betting line favors the U.S. Supreme Court overturning it, based on precedent. The court rejected a similar 10 Commandments Kentucky law in 1980, ruling it served a religious purpose in violation of the First Amendment.

www.niagara-gazette.com...

That Supreme Court ruling I believe was 5-4.
Very close.
A few of you here have professed your ultimate fear of a conservative Christian nationalist Supreme Court destroying the country.
When it gets to them this time around, what do you think the vote will be?

Legitimate question.

Christian Nationalism/Dominionism -- is definitely a serious threat. Something I have been following for many years -- even though it has only recently become mainstream news.

IMO -- this is a clear violation -- while others might walk a thin line.

Religion is diminishing with each generation. And with more and more people working remote -- the south and midwest have become the New Frontier for new homeowners -- who are less likely to be religious.

The strength of the Bible Belt is in decline -- even if recent politicians seem to be of the non-scientific type.

So your answer to my question is that you’re confident this Supreme Court will rule in favor of nullifying Louisiana’s new law?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

The Supreme Court did side with a school football coach who would pray on field after a game, where players could optionally join.

One of the issues with that case was non-religious players were being ostracized for not joining in.

The decision on this is wrong. It punishes non-religious players.

The coach could pray anywhere off field/campus. He did not need to pray on the school field.

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Annee
The 1st Amendment - in regard to Louisiana Ten Commandments.

Already, the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and other like-minded groups say they will file a lawsuit challenging the law.

The betting line favors the U.S. Supreme Court overturning it, based on precedent. The court rejected a similar 10 Commandments Kentucky law in 1980, ruling it served a religious purpose in violation of the First Amendment.

www.niagara-gazette.com...

That Supreme Court ruling I believe was 5-4.
Very close.
A few of you here have professed your ultimate fear of a conservative Christian nationalist Supreme Court destroying the country.
When it gets to them this time around, what do you think the vote will be?

Legitimate question.

Christian Nationalism/Dominionism -- is definitely a serious threat. Something I have been following for many years -- even though it has only recently become mainstream news.

IMO -- this is a clear violation -- while others might walk a thin line.

Religion is diminishing with each generation. And with more and more people working remote -- the south and midwest have become the New Frontier for new homeowners -- who are less likely to be religious.

The strength of the Bible Belt is in decline -- even if recent politicians seem to be of the non-scientific type.

So your answer to my question is that you’re confident this Supreme Court will rule in favor of nullifying Louisiana’s new law?

Do not try to speak for me.

Do not try to twist my words.

What I said is very clear.

a reply to: Annee

It’s a hard line to navigate.

On one hand the 1st amendment protects individual rights to religion, on the other hand it guards us from the government meddling in any way.

Apparently he had to stop the prayers in the locker rooms, but continued to go on the field afterwards for an optional prayer session.

We are a diverse and tolerant society. Tolerance doesn’t mean you have to agree or even celebrate something, just tolerate it.

Some people are extremely religious. Someone, even in an official capacity praying after big events for them are important parts of their lives.

I’m not religious, but if I’m in the company of people who are, say before a meal, I put my head down and respect what they deem as holy and important because it has no bearing on me.

I don’t think the government should mandate any kind of religious. But I also think they need to respect individual expression and right to religion.

It’s something society will never agree on. But if we claim to be a tolerant society, it’s important to try and be fair and honest about what kinds of compromises don’t favor any one religion, or those who don’t subscribe to any.

a reply to: Annee

I’m asking you because I wanted it to be clear.
Clear as thin skin.

All I got from your post is..

You think Christian nationalism is a threat.
You think Louisiana law is a violation.
You think Religion is tanking in the Bible Belt.

I just want to know “When it gets to them this time around, what do you think the vote will be?”

a reply to: Annee

One of the issues with that case was non-religious players were being ostracized for not joining in.

That wasn’t an issue at all.
That was a bad argument by the lawyers against unmandated optional prayer on personal time.
Which ultimately couldn’t convince the court.

It punishes non-religious players.

There was zero punishment from the coach nor the players.
That’s why that silly “ostracized” argument didn’t work.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Annee

It’s a hard line to navigate.

On one hand the 1st amendment protects individual rights to religion, on the other hand it guards us from the government meddling in any way.

Apparently he had to stop the prayers in the locker rooms, but continued to go on the field afterwards for an optional prayer session.

We are a diverse and tolerant society. Tolerance doesn’t mean you have to agree or even celebrate something, just tolerate it.

Some people are extremely religious. Someone, even in an official capacity praying after big events for them are important parts of their lives.

I’m not religious, but if I’m in the company of people who are, say before a meal, I put my head down and respect what they deem as holy and important because it has no bearing on me.

I don’t think the government should mandate any kind of religious. But I also think they need to respect individual expression and right to religion.

It’s something society will never agree on. But if we claim to be a tolerant society, it’s important to try and be fair and honest about what kinds of compromises don’t favor any one religion, or those who don’t subscribe to any.

I was raised Christian. Not strict or fundamental.

I became non-religious in searching for proof of Jesus -- there isn't any.

The more I researched Christianity -- the more ridiculous it became. So, I'm not ignorant of the belief.

Fact is -- one of the issues in that case was the ostracizing of non-religious players who did not want to join his prayer on the field -- or anywhere.

They were ostracized by the other players and their parents.

originally posted by: Annee

The coach could pray anywhere off field/campus. He did not need to pray on the school field.

So, a quick prayer before or after the game is so much worse than telling people to meet him off campus somewhere? First, it doesn't even make sense, second it isolates non-prayer people much more, and third that would be inconvenient as hell.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee

The coach could pray anywhere off field/campus. He did not need to pray on the school field.

So, a quick prayer before or after the game is so much worse than telling people to meet him off campus somewhere? First, it doesn't even make sense, second it isolates non-prayer people much more, and third that would be inconvenient as hell.

Oh, so the Constitution is emotional based.

Poor grown man coach can’t contain himself long enough to get to the public sidewalk.

But it’s OK to ridicule and ostracize non-religious players for not ‘voluntarily’ joining him in prayer on government land.

Separation of church and state. Find the public sidewalk.