Trump backs Louisiana law requiring Ten Commandments in schools

originally posted by: Annee

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.

is the fear you will burst into flames, or is the fear a tad more benign? I just don't understand why it's such a horrible thing. This is just like the statues. Fear of having to look at something you don't understand or agree with. That sounds a little irrational.

originally posted by: Annee

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.

Why do you and people like Sookie think everything is constitutionally based? Also, did he ridicule and ostracize non-religious players? If he did just fire his ass, or did you just make that up?

Interestingly, most schools now have prayer rooms for Muslims to do their daily prayers, and they also get special treatment by leaving early on Fridays to do their Friday prayers. Can you point me to your posts that says for them to find a sidewalk too?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Why do you and people like Sookie think everything is constitutionally based?

The question is, why don't you, and what other parts of the 1st Amendment do you think states and ignore/violate?

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), was a court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Kentucky statute was unconstitutional and in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacked a nonreligious, legislative purpose. The statute required the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall of each public classroom in the state.

en.wikipedia.org...

Why, it's almost like these Christian Nationalists are hoping for a more sympathetic court this time around! It's like they're hoping that SCOTUS will take another right away from The People, and give it to the states!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

SCOTUS will take another right away from The People, and give it to the states

Federalism is great 👍

Power to the people not the feds.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Why, it's almost like these Christian Nationalists are hoping for a more sympathetic court this time around! It's like they're hoping that SCOTUS will take another right away from The People, and give it to the states!

Good, we are a Republic the last time I looked.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If you transfer a "right" from the Federal government to the States, you're not taking anything away from U.S. citizens.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
It's like they're hoping that SCOTUS will take another right away from The People, and give it to the states!

Anything that affects all people equally should not be a states right.

Marriage, abortion, separation of church and state have zero to do with state rights.

There was a time that it made sense, but today it is antiquated making no sense at all.

States that have tornados — makes sense to have specific laws in regards to tornados.

Same with earthquake states.

Or heavy snow states.

a reply to: Annee

Can you point on the doll where the 10 Commandments hurt you?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Annee

Can you point on the doll where the 10 Commandments hurt you?

I am atheist.

I’m sure there’s a science poster that can be put up that actually makes sense.

a reply to: Annee

How about border states?
Should border states get to make their own laws pertaining to the border?

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: Annee

How about border states?
Should border states get to make their own laws pertaining to the border?

I lived in AZ within walking distance to Mexico for 30 years.

We hated when the so called Big Wigs from Phoenix thought they knew more than the locals.

a reply to: Annee

What laws exit in states that address tornadoes and earthquakes that are not already Federal? 😃

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Annee

What laws exit in states that address tornadoes and earthquakes that are not already Federal? 😃

It was an example of what could/should be something actually related to state specifics.

There you go — doing your pinpointing again — this time on something that out of context loses the meaning intended.

Maybe you should consider answering questions asked of you.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Why, it's almost like these Christian Nationalists are hoping for a more sympathetic court this time around! It's like they're hoping that SCOTUS will take another right away from The People, and give it to the states!

Good, we are a Republic the last time I looked.

Non-sequitur.

What other constitutional rights, besides freedom of religion, would you like to see taken from the people and passed on to the states?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Why, it's almost like these Christian Nationalists are hoping for a more sympathetic court this time around! It's like they're hoping that SCOTUS will take another right away from The People, and give it to the states!

Good, we are a Republic the last time I looked.

Non-sequitur.

What other constitutional rights, besides freedom of religion, would you like to see taken from the people and passed on to the states?

aw, you are still salty over the abortion going back to the states thing. Much more of a fan of authoritarian rule I see.

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: Sookiechacha

If you transfer a "right" from the Federal government to the States, you're not taking anything away from U.S. citizens.

The rights retained by the Federal Government are not the same constitutional rights held by The People, as enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Rights retained by The People do not belong to the federal government or the states.

States do not have a constitutional right to impose a set of religious doctrines upon The People.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Why, it's almost like these Christian Nationalists are hoping for a more sympathetic court this time around! It's like they're hoping that SCOTUS will take another right away from The People, and give it to the states!

Good, we are a Republic the last time I looked.

Non-sequitur.

What other constitutional rights, besides freedom of religion, would you like to see taken from the people and passed on to the states?

aw, you are still salty over the abortion going back to the states thing. Much more of a fan of authoritarian rule I see.

Oh, I see you're a little lost. Let me rephrase the question for you, as it pertains to the topic of this thread.

What other parts of the 1st Amendment, or other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and retained by the people do you think that states can violate and/or ignore?

Why do you MAGA patriots hate the Constitution? Is that how you MAGA patriots plan on Making America Great Again, by taking away American's freedom of religion, and god only knows what other 1st Amendment or other constitutional rights, from The People and designating a State Religion ordained by the government?

The thing that gets me is they're just POSTING the Ten Commandments.

Theres nothing in this measure FORCING THE KIDS TO READ OR OBEY THEM.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I think I grasp this, but we will find out here. If this is unconstitutional, the courts will decide that, and it will be dealt with accordingly. That's what the courts do. They interpret the law and the constitution. My befuddlement isn't about the law, or the idea of placing a picture in the schools showing the 10 commandments. The courts will decide if that's kosher.

What baffles me is the outrage you have over this. What horrible things will happen if you were to see the 10 commandments posted in a school? WIll there be mass suicides? Will atheists burst into flames? Or is the just more "social justice warrior" crap where you are outraged for someone who might be outraged at a future time? Like the statue thing.

And for clarity, the courts make decisions about constitutionality. for reference, it's like when Biden decided to give tax payer money to students to buy their votes. Court said he didn't have the authority, it was unconstitutional. They made a ruling. So now that they did that, he can't do it. If he did, he would be breaking the law. Which would make him a criminal. Like Trump is. Got it?

eta: why did you edit out calling me a MAGAt? Am I no longer one in your mind?

a reply to: network dude

If this is unconstitutional, the courts will decide that, and it will be dealt with accordingly

I thought you MAGA conservatives were constitutional textualists, originalists. Now you think the Constitution changes, from SCOTUS court to SCOTUS court! LOL

The COURT already decided this, in 1980! But you conservative just keep pushing and pushing for the courts to change their minds on what the Constitution really says, when it comes to the inalienable rights of those under the jurisdiction of the United States of America.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), was a court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Kentucky statute was unconstitutional and in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacked a nonreligious, legislative purpose. The statute required the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall of each public classroom in the state.

en.wikipedia.org...

What horrible things will happen if you were to see the 10 commandments posted in a school?

What horrible thing will happen if we take away the free speech rights, or the right to peacefully assembly from just public-school students and their family's? What other constitutional right would it be okay to chip away at, as long as it's only affecting a portion of the populace of any given state?