• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cut Ten Commandments down to 6?

j-mac said:
We have classes now, usually in middle school that study the religions of the world. But yet somehow liberals in this country are so frightened, intimidated even by the 10 commandments that any excuse to diminish them, mock them, keep them from sight, is their goal.

Stopping the high school valedictorian from saying a prayer at invocation.

A judge that threatens another if they even say an opening prayer, or so much as mention God in the Pledge.

This is a predominantly Christian nation, that contrary to Obama's declaration that we are not, is no threat to liberals, or any other religions. Yet as scared as some seem to be, conservatives know better but allow themselves to be cowed under by these liberal bullies.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't agree with many of those, particularly the valedictorian speech one, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with allowing this random poster to stay up just because the community Christians feel they are being persecuted and should be allowed to put up random religious sayings simply because they honestly believe people should have to believe in them.

I don't for one minute believe that this banner was up for a student history or religious studies class. This just doesn't fit with the situation. I'd be fine with it if we were talking about a situation where it was part of some religious studies thing or history of law thing, but it wasn't. It still isn't. The only reason they put up the rest is because they were advised to do so by legal counsel. That is just wrong because it shows their intention had nothing to do with actually teaching what public schools are supposed to teach and everything to do with defending their religion from an imagined threat.
 
j-mac said:
We have classes now, usually in middle school that study the religions of the world
Click to expand...

And that's where the 10 commandments belong.

j-mac said:
any excuse to diminish them, mock them, keep them from sight, is their goal.
Click to expand...

You ought to stop making up goals and attributing them to people. We've told you what our goals are: Protect religious liberty.

j-mac said:
conservatives know better but allow themselves to be cowed under by these liberal bullies.
Click to expand...

If conservatives weren't ruled by fear like this, they'd be able to calm down and thing things through instead of constantly throwing out knee-jerk, self-destructive, emotional responses. Honestly, thinknig it through, the school board should have known that wasting money on a pointless suit like this isn't what they're supposed to be doing. They put these up knowing good and well that they'd eventually have to take them down, but only after a very costly legal ordeal. They should have spend the money on books and teachers and equipment, not on this garbage, but they were so afraid of looking weak that they took the most self-destructive route. Now the budget will be spent on this instead of educating the kids. Stupid, knee-jerk, right wing garbage.

Well, I guess there was a little real life education the kids can take from this: Don't do that.
 
Here's a little recap....


Ever since the lawsuit was filed in September amid heated community reaction, school officials have said the display is not religious because it also includes historical documents such as the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

"If indeed this issue is not about God, why wouldn't it make sense for Giles County to say, 'Let's go back and just post the bottom six?'" Urbanski asked during a motions hearing in U.S. District Court in Roanoke. "But if it's really about God, then they wouldn't be willing to do that."

After delaying a ruling on the lawsuit, Urbanski directed attorneys on both sides to meet with Magistrate Judge Robert Ballou, who will lead mediation sessions in the coming weeks....

After delaying a ruling on the lawsuit, Urbanski directed attorneys on both sides to meet with Magistrate Judge Robert Ballou, who will lead mediation sessions in the coming weeks.

If those discussions do not produce a settlement, Urbanski must decide whether the school board had religious intentions when it voted 3-2 last June to put the commandments back up after angry public reaction to their earlier removal....
Cut Ten Commandments down to 6? - Roanoke.com
Click to expand...

If this case fails in mediation and goes to trial, a judge will decide whether or not the school boards intention in hanging the TC was religious or historical. I think the school board has a weak case. They voted 3-2 to put up the Ten Commandments and have taken it down and put it back 5x before finally surrounding it with historical documents. So if the school board doesn't accept the mediation offer to edit the ten commandments down to six, then that too will help prove they intended to hang a religious document. The school board is in a quite pickle because if they lose the case they will have to pay for all of ACLU"s and the plaintiffs court costs which could be well over 500K....of local taxpayers money.
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, I don't agree with many of those, particularly the valedictorian speech one, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with allowing this random poster to stay up just because the community Christians feel they are being persecuted and should be allowed to put up random religious sayings simply because they honestly believe people should have to believe in them.
Click to expand...

No one can force a belief in true reality. My understanding is that Christians don't post things to force you to believe anything that you will not accept. It is merely a profession of what they believe. You are more than free to say "that's great....for you"...

I don't for one minute believe that this banner was up for a student history or religious studies class. This just doesn't fit with the situation. I'd be fine with it if we were talking about a situation where it was part of some religious studies thing or history of law thing, but it wasn't. It still isn't. The only reason they put up the rest is because they were advised to do so by legal counsel. That is just wrong because it shows their intention had nothing to do with actually teaching what public schools are supposed to teach and everything to do with defending their religion from an imagined threat.
Click to expand...

Imagined? Take a good look at the billboards the next time you go on vacation, or drive around town...Chances are that you will see an Atheist ad somewhere along the way. You got that doofus in CA going after the cross memorial to vets in SD because HE'S offended....plus any lawsuit he can file, he does, from taking God off the money, eliminating God from the pledge. Hell, you have some posters in this very forum site that can't even bring themselves to type the word God....No threat? Shria law in places, a Justice on the SCOTUS that thinks that we should be looking to foreign law instead of our own constitution to decide cases, No threat?

We have these same middle school teachers in instances that will scream bloody murder if OMG they see a poster of the commandments, but plaster their classroom cork board with images of Che, and unattributed quotes of Marxists, and Communists, and teach our 12 year olds how to put a condom on a cucumber....No threat?


Really?


j-mac
 
Grendel said:
Well, I guess there was a little real life education the kids can take from this: Don't do that.
Click to expand...

Kids are smarter than you give them credit for, they see what is going on here. Actually there was a great education in this, and that is believe what you want kiddies, just keep your mouth shut tight, because you may offend the extreme minority.

Great.


j-mac
 
Moot said:
Students are forced to go to school and if religious influence is plastered all over the walls and/or taught in the classroom, then that is forced indoctrination.
Click to expand...

Exaggerate much. It is not plastered ALL OVER THE WALLS and it is not being taught in the classroom. Try sticking with the facts of this particular case.
 
j-mac said:
No one can force a belief in true reality. My understanding is that Christians don't post things to force you to believe anything that you will not accept. It is merely a profession of what they believe. You are more than free to say "that's great....for you"...
Click to expand...

Of course you can't force beliefs on people. But there are some Christians (and this isn't just limited to Christians, but that is who we are talking about here) who do believe that if they talk about it enough or people see it enough, they will turn to Christianity. This is why religious posters or the like do not belong in school. It is like an advertisement for Christianity in the school. It is wrong. Leave your religious beliefs out of school, at least when it can be perceived as something that is a belief of the school and not just individual students or even individual teachers.

This is how I see it, religious posters in school can be in students' lockers, on their personal items (as allowed by school rules), in teachers' or school admins private offices, or in anyone's private stuff. They can even go up, as a part of many different ones, in religious studies classes or as temporary history teachings. But when they appear to be rules that the school wants students to follow, whether officially in place or not, they are going too far.

j-mac said:
Imagined? Take a good look at the billboards the next time you go on vacation, or drive around town...Chances are that you will see an Atheist ad somewhere along the way. You got that doofus in CA going after the cross memorial to vets in SD because HE'S offended....plus any lawsuit he can file, he does, from taking God off the money, eliminating God from the pledge. Hell, you have some posters in this very forum site that can't even bring themselves to type the word God....No threat? Shria law in places, a Justice on the SCOTUS that thinks that we should be looking to foreign law instead of our own constitution to decide cases, No threat?

We have these same middle school teachers in instances that will scream bloody murder if OMG they see a poster of the commandments, but plaster their classroom cork board with images of Che, and unattributed quotes of Marxists, and Communists, and teach our 12 year olds how to put a condom on a cucumber....No threat
Click to expand...

I have seen way more religious billboards than I have ever seen atheists ones. In fact, I can't recall having ever seen an atheist billboard.

Where is sharia law in place in the US? Do you have any proof of this? If it is true, has anyone fought it? We are America. I don't approve of any religious laws being put into place.

If you think something isn't fair, fight it. If you want quotes of Jesus or even from the Bible, next to those of Marxists or communists to counter, push for those. I have no issue with that and will back such a thing (provided we aren't actually talking about a teacher or admin's office).

And 12 year olds need to know how to put on a condom, whether you like it or not. That isn't a threat to Christianity or any other religion. It is a threat to ignorance and rising teen pregnancy rates.
 
jambalaya said:
Exaggerate much. It is not plastered ALL OVER THE WALLS and it is not being taught in the classroom. Try sticking with the facts of this particular case.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. The principle is the same: The government's job is not religious indoctrination, education, or proselyting. Do you want them teaching your kids Islam or Wicca, as long as they only do it a little bit?
 
jambalaya said:
Exaggerate much. It is not plastered ALL OVER THE WALLS and it is not being taught in the classroom. Try sticking with the facts of this particular case.
Click to expand...
The Narrows HS school board voted 3-2 to put up the ten commandments. Then after protests they took it down and after more protests they put it back up and they did this over 5x. That qualifies as "plastered all over the walls". Then they tried to hide it among other historical documents near the schools entrance and thats when they finally got sued by an anonymous student(s).

Hanging the Ten Commandments on public school property is the first step toward teaching creationism in the classroom. Give em an inch and they'll take a mile. There's plenty of precedence for cases such as this.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
Why not just get rid of them completely and follow the law?
Click to expand...

Maybe because they are the law, or, at least, they cover some of the biggies? In any case, on those occasions when the Supreme Court rules against the public posting of the Ten Commandments, Moses will be staring (crying?) down upon the Court from his post on the courtroom wall (along with Muhammad and sixteen other lawgivers), holding his tablets:

Moses (c. 1300s B.C.) Prophet, lawgiver, and judge of the Israelites. Mosaic Law is based on the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. Moses is depicted in the frieze holding two overlapping tablets, written in Hebrew, representing the Ten Commandments. Partially visible from behind Moses’ beard are Commandments six through ten.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Ahlevah said:
Maybe because they are the law, or, at least, they cover some of the biggies? In any case, on those occasions when the Supreme Court rules against the public posting of the Ten Commandments, Moses will be staring (crying?) down upon the Court from his post on the courtroom wall (along with Muhammad and sixteen other lawgivers), holding his tablets:
Click to expand...

They are not US law. Particularly those that the judge in this case has asked the school to cut from being posted. They may be religious law but that has no place in school, particularly when it is being promoted by the school.
 
roguenuke said:
They are not US law. Particularly those that the judge in this case has asked the school to cut from being posted. They may be religious law but that has no place in school, particularly when it is being promoted by the school.
Click to expand...

But they can be posted--in marble-- on the wall of the Supreme Court, even if it is in Hebrew? You don't see an irony here?
 
Ahlevah said:
But they can be posted--in marble-- on the wall of the Supreme Court, even if it is in Hebrew? You don't see an irony here?
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court is not a school. They have ruled that the 10 Commandments in school is out of place.

Plus, they are part of an actual group of many different sets of laws. They actually fit into a theme, and are not just there as the only laws being represented.

This school, otoh, had them posted alone for a while. The only reason they are now with other historical documents (which puts them in the wrong grouping anyway) is because it was legally advised that the school do so.
 
Grendel said:
Doesn't matter. The principle is the same: The government's job is not religious indoctrination, education, or proselyting. Do you want them teaching your kids Islam or Wicca, as long as they only do it a little bit?
Click to expand...

No, and I don't want them teaching Marxism, or liberalism either, but I can't stop that religion from taking place at my tax payer dollar either can I?


j-mac
 
Grendel said:
Doesn't matter. The principle is the same: The government's job is not religious indoctrination, education, or proselyting. Do you want them teaching your kids Islam or Wicca, as long as they only do it a little bit?
Click to expand...

Yes it does matter. Once again there is no indoctrination, education or prostelyting going on. They are not establishing a religion they are just displaying an artifact of a certain type of religion. I wouldn't mind at all if they put some list of wise sayings of Buddah on the wall. Some individual items or teachings of a religion can be good and worthwhile to learn about in themselves.
 
Moot said:
The Narrows HS school board voted 3-2 to put up the ten commandments. Then after protests they took it down and after more protests they put it back up and they did this over 5x. That qualifies as "plastered all over the walls". Then they tried to hide it among other historical documents near the schools entrance and thats when they finally got sued by an anonymous student(s).

Hanging the Ten Commandments on public school property is the first step toward teaching creationism in the classroom. Give em an inch and they'll take a mile. There's plenty of precedence for cases such as this.
Click to expand...

We shouldn't live our lives based on your paranoia. The key word in "plastered all over the walls" is the word "all". Meaning everywhere we walk in the school we see a copy of the ten commandments on the wall. That would be indoctrination but what the actual facts are is not.
 
Ahlevah said:
But they can be posted--in marble-- on the wall of the Supreme Court, even if it is in Hebrew? You don't see an irony here?
Click to expand...

from the website of the SCOTUS, the PDF page describing the friezes on the walls of the Courtroom
Partially visible from behind Moses’ beard are Commandments six through ten.
Click to expand...
You know - five of the six commandments that have no mention of a deity, sort of like what the judge in Virginia has suggested.

Also when you bring up Moses presence in the Courtroom, you really should mention that he is just one of many figures and is not prominent in the sculpture.

Faithful to classical sources and drawing from many civilizations, (sculptor Adolph A.) Weinman designed a procession of “great lawgivers of history” for the south and north walls to portray the development of law.
Click to expand...
 
jambalaya said:
We shouldn't live our lives based on your paranoia. The key word in "plastered all over the walls" is the word "all". Meaning everywhere we walk in the school we see a copy of the ten commandments on the wall. That would be indoctrination but what the actual facts are is not.
Click to expand...

But why are you insisting a blatantly religious artifact be placed in a public school where not all of the students and teachers follow the religion which produce the article? What is the purpose?
 
jambalaya said:
We shouldn't live our lives based on your paranoia. The key word in "plastered all over the walls" is the word "all". Meaning everywhere we walk in the school we see a copy of the ten commandments on the wall. That would be indoctrination but what the actual facts are is not.
Click to expand...
Parsing words is a losing argument. The fact that school board had to vote on whether to put up the ten commandments suggests they knew that it was not only controversial but unconstitutional as well. Now they are being sued and will likely lose a lot of money that could have been better used.
 
Somerville said:
from the website of the SCOTUS, the PDF page describing the friezes on the walls of the Courtroom

Partially visible from behind Moses’ beard are Commandments six through ten.


You know - five of the six commandments that have no mention of a deity, sort of like what the judge in Virginia has suggested.

Also when you bring up Moses presence in the Courtroom, you really should mention that he is just one of many figures and is not prominent in the sculpture.
Click to expand...
LOL brilliant find. I'll have to remember that one. Also, the fact it's in hebrew shows the historical signifigance of the document behind the Moses frieze as opposed to it's religious dogma.
 
It is only through a misreading of the separation clause in the first Amendment that brings about this ridiculousness in the first place.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
It is only through a misreading of the separation clause in the first Amendment that brings about this ridiculousness in the first place.

j-mac
Click to expand...
No it is the neo-Conservative definition that eludes reality, when it comes to the separation of church and state that the 1st Amendment makes law.

Fist of all the assertion that the 1st Amendment only protects us from government tyranny ignores historical facts. But we do have somewhere to turn to get the legal definition of the seperation of church and state.

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

If you feel that a political group or even individuals are breaking the law take them to court. Dont run around trying to tell people something which is not true. The courts have defined the 1st Amendment already and it is up to the government to enforce the law of the land. Which includes going after people who are trying to deny Americans the right to believe whatever they want.

I am an Atheist myself but that is my individual choice and I demand that everyone has the right to make their own choices. So in a sense I am an proponent of religion as it is an indicator of our freedom just as the right to not belong to a religion is as well. Either way neither Atheist or Theist has the right to tell anyone else what to believe. ANd the law is clear that especially the government has no place in it either. Which includes placing religious articles on public owned property. Which also means that no anti-religious articles should be placed on public owned property. But somethings of historical value should be grandfathered in as an exception not the rule. Things though like "In god we trust" should not be on money anymore than "Not in gods we trust" or "in allah we trust" etc. Plus the "one nation under god" phrase directly insists that all Americans live under god. And those that do not are implied to not be one with the nation. In other words it is asserting that Atheists (all Atheists) are anti-American.

Anyways to assert that the 1st Amendment is a misinterpretation is an legal challenge to existing well established law. Get a lawyer.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Grendel said:
Do you want them teaching your kids Islam or Wicca, as long as they only do it a little bit?
Click to expand...
No, and I don't want them teaching Marxism, or liberalism either, but I can't stop that religion from taking place at my tax payer dollar either can I?


j-mac
Click to expand...

1. When you find yourself in the minority, which you will soon enough, the only thing people like you will have to protect yourselves is the 1st amendment that you're currently attacking.
2. Words mean things.

jambalaya said:
Yes it does matter. Once again there is no indoctrination, education or prostelyting going on. They are not establishing a religion they are just displaying an artifact of a certain type of religion. I wouldn't mind at all if they put some list of wise sayings of Buddah on the wall. Some individual items or teachings of a religion can be good and worthwhile to learn about in themselves.
Click to expand...

If it were a part of a history of law display it would be fine. It wasn't. It was an attempt to proselytise Yahwehism.
 
Grendel said:
1. When you find yourself in the minority, which you will soon enough, the only thing people like you will have to protect yourselves is the 1st amendment that you're currently attacking.
2. Words mean things.



If it were a part of a history of law display it would be fine. It wasn't. It was an attempt to proselytise Yahwehism.
Click to expand...


It could be Elohimism too
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom