• 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?

This is not an answer.
Yeah, it looks more like whining. "Waaa, I want my religion imposed on everyone else and someone refused to allow it. waaa."
 
Yeah, it looks more like whining. "Waaa, I want my religion imposed on everyone else and someone refused to allow it. waaa."


"Imposed"? What the....? Were the other students paraded by the poster, and ordered to read it or something?

j-mac
 
"Imposed"? What the....? Were the other students paraded by the poster, and ordered to read it or something?

j-mac
It was in their face everytime they walked in the front door of the school.
 
Whoever wanted too

A high school is not a place for random advertisements, whether they be for religion, politics, or products. As far as many are concerned the 10 Commandments hanging in the halls of a HS, particularly by themselves, is at the least an advertisement for Christianity or to practice those Commandments. They do not belong up.

And, no, the little historical document collage they tried to hide them within is not good enough. First, it is obvious that it only went up as a sort of judicial shield for the 10 Commandments. And secondly, putting them in there makes it appear as though they somehow provided a basis for our country as a historical document. They didn't.

If they have a religious studies class, put them in there, along with such rules/laws from other religions. The judge is trying to be nice here and give them an option for keeping them where they are. If they don't take this option, it is very likely they will be forced by a court decision to remove them.
 
If they don't take this option, it is very likely they will be forced by a court decision to remove them.

and it will cost a low-income, rural school district money that could have been used for education
 
and it will cost a low-income, rural school district money that could have been used for education

Exactly. The three members who voted to put them up should be voted out, but, of course, they'll be hailed as hero's and reelected while the kids reuse out-of-date text books. Some people just don't have any sense.
 
The first amendment is fairly easy to understand, the state can neither establish an official religion nor can it ban the free exercise of religion by any citizen. Posting of religious material on a school wall or allowing the use of public space to display a religious monument or message does not establish any particular religion unless it is done at the exclusion of all others or uses public funds for only one religion (but not another). Obviously only one object may occupy the exact same space, yet if a subsequent religion (or non-religion for equal treatment of the atheists) is allowed to add their own 'competing' message/monument as well, what harm is done? There may be a point at which the public space is too full to accept more, but that is rarely likely to be the case. The assertion that any and all religious material may not be placed in or around public spaces is clearly violating the right to allow the citizens their free exercise of religion, it would then be relegated to exist only in private spaces. As an example, I will use a public cemetary, it may contain markers bearing any number of religious symbols, without any 'establishment' of a state religion. As long as the state offers only the space, and allows equal access to all citizens (or groups) of all religions to place their materials there, then there is no constitutional harm as the state has neither established a religion nor have they prevented the free exercise of religion by allowing ALL citizens to place religious messages, symbols or monuments there.
 
If the school in question does not deny the addition of competing religious material then what is the harm? If they allow a judeo/christian document yet refused to post an islamic document then that may pose a real constitutional issue, but to expect the complete absense of any and all 'religious' material in public places is absurd, much like many communist societies that disallow any and all religions. What if a teacher or other school official wore a religious symbol on a piece of jewelry, or dressed in a manner depicting their religion, would that 'establish' a state religion? I think not, it is simply allowing that official and any other gov't official to freely exercise their religion.
 
The assertion that any and all religious material may not be placed in or around public spaces is clearly violating the right to allow the citizens their free exercise of religion, it would then be relegated to exist only in private spaces.

The government is being told it can't do this, not any citizens. Don't confuse the two.

As far as everyone putting up anything they like, it's a bull**** plan. The fundi religious nutters in my town won the right to put nativity scenes on the courthouse lawn, as long as everyone else was also allowed to, on a first-come first-serve basis. Now, every year in Leesburg, there are crazy-as-hell displays, and there's always some butt-hurt xtian tearing them down.

Skeleton Santa Controversy at Loudoun County Courthouse | NBC4 Washington

There was also recently a Santa hanged by the neck until dead, which some pious christian tore down right in front of a cop. These ****ers say they want anyone to be able to put anything in public spaces, but they don't even come close to meaning it.

Simple enough: Put your religious crap in your church and your house. It doesn't have to be in a school or a courthouse.
 
If the school in question does not deny the addition of competing religious material then what is the harm? If they allow a judeo/christian document yet refused to post an islamic document then that may pose a real constitutional issue, but to expect the complete absense of any and all 'religious' material in public places is absurd, much like many communist societies that disallow any and all religions. What if a teacher or other school official wore a religious symbol on a piece of jewelry, or dressed in a manner depicting their religion, would that 'establish' a state religion? I think not, it is simply allowing that official and any other gov't official to freely exercise their religion.


Unfortunately for the 'reasonable' folks, the fundies will open their mouths and tell the world exactly why they want the commandments posted - and it ain't any reference to "history" or "the origin of laws" - they want the poster because they want to advertise and promote their religious beliefs.

Several times you have used the phrase "public place(s)", what do you think is a "public place"? Religious fanatics are allowed to put up signs, displays, monuments, whatever in places that may be seen by the public BUT that does not mean they can use public property for those displays.

The religious symbol worn by a public official would normally be acceptable however there are instances where religious symbols have acquired other meanings: Rosaries being worn as gang symbols at high schools , now what do you do?
 
Unfortunately for the 'reasonable' folks, the fundies will open their mouths and tell the world exactly why they want the commandments posted - and it ain't any reference to "history" or "the origin of laws" - they want the poster because they want to advertise and promote their religious beliefs.

Could you lay out for us exactly what you mean, or define the terms:

1. "Reasonable people"

and

2. "Fundies"


Thanks.

j-mac
 
Could you lay out for us exactly what you mean, or define the terms:

1. "Reasonable people"

and

2. "Fundies"


Thanks.

j-mac



In the context of this thread, I think most would understand that I am calling those who support the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools in conjunction with other historical and legal documents, the 'reasonable' ones. Of course I think they are still promoting a specific religion but at least they are making an attempt to comply with the law as it now stands regarding religious displays in publicly-owned buildings.

The "fundies" are those fundamentalist, evangelical xians who claim persecution when store clerks say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Xmas, the fundies are those xians who state quite plainly that they think only elements of their specific religion should be posted in government buildings, the fundies are those xians who rant on and on about America being a "Christian nation", founded on Christian principles and with all laws based on the Ten Commandments despite what rational folks know from history.

good enuff answer, for ya?
 
In the context of this thread, I think most would understand that I am calling those who support the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools in conjunction with other historical and legal documents, the 'reasonable' ones. Of course I think they are still promoting a specific religion but at least they are making an attempt to comply with the law as it now stands regarding religious displays in publicly-owned buildings.

The "fundies" are those fundamentalist, evangelical xians who claim persecution when store clerks say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Xmas, the fundies are those xians who state quite plainly that they think only elements of their specific religion should be posted in government buildings, the fundies are those xians who rant on and on about America being a "Christian nation", founded on Christian principles and with all laws based on the Ten Commandments despite what rational folks know from history.

good enuff answer, for ya?


Yep, sounds like you have developed apt labels for those who may disagree with your views.

j-mac
 
An update on the Giles County Ten Commandments poster

Giles school board votes to remove Ten Commandments display from Narrows High

The Giles County School Board voted today to remove a copy of the Ten Commandments that has hung on a wall of Narrows High School during a year and a half of controversy and litigation.

The board voted unanimously to replace the commandments with a copy of a page from a history textbook that mentions the Ten Commandments in conjunction with American government and morality. The commandments themselves do not appear on the page; they are represented by a drawing of two tablets.

The move could prove controversial among Giles County residents

local comments
 
Back
Top Bottom