Judge pushed enactment of law to display religious code until November in response to parents’ suit
A federal judge blocked Louisiana from posting the Ten Commandments in public schools until November after parents from five districts sued the state over the law.
In a brief ruling Friday, district court judge John deGravelles said that the parents and the state agreed that the Ten Commandments will not be posted in any public school classroom before 15 November. The state also agreed to not “promulgate advice, rules or regulations regarding proper implementation of the challenged statute”.
The state’s Republican governor, Jeff Landry, signed into law last month a bill that requires all classrooms, in K-12 public schools and colleges, to have Ten Commandments posters with “large, easily readable font”. The state is also requiring a four-paragraph “context statement” about how the commandments “were a prominent part of American public education for almost three centuries”.
Soon after the bill was signed, a coalition of parents, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights groups, sued the state saying the bill violates the first amendment.
The 250th anniversary of the signing of US declaration of independence will be in 2026.
The state is also requiring a four-paragraph “context statement” about how the commandments “were a prominent part of American public education for almost three centuries”.
Generous rounding, there.
That makes me almost 0 years old and my father almost 100.
If you start with the founding of Harvard in 1636 and go to SCOTUS deciding that laws requiring the 10 commandments in classrooms are unconstitutional in 1980, then you get almost 350 years.
To avoid bias, they should probably post this quote from Thomas Jefferson next to it:
If God truly does exist, then he more so loves the atheist who questions the world around him than the Christian who blindly follows.
More than half of the Founding Fathers were agnostic or atheists, and separation of church and state was one of the key principles in their doctrine.
What I read is that a lot of them claimed to be “deists.”
I could be wrong, but I get the distinct impression that “deist” was an 18th-century euphemism for “atheist, but in the closet about it so as not to offend the normies.”
Yeah, probably an older form of agnosticism. But they were very clear in their opposition to a religious state. It was why England separated from the Catholic church, and why many groups emigrated to the US - freedom of religion (or freedom from it).
I think he was alluding to pre 1776 American history as well.
Technically, that’s English, Dutch, French, and Spanish history, not to mention Native American history. And the Native Americans certainly were not influenced by Christianity, except for the part of it that killed the shit out of all of them.
Only if you define American history as that of the current United States government which would exclude events most if not all would consider core events to American history. Like the Pilgrims landing, Lexington & Concord, and Bunker Hill. If you define it as the history of those who lived on the land you arrive at a different conclusion.
only 2 of those 3 are American history, and not even exclusively. the first is English and Native American, and the second and third also include the English. expanding the last two references to the entire American War of Independence, that also includes, again, the French.
so, really, it seems it comes down to your obtuse cherry-picking of events and American exceptionalism.
As an Australian, it’s both.
Colonial history is both the colonisers and the colonies.
i agree: it was English colonial history
Hey man, seriously, bravo. I just wanna say I haven’t seen this brilliant of a show of hair splitting pedantry since I left Reddit
The history of the land is the history of America. My “cherry picking” is just pulling events that every American student gets taught in k-12 American History classes. This isn’t American exceptionalism this is recognizing that “French History”, “English History”, and “Native American History” that happen on American soil are American history.
Trying to divide the history as being that of a government rather than a land is impossible to do as the histories of governments are interwoven.
History builds on itself. The French and Indian War (1754-63) might not be considered by you to be the history of the USA but it was George Washington that sparked off the conflict. And it would inform the relations with native nations down the line. It also created the terrible economic situation that lead the taxation of the colonies. But for that war we wouldn’t have the America we have today.
And that war would have been much different if not informed by earlier conflicts like King Phillips War. There’s no fine line to be drawn.
The history of the land is the history of America. My “cherry picking” is just pulling events that every American student gets taught in k-12 American History classes.
Some of it, conveniently leaving out the parts which conflict with your point of view. That’s the definition of cherry-picking…
Trying to divide the history as being that of a government rather than a land is impossible to do as the histories of governments are interwoven.
yet i easily did it
save the mental gymnastics for the Olympics in a few weeks, and just admit that you’re wrong.
yet i easily did it
You did it wrongly as well. The protestants arriving was critical in establishing Massachusetts as an English stronghold. If the English never colonized MA there would be no Lexington & Concord.
Claiming that citing supporting evidence is cherry picking is ridiculous. You imply such without supporting you claim with a single point, as if there was a sea of evidence contrary.
What about the French Indian War? Is that American history under your fine line model? How about the Boston Massacre? None of the involved parties there would have even considered independence at the time.
The point they are making was that they were a prominent part of public education in those areas during colonial times.
I’m honestly really surprised that Catholics in this country aren’t going apeshit about Louisiana mandating that the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments be displayed.
The Bible contains two summaries of the ten commandments. Unsurprisingly, what Louisiana wants to put up on a poster is not a literal translation of either of them. Catholics tend to use an interpretation that doesn’t include “no graven images.”
Two tellings of the Ten Commandments in the Bible are Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:1-21.
Note that there’s stuff in there for many Catholics to be unhappy about (carved images, taking the lord’s name in vain) and many protestants (telling children about adultery, observing the sabbath, not coveting, not bearing false witness).
But those commandments are a small part of the Jewish Mosaic law; Christians are supposed to override that with “love God” and “love the people around you, even those who your social clique shuns” along with “it’s not enough to not do the commandments; if you catch yourself contemplating breaking them in your head, stop doing it.”
There’s also only one set of laws the Bible itself says are called the ten commandments and it’s not either of those. In fact, it’s the laws Moses wrote after getting pissed off at the idolaters and decided the first set weren’t explicit enough about what his god did not want people to doing.
To make it clear: no yeast in blood sacrifices and don’t boil a baby goat in its mothers milk. Or else.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 34&version=NIV
(Note that the Old Testament doesn’t really make it clear what the ‘or else’ is going to be in your own case, just that God is a big mean motherfucker and you don’t want to get on his bad side.)
God is a big mean motherfucker
That’s the understatement of the year if we’re talking about Yahweh. That dude fucked shit up.
This is the best 10 Commandments.
I’m pretty sure I’ve never boiled a baby goat in mothers’ milk!
Ever had a cheeseburger? Kind of the same thing. In fact Jewish people are not permitted to eat them based on this exact line.
But we’re not eating goat mince and goat milk.
And from what little I know of Judaism, exploiting technical loopholes are the goal.
They’re all about those loopholes. Which were designed by god to be figured out. Still can’t keep kosher on a cheeseburger.
Is there a different version by the Catholic church? I thought they were all the same. Where is the Church of Satan in all this? Wouldn’t this open up the door to posting other religious texts in schools as well?
https://www.learnreligions.com/different-versions-of-the-ten-commandments-250923
Unsurprisingly, Catholics aren’t big fans of the ‘no graven images’ commandment.
Apparently “Thou shalt not commit adultery” also doesn’t count if one of the parties isn’t an adult.
Or if you have this particular bible- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible
The state’s Republican governor, Jeff Landry, signed into law last month a bill that requires all classrooms, in K-12 public schools and colleges, to have Ten Commandments posters with “large, easily readable font”.
Given that Louisiana is 47th in the country for education, it’d be laughable if it weren’t so sad that the governor’s only reading-based concerns are “can they read the Bible laws?”
I’d post it very clear Arabic.
Post it in the original Hebrew
If I was a teacher and these laws came into effect I’d be tempted to print out the biblical laws for owning slaves and put them right next to every spot the 10 commandments is posted. After all, why stop at just the 10 commandments?
Unfortunately, in the kind of states requiring these to be posted, adding the biblical laws for slavery would probably seen in a positive light by them.
