Louisana first state to require Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms

[seer]

There's no pretending required. The Louisiana law stipulates that the following text will accompany the posting of the Ten Commandments:

The History of the Ten Commandments in American Public Education

The Ten Commandments were a prominent part of American public education for almost three centuries. Around the year 1688, The New England Primer became the first published American textbook and was the equivalent of a first grade reader. The New England Primer was used in public schools throughout the United States for more than one hundred fifty years to teach Americans to read and contained more than forty questions about the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were also included in public school textbooks published by educator William McGuffey, a noted university president and professor. A version of his famous McGuffey Readers was written in the early 1800s and became one of the most popular textbooks in the history of American education, selling more than one hundred million copies. Copies of the McGuffey Readers are still available today.

The Ten Commandments also appeared in textbooks published by Noah Webster in which were widely used in American public schools along with America’s first comprehensive dictionary that Webster also published. His textbook, The American Spelling Book, contained the Ten Commandments and sold more than one hundred million copies for use by public school children all across the nation and was still available for use in American public schools in the year 1975.

Stop with these inconvenient facts...

[Cow Poke]

Stop with these inconvenient facts...

Of course, all that was back when students were actually learning reading, 'riting, and 'rithmatic, and educators were actually interested in successfully teaching those subjects.
Phonics also had to go, because it was too successful.
But, hey, we brought along the lifechanging "Sally, Dick and Jane" series which .... um.... wow.

[Roy]

So why not read the entire sentence, instead of just ripping the establishment clause out of context?

No idea. Perhaps because only the establishment clause was relative to the point being made.

My point is that it wasn't a quote mine, and calling it one is an unwarranted accusation of dishonesty.

[Mountain Man]

Stop with these inconvenient facts...

I think one of the reasons liberals are so upset with the historical context is because they don't have an argument against it. For whatever reason, they seem to think that the Ten Commandments also having religious significance should somehow nullify their importance to US history.

[Roy]

It is rather interesting how quickly and effectively the left managed to snatch the "establishment clause" out of the context of the First Amendment and apply it to pretty much any form of local government, public school, etc.

Quickly and effectively????

It took from 1868, when the 14th amendment was passed, until 1962 when Engel v. Vitale was decided, to apply the establishment clause to school prayer.

94 years.

Maybe that is quick in Texas.

[Roy]

The Louisiana state government are now being sued.

[Mountain Man]

The Louisiana state government are now being sued.

Yes, that was stated in the opening post of this thread.

[seer]

Yes, that was stated in the opening post of this thread.

[rogue06]

Or maybe Numbers 31:17,18

¹⁷ Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

¹⁸ But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Because instructions for one specific situation are no different than universal instructions for all situations.

[Cow Poke]

Quickly and effectively????

It took from 1868, when the 14th amendment was passed, until 1962 when Engel v. Vitale was decided, to apply the establishment clause to school prayer.

94 years.

Maybe that is quick in Texas.

The Separation of Church and State in the United States

The Supreme Court first employed the term “separation of church and state” in 1879 as shorthand for the meaning of the First Amendment’s religion clauses, stating “it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.”

and...

In the modern Court’s first Establishment Clause holding, Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote:

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 […] 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 […] 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.”⁵

It has been about keeping the State from establishing a Church --- dating all the way back to the exchange of letters between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association.

[Cow Poke]

No idea. Perhaps because only the establishment clause was relative to the point being made.

My point is that it wasn't a quote mine, and calling it one is an unwarranted accusation of dishonesty.

I think it's a perfect example of a quote mine.......
It's using one part in an attempt to say a particular thing that the second part proves false.

Congress can not (legally) prohibit the free exercise of religion.

[CivilDiscourse]

I think it's a perfect example of a quote mine.......
It's using one part in an attempt to say a particular thing that the second part proves false.

Congress can not (legally) prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Who, exactly is exercising their religion by mandating the 10c be hung in classrooms?

[NorrinRadd]

I don't know how familiar you are with the US constitution, but it doesn't speak on the subject of drag queens, whereas it does on the subject of government and religion.

Feel free to champion a constitutional amendment about drag queens if you think the two topics are similar.

If the Constitution is interpreted as prohibiting any Agent of The State from displaying or teaching anything that would favor a particular Religion, it should also be interpreted as prohibiting displaying or teaching anything objectionable to a particular Religion.

[Cow Poke]

Who, exactly is exercising their religion by mandating the 10c be hung in classrooms?

I was addressing the misinformation about the First Amendment. On Saturday, I had already addressed your other concern.

.....

I think you are totally missing the point, so let me type slowly and use smaller words....

In this day and age (and political and religious climate) it concerns me that government would force a particular religion on schools PRECISELY because it may end up being like the State of Iowa that also includes things we don't want.

Hence, the "you may get what you want (posters of the Ten Commandments) but you many not want what you get (statures of Satanic crap)".

I may be at odds with my Christian associates on this, but this particular effort by Louisiana causes me concern.

[tabibito]

If the Constitution is interpreted as prohibiting any Agent of The State from displaying or teaching anything that would favor a particular Religion, it should also be interpreted as prohibiting displaying or teaching anything objectionable to a particular Religion.

The flip side to freedom from religion.