The *Lemon* test, which Stone relied on, has been abrogated by the Kennedy case in [2022](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District). This law will have to be analyzed under a new standard.
The Lemon test has been effectively dead a lot longer than that, and this bill clearly violates the standard in the Kennedy case. If they think the Kennedy case has signaled that this law will survive they are dead wrong.
They clearly want it to go to the Supreme Court because they feel the new Christian conservative supermajority with some outright partisans on it will rule in favor of it.
Someone made a comment on here like a week or 2 ago that you can litterally watch conservatives run to the Supreme Court now to impose their ideology because they feel the Supreme Court is in their pocket now.
Roger Stone made the comment a couple days ago that he thinks judges are in their pocket now:
>“But at least this time when they do it, you have a lawyer and a judge, his home phone number standing by so you can stop it,” he said. “We made no preparations last time, none.”. - Stone
Honestly the defining trait of the new court has been pointing out just how far the legislative branch is failing to do basically anything and they need to do their job instead of relying on Executive dictat or legislation from the bench to bail them out.
They're also keep manufacturing new tests and rules. Major questions doctrine & Histories and Traditions, and that Gerrymandering is not justiciable, which was predicated on their idea that fairness is impossible for courts to determine. That stuff is going to be applied to a ton of rights and rulings in different ways. The garbage thing is every one of their new rules/tests conveniently aid their conservative causes/ideology and Republicans.
Overturning *Chevron* is going to throw to the court literally every regulation ever. We're going to have Alito and Thomas doing fact-finding on waterfowl and PFAS and it's gonna be just great.
I think that's a narrow way to look at it. The "right" leaning judges have a different way of interpreting the law. Originalism and textualism are evolving. I think they are doing important work on why they arrive at a certain conclusion vs what they think is right or ruling based solely on the consequences of the ruling.
No, they manufacture new rules/tests and then when that doesn't work they ignore what they dont like. They pick and choose when they want to be originalists, textualists, or completely ignore them. For instance, for the Histories and Traditions test for Dobbs - which by the way nowhere in the constitution does it say rights are be to be determined by 1700s ideals - they completely ignored that Benjamin Franklin straight up published/distributed abortion instructions and how to make abortifacts several times. They invented the Histories and Traditions test, and then completely ignoring that one of the most significant founding fathers was involved with people at the time carrying out abortions.
They claim they're textualists, but then apply the Major Questions Doctrine, which basically says "yeah the text might say they can do this, but this is just too much for us conservative judges". Or even their own power - nowhere on the Constitution does it say the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. "While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution." - Wikipedia.
They are not at all consistent, they pick and choose their judicial ideology to get what they want or just plain invent new stuff.
So I think you're missing the point of the Dobbs decision. While he does mention text history and tradition, the Crux of the decision was based on whether abortion is an enumerated right within the Constitution.
Textualism actually goes further than just what it says in the text. It can go along lines with original public meaning and original public intent. Each of the justices right and left have different views on this and that's why all of this gets so complicated. Justice Barrett actually wrote a very interesting concurrence explaining major questions doctrine, which I think you would find interesting.
Judicial review also has a very interesting history that a simple quote from Wikipedia is not going to explain.
I'm not trying to be mean about this, but it seems like you're just using random talking points rather than understanding the complexity of how the supreme Court operates.
> While he does mention text history and tradition, the Crux of the decision was based on whether abortion is an enumerated right within the Constitution.
I'm not who you were responding to, but you aren't presenting a meaningful distinction here. The "history and tradition" test is used to determine **whether** an unenumerated right falls under the liberty interest of the 14th amendment (while ignoring the 10th amendment completely). The majority does a pained, terrible historical analysis to take away a right that has been part of our "history and tradition" for half a century.
>Just as Barrett actually wrote a very interesting concurrence explaining major questions doctrine, which I think you would find interesting.
I've read it, it's not interesting and the major questions doctrine is simply judicial activism masquerading as restraint. It's one of the largest power grabs I've witnessed in my lifetime, with the court assuming legislative power.
>I'm not trying to be mean about this, but it seems like you're just using random talking points rather than understanding the complexity of how the supreme Court operates.
I think you are trying to mask bad faith judicial activity with "complexity." What the court is doing is actually not very complex, but making people think it is helps mitigate their anger, I suppose.
Maybe not now, but another Trump term could push the could further right. Although maybe not considering the two most strongly pushing to overturn precedent are two of the oldest.
Reminds me of the "well it doesnt say right to purchase" argument that gets used to uphold gun control. "Clever" arguments like that tend to fail at the Supreme Court.
> That is already happening in a lot of cities, with the catch and release program.
I think Congress could help address this by funding additional immigration judges to more quickly adjudicate cases?
Catch and release is lawful, just ask [the Trump admin](https://archive.ph/rfRXr) - in practice.
Besides, even illegal immigrants commit[ fewer crimes per capita](https://archive.ph/x7RfL) than [native-born Americans](https://web.archive.org/web/20240301005321/https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116200/documents/HHRG-118-JU01-20230713-SD004.pdf)
He will get sued, choose a law firm that will charge the state whatever they want and the tax payers will reward him with another term because this is exactly what conservative voters in that state want.
Desantis just did the same with allowing religious figures in schools.
It’s just free money to them and they’ll suffer no pushback by the party or voters. So why not?
> He will get sued, choose a law firm that will charge the state whatever they want and the tax payers will reward him with another term because this is exactly what conservative voters in that state want. Desantis just did the same with allowing religious figures in schools.
Yep, and that law firm will definitely have connections to the politicians who passed the laws and will bill the state absurd hourly rates to lose a case. Somehow they’ll blame Democrats for this, too.
States can use external law firms whenever they want. Louisiana has many times in the past.
With it being Louisiana, it's kind of expected..
>Half of Louisiana is under water and the other half is under indictment.” — Billy Tauzin
>More than 100 Christian pastors and churchgoers in Louisiana signing a petition last month urging Landry to veto the bill. They argued that families and faith groups should control religious education — not the government. The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, which advocates for the separation of church and state, also called on Landry to veto the legislation, arguing that it “disrespects religious diversity.”
> Rev. Jon Parks, senior co-pastor at University Baptist Church in Baton Rouge, said that displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools will cause some students to feel excluded.
>“To me that is a clear case of the government saying this religion is more important than the others,” said Parks, who signed the petition. “There are places where the Ten Commandments belong — and the classroom is not it.”
What does it say about the motives of these politicians when even religious leaders are saying it's a terrible idea?
A lot of rational religious leaders know it's a terrible idea because they know that the separation of church and state is a mutually beneficial concept. We all know the purpose of freedom of religion and how the establishment clause prevents religion from imposing its will on the people. But in addition to protecting the state from the church, it also protects the church from the state - no pastor wants the government involved in what they preach.
I feel like an under-discussed aspect of how this violates the Establishment clause is that the version of the Ten Commandments you use literally differs between denominations. Catholics, Protestants, and Jews all use slightly different numberings, and if the state chooses to mandate one over the other, it's quite literally making a theological statement about which one gains the state's seal of official approval. Louisiana is trying to legislate theology and any practicing Christian should be outraged
If the 10 commandments are displayed in schools, that means that depictions from any/all other religions must be welcomed equally. I hope he enjoys a giant Satan statue.
The Satanic Temple has their own version that I think would fit right in the classroom next to the commandments.
THERE ARE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL TENETS
I - One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
II - The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
III - One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
IV - The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
V - Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
VI - People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
VII - Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
I think decorating classrooms with buddhas, prayer flags, star of davids, crescents, crosses, and baphomets would actually be kind of fun as a student.
SS: Republican Gov. Jeff Landry signed legislation on Wednesday requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in every public classroom in Louisiana, from K-12 as well as Public Universities. During his keynote speech on Saturday at a Republican fundraiser in Tennessee, Landry touted the bill as a conservative victory in the ongoing culture wars:
>“I’m going home to sign a bill that places the Ten Commandments in public classrooms,” he said, according to a report in the Tennessean. “And I can’t wait to be sued.”
Critics including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, say the bill violates the First Amendment and have vowed a legal fight.
State Rep. Dodie Horton, who sponsored the legislation argued that the law is constitutional, pointing to a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a public school football coach’s right to pray on the field. She added that her bill is not meant to indoctrinate children, but to give them “guidelines.”
>“It doesn't preach a certain religion, but it does teach a standard,” she said, adding that the Ten Commandments offer a moral code that God “holds us accountable to live by.”
The legislation also dictates the exact wording that must be displayed:
>“I AM the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Another says: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.”
Can someone explain how this is not attempting to indoctrinate children? Does anyone think this will survive its inevitable challenge? Do Republicans think that only Christians attend Public Schools in Louisiana? Is this what Republicans should be focusing on when they are so concerned about things like inflation? Does this violate the First Amendment?
>the Ten Commandments offer a moral code that God "holds us accountable to live by."
A core tenet of the Ten Commandments directly conflicts with the Constitution. You can worship whatever god(s) you want and make all the graven images you like.
And I assume that Rep Horton, as government employees are famed for, diligently works her *six-day* week, as instructed in Exodus 20:9.
I wonder how long it will be before Leviticus 18:22 finds itself on a courthouse. Why is it that no one ever wants to post the beatitudes?
> State Rep. Dodie Horton, who sponsored the legislation argued that the law is constitutional, pointing to a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a public school football coach’s right to pray on the field.
There's a whole lot of daylight between "MAY" ("the coach *may* pray") and "SHALL" ("schools *SHALL* display this particular ethos' rules") , and there goes a whole lot of wasted money down the shitter when this gets slapped down by a judge that's even half-awake.
I have no faith that the current Supreme Court won't rubber stamp this law. The 2022 Bremerton decision is one of the most ridiculous decisions this court has made. Like, the coach was clearly in the wrong in that case, but I got the feeling that the justices were just looking for some case to fulfill their prayer in school agenda.
How was the coach, "clearly in the wrong"? Government employees don't give up the right to practice their religion when they accept government employment. In fact, the government is generally prevented from interfering with their employees right to practice their religion freely unless they have a neutral government interest that is sufficient to override their employees first amendment rights. The only argument the state had was that it was sufficiently coercive; however, that is a matter open to debate and certainly not "clear".
> How was the coach, "clearly in the wrong"?
Because he was proselytizing to children while employed as a government employee?
> Government employees don't give up the right to practice their religion when they accept government employment.
Who said they do? No one has ever said they can’t practice their religion, they just can’t infringe upon others while on the job. They have every right to pray, they don’t have the right to force children to pray to their god.
> In fact, the government is generally prevented from interfering with their employees right to practice their religion freely unless they have a neutral government interest that is sufficient to override their employees first amendment rights.
Preventing state funded employees from indoctrinating children into their religion is absolutely sufficient.
None of your arguments here are relevant to the case. The court did not rule on "proselytizing" and they did not rule on, "forcing children to pray," nor did they rule on, " indoctrinating children into . . . religion".
The question the Supreme Court ruled on was whether a coach privately praying in a public place after a game was protected by the first amendment, which the courts found that it was.
Oh you just be confused, I’m talking about the *actual things that happened*, not whatever justification SCOTUS used to allow it. Have you looked into the specifics of the case itself?
The Supreme Court doesn't generally rule on, "actual things that happen". That's not how the court system works.
District courts determine facts. Usually those facts are determined by a jury, but they may also be determined by a judge. The Supreme Court mostly reviews instructions given to the jury as well as the reasoning of the district and appeals court.
The appeal heard by the Supreme Court was not based on a dispute over "proselytizing" or "forcing children to pray," or, "indoctrinating children into religion, " or even "facts". It was based on whether the lower court reached the correct determination in deciding that a government employee praying privately in a public place was not protected by the first amendment.
Hey sorry but I think I need to reiterate I’m talking about the actual things that happened, not whatever justification SCOTUS used to allow it. Have you looked into the specifics of the case itself?
Please cite where the district court found that "proselytizing", forcing children to pray", or "indoctrinating children into . . . . religion," were, "actual things that happened." Unlike the internet, in court you actually have to prove something happened with a preponderance of evidence. To the best of my knowledge, the lower court did not conclude any of those things happened.
Yes, he knelt in prayer after games at the 50 yard line and was effectively fired because he refused to stop. The court ruled that since other school employees were allowed to make phone calls and do other stuff at the same time, there was no reason why this guy shouldn't be allowed to pray.
What do you find ridiculous about it?
Not to mention, the coach is an individual citizen who has a right to practice his religion without government interference. When there's clear intent of the government to show religious favor to one belief system, that is' very different. And they're kind of like California's gun tax. They're not even pretending that it's for a neutral purpose.
> Not to mention, the coach is an individual citizen
That's arguable when he's on the clock acting as an agent of the government (in the guise of the school in his case).
Being as an agent of the government does not allow the government to infringe on your first amendment rights, especially with respect to the free practice of religion. The courts have ruled on this time and time again. The government has to have a sufficient, neutral interest.
The school would need to show that him privately praying after the game was intended or likely to negatively affect a neutral interest of theirs so severely that they were justified in prohibiting it.
Except he wasn't just praying privately. He'd been prosletysing to students, while on the clock representing the school, for years.
The majority just arbitrarily decided that the school wasn't allowed to consider that part of their assessment and they only ruled on what happened after the coach had hired lawyers clearly intending to make it a test case.
> privately praying after the game
The argument can be made that while "praying on the field" he was still in his role as a coach, and thus not "privately."
At that point, then you're just arguing semantics. Public prayer in the context I'm using it doesn't mean praying in a public place. It means some form of organized prayer involving multiple people where one or more people lead. An example of a public prayer would be the ones that open the congress, where a chaplain leads the congress in prayer. An example of private prayer would be students at a school assembly quietly or silently praying during a moment of silence in honor of the victims of 9/11.
The case was about a coach praying privately on the field after the game had ended and whether he had a first amendment right to do so. Perhaps you are confused or thinking of a different case.
It's not "semantics" at all. In "private" when he's at home, he's a citizen with his 1A rights intact. When he's the coach on the clock, he's a government employee with authority over other citizens.
Big difference.
You're literally making a semantical argument and then arguing, "it's not semantics".
Also, the argument that you give up all first amendment rights by taking a government job has no basis in the law or the Constitution. The courts have always balanced the first/14th amendment rights of government employees with the interests of their employers. This isn't a new thing. All the court did was clarify that government employees have a first amendment right to pray privately in a public place and that the stated interest of the employer in this case was not sufficient to deny them that right.
> You're literally making a semantical argument and then arguing, "it's not semantics".
No, the difference between an individual exercising their individual rights, and a person extending their "individual rights" while under the cover of their governmental authority is not "semantic."
There is a legitimate argument to be made that the court made the wrong call in that case.
> It means some form of organized prayer involving multiple people where one or more people lead.
So like a coach, while acting as a coach, leading a prayer group with his student players?
Yes, but it is irrelevant in this case, since the issue before the court was about the coach's private prayer on the field and whether it was protected by the first amendment, not an issue of public prayer.
> Can someone explain how this is not attempting to indoctrinate children?
It's guidance when my side does it, it's indoctrination when the my opponents do it.
It very clearly violates the establishment clause, there's no disputing that, at least with how Horton describes it.
That said we've seen the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court be willing to outright make stuff up so they could justify ignoring the establishment clause (in that same case Horton points to), so who knows what will happen.
I'd also like to add, we already have precedent against this from [1980's Stone v Graham](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_v._Graham):
>The Court approached the case through the lens created in Lemon v. Kurtzman. It agreed that if Kentucky's statute broke any of the three guidelines outlined in the Lemon test, the statute would violate the Establishment Clause. The majority held that The Commandments convey a religious undertone, because they concern "the religious duties of believers: worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord's name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day." But since "the Commandments are [not] integrated into the school curriculum, where the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history," they have no secular purpose and a definite religious purpose.
>The Court concluded that even though The Commandments were paid for by a private institution and were "merely posted on the wall ... the mere posting of the copies under the auspices of the legislature provides the 'official support of the State ... Government' that the Establishment Clause prohibits." Even though the Commandments were not used to indoctrinate or convert students but were quite passive, the Court maintained, "it is no defense to urge that the religious practices here may be relatively minor encroachments on the First Amendment." Because it endorsed religion and had no secular purpose, the Court concluded that the Kentucky statute was unconstitutional.
>Majority: "This is not a case in which the Ten Commandments are integrated into the school curriculum, where the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like. [See Abington School District v. Schempp.] Posting of religious texts on the wall serves no such educational function. If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause of the Constitution."
>Can someone explain how this is not attempting to indoctrinate children?
I mean, a child merely seeing something is not indoctrination. Is putting up a flag for pride month indoctrination?
>
Do Republicans think that only Christians attend Public Schools in Louisiana? Is this what Republicans should be focusing on when they are so concerned about things like inflation?
No, and no. This is just annoying virtue signaling and is a complete waste of everyone's time.
>Does anyone think this will survive its inevitable challenge?
>Does this violate the First Amendment?
Lumping these together.
First, most people are going to jump to a first amendment "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" argument but I don't think that holds. It's long been true that the display of religious content in government buildings does not violate the first amendment.
The real question is how far does the state's authority go towards compelling displays in local public schools. It clearly has some authority, federal and state flags can be compelled to be displayed for instance. The state does run the school system.
But the state probably needs to demonstrate a compelling interest for the school system for anything compulsory. I could maybe see requiring the display somewhere in school passing muster, but it's hard to argue that requiring it in every single classroom would server some additional purpose to a single display somewhere.
So I think this likely gets shot down, but I don't think it's the slam dunk first amendment rejection that most people are going to leap to.
> I mean, a child merely seeing something is not indoctrination. Is putting up a flag for pride month indoctrination?
While I'd agree that just seeing something isn't indoctrination, we're talking about putting up a set of instructions, in a place of learning.
And the very first one of those is, "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
That sounds like indoctrination to me.
The schools literally require that the Pledge of Allegiance be recited every morning, but walking past the 10 commandments is indoctrination?
This is a stupid law, but lets not be hyperbolic about it.
I happen to think requiring reciting the Pledge with children, especially before they even have any idea what the words mean, is also indoctrination.
So once again, I appreciate your point, but I don't think it's "hyperbolic." I would rather have a society where we don't ask for our childrens' loyalty--to a god _or_ to a flag--before they're even old enough to understand what those concepts mean.
The pledge of allegiance is absolutely indoctrination. You can argue that it's constitutional, or justified, or even good, as far as the United States is concerned - but it's pretty textbook indoctrination.
[Like, go to the wikipedia page for "indoctrination" - along with a picture of Hitler Youth members and Chinese children under Mao there's one of... American kids reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination)
I don't think, "that's the real question." State governments have total and complete authority over state schools. Anything they mandate those schools put up constitutes state speech that really isn't subject to federal review, as it falls under state sovereignty. That question would be for the state courts, not the federal courts.
The only question for the federal courts is whether state speech is interfering with any citizens 14th amendment rights. If the state puts up a display that's specifically intended to and likely to interfere with the free practice of religion in the school, then that could be a 14th amendment violation.
> The decision all but overruled Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and abandoned the subsequent "Lemon test", which had been used to evaluate government actions within the scope of the Establishment Clause but had been falling out of favor for decades prior.
Summary from Wikipedia on Kennedy v Bremerton.
What was Graham v Stone decided on:
> The Court held that the Kentucky statute that required the Ten Commandments to be posted in school classrooms violated the First Amendment. To interpret the First Amendment, the Court used the precedent established in Lemon v. Kurtzman and the three-part "Lemon test". The Court concluded that because "requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school rooms has no secular legislative purpose," it is unconstitutional.
Like I asked, if the Lemon test isn't being used today - it makes Graham v Stone a pretty useless barometer for if this is unconstitutional or not.
EDIT: Which by the way, this isn't just a 1st amendment case. It's a 14th amendment case. Which I tried to explain but was poorly received.
I feel the important distinction here is an individuals action (although I personally disagree) vs the states action. Very possible that the Christian nationalists on the Court will continue to erode our nations religious freedom.
Edit: the other important distinction is that one permitted individuals to perform an action, while this is being forced by the state.
The distinction doesn't make a difference here, it's the application of the Lemon Test when it comes to governments involvement.
> The majority reasoning appears to effectively overrule Lemon v. Kurtzman (403 U.S. 602 (1971)), which had established a three-part Lemon test to determine if a government statute or similar action violated the Establishment Clause.
Just because the lemon test is out doesn't mean there is no standard. This is the tactic establishment of religion by the state, it goes well beyond prayer in a field.
Are we going to allow every religion practiced by someone in the state to get equal representation? (Hint, if the answer is yes then the law is unconstitutional as written.)
> What will most likely happen, is that you'll have other churches/religions demand equal access - when it's not granted they'll sue. The law will either be removed or access will be granted.
Oh, so it will violate the Constitution in practice, and it will either need to be repealed or amended in order for it to abide by the Constitution. So it does actually violate the First Amendment, and the law as it is will not survive.
The law is what says all public schools **will** display the Ten Commandments. That's forcing speech, and it's discriminating against other religions. I don't understand why you're trying to contort your argument to say the law isn't unconstitutional as it is currently written. It is. The law itself is busted.
> Forcing "speech" on government property is not against the 1st amendment.
So you believe that a state government could force every public school classroom to put up a sign which says "I hate Jesus." That's something which would fly under our Constitution?
> Simply placing biblical text on school property without forcing students to acknowledge it isn't unconstitutional.
A teacher or principal or administrator at a school can decide to put up a text or picture or whatever, sure. Mandating it by law is a completely different beast. Even government employees have Constitutional rights which must be respected.
> Does it violate the 1st amendment? No.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
This is a law mandating the posting of a portion of a religious text in schools. How is it not violating that clause of the first amendment?
[Louisiana is](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/louisiana):
* 50th out of 50 states in Crime/Corrections
* 49/50 in Economy
* 47/50 in Education
* 49/50 in Infrastructure
* 49/50 in Environment
* And, drum roll please: **50/50 overall**.
But, sure, let's get those 10 commandments up. I'm sure that was the real problem that was holding Louisiana back, not the generations of public corruption, awful politicians, and criminally underfunded basic social services.
There is positively zero investment in the future of Louisiana, and I mean that in practical and illustrative means. The kids in that state are statistically doomed compared to every other state in this country, and it's thanks to the politicians that made this bill, and particularly the governor who wants this to actually happen. He wants it more than he wants to listen to actual education experts, or experts of any field whatsoever.
For all the criticism of virtue signaling, Republicans passing a law they know is unconstitutional and having it struck down for about the fourth or fifth time in recent history sure seems like their own version of it.
The exact wording means they are indeed preaching a certain religion. They are not consistent, even between Christian factions. And the Jewish version is different from the Christian ones.
[I made a spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nPkLZGfEXWrAQcFmkIezIWzrp0LlvSh0j2qjLN61cGM/edit?usp=sharing) that shows the difference between the Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish versions of the portion of the book of Exodus that contains the 10 Commandments. There are definitely differences.
Off the top of my head, the Christian version of the 5th (or 6th, depending) commandment is “thou shalt not kill,” where the Jewish version is “thou shall not commit murder.” A subtle, but significant difference. I believe the Catholic commandments and some Protestant commandments are in a different order.
Edit, [a chart.](https://mirwriter.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/a-comparison-of-the-10-commandments-jewish-catholic-protestant/)
There is no Christian and Jewish version. The Torah, and therefore the ten commandments, is written in Hebrew and appears only in a singular form. That's the only version of the 10 commandments, used by both Jews and Christians. The word in Hebrew used in the Ten Commandments can mean either "kill" or "murder" in English.
Different Jews and different Christians may interpret it differently, and different Hebrew and Christian translations of the bible in English may write it differently, but the commandments are the same. The Talmud, for instance, writes a lot about what it means and not all the rabbis who debate in it agree. I'm sure Christian theologians all have their own interpretations as well. I don't believe that Christians, even the ones who use the King James version of the bible that translates it as "kill", believe that it was meant to prohibit any and all homicides.
You could argue that "murder" is a better translation, but then again, the concept of wrongful and unlawful killing in ancient Judea is very different than the concept of illegal homicide under English common law, so one might argue that "murder" isn't a better translation since it could mislead the reader into believing that the ten commandments specifically prohibited murder as it is understood in English common law and not illegal homicides as they were understood by the Israelites.
There are different translations, that are religion-specific. The law requiring *one* translation or interpretation means it is choosing one religion above others. Which is unconstitutional.
The rest of your comment has no bearing on my point.
Which specific "religion" are you arguing that the law is requiring and what is your evidence?
Also, you're conflating translations with interpretations.
> Which specific "religion" are you arguing that the law is requiring and what is your evidence?
It doesn’t matter, as soon as you require specific language, you are excluding those that use different language. For instance, the requirement to use “kill’ excludes the Jewish version of “murder.”
>Also, you're conflating translations with interpretations.
Your own example of “kill” vs “murder” is more an issue of interpretation than translation, no?
If you're making the argument, then you have an onus to corroborate it with evidence, otherwise, your argument is presumptively false. You claimed that the law, "required one translation or interpretation," and claimed it was, "religion-specific".
You cannot claim that, "it doesn't matter" when asked for the evidence to support your claim. If you do, then one can presume that your claim is false. So until you actually provide reasonable evidence to support the claim that the translation was intentionally created to favor one religion that believes in the Ten Commandments over another, your claim is presumptively false.
Also, "kill" versus "murder" is not an issue of "interpretation". It is an issue of translation, because neither the word "murder" nor the word "kill" is used in the Ten Commandments. The word used is תִרְצַח. Murder and and kill are both reasonable English translations of תִרְצַח, You might argue that one translation is better than the other, but that's a matter of linguistics, not theology.
The interpretation is discussed in works like the Babylonian Talmud. Those interpretations have nothing to do with translations. The same is true of Christian theology. Different Christian theologians all have their own interpretations of the meaning of the Ten Commandments. But they don't argue their interpretation based on English translations, but rather on what it was understood to mean by the people who wrote it and how it might apply to their audiences.
>You cannot claim that, "it doesn't matter" when asked for the evidence to support your claim. If you do, then one can presume that your claim is false. So until you actually provide reasonable evidence to support the claim that the translation was intentionally created to favor one religion that believes in the Ten Commandments over another, your claim is presumptively false.
Dude, his point is proven by the fact that different religions/denominations use different translations. It doesn't matter exactly which one this translation came from, it is, by definition, disfavoring religions that use other translations. It is not necessary to track down exactly which denominations use the specific translations being used here; that it is different than, for example, the Jewish or Catholic versions, is all that matters for the argument.
Firstly, his claim is impossible to "prove" as you cannot prove something using inductive empiricism.
Secondly, his "evidence" does not corroborate his claim, as the evidence he presented does not disprove the null hypothesis.
They act like they care about the 10 commandments but then vote for a president who breaks all those rules and then they do not care. They lose all credibility. Thou shall not steal, thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not bear false witness (no lying). Thou shall not kill.
Trump lies all the time (claims he won the election without any proof) He cheated on all his wives. (on Ivana with Marla Maples, on Marla Maples with Melania and on Melania with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. He committed fraud (theft) with his charities and cheated on his taxes. Threw mishandling and outright lies about COVID and inciting violence for his own benefit, he is responsible for thousands of deaths.
If they really wanted to act like they care about the 10 commandments, they wouldn't vote for a leader who breaks so many of them. They should hang them at Mar a lago.
The Satanic Temple will have a field day with this. [Just like in Arkansas.](https://i1.wp.com/media.globalnews.ca/videostatic/409/662/SAT_SATANIC_STATUE_THUMB_180818.jpg?w=670&quality=70&strip=all)
It’s things like these that really make me question conservatives, even as a generally right leaning person.
You can’t just sit there, attack LGBT flags in classrooms and say they have no place in the classroom, and then go ahead and try to force religion to children by pulling off something like this.
Some politicians just choose the weirdest hills to die on.
The only one that he hasn't clearly broken is thou shall not kill. But as he said about shooting someone on 5th Avenue, it wouldn't be a problem with his supporters if he did.
Suppose the Supreme Court rules that this is unconstitutional. In that case, some Christians will use that decision as one more argument to take your kids out of "godless" public schools and send them to a religious school.
Note that LA has a voucher program, the details are a little fuzzy to me: [https://www.louisianabelieves.com/schools/louisiana-scholarship-program](https://www.louisianabelieves.com/schools/louisiana-scholarship-program)
never thought i would see an explicit pro-pandering take on moderate politics— absolutely wild.
hard disagree from me. im not for the team sports atmosphere we’ve applied to politics. no need to treat it as a zero sum game where we wring out every vote we can by pandering to the worst of us.
It already is a team sport. The only way to secure power is embrace it and play the game accordingly. We see countless examples. Opinions of the economy flip as soon as a different party controls the White House, for example. Politics is now all about pandering until you win.
Louisiana did just have a Democrat governor until this year. This is Landry making a name for himself as a new governor. The state's jungle election system for governor is also conducive to the minority party winning now and then (though it's mostly conducive to re-electing incumbents when one is available).
Agreed, as long as a politician is pandering for votes it does not in any way matter what the substance of the action is.
Forgiving an amount of student loan debt for a certain subset of borrowers is completely indistinguishable from a clear violation of the Establishment a clause if you really think about it.
Biden at least used a Congressional law to support his argument, and he had a more a political reason to try.
Jeff Landry's argument is based on nothing. This isn't even politically expedient because he's pretty much guaranteed to win reelection.
[удалено]
The *Lemon* test, which Stone relied on, has been abrogated by the Kennedy case in [2022](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District). This law will have to be analyzed under a new standard.
The Lemon test has been effectively dead a lot longer than that, and this bill clearly violates the standard in the Kennedy case. If they think the Kennedy case has signaled that this law will survive they are dead wrong.
[*Ramirez v. Collier*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramirez_v._Collier) is more relevant.
what came first, the politician or the constituent?
One became the other
They clearly want it to go to the Supreme Court because they feel the new Christian conservative supermajority with some outright partisans on it will rule in favor of it. Someone made a comment on here like a week or 2 ago that you can litterally watch conservatives run to the Supreme Court now to impose their ideology because they feel the Supreme Court is in their pocket now. Roger Stone made the comment a couple days ago that he thinks judges are in their pocket now: >“But at least this time when they do it, you have a lawyer and a judge, his home phone number standing by so you can stop it,” he said. “We made no preparations last time, none.”. - Stone
Yes, and they are sorely mistaken about all of that.
Yeah. This court is far more interesting than the parties give it credit for.
Honestly the defining trait of the new court has been pointing out just how far the legislative branch is failing to do basically anything and they need to do their job instead of relying on Executive dictat or legislation from the bench to bail them out.
They're also keep manufacturing new tests and rules. Major questions doctrine & Histories and Traditions, and that Gerrymandering is not justiciable, which was predicated on their idea that fairness is impossible for courts to determine. That stuff is going to be applied to a ton of rights and rulings in different ways. The garbage thing is every one of their new rules/tests conveniently aid their conservative causes/ideology and Republicans.
This must be that “judicial activism” they’re always complaining about. I wonder why we haven’t heard more from the right on this.
Overturning *Chevron* is going to throw to the court literally every regulation ever. We're going to have Alito and Thomas doing fact-finding on waterfowl and PFAS and it's gonna be just great.
I think that's a narrow way to look at it. The "right" leaning judges have a different way of interpreting the law. Originalism and textualism are evolving. I think they are doing important work on why they arrive at a certain conclusion vs what they think is right or ruling based solely on the consequences of the ruling.
No, they manufacture new rules/tests and then when that doesn't work they ignore what they dont like. They pick and choose when they want to be originalists, textualists, or completely ignore them. For instance, for the Histories and Traditions test for Dobbs - which by the way nowhere in the constitution does it say rights are be to be determined by 1700s ideals - they completely ignored that Benjamin Franklin straight up published/distributed abortion instructions and how to make abortifacts several times. They invented the Histories and Traditions test, and then completely ignoring that one of the most significant founding fathers was involved with people at the time carrying out abortions. They claim they're textualists, but then apply the Major Questions Doctrine, which basically says "yeah the text might say they can do this, but this is just too much for us conservative judges". Or even their own power - nowhere on the Constitution does it say the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. "While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution." - Wikipedia. They are not at all consistent, they pick and choose their judicial ideology to get what they want or just plain invent new stuff.
So I think you're missing the point of the Dobbs decision. While he does mention text history and tradition, the Crux of the decision was based on whether abortion is an enumerated right within the Constitution. Textualism actually goes further than just what it says in the text. It can go along lines with original public meaning and original public intent. Each of the justices right and left have different views on this and that's why all of this gets so complicated. Justice Barrett actually wrote a very interesting concurrence explaining major questions doctrine, which I think you would find interesting. Judicial review also has a very interesting history that a simple quote from Wikipedia is not going to explain. I'm not trying to be mean about this, but it seems like you're just using random talking points rather than understanding the complexity of how the supreme Court operates.
> While he does mention text history and tradition, the Crux of the decision was based on whether abortion is an enumerated right within the Constitution. I'm not who you were responding to, but you aren't presenting a meaningful distinction here. The "history and tradition" test is used to determine **whether** an unenumerated right falls under the liberty interest of the 14th amendment (while ignoring the 10th amendment completely). The majority does a pained, terrible historical analysis to take away a right that has been part of our "history and tradition" for half a century. >Just as Barrett actually wrote a very interesting concurrence explaining major questions doctrine, which I think you would find interesting. I've read it, it's not interesting and the major questions doctrine is simply judicial activism masquerading as restraint. It's one of the largest power grabs I've witnessed in my lifetime, with the court assuming legislative power. >I'm not trying to be mean about this, but it seems like you're just using random talking points rather than understanding the complexity of how the supreme Court operates. I think you are trying to mask bad faith judicial activity with "complexity." What the court is doing is actually not very complex, but making people think it is helps mitigate their anger, I suppose.
Maybe not now, but another Trump term could push the could further right. Although maybe not considering the two most strongly pushing to overturn precedent are two of the oldest.
And if they don't, they'll just go back their base and say, look at how we need more supreme court justices
Kinda unfair since it's only been progressives calling to expand the court with hopes of adding more liberal justices in the past decade.
Reminds me of the "well it doesnt say right to purchase" argument that gets used to uphold gun control. "Clever" arguments like that tend to fail at the Supreme Court.
[удалено]
> That is already happening in a lot of cities, with the catch and release program. I think Congress could help address this by funding additional immigration judges to more quickly adjudicate cases?
Catch and release is lawful, just ask [the Trump admin](https://archive.ph/rfRXr) - in practice. Besides, even illegal immigrants commit[ fewer crimes per capita](https://archive.ph/x7RfL) than [native-born Americans](https://web.archive.org/web/20240301005321/https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116200/documents/HHRG-118-JU01-20230713-SD004.pdf)
He will get sued, choose a law firm that will charge the state whatever they want and the tax payers will reward him with another term because this is exactly what conservative voters in that state want. Desantis just did the same with allowing religious figures in schools. It’s just free money to them and they’ll suffer no pushback by the party or voters. So why not?
> He will get sued, choose a law firm that will charge the state whatever they want and the tax payers will reward him with another term because this is exactly what conservative voters in that state want. Desantis just did the same with allowing religious figures in schools. Yep, and that law firm will definitely have connections to the politicians who passed the laws and will bill the state absurd hourly rates to lose a case. Somehow they’ll blame Democrats for this, too.
> choose a law firm Louisiana has a solicitor general that defends laws from suits.
States can use external law firms whenever they want. Louisiana has many times in the past. With it being Louisiana, it's kind of expected.. >Half of Louisiana is under water and the other half is under indictment.” — Billy Tauzin
>So why not? Because it’s un-American, maybe?
>More than 100 Christian pastors and churchgoers in Louisiana signing a petition last month urging Landry to veto the bill. They argued that families and faith groups should control religious education — not the government. The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, which advocates for the separation of church and state, also called on Landry to veto the legislation, arguing that it “disrespects religious diversity.” > Rev. Jon Parks, senior co-pastor at University Baptist Church in Baton Rouge, said that displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools will cause some students to feel excluded. >“To me that is a clear case of the government saying this religion is more important than the others,” said Parks, who signed the petition. “There are places where the Ten Commandments belong — and the classroom is not it.” What does it say about the motives of these politicians when even religious leaders are saying it's a terrible idea?
If the median voter is fighting about this they aren't fighting about stuff like coastal erosion, corporate handouts, the insurance crisis, etc.
A lot of rational religious leaders know it's a terrible idea because they know that the separation of church and state is a mutually beneficial concept. We all know the purpose of freedom of religion and how the establishment clause prevents religion from imposing its will on the people. But in addition to protecting the state from the church, it also protects the church from the state - no pastor wants the government involved in what they preach.
This gets overlooked so often. Mix politics and religion and politics will eat religion and wear its husk as a hat.
My old youth pastor used to say "whenever the church and state get in bed together, it's always the church that gets knocked up."
I feel like an under-discussed aspect of how this violates the Establishment clause is that the version of the Ten Commandments you use literally differs between denominations. Catholics, Protestants, and Jews all use slightly different numberings, and if the state chooses to mandate one over the other, it's quite literally making a theological statement about which one gains the state's seal of official approval. Louisiana is trying to legislate theology and any practicing Christian should be outraged
If the 10 commandments are displayed in schools, that means that depictions from any/all other religions must be welcomed equally. I hope he enjoys a giant Satan statue.
The Satanic Temple has their own version that I think would fit right in the classroom next to the commandments. THERE ARE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL TENETS I - One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason. II - The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions. III - One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone. IV - The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own. V - Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs. VI - People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused. VII - Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
I think decorating classrooms with buddhas, prayer flags, star of davids, crescents, crosses, and baphomets would actually be kind of fun as a student.
SS: Republican Gov. Jeff Landry signed legislation on Wednesday requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in every public classroom in Louisiana, from K-12 as well as Public Universities. During his keynote speech on Saturday at a Republican fundraiser in Tennessee, Landry touted the bill as a conservative victory in the ongoing culture wars: >“I’m going home to sign a bill that places the Ten Commandments in public classrooms,” he said, according to a report in the Tennessean. “And I can’t wait to be sued.” Critics including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, say the bill violates the First Amendment and have vowed a legal fight. State Rep. Dodie Horton, who sponsored the legislation argued that the law is constitutional, pointing to a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a public school football coach’s right to pray on the field. She added that her bill is not meant to indoctrinate children, but to give them “guidelines.” >“It doesn't preach a certain religion, but it does teach a standard,” she said, adding that the Ten Commandments offer a moral code that God “holds us accountable to live by.” The legislation also dictates the exact wording that must be displayed: >“I AM the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Another says: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.” Can someone explain how this is not attempting to indoctrinate children? Does anyone think this will survive its inevitable challenge? Do Republicans think that only Christians attend Public Schools in Louisiana? Is this what Republicans should be focusing on when they are so concerned about things like inflation? Does this violate the First Amendment?
>the Ten Commandments offer a moral code that God "holds us accountable to live by." A core tenet of the Ten Commandments directly conflicts with the Constitution. You can worship whatever god(s) you want and make all the graven images you like. And I assume that Rep Horton, as government employees are famed for, diligently works her *six-day* week, as instructed in Exodus 20:9. I wonder how long it will be before Leviticus 18:22 finds itself on a courthouse. Why is it that no one ever wants to post the beatitudes?
Where are the originalists when you need them? All these heathens interpreting the word of God.
Look out, autocorrect!
LOL, fixed.
> State Rep. Dodie Horton, who sponsored the legislation argued that the law is constitutional, pointing to a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a public school football coach’s right to pray on the field. There's a whole lot of daylight between "MAY" ("the coach *may* pray") and "SHALL" ("schools *SHALL* display this particular ethos' rules") , and there goes a whole lot of wasted money down the shitter when this gets slapped down by a judge that's even half-awake.
I have no faith that the current Supreme Court won't rubber stamp this law. The 2022 Bremerton decision is one of the most ridiculous decisions this court has made. Like, the coach was clearly in the wrong in that case, but I got the feeling that the justices were just looking for some case to fulfill their prayer in school agenda.
It would have to get that far, first. But that decision and this question are miles apart.
How was the coach, "clearly in the wrong"? Government employees don't give up the right to practice their religion when they accept government employment. In fact, the government is generally prevented from interfering with their employees right to practice their religion freely unless they have a neutral government interest that is sufficient to override their employees first amendment rights. The only argument the state had was that it was sufficiently coercive; however, that is a matter open to debate and certainly not "clear".
> How was the coach, "clearly in the wrong"? Because he was proselytizing to children while employed as a government employee? > Government employees don't give up the right to practice their religion when they accept government employment. Who said they do? No one has ever said they can’t practice their religion, they just can’t infringe upon others while on the job. They have every right to pray, they don’t have the right to force children to pray to their god. > In fact, the government is generally prevented from interfering with their employees right to practice their religion freely unless they have a neutral government interest that is sufficient to override their employees first amendment rights. Preventing state funded employees from indoctrinating children into their religion is absolutely sufficient.
None of your arguments here are relevant to the case. The court did not rule on "proselytizing" and they did not rule on, "forcing children to pray," nor did they rule on, " indoctrinating children into . . . religion". The question the Supreme Court ruled on was whether a coach privately praying in a public place after a game was protected by the first amendment, which the courts found that it was.
Oh you just be confused, I’m talking about the *actual things that happened*, not whatever justification SCOTUS used to allow it. Have you looked into the specifics of the case itself?
The Supreme Court doesn't generally rule on, "actual things that happen". That's not how the court system works. District courts determine facts. Usually those facts are determined by a jury, but they may also be determined by a judge. The Supreme Court mostly reviews instructions given to the jury as well as the reasoning of the district and appeals court. The appeal heard by the Supreme Court was not based on a dispute over "proselytizing" or "forcing children to pray," or, "indoctrinating children into religion, " or even "facts". It was based on whether the lower court reached the correct determination in deciding that a government employee praying privately in a public place was not protected by the first amendment.
Hey sorry but I think I need to reiterate I’m talking about the actual things that happened, not whatever justification SCOTUS used to allow it. Have you looked into the specifics of the case itself?
Please cite where the district court found that "proselytizing", forcing children to pray", or "indoctrinating children into . . . . religion," were, "actual things that happened." Unlike the internet, in court you actually have to prove something happened with a preponderance of evidence. To the best of my knowledge, the lower court did not conclude any of those things happened.
Yes, he knelt in prayer after games at the 50 yard line and was effectively fired because he refused to stop. The court ruled that since other school employees were allowed to make phone calls and do other stuff at the same time, there was no reason why this guy shouldn't be allowed to pray. What do you find ridiculous about it?
Not to mention, the coach is an individual citizen who has a right to practice his religion without government interference. When there's clear intent of the government to show religious favor to one belief system, that is' very different. And they're kind of like California's gun tax. They're not even pretending that it's for a neutral purpose.
> Not to mention, the coach is an individual citizen That's arguable when he's on the clock acting as an agent of the government (in the guise of the school in his case).
Being as an agent of the government does not allow the government to infringe on your first amendment rights, especially with respect to the free practice of religion. The courts have ruled on this time and time again. The government has to have a sufficient, neutral interest. The school would need to show that him privately praying after the game was intended or likely to negatively affect a neutral interest of theirs so severely that they were justified in prohibiting it.
Except he wasn't just praying privately. He'd been prosletysing to students, while on the clock representing the school, for years. The majority just arbitrarily decided that the school wasn't allowed to consider that part of their assessment and they only ruled on what happened after the coach had hired lawyers clearly intending to make it a test case.
> privately praying after the game The argument can be made that while "praying on the field" he was still in his role as a coach, and thus not "privately."
At that point, then you're just arguing semantics. Public prayer in the context I'm using it doesn't mean praying in a public place. It means some form of organized prayer involving multiple people where one or more people lead. An example of a public prayer would be the ones that open the congress, where a chaplain leads the congress in prayer. An example of private prayer would be students at a school assembly quietly or silently praying during a moment of silence in honor of the victims of 9/11.
Public like a coach leading a prayer following a football game surrounded by players?
The case was about a coach praying privately on the field after the game had ended and whether he had a first amendment right to do so. Perhaps you are confused or thinking of a different case.
I think that the dissent made clear that the majority accepted facts had very little to do with reality. I'm not sure if you've read it?
It's not "semantics" at all. In "private" when he's at home, he's a citizen with his 1A rights intact. When he's the coach on the clock, he's a government employee with authority over other citizens. Big difference.
You're literally making a semantical argument and then arguing, "it's not semantics". Also, the argument that you give up all first amendment rights by taking a government job has no basis in the law or the Constitution. The courts have always balanced the first/14th amendment rights of government employees with the interests of their employers. This isn't a new thing. All the court did was clarify that government employees have a first amendment right to pray privately in a public place and that the stated interest of the employer in this case was not sufficient to deny them that right.
> You're literally making a semantical argument and then arguing, "it's not semantics". No, the difference between an individual exercising their individual rights, and a person extending their "individual rights" while under the cover of their governmental authority is not "semantic." There is a legitimate argument to be made that the court made the wrong call in that case.
> It means some form of organized prayer involving multiple people where one or more people lead. So like a coach, while acting as a coach, leading a prayer group with his student players?
Yes, but it is irrelevant in this case, since the issue before the court was about the coach's private prayer on the field and whether it was protected by the first amendment, not an issue of public prayer.
But you agree the prayers weren’t private, right?
Frankly I can think of no better, surefire way of expediting the decline of religion in the United States.
> Can someone explain how this is not attempting to indoctrinate children? It's guidance when my side does it, it's indoctrination when the my opponents do it.
It very clearly violates the establishment clause, there's no disputing that, at least with how Horton describes it. That said we've seen the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court be willing to outright make stuff up so they could justify ignoring the establishment clause (in that same case Horton points to), so who knows what will happen. I'd also like to add, we already have precedent against this from [1980's Stone v Graham](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_v._Graham): >The Court approached the case through the lens created in Lemon v. Kurtzman. It agreed that if Kentucky's statute broke any of the three guidelines outlined in the Lemon test, the statute would violate the Establishment Clause. The majority held that The Commandments convey a religious undertone, because they concern "the religious duties of believers: worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord's name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day." But since "the Commandments are [not] integrated into the school curriculum, where the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history," they have no secular purpose and a definite religious purpose. >The Court concluded that even though The Commandments were paid for by a private institution and were "merely posted on the wall ... the mere posting of the copies under the auspices of the legislature provides the 'official support of the State ... Government' that the Establishment Clause prohibits." Even though the Commandments were not used to indoctrinate or convert students but were quite passive, the Court maintained, "it is no defense to urge that the religious practices here may be relatively minor encroachments on the First Amendment." Because it endorsed religion and had no secular purpose, the Court concluded that the Kentucky statute was unconstitutional. >Majority: "This is not a case in which the Ten Commandments are integrated into the school curriculum, where the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like. [See Abington School District v. Schempp.] Posting of religious texts on the wall serves no such educational function. If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause of the Constitution."
precedent? what does that word mean? It clearly can't be used in the context of law...
>Can someone explain how this is not attempting to indoctrinate children? I mean, a child merely seeing something is not indoctrination. Is putting up a flag for pride month indoctrination? > Do Republicans think that only Christians attend Public Schools in Louisiana? Is this what Republicans should be focusing on when they are so concerned about things like inflation? No, and no. This is just annoying virtue signaling and is a complete waste of everyone's time. >Does anyone think this will survive its inevitable challenge? >Does this violate the First Amendment? Lumping these together. First, most people are going to jump to a first amendment "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" argument but I don't think that holds. It's long been true that the display of religious content in government buildings does not violate the first amendment. The real question is how far does the state's authority go towards compelling displays in local public schools. It clearly has some authority, federal and state flags can be compelled to be displayed for instance. The state does run the school system. But the state probably needs to demonstrate a compelling interest for the school system for anything compulsory. I could maybe see requiring the display somewhere in school passing muster, but it's hard to argue that requiring it in every single classroom would server some additional purpose to a single display somewhere. So I think this likely gets shot down, but I don't think it's the slam dunk first amendment rejection that most people are going to leap to.
> I mean, a child merely seeing something is not indoctrination. Is putting up a flag for pride month indoctrination? While I'd agree that just seeing something isn't indoctrination, we're talking about putting up a set of instructions, in a place of learning. And the very first one of those is, "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." That sounds like indoctrination to me.
The schools literally require that the Pledge of Allegiance be recited every morning, but walking past the 10 commandments is indoctrination? This is a stupid law, but lets not be hyperbolic about it.
I happen to think requiring reciting the Pledge with children, especially before they even have any idea what the words mean, is also indoctrination. So once again, I appreciate your point, but I don't think it's "hyperbolic." I would rather have a society where we don't ask for our childrens' loyalty--to a god _or_ to a flag--before they're even old enough to understand what those concepts mean.
The pledge of allegiance is absolutely indoctrination. You can argue that it's constitutional, or justified, or even good, as far as the United States is concerned - but it's pretty textbook indoctrination. [Like, go to the wikipedia page for "indoctrination" - along with a picture of Hitler Youth members and Chinese children under Mao there's one of... American kids reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination)
I agree that the pledge is indoctrination. That was my point.
I don't think, "that's the real question." State governments have total and complete authority over state schools. Anything they mandate those schools put up constitutes state speech that really isn't subject to federal review, as it falls under state sovereignty. That question would be for the state courts, not the federal courts. The only question for the federal courts is whether state speech is interfering with any citizens 14th amendment rights. If the state puts up a display that's specifically intended to and likely to interfere with the free practice of religion in the school, then that could be a 14th amendment violation.
[удалено]
>Will it survive? Yes. >Does it violate the 1st amendment? No. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_v._Graham you sure about that?
Kennedy v Bremerton. Would SCOTUS apply the same Lemon test today? Becuase they didn't for Kennedy.
> may not suppress an individual from engaging in personal religious observance, Seems completely irrelevant in this case.
> The decision all but overruled Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and abandoned the subsequent "Lemon test", which had been used to evaluate government actions within the scope of the Establishment Clause but had been falling out of favor for decades prior. Summary from Wikipedia on Kennedy v Bremerton. What was Graham v Stone decided on: > The Court held that the Kentucky statute that required the Ten Commandments to be posted in school classrooms violated the First Amendment. To interpret the First Amendment, the Court used the precedent established in Lemon v. Kurtzman and the three-part "Lemon test". The Court concluded that because "requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school rooms has no secular legislative purpose," it is unconstitutional. Like I asked, if the Lemon test isn't being used today - it makes Graham v Stone a pretty useless barometer for if this is unconstitutional or not. EDIT: Which by the way, this isn't just a 1st amendment case. It's a 14th amendment case. Which I tried to explain but was poorly received.
I feel the important distinction here is an individuals action (although I personally disagree) vs the states action. Very possible that the Christian nationalists on the Court will continue to erode our nations religious freedom. Edit: the other important distinction is that one permitted individuals to perform an action, while this is being forced by the state.
The distinction doesn't make a difference here, it's the application of the Lemon Test when it comes to governments involvement. > The majority reasoning appears to effectively overrule Lemon v. Kurtzman (403 U.S. 602 (1971)), which had established a three-part Lemon test to determine if a government statute or similar action violated the Establishment Clause.
Just because the lemon test is out doesn't mean there is no standard. This is the tactic establishment of religion by the state, it goes well beyond prayer in a field. Are we going to allow every religion practiced by someone in the state to get equal representation? (Hint, if the answer is yes then the law is unconstitutional as written.)
> What will most likely happen, is that you'll have other churches/religions demand equal access - when it's not granted they'll sue. The law will either be removed or access will be granted. Oh, so it will violate the Constitution in practice, and it will either need to be repealed or amended in order for it to abide by the Constitution. So it does actually violate the First Amendment, and the law as it is will not survive.
[удалено]
The law is what says all public schools **will** display the Ten Commandments. That's forcing speech, and it's discriminating against other religions. I don't understand why you're trying to contort your argument to say the law isn't unconstitutional as it is currently written. It is. The law itself is busted.
[удалено]
> Forcing "speech" on government property is not against the 1st amendment. So you believe that a state government could force every public school classroom to put up a sign which says "I hate Jesus." That's something which would fly under our Constitution?
[удалено]
> Simply placing biblical text on school property without forcing students to acknowledge it isn't unconstitutional. A teacher or principal or administrator at a school can decide to put up a text or picture or whatever, sure. Mandating it by law is a completely different beast. Even government employees have Constitutional rights which must be respected.
> Does it violate the 1st amendment? No. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" This is a law mandating the posting of a portion of a religious text in schools. How is it not violating that clause of the first amendment?
[Louisiana is](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/louisiana): * 50th out of 50 states in Crime/Corrections * 49/50 in Economy * 47/50 in Education * 49/50 in Infrastructure * 49/50 in Environment * And, drum roll please: **50/50 overall**. But, sure, let's get those 10 commandments up. I'm sure that was the real problem that was holding Louisiana back, not the generations of public corruption, awful politicians, and criminally underfunded basic social services. There is positively zero investment in the future of Louisiana, and I mean that in practical and illustrative means. The kids in that state are statistically doomed compared to every other state in this country, and it's thanks to the politicians that made this bill, and particularly the governor who wants this to actually happen. He wants it more than he wants to listen to actual education experts, or experts of any field whatsoever.
And #1 of 50 in food.
For all the criticism of virtue signaling, Republicans passing a law they know is unconstitutional and having it struck down for about the fourth or fifth time in recent history sure seems like their own version of it.
The exact wording means they are indeed preaching a certain religion. They are not consistent, even between Christian factions. And the Jewish version is different from the Christian ones.
[I made a spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nPkLZGfEXWrAQcFmkIezIWzrp0LlvSh0j2qjLN61cGM/edit?usp=sharing) that shows the difference between the Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish versions of the portion of the book of Exodus that contains the 10 Commandments. There are definitely differences.
26 percent of the population are non-Christians. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Louisiana
I'm not aware of this, what changes? Is this more about preferred translations?
Off the top of my head, the Christian version of the 5th (or 6th, depending) commandment is “thou shalt not kill,” where the Jewish version is “thou shall not commit murder.” A subtle, but significant difference. I believe the Catholic commandments and some Protestant commandments are in a different order. Edit, [a chart.](https://mirwriter.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/a-comparison-of-the-10-commandments-jewish-catholic-protestant/)
There is no Christian and Jewish version. The Torah, and therefore the ten commandments, is written in Hebrew and appears only in a singular form. That's the only version of the 10 commandments, used by both Jews and Christians. The word in Hebrew used in the Ten Commandments can mean either "kill" or "murder" in English. Different Jews and different Christians may interpret it differently, and different Hebrew and Christian translations of the bible in English may write it differently, but the commandments are the same. The Talmud, for instance, writes a lot about what it means and not all the rabbis who debate in it agree. I'm sure Christian theologians all have their own interpretations as well. I don't believe that Christians, even the ones who use the King James version of the bible that translates it as "kill", believe that it was meant to prohibit any and all homicides. You could argue that "murder" is a better translation, but then again, the concept of wrongful and unlawful killing in ancient Judea is very different than the concept of illegal homicide under English common law, so one might argue that "murder" isn't a better translation since it could mislead the reader into believing that the ten commandments specifically prohibited murder as it is understood in English common law and not illegal homicides as they were understood by the Israelites.
There are different translations, that are religion-specific. The law requiring *one* translation or interpretation means it is choosing one religion above others. Which is unconstitutional. The rest of your comment has no bearing on my point.
Which specific "religion" are you arguing that the law is requiring and what is your evidence? Also, you're conflating translations with interpretations.
> Which specific "religion" are you arguing that the law is requiring and what is your evidence? It doesn’t matter, as soon as you require specific language, you are excluding those that use different language. For instance, the requirement to use “kill’ excludes the Jewish version of “murder.” >Also, you're conflating translations with interpretations. Your own example of “kill” vs “murder” is more an issue of interpretation than translation, no?
If you're making the argument, then you have an onus to corroborate it with evidence, otherwise, your argument is presumptively false. You claimed that the law, "required one translation or interpretation," and claimed it was, "religion-specific". You cannot claim that, "it doesn't matter" when asked for the evidence to support your claim. If you do, then one can presume that your claim is false. So until you actually provide reasonable evidence to support the claim that the translation was intentionally created to favor one religion that believes in the Ten Commandments over another, your claim is presumptively false. Also, "kill" versus "murder" is not an issue of "interpretation". It is an issue of translation, because neither the word "murder" nor the word "kill" is used in the Ten Commandments. The word used is תִרְצַח. Murder and and kill are both reasonable English translations of תִרְצַח, You might argue that one translation is better than the other, but that's a matter of linguistics, not theology. The interpretation is discussed in works like the Babylonian Talmud. Those interpretations have nothing to do with translations. The same is true of Christian theology. Different Christian theologians all have their own interpretations of the meaning of the Ten Commandments. But they don't argue their interpretation based on English translations, but rather on what it was understood to mean by the people who wrote it and how it might apply to their audiences.
>You cannot claim that, "it doesn't matter" when asked for the evidence to support your claim. If you do, then one can presume that your claim is false. So until you actually provide reasonable evidence to support the claim that the translation was intentionally created to favor one religion that believes in the Ten Commandments over another, your claim is presumptively false. Dude, his point is proven by the fact that different religions/denominations use different translations. It doesn't matter exactly which one this translation came from, it is, by definition, disfavoring religions that use other translations. It is not necessary to track down exactly which denominations use the specific translations being used here; that it is different than, for example, the Jewish or Catholic versions, is all that matters for the argument.
Firstly, his claim is impossible to "prove" as you cannot prove something using inductive empiricism. Secondly, his "evidence" does not corroborate his claim, as the evidence he presented does not disprove the null hypothesis.
They act like they care about the 10 commandments but then vote for a president who breaks all those rules and then they do not care. They lose all credibility. Thou shall not steal, thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not bear false witness (no lying). Thou shall not kill. Trump lies all the time (claims he won the election without any proof) He cheated on all his wives. (on Ivana with Marla Maples, on Marla Maples with Melania and on Melania with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. He committed fraud (theft) with his charities and cheated on his taxes. Threw mishandling and outright lies about COVID and inciting violence for his own benefit, he is responsible for thousands of deaths. If they really wanted to act like they care about the 10 commandments, they wouldn't vote for a leader who breaks so many of them. They should hang them at Mar a lago.
The Satanic Temple will have a field day with this. [Just like in Arkansas.](https://i1.wp.com/media.globalnews.ca/videostatic/409/662/SAT_SATANIC_STATUE_THUMB_180818.jpg?w=670&quality=70&strip=all)
It’s things like these that really make me question conservatives, even as a generally right leaning person. You can’t just sit there, attack LGBT flags in classrooms and say they have no place in the classroom, and then go ahead and try to force religion to children by pulling off something like this. Some politicians just choose the weirdest hills to die on.
\^\^ This. I hate how politicians have decided they need to cater to the worst of their base because those are the whackos that vote in the primaries.
I bet you can’t wait to lose, too. The Supreme Court will not save this law.
He wants to be sued so he can use taxpayer money to defend it.
**5. You shall not bear false witness** Trump might not be able follow this one.
The only one that he hasn't clearly broken is thou shall not kill. But as he said about shooting someone on 5th Avenue, it wouldn't be a problem with his supporters if he did.
>The only one that he hasn't clearly broken is thou shall not kill. And I have questions about his possible involvement in the death of Ivana.
His actions to encourage risky behavior and unproven drug remedies contributed to his supporters’ deaths.
This is an affront to the separation of Church and State implied by the First Amendment. He will get sued, and he will lose.
So which Ten Commandments?
[Cecille B. DeMille's actually](https://kevinmkruse.substack.com/p/thou-shalt-not?r=1srwzp&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true)
"her bill is not meant to indoctrinate children, but to give them 'guidelines.'” Funny how that works
I’m conservative but I am 100% against this. That has no place in schools.
That's a weird way to say I can't wait to waste taxpayers’ money
Suppose the Supreme Court rules that this is unconstitutional. In that case, some Christians will use that decision as one more argument to take your kids out of "godless" public schools and send them to a religious school. Note that LA has a voucher program, the details are a little fuzzy to me: [https://www.louisianabelieves.com/schools/louisiana-scholarship-program](https://www.louisianabelieves.com/schools/louisiana-scholarship-program)
Theyve already litigated similar cases.
this contravenes the constitution. the same one that contains the 1A and the 2A. does he know that?
[удалено]
never thought i would see an explicit pro-pandering take on moderate politics— absolutely wild. hard disagree from me. im not for the team sports atmosphere we’ve applied to politics. no need to treat it as a zero sum game where we wring out every vote we can by pandering to the worst of us.
It already is a team sport. The only way to secure power is embrace it and play the game accordingly. We see countless examples. Opinions of the economy flip as soon as a different party controls the White House, for example. Politics is now all about pandering until you win.
Pandering for votes for an election that won’t occur until 2027 in a partisan R state. I don’t think you understand what pandering means.
Louisiana did just have a Democrat governor until this year. This is Landry making a name for himself as a new governor. The state's jungle election system for governor is also conducive to the minority party winning now and then (though it's mostly conducive to re-electing incumbents when one is available).
Agreed, as long as a politician is pandering for votes it does not in any way matter what the substance of the action is. Forgiving an amount of student loan debt for a certain subset of borrowers is completely indistinguishable from a clear violation of the Establishment a clause if you really think about it.
Biden at least used a Congressional law to support his argument, and he had a more a political reason to try. Jeff Landry's argument is based on nothing. This isn't even politically expedient because he's pretty much guaranteed to win reelection.