like a totally non-violent thing that soldiers march to. That very definitely is not war. Nosiree. We hate all that war stuff. Did I say hate? I mean, um, disapprove of. You know, in a completely peaceful way and all.
Now, if we just happen to be around, and if a war just happens to, I dunno, suddenly - and oh, so tragically, yes indeed - kinda somehow break out, well, then...
“My wife is a Christian and if she was a teacher she would be asked to teach evolution which is in complete contradiction with the theory of creation that we believe out of the Bible..."
That's a pretty big 'If' and only applies if she was a science teacher. Creation is not a theory. Not even a good hypothesis. The bible is wrong.
His wife could happily teach the Bible in a Bible as literature class, and no evolution would be required to be taught in that class. So he's just flat out wrong.
She could not teach it in *science* class - because it is not science. But lots of things aren't science. Civics is not science and so is not taught in science class. Psychology, history, basketball, reading music, debate, chess...all these things are not in the official state science curriculum and so not taught in science class, because they aren't science. Get over it.
"Biden administration censors speech or arrests pro-life protesters, but apparently it will fight to prevent posters that discuss our own legal history,”
Practically all the red state AGs have realized it's a stepping stone to higher office, if they do nothing other than sue (and lose to) the Biden administration. Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas...
She doesn't have any. But as Hemant said that may not mean anything before this court. Didn't this SCOTUS hear and rule in favor of a completely made up case?
If the Ten Commandments were the USA’s legal history, then wouldn’t they be cited in the constitution? Or any other legitimate legal documents from the founding. They’ve got pre constitution documents from the most theocratic parts of the colonies, parts of the history that was soundly rejected at the time the country was officially founded. It is not legal history any more than Sherman and Peabody was at the signing of the constitution.
The complaint misses a bet. Not only is the tenor of the law unconstitutional in general, it goes beyond to positive endorsing a specific version that is a matter of sectarian difference. Even if we were somehow able to agree that the promulgation of a Ten Commandment poster could skate by the Establishment Clause, there is second-level material.
Exodus has two snd Deuteronomy has one version. Favoring one over the other is inescapably puting the state's imprimatur on not only a religious tradition, but elevating one part of it to state-sponsered approval over the others. Then there is a matter of the translation, over which there is sectarian difference.
Pretty soon, it becomes straight up winners and losers and Cuius regio, eius religio— whose ruler, whose religion. That worked well during the extended wars of religion in Europe.
“My wife is a Christian and if she was a teacher she would be asked to teach evolution which is in complete contradiction with the theory of creation that we believe out of the Bible"
Wow, they do understand hypotheticals after all, when the hypothetical (however stretched) suits their argument. They just refuse to entertain them when they have no defense against them.
🟩 Founding Father George Washington (August 1790):
"For happily the Government
of the United States, which gives
to bigotry no sanction,
to persecution no assistance,
requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."
"No one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution."
🟨🟨🟨 Oliver Wolcott (Connecticut Ratifying Convention on January 9, 1788):
"Knowledge and liberty are so prevalent in this country, that I do not believe that the United States would ever be disposed to establish one religious sect, and lay all others under legal disabilities.
But as we know not what may take place hereafter, and any such test would be exceedingly injurious to the rights of free citizens, I cannot think it altogether superfluous to have added a clause, which secures us from the possibility of such oppression."
christians are the most banal people in existence. They attribute their own attacks to their enemies, victimhood is their brand, and they lie every chance they get. They don't need the 10 commandments put up in classrooms they will rarely, if ever, be in, they need them put up in their homes and churches.
Louisiana: where tourist suck the heads of crawfish and zombies suck the heads of GOP officials. At least, the tourists don't go away hungry, which can't be said of the zombies.
Bzzzzt. You forgot to phrase it in the Louisiana-required "Thou shalt" form. You'll go to jail if you post that in a school. And then to hell for not adhering to God's Own KJV version.
“…by claiming that those who oppose it are waging an ‘attack on Christianity’…
I love how they’re the ones aggressively instigating this, yet somehow we’re the ones “waging an attack” when we resist.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e533976cab90fcf78d8efbfffdc6e2bee50bc959503ead21bfa9a07a2adf1b5a.jpg
Yep, sounds about right.
If anything, they're the ones "waging an attack" on non-Christians with this "posting the TC in public school classrooms" nonsense.
"Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to...
um...
like a totally non-violent thing that soldiers march to. That very definitely is not war. Nosiree. We hate all that war stuff. Did I say hate? I mean, um, disapprove of. You know, in a completely peaceful way and all.
Now, if we just happen to be around, and if a war just happens to, I dunno, suddenly - and oh, so tragically, yes indeed - kinda somehow break out, well, then...
I mean, we're already there, and everything..."
It's not "marching as to war" anymore, it's "...we're at effin' war, gonna kill for Jesus, as we did before."
I doubt there are many Christians nowadays who have a problem with war.
Like rape, incest, and slavery, war is sanctioned, approved, and recommended by their "holy" book.
Hold still and take it, stop resisting this beating.
And they're the ones being persecuted when they encounter that resistance.
Weird how that works.
“My wife is a Christian and if she was a teacher she would be asked to teach evolution which is in complete contradiction with the theory of creation that we believe out of the Bible..."
That's a pretty big 'If' and only applies if she was a science teacher. Creation is not a theory. Not even a good hypothesis. The bible is wrong.
And creationism isn't part of The Ten Commandments, anyway.
His wife could happily teach the Bible in a Bible as literature class, and no evolution would be required to be taught in that class. So he's just flat out wrong.
She could not teach it in *science* class - because it is not science. But lots of things aren't science. Civics is not science and so is not taught in science class. Psychology, history, basketball, reading music, debate, chess...all these things are not in the official state science curriculum and so not taught in science class, because they aren't science. Get over it.
And how many time the USA are mentioned in the babble ? So, your country itself is in contradiction of your sacred book
"Biden administration censors speech or arrests pro-life protesters, but apparently it will fight to prevent posters that discuss our own legal history,”
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
Not all "censoring of speech" is a violation of The First Amendment (threats of physical harm, libel, slander, etc.).
Not all "pro-life protesting" is protected by The First Amendment, either (blocking of abortion clinics, trespassing inside of them, etc.).
Even the premise behind her comments here isn't sound.
Not yet.
She's an AG who has no trouble lying through her teeth. Bet she wears MAGA gear away from the job.
Probably has a Trump tattoo. (I just made myself throw up a little.)
Practically all the red state AGs have realized it's a stepping stone to higher office, if they do nothing other than sue (and lose to) the Biden administration. Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas...
She doesn't have any. But as Hemant said that may not mean anything before this court. Didn't this SCOTUS hear and rule in favor of a completely made up case?
I get so exhausted by the arrogance and stupidity. No wonder these red states do so poorly on every measure of quality of life.
That's the problem ... conflict enervates us but energises them
They are counting on the fatigue factor with the blizzard of reichwing laws they are passing.
If the Ten Commandments were the USA’s legal history, then wouldn’t they be cited in the constitution? Or any other legitimate legal documents from the founding. They’ve got pre constitution documents from the most theocratic parts of the colonies, parts of the history that was soundly rejected at the time the country was officially founded. It is not legal history any more than Sherman and Peabody was at the signing of the constitution.
🟧🟩 Founding Father Thomas Jefferson (August 1, 1816):
"bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds...........education & free discussion are the antidotes of both."
https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.049_0331_0332/?sp=1
"can’t recite even half the Commandments," - no, but he can break them.
He's also violated all 7 Deadly Sins...repeatedly.
Weeeel ...I can't for the life of me remember what they are but I guarantee I've done a few.
You're a heathen. It's allowed. :)
Why thank you sir. :)
I can’t name all 7 either. Whenever I see them listed, I’m always surprised at how innocuous they mostly are.
The first one was a Frank Sinatra movie. *smiles*
The complaint misses a bet. Not only is the tenor of the law unconstitutional in general, it goes beyond to positive endorsing a specific version that is a matter of sectarian difference. Even if we were somehow able to agree that the promulgation of a Ten Commandment poster could skate by the Establishment Clause, there is second-level material.
Exodus has two snd Deuteronomy has one version. Favoring one over the other is inescapably puting the state's imprimatur on not only a religious tradition, but elevating one part of it to state-sponsered approval over the others. Then there is a matter of the translation, over which there is sectarian difference.
Pretty soon, it becomes straight up winners and losers and Cuius regio, eius religio— whose ruler, whose religion. That worked well during the extended wars of religion in Europe.
“My wife is a Christian and if she was a teacher she would be asked to teach evolution which is in complete contradiction with the theory of creation that we believe out of the Bible"
Wow, they do understand hypotheticals after all, when the hypothetical (however stretched) suits their argument. They just refuse to entertain them when they have no defense against them.
Inviting lawsuits over meritless cases. How Trumpian.
🟧 Founding Father Thomas Jefferson (26 January 1799):
"I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres
to bring about
a legal ascendancy
of one sect
over another."
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-30-02-0451
.
🟪 Founding Father James Madison
(July 10, 1822):
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together."
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/04-02-02-0471
.
🟩 Founding Father George Washington (August 1790):
"For happily the Government
of the United States, which gives
to bigotry no sanction,
to persecution no assistance,
requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."
https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/august-17/
.
🟪🟪🟪 Founding Father James Madison (1 April 1774):
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize every expanded prospect."
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-01-02-0031
.
🟥🟥🟥 Founding Father George Washington
(May 1789):
"No one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution."
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-02-02-0309
.
🟨🟨🟨 Oliver Wolcott (Connecticut Ratifying Convention on January 9, 1788):
"Knowledge and liberty are so prevalent in this country, that I do not believe that the United States would ever be disposed to establish one religious sect, and lay all others under legal disabilities.
But as we know not what may take place hereafter, and any such test would be exceedingly injurious to the rights of free citizens, I cannot think it altogether superfluous to have added a clause, which secures us from the possibility of such oppression."
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a6_3s17.html
christians are the most banal people in existence. They attribute their own attacks to their enemies, victimhood is their brand, and they lie every chance they get. They don't need the 10 commandments put up in classrooms they will rarely, if ever, be in, they need them put up in their homes and churches.
Louisiana: where tourist suck the heads of crawfish and zombies suck the heads of GOP officials. At least, the tourists don't go away hungry, which can't be said of the zombies.
Speaking as a Louisiana ex-pat, if your faith requires the support of the LA legislature... you are in deep, deep trouble.
Mr Landry get ready to be voted out. We will give you 10 reasons why.
🟥🟥 First Commandment:
"You shall have no
other gods before
me."
🟩🟩 First Amendment:
"Congress shall make
no law respecting an
establishment of
religion, or
prohibiting the free
exercise thereof..."
Bzzzzt. You forgot to phrase it in the Louisiana-required "Thou shalt" form. You'll go to jail if you post that in a school. And then to hell for not adhering to God's Own KJV version.
Or so they probably believe. :)