barbacoa taco said:

---

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/20/texas-senate-passes-ten-commandments-bill/

Quote:

---

Public schools in Texas would have to prominently display the Ten Commandments in every classroom starting next school year under a bill the Texas Senate approved Thursday.

Senate Bill 1515 by Sen. Phil King, R-Weatherford, now heads to the House for consideration.

This is the latest attempt from Texas Republicans to inject religion into public schools. In 2021, state Sen. Bryan Hughes, a Mineola Republican, authored a bill that became law requiring schools to display donated "In God We Trust" signs.

---

I'm actually not going to hit on the political aspect of this. My stance on that is clear. I do want to pose a few questions to the Christians on this board, though:

1) are you in favor of this bill? if so, why?
2) if it is passed, do you think it will have a net positive effect on schools? how so?
3) if it is passed, do you think it will have a net positive effect on the church? (e.g. bring more people to the faith)

I have a lot of thoughts on this, separate from my political opinion. But I am interested in hearing what other people think about it.

---

Yep, absolutely in favor. Because it is the basis of the moral fabric of our nation. You could actually apply it to most religions anyway in a generic way.
I couldn't tell you if you would have a positive effect or how you even measure it...But I can tell you it will not have a negative effect.
Could have a positive affect on the church, but same as above.
We have 'In God We Trust' on all of our currency. Not sure how you measure it but its a constant reminder of the foundation our country was built on.
In short, it won't hurt, but it could help.

I'm fine with it. Perhaps it will inspire someone who otherwise would have had no exposure to explore further. Others are free to ignore it. In that regard, it as at a minimum a net positive for some and net neutral for others. I also have no problem with the displays from other religions.

Quote:

---

Yep, absolutely in favor. Because it is the basis of the moral fabric of our nation. You could actually apply it to most religions anyway in a generic way.

---

It's not though. It's a direct endorsement of Christianity. No one actually believes it's some universal religious message. If anyone tried do to the same thing with a Muslim or Jewish message, there would be a completely different reaction. So let's at least be honest about that.

Quote:

---

I couldn't tell you if you would have a positive effect or how you even measure it...But I can tell you it will not have a negative effect.

Could have a positive affect on the church, but same as above.

---

Hmm. Be careful what you wish for. In my experience, forcing things on people just pushes them away harder. I have paid attention to religion trends in the country and it's pretty low for the younger generations. This feels like a desperation move and I can't see it any other way.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Quote:

---

Yep, absolutely in favor. Because it is the basis of the moral fabric of our nation. You could actually apply it to most religions anyway in a generic way.

---

It's not though. It's a direct endorsement of Christianity. No one actually believes it's some universal religious message. If anyone tried do to the same thing with a Muslim or Jewish message, there would be a completely different reaction. So let's at least be honest about that.

---

That is a complete misunderstanding of the 10 Commandments and it's origins. All Abrahamic religions accept the Commandments as divine rules from God given to Moses. That is fact not open to debate. The only argument that can be made is that the Commandments endorses the idea of a monotheistic God that created the universe. It is for that reason that I would be in favor of placing the Commandments in the classroom. "God" can be anything you want it to be. The most important aspect of that idea is that there exist a natural law that comes from God and shall not be infringed upon by government. It is the idea that is a foundation of our Culture and we disrupt that foundation at our peril.

In regards to "be careful what you wish for", ask yourself what secular governments have done to their citizens over the past 100 years. Time and time again, secular governments shift to authoritarian regimes as "rights from God" guardrail is removed. The pile of corpses at the feet of those regimes far exceeds Christians clinging to their Bibles and their guns by the tens of millions.

You confuse secular governments with state atheism. I assume you are referring to the Soviet Union. They are not the same. Secular government is not enforced atheism. It is simply removed from religion while allowing free exercise of religion. And in places like the Soviet Union and North Korea are some of the most religious countries in history. Their god is their head of state, and everyone is required to honor them. That is NOT what I am advocating.

I believe a secular form of government is a beautiful thing. It recognizes the harm of intertwining church and state, but allows the people to practice any religion they want, or no religion at all.

Moves like state endorsement of religion in schools erode this freedom.

barbacoa taco said:

---

You confuse secular governments with state atheism. I assume you are referring to the Soviet Union. They are not the same. Secular government is not enforced atheism. It is simply removed from religion while allowing free exercise of religion. And in places like the Soviet Union and North Korea are some of the most religious countries in history. Their god is their head of state, and everyone is required to honor them. That is NOT what I am advocating.

I believe a secular form of government is a beautiful thing. It recognizes the harm of intertwining church and state, but allows the people to practice any religion they want, or no religion at all.

Moves like state endorsement of religion in schools erode this freedom.

---

Secular governments are state atheism by default; religion can only be practiced in private. You cannot fully live out your beliefs as the state has the right to make you bake the cake, hire people that you don't want to in religious settings, provide birth control, or stop meeting publicly, etc. It tramples all religious practice as it desires.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Quote:

---

Yep, absolutely in favor. Because it is the basis of the moral fabric of our nation. You could actually apply it to most religions anyway in a generic way.

---

It's not though. It's a direct endorsement of Christianity. No one actually believes it's some universal religious message. If anyone tried do to the same thing with a Muslim or Jewish message, there would be a completely different reaction. So let's at least be honest about that.

Quote:

---

I couldn't tell you if you would have a positive effect or how you even measure it...But I can tell you it will not have a negative effect.

Could have a positive affect on the church, but same as above.

---

Hmm. Be careful what you wish for. In my experience, forcing things on people just pushes them away harder. I have paid attention to religion trends in the country and it's pretty low for the younger generations. This feels like a desperation move and I can't see it any other way.

---

Um...The Jew don't believe in the 10 commandments? Like the national anthem pushes people away from wanting to be an American?
Keep in mind that the questions you ask are going to elicit answers based on peoples on experiences, beliefs and place in their life. Do you have kids?

Cmon man. We all know they aren't doing this for the Jews, considering every Republican in the TX senate is an evangelical Christian.

But even if this were a universal religious thing, it's still unconstitutional. This is beyond argument which is why i didn't address it in my OP. The Tx senate knows this too, they just don't care.

And the pledge of allegiance plus all of the forced patriotism in the country absolutely pushes people away. Young people are questioning these things now. Why should we be forced to pledge allegiance? Shouldn't allegiance be earned? It's my right as an American to not say the pledge or stand for the anthem. You can't force me to do that (and I do stand for the anthem)

No, I don't have kids. If and when I have kids, I want them to go to a school that prioritizes education.

AGC said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

You confuse secular governments with state atheism. I assume you are referring to the Soviet Union. They are not the same. Secular government is not enforced atheism. It is simply removed from religion while allowing free exercise of religion. And in places like the Soviet Union and North Korea are some of the most religious countries in history. Their god is their head of state, and everyone is required to honor them. That is NOT what I am advocating.

I believe a secular form of government is a beautiful thing. It recognizes the harm of intertwining church and state, but allows the people to practice any religion they want, or no religion at all.

Moves like state endorsement of religion in schools erode this freedom.

---

Secular governments are state atheism by default; religion can only be practiced in private. You cannot fully live out your beliefs as the state has the right to make you bake the cake, hire people that you don't want to in religious settings, provide birth control, or stop meeting publicly, etc. It tramples all religious practice as it desires.

---

It's state neutrality to religious claims. Our Constitution mentions religion twice. In both places to limit its application to government.

BluHorseShu said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Quote:

---

Yep, absolutely in favor. Because it is the basis of the moral fabric of our nation. You could actually apply it to most religions anyway in a generic way.

---

It's not though. It's a direct endorsement of Christianity. No one actually believes it's some universal religious message. If anyone tried do to the same thing with a Muslim or Jewish message, there would be a completely different reaction. So let's at least be honest about that.

Quote:

---

I couldn't tell you if you would have a positive effect or how you even measure it...But I can tell you it will not have a negative effect.

Could have a positive affect on the church, but same as above.

---

Hmm. Be careful what you wish for. In my experience, forcing things on people just pushes them away harder. I have paid attention to religion trends in the country and it's pretty low for the younger generations. This feels like a desperation move and I can't see it any other way.

---

Um...The Jew don't believe in the 10 commandments? Like the national anthem pushes people away from wanting to be an American?
Keep in mind that the questions you ask are going to elicit answers based on peoples on experiences, beliefs and place in their life. Do you have kids?

---

The Jews don't believe in the King James Bible translation of the 10 Commandments that's mandated to be placed in classrooms.

Quote:

---

"God" can be anything you want it to be.

---

Except that's not true at all with the 10 Commandments. The first four are 100% about one specific deity.

AggieRain said:

---

I'm fine with it. Perhaps it will inspire someone who otherwise would have had no exposure to explore further. Others are free to ignore it. In that regard, it as at a minimum a net positive for some and net neutral for others. I also have no problem with the displays from other religions.

---

I think we should be careful about turning our classrooms into the street corner next to a polling location on Election Day. And since apparently all value systems are religions (so Zobel says). I look forward to funding church of satan, atheist, and LGBTQ signs to go all around your Ten Commandments, because screw this proposed bill. It's obvious virtue signaling and these politicians couldn't give two ****s about the kids, only the votes of their evangelical parents.

The classroom is the wrong place for adults to wage petty ideological war.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AggieRain said:

---

I'm fine with it. Perhaps it will inspire someone who otherwise would have had no exposure to explore further. Others are free to ignore it. In that regard, it as at a minimum a net positive for some and net neutral for others. I also have no problem with the displays from other religions.

---

I think we should be careful about turning our classrooms into the street corner next to a polling location on Election Day. And since apparently all value systems are religions (so Zobel says). I look forward to funding church of satan, atheist, and LGBTQ signs to go all around your Ten Commandments, because screw this proposed bill. It's obvious virtue signaling and these politicians couldn't give two ****s about the kids, only the votes of their evangelical parents.

The classroom is the wrong place for adults to wage petty ideological war.

---

Meh. Pearl clutching. The ideological cat is already out of the bag in many classrooms anyway. Only Christian tenants seem to be off limits. Zobel's point was objective morality has to backed by some form of concrete ideology. Secularism doesn't fit the bill because it is subjective and fleeting.

Edit to note that I didn't mean to sound harsh with you. You and I have always been cool, bud...

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

You confuse secular governments with state atheism. I assume you are referring to the Soviet Union. They are not the same. Secular government is not enforced atheism. It is simply removed from religion while allowing free exercise of religion. And in places like the Soviet Union and North Korea are some of the most religious countries in history. Their god is their head of state, and everyone is required to honor them. That is NOT what I am advocating.

I believe a secular form of government is a beautiful thing. It recognizes the harm of intertwining church and state, but allows the people to practice any religion they want, or no religion at all.

Moves like state endorsement of religion in schools erode this freedom.

---

Secular governments are state atheism by default; religion can only be practiced in private. You cannot fully live out your beliefs as the state has the right to make you bake the cake, hire people that you don't want to in religious settings, provide birth control, or stop meeting publicly, etc. It tramples all religious practice as it desires.

---

It's state neutrality to religious claims. Our Constitution mentions religion twice. In both places to limit its application to government.

---

This is like a Baptist reading the Bible. Ignore what the people who wrote it practiced and how they thought it would be used.

Neutrality is suppression. Public accommodation overturns private practice whether you agree with the reasoning or not; it expels it from the public sphere. Jack Phillips can't practice publicly what he believes. The little sisters of the poor had to sue to have their religious exemption.

State atheism is the only possible end for secular government.

---

Neutrality means neutrality. It means you don't get to use the organs of the state to promote your religion over others and it doesn't mean you get special privileges denied to others.

And the framers absolutely knew what their attitude towards religion in the Constitution meant. It meant they didn't want any religion preferred.

Quote:

---

The ideological cat is already out of the bag in many classrooms anyway. Only Christian tenants seem to be off limits

---

Yeah, I see this and think it's just creating an excuse to impose your beliefs on people who don't share them. You not agreeing with a belief doesn't mean it shouldn't be brought up in a classroom. You being uncomfortable with a belief doesn't mean it should be off-limits. But it says something when the response to increased diversity and complexity in the classroom is to try and reimpose dominance.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

The ideological cat is already out of the bag in many classrooms anyway. Only Christian tenants seem to be off limits

---

Yeah, I see this and think it's just creating an excuse to impose your beliefs on people who don't share them. You not agreeing with a belief doesn't mean it shouldn't be brought up in a classroom. You being uncomfortable with a belief doesn't mean it should be off-limits. But it says something when the response to increased diversity and complexity in the classroom is to try and reimpose dominance.

---

Good grief. The utter lack of self awareness in this post is astounding. Never change, Sapper.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AggieRain said:

---

I'm fine with it. Perhaps it will inspire someone who otherwise would have had no exposure to explore further. Others are free to ignore it. In that regard, it as at a minimum a net positive for some and net neutral for others. I also have no problem with the displays from other religions.

---

I think we should be careful about turning our classrooms into the street corner next to a polling location on Election Day. And since apparently all value systems are religions (so Zobel says). I look forward to funding church of satan, atheist, and LGBTQ signs to go all around your Ten Commandments, because screw this proposed bill. It's obvious virtue signaling and these politicians couldn't give two ****s about the kids, only the votes of their evangelical parents.

The classroom is the wrong place for adults to wage petty ideological war.

---

Well said.

People at least have to understand why we're angry. Our schools are failing, and our legislature could do some real good. They could provide funding for new books, increased teacher pay, school lunches, building new schools. But no, they choose to dedicate their efforts to (knowingly) unconstitutional virtue signaling, to kiss the asses of evangelicals and force feed their religion to kids, Christian or not.

It's upsetting, and infuriating, that we have to put up with this.

This is the nonsense that happens when you have extremes take over parties or at least become the representatives of parties.

It's now a choice between religious dictates like YHWH is a jealous god and you shall have no other gods before him and hyper focus on all things sexual orientation. This sort of political discourse ends with picture of a naked breastfeeding man balls out in one kindergarten class and a picture of a dude riding a dinosaur in a high school one.

Put the Pythagorean theorem, periodic table, declaration, constitution, alphabet, national and world maps, multiplication tables ect. on the wall.

It's a school. What the **** are we talking about here?

I also don't think it's a coincidence that the Christian Nationalists are so aggressively shoving religion down everyone's throat now. Christianity in America is dying. Church congregations are shrinking, and the younger generations are the least religious pretty much of all time. The writing is on the wall.

This won't reverse that trend. If anything, it will accelerate it because people don't ****ing like it when religion is shoved down their throat.

AggieRain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

The ideological cat is already out of the bag in many classrooms anyway. Only Christian tenants seem to be off limits

---

Yeah, I see this and think it's just creating an excuse to impose your beliefs on people who don't share them. You not agreeing with a belief doesn't mean it shouldn't be brought up in a classroom. You being uncomfortable with a belief doesn't mean it should be off-limits. But it says something when the response to increased diversity and complexity in the classroom is to try and reimpose dominance.

---

Good grief. The utter lack of self awareness in this post is astounding. Never change, Sapper.

---

Really? I don't recall anyone demanding all schools to post an LGBTQ flag in a frame in every classroom and mandate a period of gender reflection every day at school.

Why does anyone, Christian or not, want some random middle school teacher or gym coach answering kids' questions about the meaning of the 10 commandments?

You could rephrase this question for just about any subject…

Ten Commandments were traditionally displayed on public buildings - particularly courthouses - in the US from basically the founding until recently. I'm not sure what you wrote comports with history.

Whether it's what Craig meant or not - I think his question is valid. In the hierarchy of values, if the Ten Commandments was near the top for me, then I would like to be the one to teach my kids - not some school employee.

We won't ever avoid the issue of teaching 'values' in school, but we could, as a group, decide which topics should be 'by teachers' or 'by parents'.

Also, what is the appropriate response from a teacher to an 8 year old who asks what adultery is and why it's bad? If the answer is 'go ask mom and dad', then why do we need a sign on the wall denouncing it? Either we want public teachers promoting moral ideas or we don't. We can't complain when the other side does it and then do our ourselves. Need to be consistent.

Zobel said:

---

Ten Commandments were traditionally displayed on public buildings - particularly courthouses - in the US from basically the founding until recently. I'm not sure what you wrote comports with history.

---

Define this tradition. That they were displayed in some places for some period of time does not mean there's a grand historical tradition of just displaying the 10 Commandments minus any other context. And given the very exclusionary history behind government embrace (at any level) of a certain religious narrative (thinking of religious appeals to grants things like pro-slavery and Jim Crow and now anti-LGBTQ movements moral legitimacy), I'm not sure it's a tradition you should be endorsing as normative.

The only reason this is a problem is because our society has become wildly divergent on areas that used to be basic common understandings.

I don't have an issue with any of my kids teachers talking to them about matters of faith because they go to my church, and because I know their teachers. Of course they are at a private school run by my church.

Not so long ago in this country those two things would have been true for many public schools in most communities as well.

The US was founded as a nominally Christian nation. For the time period of the writing of the constitution not establishing a national religion would have meant as a variant of Christianity. It wasn't in anyone's mind that this would be something else. I know you know that many states at the time had state religions, and many were explicitly Christian in their constitutions or oaths of office. Until sixty some odd years ago we even had explicit immigration policies to continue this general feature of our society.

Trying to eradicate Christianity from our laws, culture, and society is a radical position that has gained traction under a historically tone deaf understanding of our laws at best, but probably more likely an intentional agenda of change.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AggieRain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

The ideological cat is already out of the bag in many classrooms anyway. Only Christian tenants seem to be off limits

---

Yeah, I see this and think it's just creating an excuse to impose your beliefs on people who don't share them. You not agreeing with a belief doesn't mean it shouldn't be brought up in a classroom. You being uncomfortable with a belief doesn't mean it should be off-limits. But it says something when the response to increased diversity and complexity in the classroom is to try and reimpose dominance.

---

Good grief. The utter lack of self awareness in this post is astounding. Never change, Sapper.

---

Really? I don't recall anyone demanding all schools to post an LGBTQ flag in a frame in every classroom and mandate a period of gender reflection every day at school.

---

YOU would mandate it though. If you had the actual power to do so. I don't think for a second that there isn't a hyper progressive mandate you wouldn't enforce if you had any authority.