- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
“The purpose is not solely religious,” Sen. Jay Morris, R-West Monroe, told the Senate. Rather, it is the Ten Commandments’ "historical significance, which is simply one of many documents that display the history of our country and foundation of our legal system.”
Only two of them are actually law: Thou shalt not murder and thou shalt not steal.
This is all about religion, and they’re going to get away with it. We’d be better off if our legal codes were based on the seven tenets instead.
Not even two, maybe one and a half as it depends a lot on who you are and whom you’re stealing from. And you can even argue on murder too
https://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/murder-in-the-bible/
If I linked 1/3rd of the list of times the Bible condones murder it would be removed as spam.
Hail Satan! or not… I’m not your boss, do whatever
Hail Satan, and hail yourself!
America! Land of the free*!
*: Unless you meant freedom of religion. You better not! We’ll sue/burn/shoot/jesus you if you do! Ultraconservative Christianity or death!
*unless you also meant freedom of expression or freedom of bodily autonomy
Wait, what’s getting jesus’d…?
Oh, I did not think of the implications of making that a verb.
Flip it around on them, and say that if the Ten Commandments are so important, why they support Trump, who regularly breaks them.
Because the Lord works in mysterious ways, or some other dumb shit excuse.
Removed by mod
we make exceptions for even the murdering and stealing.
All the time, and especially for cops. (It’s called ‘qualified immunity’ and ‘civil forfeiture’ instead of murdering and stealing, but it’s the same thing.)
Religious people just love indoctrinating children. It’s their whole thing. Get them while they’re young and dumb and won’t realize it’s all just make believe bullshit.
It makes me so angry because children are vulnerable and trusting; exploiting that to get them to believe in nonsense is evil.
Shitty people love indoctrinating children.
Religion, much like many idealogical groups, gives an easy place for assholes to find confirmation of their own shit ideas, and a shield of “righteousness” and “I’m doing it for their own good” to hide behind lest the dying gasps of their withered conscience interrupt them.
There’s plenty of secular belief systems along these lines as well. Many racist groups like skinheads, neonazis, and the KKK spread through indoctrination of children (parents passing beliefs to children) and appeals to young people as “the solution” for the confusion and isolation they feel growing up.
I’m Christian, I feel that the ten commandments are some of the best secular life advice the bible has to offer, and this mess is complete and utter unmitigated bullshit.
No if ands or buts, whoever was involved in this clown show of a law deserves to be instantly stripped of any governmental or education system titles or powers and banned from holding any position of power for life.
Any religion, belief system, or idealogical concept worth anything should be capable of standing up on it’s own.
I’m Christian, I feel that the ten commandments are some of the best secular life advice the bible has to offer, and this mess is complete and utter unmitigated bullshit.
Not to start an argument, but I just can’t understand how you think it’s a fit guide for secular life. Half of the commandments are explicitly religious, and the other half are basic common sense laws that are already encompassed by the Golden Rule that many cultures and religions came up with independently (including the Abrahamic ones elsewhere in their religious texts).
But, to go into more detail (and using the full text, not the abbreviated versions that make it look kinder):
I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.
Standard monotheism, nothing to say here. It’d be weird if it weren’t here, and it’s better than most declarations in that it only applies to that religion’s adherents and doesn’t explicitly deny the existence of other gods (a note: IIRC the golden calf was created through a miracle and nobody acted as though that was weird, but I’d like if someone more scholarly could chime in).
You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Funny how the first set of tablets was destroyed when Moses discovered his people losing faith and worshipping an idol, and the replacements he made contained a law specifically against that very uncommon occurrence. Surely that law was in the original tablets as well and not just added as a reaction to those events…
As for the second half, I don’t know how anyone could read this, considered the most literal word of god in their religion, and say it’s a good basis for morality. Punishing innocent children for their ancestors’ actions or beliefs is straight up evil.
It also explicitly states that his love is conditional, something that strongly conflicts with the main modern offshoots of the religion.
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
Weird how the only commandments specifying something is unforgivable are for things that bruise their deity’s ego, but then again the OT god was an incredibly petty tyrant.
Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.
I’ve never really looked into the Sabbath so I’m not going to touch this one. I am mildly annoyed that the justification for their rest day is yet another ego-stroking thing instead of something for the benefit of the people. Imagine how much better things might be if several large religions stressed the importance of breaks for reasons of physical and mental health.
Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
Anyone who had abusive, neglectful, or narcissistic parents could tell you the problem with this one, but I can’t fault an insular, patriarchal religion from several millennia ago for trying to keep families together during an especially trying period when thoughts of desertion must have been common.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
These are the only ones I have zero problem with. They are also exactly what you’d expect someone to set as law when leading a bunch of people, especially if problems are starting to crop up due to low morale.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Note that all examples here were considered property (morality rules get a pass for things like slavery and owning your wife if they’re old enough) so this is technically a repeat of the law against stealing. Or, since it states that coveting is forbidden, it would cover stealing and be an example of thoughtcrime.
But when I try to indoctrinate children I just get burned at the stake
The Satanic Temple has entered the chat
Conferencing in the ACLU
Did I misunderstand what “separation of church and state” meant?
Depends. Are you a Louisiana Republican legislator?
Based on this ruling, I don’t think I’m qualified.
Laws are only useful if successfully upheld in court. For some reason these never get challenged enough. Strange.
violating the constitution by establishment of a religion
Louisiana is a real conservative religious armpit.
States can establish religions. Federal government can’t.
Edit: Forgot that federal government can indoctrinate religion just fine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
States can establish religions. Federal government can’t.
Over the last 150 years, the Supreme Court has pretty consistently found that the Bill of Rights applies to state as well as federal government: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
See especially https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education:
Everson v. Board of Education … was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that applied the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to state law.
Mandatory “one nation under god” pledge in school classes disagrees that religion cannot be established.
The pledge isn’t mandatory. By law, it has to be optional. Schools have gotten in trouble over it.
Don’t bother. Every time you point out they say something that isn’t true, they change the subject.
There are so many cases of promoting Christianity by the US government, a few cherrypicked cases of “trouble” doesn’t disprove any of this.
- “As a matter of historical tradition, the words ‘under God’ can no more be expunged from the national consciousness than the words ‘In God We Trust’ from every coin in the land, than the words ‘so help me God’ from every presidential oath since 1789, or than the prayer that has opened every congressional session of legislative business since 1787.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Legal_challenges
Also, the US print religious indoctrination on their currency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
I’m not arguing for religion to be in school. I’m just saying what’s there is already bad enough without making stuff up.
Its also said “with liberty and justice for all” during a time where people kept literal slaves, without a hint of irony.
The wording far too inconsistent and vague to be taken as literally as you’re attempting to take them.
That’s not how it works. State law can’t supersede federal law.
State law can’t supersede federal law.
And Congress cannot pass laws on that. Constitution says so.
That is an extremely narrow view of the First Amendment that goes against over two centuries of judicial precedent. Only a Clarence Thomas-level originalist would make such an argument.
That is an extremely narrow view of the First Amendment that goes against over two centuries of judicial precedent.
Mandatory “one nation under god” pledge in school classes proves that establishing religion in the US is fine.
Those are literally not mandatory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette
Those are literally not mandatory.
Except when they are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Legal_challenges
-
“the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the rights of those who don’t believe in God and does not have to be removed from the patriotic message”
-
“As a matter of historical tradition, the words ‘under God’ can no more be expunged from the national consciousness than the words ‘In God We Trust’ from every coin in the land, than the words ‘so help me God’ from every presidential oath since 1789, or than the prayer that has opened every congressional session of legislative business since 1787.”
-
Not if the 14th amendment has anything to say about it. The incorporation doctrine of the 14th amendment applies the first 10 amendments to the state level as well.
Wtf is going on with you on the other side of the pond there?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
No problem! We’ve got options!
-Fontsize = 3
-Hang them with text against wall
-Hang them on the ceiling
-Type them in Chinese/foreign language/braille
-Bright yellow text on white paper
-Printed with bad cartridge
-Font: wingdings
Few years ago Texas required ‘In God we Trust’ signs to be displayed in classrooms. Schools weren’t allowed to pay for them, so basically donated. They conveniently rejected the signs that had a rainbow on it, or the one written in Arabic.
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/31/1120239381/texas-in-god-we-trust-arabic-signs-chaz-stevens
Get the commandments from the wicked bible
Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his great-asse
Put it in the orgional Hebrew.
Write the 10 commandments on a doll and hang it in the classroom 1800s style
-
Font size 900
-
Arabic
-
Welp…I was gonna visit NOLA one more time before moving from Texas to Oregon this summer and leaving the Deep South once and for all. But, as a public school teacher, I have to say this is completely and utterly monkeyfucked, and Louisiana isn’t getting a thin-ass dime from me.
Samesies. I was going to stop in NOLA one last time and enjoy myself there while moving from Texas to Rhode Island this summer and leaving the Deep South once and for all.
Only I’m not a teacher. Good luck with your move! And working in a much better public education system. What Abbott has been doing to our schools is insane.
Hi neighbor!
Native RIer living in Mass now.
You’ll find we are much more tolerant up here. We accept everybody. We hate them but we accept them. Like an asshole best-friend.
‘course, supporting cool stuff in new orleans is about the best way to flip the bird at baton rouge.
I spend money in New Orleans, sales tax is collected, which is appropriated in Baton Rouge. That will not be happening.
Oh no! Louisiana’s missing out on that sweet public school teacher tourism money! That’ll cripple 'em.
Yes, because this was exactly my thought process. 🙄 Keep licking boot, mate.
Post them in Hebrew, to be historically accurate.
At least six of those go against the core tenets of MAGA
Name and shame the religious extremist who passed this and ban them from office
Ask them how they’d feel about requiring children to wear hijabs and all of the sudden they’ll understand how everyone feels about their fascist laws lol
Nah, they’ll just think Christians good, Muslim bad
The woman who pushed for this said she didn’t care about Atheists or Muslims.
Thou shalt suck my dick
I’m not entirely sure of your translating skills, but I’m board with the results. Will you be doing the whole bible, or just the fun bits?
Subscribe.
sherman we need you now more than ever.
i fucking hate the south
Let’s see if the don’t kill command deters school shootings.
I thought the old testament was supposed to be irrelevant/null and void after Jeebus and the new new testament.
But actually following Jesus’ teaching would be way too progressive. As far as I remember he was basically a hippie, advocating for love, helping each other out and the poor, and strongly against hate and capitalism. And he didn’t quite like the old traditions. So I think as a christian as of today you definitely need some counterbalance and some other book to point at to defend your conservatism, egoistcal behaviour and hate towards people who aren’t 100% like yourself.
Yeah but that doesn’t let us demonize minorities so we can radicalize the population into voting against their own interests for the benefit of the oligarchyyyyyy
I hate when people do things like demonize minorities.
Just the other day I saw a member of $ethnicgroup helping someone they hardly knew. If even a member of $ethnicgroup could do that how much better the rest of us should act.
Another time this woman of $ethnicgroup came to someone and begged for their child’s life. That someone said they were only here for his group not people of $ethnicgroup. So the woman groveled at his feet and called herself $ethnicslur until the man agreed to help.
That only applies to the Old Testament passages that forbid usury, of course.
I went through 18 years of being forced to go to church and never learned the word.
Methinks that was purposeful.
Jesus: I came not to enforce the law, but to fulfill it.
Paul: Well, what he AKSTUALLY meant is blah blah ceremonial law vs moral law blah blah sex is yucky, I mean sinful!
I mean, it’s more complex than that, but Paul wrote like he understood the necessity of reproduction, but didn’t really comprehend what sexual urges actually feel like. He also wrote such long rambling sentences that he makes Charles Dickens look concise and clear.
Sounds like a cult based on fear and confusion
Matthew was just trying to repair the damage to James, very likely.
Paul: OT is gone except the parts I like
James: OT is still there even oral parts drifting around it.
A huge difference in how the religion should be practiced.
Now if you were a writer 5 decades later and needed to redeem the image of James, while still showing that he was wrong, this could be a good way to do it. It wasn’t that James was super wrong, he just misunderstood something Jesus said at one point. Could happen to anyone.
