Should the 'Ten Commandments' be posted in public schools?

Alan Smithee wrote:

W2L, I could be wrong, but I don't think Shale or at least any of us other non-believers who've never tried to force our beliefs on anyone, have a problem with what you suggest. In fact, I've taken one or two of those classes and found them very interesting. But teaching those classes isn't promoting any particular religion and despite the coming denial of those believers here, posting the ten commandments in Chris' hypothetical setting IS promoting certain religions above others.

I find it interesting that people who complain that not allowing religious displays on public/government property is at the expense of their freedom when in reality, it's for the preservation of their freedom. This country was settled in no small part by a group that was trying to escape religious intolerance at the hands of a state sanctioned religion. By prohibiting federal, state and local governments from even brushing up against religion, it prevents those same authorities from coming into the believer's houses of worship and telling them what to do. Oh I know. The trifling act of posting a religious doctrine in public schools and courtrooms or setting up manger scenes in town squares every December could never lead to that kind of government intrusion. Maybe not overnight but the fact that you don't think it could ever happen means that it certainly could.

Hyacinth Girl wrote:Well, maybe another idea is the all or nothing approach--Either post nothing at all, for any of the belief systems out there, or post the 10 Commandments, post all the Buddah stuff, Islamic stuff, etc., all right there next to each other.

That way, everyone has their own thing and can read whichever one that suits their fancy. And if all the others offend you, then too bad--STFU because yours is up there too, and is probably offending someone else.

Alan Smithee wrote:

Can you please quote which one of "mine" you're refering too?

Hyacinth Girl wrote: ... or nothing gets posted at all.

Opa Shale wrote:Posting nothing at all works

Hyacinth Girl wrote:NyStyle--Yes, Marijuana is a drug, and one that falls into the category of "substance abuse". It's part of a panel of 9 drug classes that we run on urines where I work in the

Nystyle709 wrote:No dear....marijuana is not a drug. It's a PLANT. It grows like that. Your Holy God is the one who put it here. Just because somebody decided to label it s drug doesn't make it so.

Hyacinth Girl wrote:Well, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you over the definition of "drugs" but marijuana is a plant that is processed into a drug-form when you light it up and smoke it, hence it's presence on our Drugs of Abuse panel at work. Just like you can extract opium from poppies, and digitalis from foxglove, which are also drugs from plants, and even penicillin from mold. My Holy God put all those plants and a lot more on this Earth, but it's how humans choose to use them is what defines whether or not the drugs are therapeutic or recreational, but they're all still drugs regardless.

Hyacinth Girl wrote:

I didn't mean you, personally--that was a generalization. If there were things posted for all the belief systems, then it stands to reason that one or more of those is meant to appease each person. Whichever one or ones people subscribe to, individually, constitues "theirs", and it's assumed that the ones they don't gravitate towards are meant for someone else. Hence, everyone gets their own thing hung up, but in doing so, they need to keep in mind that everyone else also gets theirs posted, too, and if they don't like it, then they also need to keep in mind that "theirs" may also be ruffling someone else's feathers.

So in other words, post 'em all and play nice in the sandbox, or nothing gets posted at all.

wants2laugh wrote:I think this issue should actually be a states rights issue. Govt closest to the people that allow the people of the state to decide what it wants. If you live in texas for example, the topic in question would be acceptable, people would be toting guns, and the death penalty would be common place. If you want gay marriage, pro-choice, and other liberal ideals you move to California.

The point is that the people of the individual state would have the ability to either change the lows that govern them, or move. This does not have to be a flat across the board issue.

wants2laugh wrote:I think this issue should actually be a states rights issue. Govt closest to the people that allow the people of the state to decide what it wants. If you live in texas for example, the topic in question would be acceptable, people would be toting guns, and the death penalty would be common place. If you want gay marriage, pro-choice, and other liberal ideals you move to California.

The point is that the people of the individual state would have the ability to either change the lows that govern them, or move. This does not have to be a flat across the board issue.

Opa Shale wrote:
Not everyone has the option to move to another state. The will of the majority should not infringe upon the civil rights of the minority. This was tried in the old confederate states in the '50s and the Feds used force to stop it.

And to ensure that all these United States have some semblance of unity the Federal Constitution guarantees that people are not forced to endure another's religious beliefs.

Alan Smithee wrote:

Sorry W2L but No, No, No. Maybe by now Mississippi, et al would have become enlightened enough to do away with the Jim Crow laws without federal court intervention but I'm more comfortable knowing that they didn't have a choice. Some rules need to be universal. Religion is one of them.

Alan Smithee wrote: Some rules need to be universal. Religion is one of them.

Alan Smithee wrote:
I didn't take it that you meant me personally. I was asking for examples of the public display of belief systems other than Judeo-Christian that (I think) you were claiming. No one is preventing the private display (for all to see) of the pro-religous point of view.

Hyacinth Girl wrote:

Public display? Well, posting in a public forum constitutes putting it out there for all to see, so if you read many of Shale's posts on this topic that are filled with scathing hatred at times, then there's your exaple right there.

wants2laugh wrote:I see no harm in having the 10 commandments in school--- especially since the most religious nation in the country--- a whopping 75% polled claim to be religious, mostly of judeo-christian descent is the USA.

wants2laugh wrote:I also believe that kids should have religious classes taught sort of like a sociology elective. Teach about the various religions and regions of the world. Why people believe what they do and the various customs of the world---promote tolerance and understanding, rather than division.

wants2laugh wrote:There is a public school, i believe in NC, that is among the highest tested school in the nation that allows prayer--- not out loud spoken prayer, but moments of silent meditation throughout the day. There is less violence, better grades, and higher test scores. Coincidence?

Hyacinth Girl wrote:

Public display? Well, posting in a public forum constitutes putting it out there for all to see, so if you read many of Shale's posts on this topic that are filled with scathing hatred at times, then there's your exaple right there.

Opa Shale wrote:

Should differentiate between a "Public Display on a Private Forum Board" from a "Public Display on Public/Gov't Supported Venue."

And, feel free to disagree with my scathing hatred of organized religion. It's not like we are in the dark ages where the religious can burn heretics alive, but the church is still free to dissent.

Forgiveness Man wrote:Yeah, here's a universal religious law: Government backs the hell off from it. So if a community wants to put up a Ten Commandments display, government can look the other way.

Forgiveness Man wrote:The separation of Church and State was always meant to protect religion from government, not government from religion. Ironic that now, the total opposite seems to be the case. Government can bully religion but if religion dares have any foot in government, the atheists and lukewarm religious throw a fit.