Government, religion, and "secular" vs. "religious"

[Invisible Man]

Your train just left the rails.

How are you going to get rid of this existential thing? Would you be open to a two step plan? You don't think rallying the public to say, this is what we expect from you, and waiting for government to fail would be a good step in making the public see that government isn't the best tool for the job?

You're too pure to pursue a two step plan? It's rip it asunder or live with it?

Once you read what we both wrote and say we conceded that this thing isn't ever going anywhere you only proved that you don't pay attention.

I think I may get what you're saying.

I think you're saying that there is this seemingly unattainable goal of separation of school and state.

Since that goal is out of reach, there's nothing wrong with advocating a lesser goal of, as long as we must have public school, at least having public schools without displays of the 10 Commandments, which I think you and PAF take to be an incremental improvement over public schools with displays of the 10 Commandments.

But that is precisely the question. Is that really an incremental improvement at all? Is the religion that the state advances in schools that refrain from displaying the 10 Commandments really in any slight way better than the religion the state advances when it displays them?

For me, that is not an easy question to answer. It's certainly not as obvious as it seems to be for you and PAF.

But one thing that is absolutely clear to me is that both options (public schools with displays of the 10 Commandments and public schools without displays of the 10 Commandments) are exactly equal in the degree to which they advance religion of one kind or another.

 

[PAF]

I think I may get what you're saying.

I think you're saying that there is this seemingly unattainable goal of separation of school and state.

Since that goal is out of reach, there's nothing wrong with advocating a lesser goal of, as long as we must have public school, at least having public schools without displays of the 10 Commandments, which I think you and PAF take to be an incremental improvement over public schools with displays of the 10 Commandments.

But that is precisely the question. Is that really an incremental improvement at all? Is the religion that the state advances in schools that refrain from displaying the 10 Commandments really in any slight way better than the religion the state advances when it displays them?

For me, that is not an easy question to answer. It's certainly not as obvious as it seems to be for you and PAF.

But one thing that is absolutely clear to me is that both options (public schools with displays of the 10 Commandments and public schools without displays of the 10 Commandments) are exactly equal in the degree to which they advance religion of one kind or another.

I oppose any politician and/or government establishing a religion, or version of, whether it is in school or anywhere else. Period.

 

[Snowball]

To support a separation of church and state is to support a separation of school and state. There is no middle option of having the state involved in schools that are religionless.

Another ludicrous statement, like how you say the Constitution is not the law and that you can dream up your own.
All I wanted was for you to acknowledge that the Federal court where this case will be heard is sworn to uphold that Constitution and its laws.

What you describe in this nonsense above IS the defacto reality in the United States, yet you say it's not an option.

Looney Tunes.

 

[Invisible Man]

I oppose any politician and/or government establishing a religion, or version of, whether it is in school or anywhere else. Period.

I agree.

But, there are two options:
A) The establishment of religion by way of having public schools that display the 10 Commandments
B) The establishment of religion by way of having public schools that do not display the 10 Commandments

The choice between those options is not a choice between one that is more of an establishment of religion over against another that is less of an establishment of religion. It is a choice between two options that are exactly equal in the degree to which they establish religion.

 

[acptulsa]

I think I may get what you're saying.

I think you're saying that there is this seemingly unattainable goal of separation of school and state.

Since that goal is out of reach...

I hope you never get a kitten. You'll wean the poor thing cold turkey. Once you get it to take one bite of cat food, you probably won't keep milk in the house for six months.

No, man. I'm saying maybe the best way to destroy it is to prove to the public that it cannot be tamed and made to serve. Sometimes people have to try one more thing before they give up on what they thought was a good idea.

You like point B. I like point B. We are at point A. You aren't dictator. What's your plan, dude? Which way from here?

 

[Invisible Man]

What you describe in this nonsense above IS the defacto reality in the United States

Are you saying that the de facto reality in the US is religionless schools?

You are mistaken. Every public school in the USA is thoroughly and zealously religious. The only question is, what is its religion.

 

[PAF]

I agree.

But, there are two options:
A) The establishment of religion by way of having public schools that display the 10 Commandments
B) The establishment of religion by way of having public schools that do not display the 10 Commandments

The choice between those options is not a choice between one that is more of an establishment of religion over against another that is less of an establishment of religion. It is a choice between two options that are exactly equal in the degree to which they establish religion.

C) Stay out of it. Do not fund. Do not enforce. Do not suggest/write/approve any legislation at all. IE: Off limits.

 

[Invisible Man]

Another ludicrous statement, like how you say the Constitution is not the law and that you can dream up your own.

You misread what I said.

I didn't claim that I can dream up my own Constitution. I claimed that if your argument that the US Constitution is the Law of the Land were a valid argument, then the result would be that I could dream up my own Constitution to be the Law of the Land superseding the US Constitution.

In reality, justice prohibits me from dreaming up my own Law of the Land. And just as it prohibits me from that, it also prohibits everyone else from it.

 

[acptulsa]

C) Stay out of it. Do not fund. Do not enforce. Do not suggest/write/approve any legislation at all. IE: Off limits.

It's very important to keep what politics you can't eliminate as local as possible.

 

[Snowball]

I don't concur with your semantic journeys, [MENTION=75029]Invisible Man[/MENTION]... so how about just spitting it out

if you were on the court and had to decide the case...

how would you rule?

allow Louisiana to post the Decalogue or strip them down?

If you're going to strip them down, by what authority?

 

[PAF]

It's very important to keep what politics you can't eliminate as local as possible.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to [MENTION=12430]acptulsa[/MENTION] again."

For those who don't understand, Tom Woods has a great episode on small-cell communities. We used to have those a long time ago, way, way back before the New Normal.

 

[Invisible Man]

It's very important to keep what politics you can't eliminate as local as possible.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to @acptulsa again."

For those who don't understand, Tom Woods has a great episode on small-cell communities. We used to have those a long time ago, way, way back before the New Normal.

I 100% agree with both of you here.

 

[Invisible Man]

I don't concur with your semantic journeys, Invisible Man... so how about just spitting it out

if you were on the court and had to decide the case...

how would you rule?

allow Louisiana to post the Decalogue or strip them down?

If you're going to strip them down, by what authority?

In my ruling (of no authority) I would give the opinion that the US Congress (of no authority) has no say over whether the state of Louisiana (of no authority) displays the 10 Commandments (the only thing in this discussion of any authority) in schools or anywhere else. The First Amendment (of no authority) explicitly prohibits Congress from interfering in state establishment of religion.

On the other hand, the case would not be so simple at a state court (of no authority), judging that law according to the Louisiana State Constitution (of no authority).

 

[Snowball]

In my ruling (of no authority) I would give the opinion that the US Congress (of no authority) has no say over whether the state of Louisiana (of no authority) displays the 10 Commandments (the only thing in this discussion of any authority) in schools or anywhere else. The First Amendment (of no authority) explicitly prohibits Congress from interfering in state establishment of religion.

On the other hand, the case would not be so simple at a state court (of no authority), judging that law according to the Louisiana State Constitution (of no authority).

It has nothing to do with Congress. The Constitution was ratified by the States, not the Congress.

So, you would rule that Louisiana may continue doing so. Even though your ruling has no authority to say.

 

[Invisible Man]

It has nothing to do with Congress.

What is the first word of the First Amendment?

So, you would rule that Louisiana may continue doing so. Even though your ruling has no authority to say.

No. I would only rule that Congress can't stop them.

Whether or not Louisiana could continue doing that under its own state Constitution would not be within my purview (of no authority).

 

[Snowball]

What is the first word of the First Amendment?



No. I would only rule that Congress can't stop them.

Whether or not Louisiana could continue doing that under its own state Constitution would not be within my purview (of no authority).

You say that Constitution isn't the law, now you're quoting from it. Your ruling would quote the Constitution.
But it's not about Congress. Judges don't consult Congress to rule.
What if a judge such as myself does not even assess this as a First Amendment issue?
Posting a decalogue on a school wall doesn't establish any religion in the government. Neither does it infringe upon freedom of expression.

 

[PAF]

You say that Constitution isn't the law, now you're quoting from it. Your ruling would quote the Constitution.
But it's not about Congress. Judges don't consult Congress to rule.
What if a judge such as myself does not even assess this as a First Amendment issue?
Posting a decalogue on a school wall doesn't establish any religion in the government. Neither does it infringe upon freedom of expression.

By making mandatory, or to "require", especially when "all" classrooms [or whatever it is] is stated, is to "establish".

 

[Invisible Man]

You say that Constitution isn't the law, now you're quoting from it.

Wasn't the whole point of your past few posts to get me to do that? I went along with you. And now you're complaining about it?

 

[Invisible Man]

But it's not about Congress.

What is the first word of the First Amendment?

 

[Snowball]

By making mandatory, or to "require", especially when "all" classrooms [or whatever it is] is stated, is to "establish".

that's only your opinion. The establishment of a religion as the Founders understood it WAS the true establishment of a religion
as they were designated in State constitutions and formal government bodies. Not just hanging from a wall in a classroom.