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

[Sonny Tufts]

It's been in OK classrooms for at least 14 years. All he's doing is making sure certain non-compliant schools don't shirk from their responsibility.

Where was the legal challenge in 2010? It's been fourteen years.

The Prescott case was in 2015. In case you never had a basic civics class, a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court on a matter of the Oklahoma Constitution takes precedence over a conflicting statute.

And I'm not talking about the Bible being used in a class on religion. I'm talking about a mandate that the 10 Commandments be posted in every Oklahoma classroom.

 

[Snowball]

The Prescott case was in 2015. In case you never had a basic civics class, a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court on a matter of the Oklahoma Constitution takes precedence over a conflicting statute.

And I'm not talking about the Bible being used in a class on religion. I'm talking about a mandate that the 10 Commandments be posted in every Oklahoma classroom.

Well, they spring from the same memorandum.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/us/oklahoma-schools-bible-curriculum/index.html

I do admit they could be treated differently. But it's also arguable that this "displaying" is part of the statute I posted, which you're ignoring.
It's also possibly defensible via Van Orden v. Perry, a SCOTUS decision you likely objected to, however I'm sure you'll say that has no bearing also.

Just like you didn't address in previous posts of mine how North Dakota's governor intends to defend his posting of the Ten Commandments, or Louisiana's.

Pretty stunning the lack of respect, towards these officials and their legal teams. You can't assume you're right until you win the case.

I don't appreciate your snide remarks at me, either, which are off-base, because the Oklahoma Supreme Court could have smashed Title 70 Section 8 anytime they pleased in the last fourteen years. I think you've heard the Steve Martin line about being something that begins with the letter "a" ?

By the way, when I went to school and college, we didn't have "civics class". We actually had quality education back then.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

But it's also arguable that this "displaying" is part of the statute I posted, which you're ignoring.

I'm ignoring it because it conflicts with the Oklahoma Constitution.

It's also possibly defensible via Van Orden v. Perry, a SCOTUS decision you likely objected to, however I'm sure you'll say that has no bearing also.

It has no bearing because Prescott was based on the Oklahoma Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause. You haven't bothered to read Prescott, have you? Yet you have the audacity to pontificate on something you know nothing about. Here, read this and learn something:

To be sure, the United States Supreme Court case of Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), ruled that the Texas Ten Commandments monument did not violate the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the issue in the case at hand is whether the Oklahoma Ten Commandments monument violates the Oklahoma Constitution, not whether it violates the Establishment Clause. Our opinion rests solely on the Oklahoma Constitution with no regard for federal jurisprudence. https://casetext.com/case/prescott-v-okla-capitol-pres-commn-1

 

[Snowball]

I'm ignoring it because it conflicts with the Oklahoma Constitution.



It has no bearing because Prescott was based on the Oklahoma Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause. You haven't bothered to read Prescott, have you? Yet you have the audacity to pontificate on something you know nothing about. Here, read this and learn something:

I'm certainly NOT the one pontificating in this thread. I started off in this thread talking about historical and constitutional states rights.
You are among those who have the OPINION that the authorities in THREE STATES have no legal grounds.

Well.. when a CASE happens, then we talk. Anything you MAINTAIN is true about Prescott or any OTHER case is merely an opinion
until that opinion wins in a court of LAW involving THESE actions by elected officials. "See you in court, Sonny..."

 

[Sonny Tufts]

You are among those who have the OPINION that the authorities in THREE STATES have no legal grounds.

My comments have been limited to Oklahoma and the requirement that the Commandments be posted in every classroom. I believe Prescott controls the (state) constitutionality of this requirement. Indeed, I think the case for the invalidity of the requirement is stronger than the fact pattern in Prescott. Unlike the state capitol grounds involved in Prescott a public school classroom involves a captive audience of impressionable children who would be forced to see a clearly religious message every school day, thereby benefiting and supporting the Judeo-Christian system of religion.

Now if you want to distinguish Prescott from the new regulation, have at it.

Interesting bit of history: following the Prescott decision and the removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the capitol grounds, legislators put a measure on the 2016 ballot that would have removed Article 2, Section 5 from the Oklahoma Constitution (which was the basis for the decision in Prescott). The measure failed by almost 14 percentage points.


EDIT: The Oklahoma superintendent mandated that the Bible be included the school curriculum, that there be a Bible in every classroom, and that teachers " teach from it." He did not specifically require that the Commandments be posted; that was done in Louisiana. I apologize for my error.

Further regulations regarding this mandate are to be issued, and the State department of Education may supply teaching materials to be used in all classes. It remains to be seen just how secular and even-handed the use of the Bible will be. Will students learn about Jefferson's bible, a severely redacted version of the New Testament that omitted any miracles, the Resurrection, and passages portraying Jesus as divine? Will they learn how the Bible was used to justify slavery? Will other foundational documents such as the Constitution be contrasted with the Ten Commandments (e.g., the First Amendment conflicts with the first three commandments)?

 

[Snowball]

My comments have been limited to Oklahoma and the requirement that the Commandments be posted in every classroom. I believe Prescott controls the (state) constitutionality of this requirement. Indeed, I think the case for the invalidity of the requirement is stronger than the fact pattern in Prescott. Unlike the state capitol grounds involved in Prescott a public school classroom involves a captive audience of impressionable children who would be forced to see a clearly religious message every school day, thereby benefiting and supporting the Judeo-Christian system of religion.

Now if you want to distinguish Prescott from the new regulation, have at it.

Interesting bit of history: following the Prescott decision and the removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the capitol grounds, legislators put a measure on the 2016 ballot that would have removed Article 2, Section 5 from the Oklahoma Constitution (which was the basis for the decision in Prescott). The measure failed by almost 14 percentage points.

I know, but you aren't addressing the points I made about how it's already being enforced. Fourteen Years. So, whether it's a single teacher, principal, group of teachers, school councils, town councils, whatever, these are already occurring before the memorandum. It's in the 2010 law posted earlier. Whether Prescott prohibits this or not is TBD. Even Supreme Court rulings can be overturned by the Ruling Court. Gov. Burgum's rationale appears to imply a connection to Stone v. Graham. Stone v. Graham had four justices including Chief Justice Burger in Dissent. So, nobody in this thread should seek to characterize anyone with insults for supporting the opinions of four Supreme Court justices.

You should consider why there are no cases being advanced at this time, and why the moves to do all this are happening among conservative states. It's because of the ruling SCOTUS. The ACLU are not dopes. If Stone v. Graham was heard just a year after it was, it probably would have gone the other way with O'Connor. Definitely with Scalia in 1986. This is all politics. Look at the Dissent: Burger - Nixon/ Blackmun - Nixon/ Stewart - Eisenhower/ Rehnquist - Reagan. Try these cases in 2024? No way.

 

[jmdrake]

I know, but you aren't addressing the points I made about how it's already being enforced. Fourteen Years. So, whether it's a single teacher, principal, group of teachers, school councils, town councils, whatever, these are already occurring before the memorandum.

In order to sue someone you have to have standing. Under the voluntary statute, teachers, students, parents, principals etc in the schools that didn't implement the Bible classes didn't have standing to challenge the law. I'm betting that it was only used in very red school districts where people were not likely to sue or even complain about it. Now it's being mandated across the entire state increasing the likelihood of a lawsuit exponentially. We'll see what happens.

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[mrsat_98]

Government should not mandate, under penalty of law, that you send your kids to their indoctrination centers.

So who is supposed to officer and train the militia ? In case you have not noticed the ball on the flag pole.

 

[Voluntarist]

I never said I do. I merely said that I support Oklahoma's (and Louisiana's...) posting of the Ten Commandments in schools.

You made it on the basis of states being able to establish their own religions. That said, a historical display of ancient laws that included codes besides just the 10 commandments wouldn't be an establishment of religion.

Current Status (Louisiana Law): Court ruling stops Louisiana from requiring Ten Commandments in classrooms for now

Louisiana’s plan to make all of the state’s public school classrooms post the Ten Commandments next year remains on hold under an order Wednesday by a federal appeals court in New Orleans.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a state request to temporarily stay an earlier order by U.S. District Judge John deGravelles in Baton Rouge while litigation continues. Arguments before a 5th Circuit panel are scheduled for Jan. 23, meaning the judge’s order stays in effect well past the law’s Jan. 1 deadline to post the commandments.

The state contends that deGravelles’ order affects only the five school districts that are defendants in a legal challenge. But it’s unclear whether or how the law would be enforced in the state’s 67 other districts while the appeal progresses. Also, deGravelles ordered that all schools in every district be notified of his decision that the law is unconstitutional, a requirement maintained by Wednesday’s ruling.