Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Why not display the original from the Torah? In the original Hebrew language?
Or at least display all three versions as written in the Protestant Bible.
Seems kind of silly though; it would make much more sense for Christians to display Deuteronomy 6:4-15, since that’s what Jesus stated was the greatest commandment.
Well, sure, if they weren't misrepresenting their motives. The real motive is indoctrination and the incorporation of a specific flavor of Christianity into all aspects of USAian society, transforming it into a theocracy. They're not particularly subtle about this. :)
The part they haven't appeared to think through is what subset of subset of Christianity are they going for. They could talk to the people in Salem, MA. about that, but they won't.
And they would never display quotes from sermon on the mound because its too woke.
"blessed are the cheese makers?" "it's not meant to be taken literally my dear, it refers to any manufacturer of dairy products..."
In a 2-hour quote fest, that is my favorite. The particularly arrogant tone of the response while being completely incorrect about one of humanity's noble attempts at what a better world looks like just kills.
These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.
Now, this one, I'd like to see.
Some religious Jewish people do actually wear parts of their scriptures, at least part of the time.
Supposedly you get accosted at Israeli airports with guys trying to tie them on you if you're a secular Jew.
Now let's watch the Supreme Court interpret the constitution to further permit the integration of church & state.
That's exactly what these obviously unconstitutional laws are really about. An opportunity to get a case before SCOTUS so they can reverse decades/centuries of precedent.
So let me get this straight.. The controversy isn't that the ten commandments are required to be on display. The issue is that all the different Christian denominations want THEIR version of the ten commandments on display.
Fuck it. At this point they should make it so every religion in existence should get a 3x5 card to post whatever tf they want in schools and then they can just have a wall of commandments. It's only fair. Let everyone in.
The lawsuit mentions catholics and Jews as having different versions but also other faiths that don't have the concept of the ten commandments. It's an ACLU is representing.
fuck yeah
This is the thing we found out way back in the 1500s and 1600s. The various teams don't play nice with each other. The only reason they are accepting of one another at the moment is common enemy. The second that State religion is permitted, South Baptist and Catholics are going to be kicking each other's teeth in.
There's a shit ton of money to be had in the church. No one is going to let some other team take it willingly. They will absolutely eat each other and in the process wreck collateral damage unlike anything anyone has seen since the 17th century. That's not guessing, that's like a for sure outcome. We've got a little under 20 centuries worth of history that tells us what the outcome is every time.
Wait, wasn't one of the main points of Europeans immigrating to America was for freedom of religion?
Yes... but no.
It wasn't just freedom to express their religion, it was also the freedom to form governments where they could be in power, and thus impose their religious beliefs on others.
The British colonies were basically religious fundamentalist zones. For example: Maryland -- land of Mary. Was intended to be a Catholic colony. Massachusetts was meant as a Puritan colony, and they strictly enforced that. A woman named Mary Dyer was hanged in Boston for the crime of being a Quaker.
According to Wikipedia: It is named after Henrietta Maria, the French-born queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland during the 17th century.
Interestingly though, Henrietta Maria was named after her parents (Henry IV and Marie de Médicis / Maria de' Medici), and it's likely her mother's name came from their Catholic faith.
So Maryland was named after Henrietta Maria who was named after Marie de Médicis who was named after the biblical Mary. (Unless she was named after another Mary)
I think it's named after Queen Mary, not jesus' mary
Fair enough, but Mary is a pretty Catholic name. Even when someone's named after a relative (in this case her mom was a Mary), the chain generally goes back to the main Mary (who was actually Miryam).
Yeah all the horrible religious people who became outcasts thought they should bring their nightmare beliefs to a new land.
Exactly. My forefathers left the Netherlands because the government was trying to tell them how to worship God. Now many of their descendants are trying to tell people how to worship God.
Accurate
Kind of doesn't work as a joke because the point of displaying the commandments is for the kids to read them.
I thought the point was to tie the schools up in legal proceedings, wasting their money so the kids end up with less of an education and the religious right can funnel the public money into private schools?
Yeah, you're probably right
This state.......I'm more disgusted than ever before. That's saying something.
The only way students will even look at it is if it has boobs or kittens on it. Or kittens with boobs. Keep your cult out of public schools.
The 10 commandments are pretty funny, even if you ignore all the differences from the different factions.
Like, there's a commandment against bearing false witness, which is sometimes interpreted as not lying. But, it pretty specifically isn't against lying in the original text. The modern translation of the text is more or less: "Do not testify falsely against your neighbor". So, it's a specific kind of lying: giving evidence as a witness in a criminal setting. So, you're ok to lie, just not in court. Also, you're ok to lie as long as it isn't concerning your neighbour. What's a neighbour? Depends. The original jewish interpretation is that it's a member of the same religious community. Jesus tried to expand that to say everyone was your neighbour. But, arguably the original interpretation says it's OK to give false testimony against non-jews.
Then there's the obsession over your neighbour's wife and stuff. The catholic version of the 10 commandments actually devotes 2 whole commandments to it. But, what's weird is that stealing and adultery have already been covered. This (or these) commandments are about coveting. In other words, they're trying to control not your actions but your feelings.
IMO, one of the funniest ones is "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy". It's pretty vague, what does it mean to "remember" it? You'd think that the absolute bare minimum would be to remember which day of the week it is. But, if that's the case, why would the jewish and christian sabbath days be different? I guess they forgot.
Doest the first amendment clearly state the government cannot enforce or prevent religioun.
It says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
It’s definitely not as clear as one might expect out of a modern legal document. That being said, the precedent here is very straightforward, and any ruling in favor of the law would be a huge shift in how the separation of church and state is applied.
That being said, the precedent here is very straightforward, and any ruling in favor of the law would be a huge shift in how the separation of church and state is applied.
Good thing the Supreme Court respects precedent. Otherwise they could decide to just change the interpretation of the Constitution to allow states to establish their own state religion, since the Constitution specified "Congress".
since the Constitution specified “Congress”.
It's amazing to me how many people don't realize that's EXACTLY how it was originally meant. The first 10 Amendment, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, didn't originally apply to the States and that most definitely included the 1st (and the 2nd for those of you keeping track at home.)
That didn't happen until SCOTUS created the "Incorporation Doctrine" some years after the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, over 100 years after the founding of the United States.
So yeah, before 1930ish it would have been entirely legal for the State of Louisiana to establish a State religion and in fact some of the original States actually levied Religious Taxes and distributed the money to various Christian Denominations.
The United States was built from the ground up to function as a collection of sovereign States moderated by a relatively weak Federal Government, nearly the opposite of how things work today. Its a good chunk of the reason why our Government and Judiciary are such a mess, they weren't designed for what they've become.
Most of us dont wanna live in the 1800s though, and how can any government be of the people if it disregards what the people want
Most of us dont wanna live in the 1800s though...
Oh I'm not saying we should go back to the 1800s or that the States shouldn't be held to the 1A. My comment is bemused / sad because you were attempting to make a dramatic argument without releasing that it was unironically correct. People need to be taught a LOT more details about how our Government works and how it came to be what it is today.
...and how can any government be of the people if it disregards what the people want
Overall I don't think it can, at least not for too long. At some point a Government must either adapt to its Citizens wishes or it becomes illegitimate. There are a couple of "gotchas" though, the first being who is a citizen and the other is which or how many of them the Government should listen too.
The original setup of the United States with it's Federalist structure was actually quite good, if somewhat inhumane, at answering those two questions. It's a shame we busted the fuck out of it.
Youre missing the point. Whether or not that was actually the intention is completely irrelevant in the modern day, because only fascist assholes actually want to go back
But how does Federalism line up with fascism? What the other user is talking about in the original setup where if you don't like the State you live in being stuck in the 1800's, you can leave if you want, the Federal Government guarantees your safe passage to a State living in modern times.
You understand these people arent going to stop at federalism, yes? Please take a look at Project 2025. They want to force their own values onto the majority at the federal level, and our ancient electoral system will enable them to do so. And even if they did, that would still be condemning the populations of their own states to repression
Or as we saw in Bremerton, they will just straight up lie about the facts of the case to issue the ruling they want.
Average Lemon Test appreciator.
Commandments
summary: Don't shoot anyone.
And you want to display that in (of all possible locations) a school?
That's like asking a school shooter to think before he murders 20 kids...
Oh you're right. It should be on milk cartons and on cereal boxes.... " remember, don't shoot anyone "
Next we can deal with other tools... don't cut people with knives intended for cooking, don't close the door when someone has placed their fingers in the door hinge. Etc. but not shooting someone seems pretty important right now.
How about you go and actually fix the problem? Ban guns, like most nations in the world, as this shit only happens in the US? Yes yes, Switzerland has more guns per person than the US! They also have much, MUCH stricter gun laws and they've shown to be responsible with guns, whereas US citizens have shown not being able to be responsible with a fork, let alone guns.
So ban guns, problem solved.
Don't give me that " but muh rights" crap, those rights were penned down well over 200 years ago when "arms" were muskets that had a 5 minute reload time and then still could barely hit your own toes. Nobody imagined AR-15, or desert eagle type guns.
Don't give me the "bad guys will use guns" because it doesn't make a difference. It is exceedingly rare that a "good guy(tm) with a gun" stops a bad guy, and if guns are off the streets, the vast majority of bad guys will have equal problems getting their hands on guns as well.
Banning guns works everywhere, it will also work in the US and it has the added benefit of not being a band aid on an arterial bleeding and finally no longer making the US the worlds laughing stock
My much order brother in law who just retired from being a mailman and who I believed to be relatively sane with just a touch of republicanism...he showed me recent pictures of him at a gun range 😞. He's basically 70 years old. Like seriously?
So I don't know man, I have a ton of fun with very dangerous tools every weekend but never a gun unless it's for staples. How do you go from mild mannered mail guy to hey look at me shooting stuff up. Oh and he got a big ass truck too. Gotta have both. Anyway off rant mode.
If the law goes through, there’s an obvious solution: display it alongside its equivalents. I bet that would be very educational for a lot of people.
“Best we can do is… oh shit… not like that!”