Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would normally agree, but I think that depends on how spicy the panel they get is. The way the 5th found standing in the mifepristone case wasn’t any more bonkers than what it would take to find some basis for finding this to be constitutional. It’ll be an interesting test of just how far the 5th circuit is going to try pushing things.
Cynical answer? They're not impartial jurists, or at least not a reliable majority of them. They're committed partisans who feel no need to restrain themselves.
Not really, no. Justices do surprise us all sometimes, but the problem is less that justices interpret the constitution differently and more that Republicans reliably, piously claim no conservative justice could be reliably *partisan,* no sir. Losing political battles is one thing. Having people piss on my leg and tell me it's raining is another.
That said: *some* rulings surprise me.
Well it appears that the pious conservatives have followed through so far A little bit with the abortion pill ruling and the gun restrictions for people with restraining orders against them thus far.
So perhaps that might be some rain and you're only imagining it's piss.
The division of labor in a US court is that the jury decides all questions of fact, including questions of fact like whether someone properly considered the risks of their actions, so it gets nebulous at the edges (a fact could also be did they shoot the gun or not, not a frayed edge there). And the judge is responsible for keeping the whole process operating according to the law, including explaining those parts of the law the jury needs to understand in order to issue their verdict on the facts.
Everyone (judge, jury, bailiff, court reporter if it somehow comes up - they do read things out loud sometimes) is supposed to be impartial with regards to the facts, the witnesses, the parties, the weather, their mood, whether their spouse pissed them off this morning, whether the plaintiff's attorney has a nasally voice; we could go on.
The judge is not supposed to be impartial when it comes to the law. They are not supposed to give wishy washy jury instructions that describe the legal theories of two different respected law professors about how the law might function in the case at hand. They are really, actually, supposed to pick one or the other, and instruct the jury without even mentioning the alternative.
Now of course their decision on which to pick had better be based on proper considerations, in almost all cases the overriding concern is what has this state's supreme court or the US supreme court had to say. But that's not always cut and dry, and choices most definitely have to be made.
The 5th circuit panel (I don't recall the correct term for not en banc, this was not the entire circuit agreeing, they do that sometimes though), held the case against the FDA could go forward on a very incorrect conception of standing which has been getting worse and worse in the last few years. This case didn't stand out, it was an archetype of how plaintiffs were getting cases heard despite having no actual case or controversy. And it was a problem across the board, bad standing rulings were popping up everywhere.
So, thank you SCOTUS for slapping down this incorrect notion of standing. That's only slightly different from slapping the 5th, I suppose, but I do really think it's different.
>So, thank you SCOTUS for slapping down this incorrect notion of standing. That's only slightly different from slapping the 5th, I suppose, but I do really think it's different.
You are correct that it was ruled against on the notion that people were claiming offense when they really were not victims and filing suits on behalf of no standing. The fact that the fifth allowed it was slapped down.
Yeah man, what's been passing for standing, especially in the last 10-15 years, has gotten so out of hand. I really hope this is ruling #1 in a series of unanimous slap downs.
Yeah, I understand your perspective. And I’m definitely no fan of the thrash that comes with passing unconstitutional laws. However, I would argue that post-*Bruen*, the rules for what is and is not permissible regulation are about as clear as mud.
The kind of “historical tradition” test that the Supreme Court has fallen in love with recently is exceptionally unclear in the best of times, and when you’re applying it in light of the fact that the second amendment wasn’t even incorporated against the states until 2010 it gets even worse. States and localities had wildly varying approaches to gun regulation going back to colonial times, many of which would never pass constitutional muster today. That whole field of jurisprudence is just a mess.
>the rules for what is and is not permissible regulation are about as clear as mud.
It's only unclear if you're dead set on trying to infringe on people's rights. There's a very clear and easy option available: just don't
And such a waste of time and money just for virtue signaling.
ETA: And of course Trump has come out saying that this is a good thing. Dude, did you even *read* the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th commandments?
I haven't followed this much, but despite me being a Christian, I'm not really convinced that this is a good move. I'm definitely fine with this being ruled unconstitutional.
It's Pagan reasoning. The kids will read the poster on the wall and then they will stop coveting their neighbor's glitter frazzled pencil sharpener. Or maybe it's pre-Christian? Instruct people as to "the Law," and then they will follow "the Law," and by following "the Law" they will live morally and in line with God's design.
Regardless of exactly how, it's wrong at its core.
This is what we run into on the right with wildly unconditional anti gun laws.
Always a crap shoot and we may have to wait years for them to get ruled rightfully unconditional...
It feels very performative to me. Just something the Governor gets to bring up the next time he's up for election, but with no real expectation it will stand. I feel like this happens constantly in the South.
I hope so. But it is a hope-without-hope, except that I hope in God.
Few people in the 1960s expected the Soviet Union would fall peacefully within their lifetime.
First I'd like to say I am against this in general and that is coming from a Conservative Evangelical Christian. Mainly because I think things like this open up pandoras box for other things. If someone makes the case that The Satanic Temple's tenants should also be posted in classrooms things like this establish the precedence to do so and if opposition arises it would be a slam dunk case to allow it. I'd rather the state just support the display but make it voluntary.
I do think it completely depends on the interpretation of the 1st Amendment though. If you take a very literal interpretation a state deciding to implement this is not the same as Congress implementing it. At one time we had State churches so we have historical precedence of states being involved in a goverment directed religion. If you want to take a broader interpretation and include a State making a law posting a sign does not exactly establish a Theocracy. The idea is goverment can not through compulsion make you to practice a religion nor can it prevent you from practicing a religion. It does not protect a person from being exposed to religion nor does it mean Goverment should be completely devoid of religion. Again posting a sign of the Ten Commandments is not compulsion to practice Judeo Christian religion.
My gut feeling is the courts will again take the broader interpretation and this will be ruled unconstitutional.
Goes through several appeals with different results. At some level the law gets struck down and the higher courts refuse to review. It doesn’t reach the Supreme Court.
I am a Christian, I like going to church, and religion plays a huge role in my life, keyword my life as religion is not for everyone and this is coming from a religious person. This is a horrible idea as well as an unconstitutional one.
My prediction, the courts will overturn it as it violates the first amendment. We are not a Christian nation and we never have been one, just because Christianity is the dominant religion here doesn't make us a Christian nation. If you want to teach your kids about Christian values then either do it yourself or take them to a CHRISTIAN institution
Seriously I feel like I am fighting a two front battle between the Left and Right on child indoctrination of ideology via school
>Seriously I feel like I am fighting a two front battle between the Left and Right on child indoctrination of ideology via school
Probably because there never will (or should) be such a thing as a school being free from "ideology". It's only a question of which ideology.
Values, worldview and character-building will always be part of education, and the idea that school can be neutral on these is what has allowed the left to capture education in the first place.
>We are not a Christian nation and we never have been one, just because Christianity is the dominant religion here doesn't make us a Christian nation.
I don't want to comment too much on a different nation, but a lot of important people in America's history, including as I understand it George Washington, considered it a Christian nation. Why don't you want your nation to be Christian, anyway?
I agree we will never have an ideology free school
I want a secular government because a big part of the founding of our country was that we could practice whatever religion/no religion we wanted
So you want schools to impart worldview and values, just not according to Christianity? At that point you're putting a mostly arbitrary yoke on values rooted in religion, requiring ones that aren't (Like secular progressivism) to beat us out.
Now, far be it for me to comment on the politics of a different country, but it's pretty much an indisputable historical fact that America was considered a Christian nation at its founding.
The country was overwhelmingly Christian and George Washington himself explicitly referred to Christianity as one of the county's uniting features.
I imagine many of the founders intended religious freedom to apply to all world religions, but many common people would've thought it meant "freedom to be any kind of Christian/protestant".
In any case it certainly wasn't applied to individual states, many of whom were explicitly protestant or even had a state religion, at the time of the founding.
SCOTUS already ruled on this exact case a long time ago. It was in Kentucky. They ruled that the 10 Commandments cannot be displayed in public schools. There's no need for another case. The law just has to be enforced.
It's hard to come up with a clearer establishment clause violation.
But... so far as I am aware, the Roberts court has never upheld an establishment clause challenge to anything, and it's not even clear if a majority of justices think the clause exists.
Justice Thomas has suggested that the establishment clause doesn't apply to the states at all, while Gorsuch has suggested that no one has standing to raise establishment clause claims. That's two votes in favor of Louisiana right there, and obviously the Alito vote comes for free. Harder to predict the other three Republicans on the court, but I think you can see a lot of ways to get two of them.
Thank you for the analysis! How do you feel about the possibility of Louisiana prevailing here?
EDIT: To clarify the intent of my question, I know you (rightfully IMO) view this as a crystal clear violation of the establishment clause. I'm asking more about how the potential result affects your perception of the conservative bloc of justices.
>Justice Thomas has suggested that the establishment clause doesn't apply to the states at all
From what I know of US history, this is pretty clearly the way it was originally interpreted.
normally they fig leaf this with "other sources of law' and throw the magna carta up there on the wall too and try to call it secular.
It rarely works in a classroom context (though is acceptable in courtrooms) and without even that thin pretext of "showing students the historic sources of just law" it has no chance of standing.
I gotta wonder how well Lauren Ventrella (co-author of the legislation)'s claim that the ten commandments are a *historical document* will hold up in court. She made the distinction in a CNN interview and continued doubling down on it as though it were a magic spell.
Do you think fears that laws like this will lead to the SCOTUS destroying the separation between church and state are overblown?
This will get overturned. The 1st Amendment is very clear on government not sponsoring a religion. If schools weren't tied to the state government, it would be very different. I'd be surprised if it wasn't a unanimous decision.
Something to keep in mind is that many hard right/evangelical conservatives, have not read the Constitution. They don't know that Christianity is not mentioned in the Constitution. It's not even mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. There is only one reference to God in either document. In the DOI, the "natural God" is referenced. In the Constitution, religion is only mentioned in the 1st Amendment. No specific religion is mentioned. Many conservatives will argue that the Founders were referring to the various branches of Christianity, which was the primary reason settlers came to the new world. Their sect of Christianity was being persecuted in England. However, the Founders were all extremely educated and intellectual men. They were fully aware of Judaism, Islam, and religions from India and the far East.
Many conservatives believe the US was founded on Christian principles. They are not wrong about that. It definitely was. However, the Founders were very keen on keeping religion and government separate. After all, religious persecution by the English monarchy, was one of the main reasons to come to the new world. In England, the Anglican Church was the state sponsored religion.
>Something to keep in mind is that many hard right/evangelical conservatives, have not read the Constitution. They don't know that Christianity is not mentioned in the Constitution.
Do you have anything to support this claim, or do you just figure evangelicals must all be stupid?
>Many conservatives will argue that the Founders were referring to the various branches of Christianity, which was the primary reason settlers came to the new world. Their sect of Christianity was being persecuted in England. However, the Founders were all extremely educated and intellectual men. They were fully aware of Judaism, Islam, and religions from India and the far East.
Sure, but we probably don't know what everyone took it to mean in context. Admittedly I don't know that much about US history, but it seems to be that the first amendment was originally about the federal government anyway.
If you don't know much about US history, why would I debate you about anything? Read about US history, the notes from the ratification debates, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. You should do those things before commenting on any political discourse. I honestly don't know what you are trying to get at.
As for evangelicals, most people haven't read the Constitution, which includes evangelicals. I'd venture to say 5-10% of US Citizens have read the Constitution (I suspect less). That said, more conservatives have read it than liberals. It's one of the biggest reasons we identify as conservatives.
As for "Sure, but we probably don't know what everyone took it to mean in context." I don't know what you're trying to say here, but I'm going to assume you're referring to Islam. The Crusades started almost 1,000 years before the founding of the country. The British participated in the Crusades. If you think the Founders were ignorant of Islam, you don't know much about world history either. I personally think the 1st Amendment should have included a statement about the government not interfering with peaceful religions. Unfortunately, the Founders didn't write it that way: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". When they wrote "free exercise", I assume that included only peaceful religions, meaning those that don't infringe upon the rights of others. That was already illustrated by the fact that the government cracked down on Mormons, because of polygamy. Polygamy clearly infringes on the rights of others. Having read both the Koran and the Hadith, I can tell you that Islam is not a peaceful religion. I personally don't think Islam should be allowed in the US, because it clearly infringes upon the rights of others. Anyone who thinks Islam is peaceful, hasn't read those texts.
>If you don't know much about US history, why would I debate you about anything?
Is this a debate?
>You should do those things before commenting on any political discourse.
Any political discourse? On an international platform? Are you serious?
>As for "Sure, but we probably don't know what everyone took it to mean in context." I don't know what you're trying to say here, but I'm going to assume you're referring to Islam. The Crusades started almost 1,000 years before the founding of the country. The British participated in the Crusades. If you think the Founders were ignorant of Islam, you don't know much about world history either.
What I mean is, the fact the founders would've known what Islam is doesn't mean they all had it when they wrote the first amendment.
In any case, nobody at the time the US constitution was written used it to stop individual states from being explicitly Protestant.
Because the US Constitution is a historical document on whom anyone can comment, especially insofar as we're discussing the objective facts of its writing.
Anyone who can read it can see that it refers to Congress, or know that many state constitutions were explicitly protestant in the early years of the United States, for example.
In which country do you live? That would help this discussion. That said, I'm pretty sure I provided all the information you needed. However, the point you were trying to make is still unclear.
Norway, though that isn't really relevant.
My main point was that you're giving evangelicals unfairly little credit.
My secondary point was that the law was originally applied in its most literal interpretation, wherein it only limits the federal government.
The Constitution was never meant to be interpreted by the literal words in the Bill of Rights. If you don't believe that, you're not a real conservative. Does Norway even have freedom of speech? Why are you arguing over the US Constitution? It has no bearing on your life.
>If you don't believe that, you're not a real conservative.
Why?
>Does Norway even have freedom of speech?
Technically no, but in practice basically. We used to have less free speech.
For the record, you might wanna note that free speech is primarily a liberal principle, though many conservatives support it.
>Why are you arguing over the US Constitution? It has no bearing on your life.
The takeover of American education (And Western education broadly) by secular progressivism does have a bearing on my life.
>As for evangelicals, most people haven't read the Constitution, which includes evangelicals. I'd venture to say 5-10% of US Citizens have read the Constitution (I suspect less).
Sure, but they've probably read the first amendment. Has it occurred to you that they just disagree with you on its application, or think religion is more important than the constitution?
Of course it has, but they are blatantly incorrect: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". What that means, is that the government is separate from religions, and religion has no place in the government. It's really pretty simple. Evangelicals may not like it, but it's the law of the land.
>What that means, is that the government is separate from religions, and religion has no place in the government.
That literally isn't what the text says. Last I checked, "Congress" refers to the federal government, not to Louisiana as a state.
And I know enough about US history to know that this is how it was originally applied, with full separation between religion and *state* government being a later extension of what is (literally speaking) on the page.
State governments are subordinate to federal law. It typically doesn't work out that way in practice, but that's how it was supposed to be. State Constitutions cannot violate the Federal Constitution.
As for the text of 1A, you are incorrect. I suggest reading the notes from the ratification debates. Those notes make it clear what the Founders intended with 1A and 2A. There are two types of people, those who try to interpret the Bill of Rights based solely on the words, and those who interpret what the Founders meant when they wrote the words. The first type of people are typically liberals, and they are incorrect. It's rather irritating when Christians call themselves conservatives, but then don't actually adhere to conservative principles.
>I suggest reading the notes from the ratification debates.
Sure, I will, but clearly that's how it was enforced, because several state constitutions at the time were explicitly protestant.
t's rather irritating when Christians call themselves conservatives, but then don't actually adhere to conservative principles.
>It's rather irritating when Christians call themselves conservatives, but then don't actually adhere to conservative principles.
You know, the term conservative isn't necessarily defined by what a lot of Republicans think. It's an intellectual and political tradition that dates back to the European Enlightenment. It's hard to say if Burke would've agreed with you.
Well, it sounds like your definition of conservatism is very closely tied to things that are associated with Republican party.
In any case, I believe the association between Christianity and conservatism is largely political circumstances, especially since Christianity can be fairly radical and has caused radical change in the past.
In the narrow sense, it has a lot to do with specific issues like abortion and sexual "liberation" having been pushed by progressives and opposed by conservatives.
In the broader sense it is because conservatism developed in response to the enlightenment, which makes it the opposing force to ideas and movements that are more or less inherently anti-Christian.
Basically, if you oppose certain progressive ideas you're almost automatically a conservative, which is why Christians often identify as such.
I don't really have a solid prediction on the outcome. I think it's something of a reasonably good test case to see how the Federal Courts are going to treat the *Lemon* precedent now that they are less overtly hostile to Christianity. If my instincts about how the judiciary has changed are correct, I'd expect one or the other of these rulings:
- Displaying the ten commandments has almost no rational basis other than motivational posters are nice, motivational posters are not in short supply, half a dozen companies pump out a hundred varieties which are easily for sale, and teachers don't need hassles like "what would other gods than me mean?" Even Justice Thomas would probably agree that the State's power to overtly establish religion does not also allow for weirdo kind of covert proselytizing. Go big or go home. You went small so you lose.
- The ten commandments are not a motivational poster, they're the millennia old bedrock foundations of American morality. They don't just encourage good behavior, they also ground that encouragement in history and culture. Their pedagogical value is obvious, and so also is the rational basis for the law.
One prediction I will make is that the end-level decisions will be utterly derisive to the notion that the students' freedom of religious exercise is impaired by seeing the posters.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It'll hit the 5th circuit and get ruled unconstitutional.
I would normally agree, but I think that depends on how spicy the panel they get is. The way the 5th found standing in the mifepristone case wasn’t any more bonkers than what it would take to find some basis for finding this to be constitutional. It’ll be an interesting test of just how far the 5th circuit is going to try pushing things.
The 5th got slapped by the supreme Court 9-0 even with 6 right leaning justices idk why they would want to be slapped again so soon.
Cynical answer? They're not impartial jurists, or at least not a reliable majority of them. They're committed partisans who feel no need to restrain themselves.
Have we ever had any impartial jurists? You certainly can't think that rbg was in anyway something other than a committed partisan.
Not really, no. Justices do surprise us all sometimes, but the problem is less that justices interpret the constitution differently and more that Republicans reliably, piously claim no conservative justice could be reliably *partisan,* no sir. Losing political battles is one thing. Having people piss on my leg and tell me it's raining is another. That said: *some* rulings surprise me.
Well it appears that the pious conservatives have followed through so far A little bit with the abortion pill ruling and the gun restrictions for people with restraining orders against them thus far. So perhaps that might be some rain and you're only imagining it's piss.
3 actually they upheld some government taxes that would have greatly benefited the ultra wealthy if overturned.
The division of labor in a US court is that the jury decides all questions of fact, including questions of fact like whether someone properly considered the risks of their actions, so it gets nebulous at the edges (a fact could also be did they shoot the gun or not, not a frayed edge there). And the judge is responsible for keeping the whole process operating according to the law, including explaining those parts of the law the jury needs to understand in order to issue their verdict on the facts. Everyone (judge, jury, bailiff, court reporter if it somehow comes up - they do read things out loud sometimes) is supposed to be impartial with regards to the facts, the witnesses, the parties, the weather, their mood, whether their spouse pissed them off this morning, whether the plaintiff's attorney has a nasally voice; we could go on. The judge is not supposed to be impartial when it comes to the law. They are not supposed to give wishy washy jury instructions that describe the legal theories of two different respected law professors about how the law might function in the case at hand. They are really, actually, supposed to pick one or the other, and instruct the jury without even mentioning the alternative. Now of course their decision on which to pick had better be based on proper considerations, in almost all cases the overriding concern is what has this state's supreme court or the US supreme court had to say. But that's not always cut and dry, and choices most definitely have to be made.
The 5th circuit panel (I don't recall the correct term for not en banc, this was not the entire circuit agreeing, they do that sometimes though), held the case against the FDA could go forward on a very incorrect conception of standing which has been getting worse and worse in the last few years. This case didn't stand out, it was an archetype of how plaintiffs were getting cases heard despite having no actual case or controversy. And it was a problem across the board, bad standing rulings were popping up everywhere. So, thank you SCOTUS for slapping down this incorrect notion of standing. That's only slightly different from slapping the 5th, I suppose, but I do really think it's different.
>So, thank you SCOTUS for slapping down this incorrect notion of standing. That's only slightly different from slapping the 5th, I suppose, but I do really think it's different. You are correct that it was ruled against on the notion that people were claiming offense when they really were not victims and filing suits on behalf of no standing. The fact that the fifth allowed it was slapped down.
Yeah man, what's been passing for standing, especially in the last 10-15 years, has gotten so out of hand. I really hope this is ruling #1 in a series of unanimous slap downs.
Yep, we’ll have to see. I certainly hope it starts reigning them in. That one was egregious, just zero excuse.
I agree but I thought the Illinois semi-automatic rifle registration and ban was egregious also...
Yeah, I understand your perspective. And I’m definitely no fan of the thrash that comes with passing unconstitutional laws. However, I would argue that post-*Bruen*, the rules for what is and is not permissible regulation are about as clear as mud. The kind of “historical tradition” test that the Supreme Court has fallen in love with recently is exceptionally unclear in the best of times, and when you’re applying it in light of the fact that the second amendment wasn’t even incorporated against the states until 2010 it gets even worse. States and localities had wildly varying approaches to gun regulation going back to colonial times, many of which would never pass constitutional muster today. That whole field of jurisprudence is just a mess.
>the rules for what is and is not permissible regulation are about as clear as mud. It's only unclear if you're dead set on trying to infringe on people's rights. There's a very clear and easy option available: just don't
Not for the courts, there isn’t. Except for the Supreme Court they don’t get to pick and choose their cases.
And such a waste of time and money just for virtue signaling. ETA: And of course Trump has come out saying that this is a good thing. Dude, did you even *read* the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th commandments?
I haven't followed this much, but despite me being a Christian, I'm not really convinced that this is a good move. I'm definitely fine with this being ruled unconstitutional.
I am a Christian but I believe this law is wrong
It's Pagan reasoning. The kids will read the poster on the wall and then they will stop coveting their neighbor's glitter frazzled pencil sharpener. Or maybe it's pre-Christian? Instruct people as to "the Law," and then they will follow "the Law," and by following "the Law" they will live morally and in line with God's design. Regardless of exactly how, it's wrong at its core.
Same here.
It gets ruled unconstitutional within a year or two at most.
Would agree, but it depends on the judge draw at the 5th Circuit. There are some wackjobs on that Circuit.
This is what we run into on the right with wildly unconditional anti gun laws. Always a crap shoot and we may have to wait years for them to get ruled rightfully unconditional...
I would be amazed if it was not overturned.
It feels very performative to me. Just something the Governor gets to bring up the next time he's up for election, but with no real expectation it will stand. I feel like this happens constantly in the South.
I essentially agree with you. This is not the way in which a religious society will be reestablished.
Honest question -- no judgement: Do you think a more religious society WILL happen in your lifetime? I... don't really see it personally.
i dont see it but i hope so.
I hope so. But it is a hope-without-hope, except that I hope in God. Few people in the 1960s expected the Soviet Union would fall peacefully within their lifetime.
First I'd like to say I am against this in general and that is coming from a Conservative Evangelical Christian. Mainly because I think things like this open up pandoras box for other things. If someone makes the case that The Satanic Temple's tenants should also be posted in classrooms things like this establish the precedence to do so and if opposition arises it would be a slam dunk case to allow it. I'd rather the state just support the display but make it voluntary. I do think it completely depends on the interpretation of the 1st Amendment though. If you take a very literal interpretation a state deciding to implement this is not the same as Congress implementing it. At one time we had State churches so we have historical precedence of states being involved in a goverment directed religion. If you want to take a broader interpretation and include a State making a law posting a sign does not exactly establish a Theocracy. The idea is goverment can not through compulsion make you to practice a religion nor can it prevent you from practicing a religion. It does not protect a person from being exposed to religion nor does it mean Goverment should be completely devoid of religion. Again posting a sign of the Ten Commandments is not compulsion to practice Judeo Christian religion. My gut feeling is the courts will again take the broader interpretation and this will be ruled unconstitutional.
Goes through several appeals with different results. At some level the law gets struck down and the higher courts refuse to review. It doesn’t reach the Supreme Court.
I am a Christian, I like going to church, and religion plays a huge role in my life, keyword my life as religion is not for everyone and this is coming from a religious person. This is a horrible idea as well as an unconstitutional one. My prediction, the courts will overturn it as it violates the first amendment. We are not a Christian nation and we never have been one, just because Christianity is the dominant religion here doesn't make us a Christian nation. If you want to teach your kids about Christian values then either do it yourself or take them to a CHRISTIAN institution Seriously I feel like I am fighting a two front battle between the Left and Right on child indoctrination of ideology via school
>Seriously I feel like I am fighting a two front battle between the Left and Right on child indoctrination of ideology via school Probably because there never will (or should) be such a thing as a school being free from "ideology". It's only a question of which ideology. Values, worldview and character-building will always be part of education, and the idea that school can be neutral on these is what has allowed the left to capture education in the first place. >We are not a Christian nation and we never have been one, just because Christianity is the dominant religion here doesn't make us a Christian nation. I don't want to comment too much on a different nation, but a lot of important people in America's history, including as I understand it George Washington, considered it a Christian nation. Why don't you want your nation to be Christian, anyway?
I agree we will never have an ideology free school I want a secular government because a big part of the founding of our country was that we could practice whatever religion/no religion we wanted
So you want schools to impart worldview and values, just not according to Christianity? At that point you're putting a mostly arbitrary yoke on values rooted in religion, requiring ones that aren't (Like secular progressivism) to beat us out. Now, far be it for me to comment on the politics of a different country, but it's pretty much an indisputable historical fact that America was considered a Christian nation at its founding. The country was overwhelmingly Christian and George Washington himself explicitly referred to Christianity as one of the county's uniting features. I imagine many of the founders intended religious freedom to apply to all world religions, but many common people would've thought it meant "freedom to be any kind of Christian/protestant". In any case it certainly wasn't applied to individual states, many of whom were explicitly protestant or even had a state religion, at the time of the founding.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/comments?storyUrl=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/21/hanukkah-george-washington-jews-antisemitism/
SCOTUS already ruled on this exact case a long time ago. It was in Kentucky. They ruled that the 10 Commandments cannot be displayed in public schools. There's no need for another case. The law just has to be enforced.
[удалено]
This is a very specific outcome. I like the thought you put into it.
It's hard to come up with a clearer establishment clause violation. But... so far as I am aware, the Roberts court has never upheld an establishment clause challenge to anything, and it's not even clear if a majority of justices think the clause exists. Justice Thomas has suggested that the establishment clause doesn't apply to the states at all, while Gorsuch has suggested that no one has standing to raise establishment clause claims. That's two votes in favor of Louisiana right there, and obviously the Alito vote comes for free. Harder to predict the other three Republicans on the court, but I think you can see a lot of ways to get two of them.
Thank you for the analysis! How do you feel about the possibility of Louisiana prevailing here? EDIT: To clarify the intent of my question, I know you (rightfully IMO) view this as a crystal clear violation of the establishment clause. I'm asking more about how the potential result affects your perception of the conservative bloc of justices.
>Justice Thomas has suggested that the establishment clause doesn't apply to the states at all From what I know of US history, this is pretty clearly the way it was originally interpreted.
normally they fig leaf this with "other sources of law' and throw the magna carta up there on the wall too and try to call it secular. It rarely works in a classroom context (though is acceptable in courtrooms) and without even that thin pretext of "showing students the historic sources of just law" it has no chance of standing.
I gotta wonder how well Lauren Ventrella (co-author of the legislation)'s claim that the ten commandments are a *historical document* will hold up in court. She made the distinction in a CNN interview and continued doubling down on it as though it were a magic spell. Do you think fears that laws like this will lead to the SCOTUS destroying the separation between church and state are overblown?
This will get overturned. The 1st Amendment is very clear on government not sponsoring a religion. If schools weren't tied to the state government, it would be very different. I'd be surprised if it wasn't a unanimous decision.
Something to keep in mind is that many hard right/evangelical conservatives, have not read the Constitution. They don't know that Christianity is not mentioned in the Constitution. It's not even mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. There is only one reference to God in either document. In the DOI, the "natural God" is referenced. In the Constitution, religion is only mentioned in the 1st Amendment. No specific religion is mentioned. Many conservatives will argue that the Founders were referring to the various branches of Christianity, which was the primary reason settlers came to the new world. Their sect of Christianity was being persecuted in England. However, the Founders were all extremely educated and intellectual men. They were fully aware of Judaism, Islam, and religions from India and the far East. Many conservatives believe the US was founded on Christian principles. They are not wrong about that. It definitely was. However, the Founders were very keen on keeping religion and government separate. After all, religious persecution by the English monarchy, was one of the main reasons to come to the new world. In England, the Anglican Church was the state sponsored religion.
>Something to keep in mind is that many hard right/evangelical conservatives, have not read the Constitution. They don't know that Christianity is not mentioned in the Constitution. Do you have anything to support this claim, or do you just figure evangelicals must all be stupid? >Many conservatives will argue that the Founders were referring to the various branches of Christianity, which was the primary reason settlers came to the new world. Their sect of Christianity was being persecuted in England. However, the Founders were all extremely educated and intellectual men. They were fully aware of Judaism, Islam, and religions from India and the far East. Sure, but we probably don't know what everyone took it to mean in context. Admittedly I don't know that much about US history, but it seems to be that the first amendment was originally about the federal government anyway.
If you don't know much about US history, why would I debate you about anything? Read about US history, the notes from the ratification debates, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. You should do those things before commenting on any political discourse. I honestly don't know what you are trying to get at. As for evangelicals, most people haven't read the Constitution, which includes evangelicals. I'd venture to say 5-10% of US Citizens have read the Constitution (I suspect less). That said, more conservatives have read it than liberals. It's one of the biggest reasons we identify as conservatives. As for "Sure, but we probably don't know what everyone took it to mean in context." I don't know what you're trying to say here, but I'm going to assume you're referring to Islam. The Crusades started almost 1,000 years before the founding of the country. The British participated in the Crusades. If you think the Founders were ignorant of Islam, you don't know much about world history either. I personally think the 1st Amendment should have included a statement about the government not interfering with peaceful religions. Unfortunately, the Founders didn't write it that way: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". When they wrote "free exercise", I assume that included only peaceful religions, meaning those that don't infringe upon the rights of others. That was already illustrated by the fact that the government cracked down on Mormons, because of polygamy. Polygamy clearly infringes on the rights of others. Having read both the Koran and the Hadith, I can tell you that Islam is not a peaceful religion. I personally don't think Islam should be allowed in the US, because it clearly infringes upon the rights of others. Anyone who thinks Islam is peaceful, hasn't read those texts.
>If you don't know much about US history, why would I debate you about anything? Is this a debate? >You should do those things before commenting on any political discourse. Any political discourse? On an international platform? Are you serious? >As for "Sure, but we probably don't know what everyone took it to mean in context." I don't know what you're trying to say here, but I'm going to assume you're referring to Islam. The Crusades started almost 1,000 years before the founding of the country. The British participated in the Crusades. If you think the Founders were ignorant of Islam, you don't know much about world history either. What I mean is, the fact the founders would've known what Islam is doesn't mean they all had it when they wrote the first amendment. In any case, nobody at the time the US constitution was written used it to stop individual states from being explicitly Protestant.
I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. If you're not a US Citizen, why are you commenting on the US Constitution?
Because the US Constitution is a historical document on whom anyone can comment, especially insofar as we're discussing the objective facts of its writing. Anyone who can read it can see that it refers to Congress, or know that many state constitutions were explicitly protestant in the early years of the United States, for example.
In which country do you live? That would help this discussion. That said, I'm pretty sure I provided all the information you needed. However, the point you were trying to make is still unclear.
Norway, though that isn't really relevant. My main point was that you're giving evangelicals unfairly little credit. My secondary point was that the law was originally applied in its most literal interpretation, wherein it only limits the federal government.
The Constitution was never meant to be interpreted by the literal words in the Bill of Rights. If you don't believe that, you're not a real conservative. Does Norway even have freedom of speech? Why are you arguing over the US Constitution? It has no bearing on your life.
>If you don't believe that, you're not a real conservative. Why? >Does Norway even have freedom of speech? Technically no, but in practice basically. We used to have less free speech. For the record, you might wanna note that free speech is primarily a liberal principle, though many conservatives support it. >Why are you arguing over the US Constitution? It has no bearing on your life. The takeover of American education (And Western education broadly) by secular progressivism does have a bearing on my life.
>As for evangelicals, most people haven't read the Constitution, which includes evangelicals. I'd venture to say 5-10% of US Citizens have read the Constitution (I suspect less). Sure, but they've probably read the first amendment. Has it occurred to you that they just disagree with you on its application, or think religion is more important than the constitution?
Of course it has, but they are blatantly incorrect: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". What that means, is that the government is separate from religions, and religion has no place in the government. It's really pretty simple. Evangelicals may not like it, but it's the law of the land.
>What that means, is that the government is separate from religions, and religion has no place in the government. That literally isn't what the text says. Last I checked, "Congress" refers to the federal government, not to Louisiana as a state. And I know enough about US history to know that this is how it was originally applied, with full separation between religion and *state* government being a later extension of what is (literally speaking) on the page.
State governments are subordinate to federal law. It typically doesn't work out that way in practice, but that's how it was supposed to be. State Constitutions cannot violate the Federal Constitution. As for the text of 1A, you are incorrect. I suggest reading the notes from the ratification debates. Those notes make it clear what the Founders intended with 1A and 2A. There are two types of people, those who try to interpret the Bill of Rights based solely on the words, and those who interpret what the Founders meant when they wrote the words. The first type of people are typically liberals, and they are incorrect. It's rather irritating when Christians call themselves conservatives, but then don't actually adhere to conservative principles.
>I suggest reading the notes from the ratification debates. Sure, I will, but clearly that's how it was enforced, because several state constitutions at the time were explicitly protestant. t's rather irritating when Christians call themselves conservatives, but then don't actually adhere to conservative principles. >It's rather irritating when Christians call themselves conservatives, but then don't actually adhere to conservative principles. You know, the term conservative isn't necessarily defined by what a lot of Republicans think. It's an intellectual and political tradition that dates back to the European Enlightenment. It's hard to say if Burke would've agreed with you.
There are Republicans and conservatives. I'm a conservative, not a Republican. There's a big difference.
Well, it sounds like your definition of conservatism is very closely tied to things that are associated with Republican party. In any case, I believe the association between Christianity and conservatism is largely political circumstances, especially since Christianity can be fairly radical and has caused radical change in the past. In the narrow sense, it has a lot to do with specific issues like abortion and sexual "liberation" having been pushed by progressives and opposed by conservatives. In the broader sense it is because conservatism developed in response to the enlightenment, which makes it the opposing force to ideas and movements that are more or less inherently anti-Christian. Basically, if you oppose certain progressive ideas you're almost automatically a conservative, which is why Christians often identify as such.
Hopefully they get a reversal. Does anyone know how the people of Louisiana feel? Just curious.
I don't really have a solid prediction on the outcome. I think it's something of a reasonably good test case to see how the Federal Courts are going to treat the *Lemon* precedent now that they are less overtly hostile to Christianity. If my instincts about how the judiciary has changed are correct, I'd expect one or the other of these rulings: - Displaying the ten commandments has almost no rational basis other than motivational posters are nice, motivational posters are not in short supply, half a dozen companies pump out a hundred varieties which are easily for sale, and teachers don't need hassles like "what would other gods than me mean?" Even Justice Thomas would probably agree that the State's power to overtly establish religion does not also allow for weirdo kind of covert proselytizing. Go big or go home. You went small so you lose. - The ten commandments are not a motivational poster, they're the millennia old bedrock foundations of American morality. They don't just encourage good behavior, they also ground that encouragement in history and culture. Their pedagogical value is obvious, and so also is the rational basis for the law. One prediction I will make is that the end-level decisions will be utterly derisive to the notion that the students' freedom of religious exercise is impaired by seeing the posters.