Louisiana: The Ten Commandments must be displayed in public classrooms under new law

[MarkD]

I would say that if a group of students, or even one student, wanted to post the Ten Commandments at school, that would be OK. 

I think anything student-led is just fine.

There should be a distinction, and I think the Supreme Court has said this but if its done by the students themselves, then its definitely permitted.  Such as school prayer meetings in the cafeteria... religious themed events, for Christmas and so forth.

I think though the difference comes when it's first of all required by law as a mandate, which means all public school classrooms have to have the Ten Commandments posted - even if those classrooms are completely made up of non-religious students.  It's the state choosing a religious themed text and saying "This is what we need to look up to."  To me that seems like it crosses that line.

I think in Louisiana the best policy would be to allow for religious expression by all of the kids, but not saying, "This is what we want you to believe" because honestly it's not the state's business or place to be choosing what religion the children are going to have.

That it's the overwhelming majority religion of the Louisiana population isn't really enough to justify it because if that was the case, then any jurisdiction that had a religious majority could start to impose religious law.  The Sharia law, for example, if very conservative Muslims took over a town.  That would not be acceptable at all - but the reason it should be unacceptable is not because it's Muslim, but because of the same reasoning - that it imposes a religious view on all of the students.  Even if all the students have Muslim parents, it still would be unacceptable under the Constitution.

"... even if those classrooms are completely made up of non-religious students."
Yeah, right. LOL.
(The rest of the highlighted portion:) I'll ask you directly the question that I posted previously to the entire audience, and slightly alter it. What would be your legal theory about the constitutional permissibility if Louisiana passed a law that said all public school classrooms -- of the eighth grade perhaps -- must show the movie "The Ten Commandments," directed by Cecil B. DeMille and starring Charlton Heston?

[Thank you for being a friend...]

I would say that if a group of students, or even one student, wanted to post the Ten Commandments at school, that would be OK. 

I think anything student-led is just fine.

There should be a distinction, and I think the Supreme Court has said this but if its done by the students themselves, then its definitely permitted.  Such as school prayer meetings in the cafeteria... religious themed events, for Christmas and so forth.

I think though the difference comes when it's first of all required by law as a mandate, which means all public school classrooms have to have the Ten Commandments posted - even if those classrooms are completely made up of non-religious students.  It's the state choosing a religious themed text and saying "This is what we need to look up to."  To me that seems like it crosses that line.

I think in Louisiana the best policy would be to allow for religious expression by all of the kids, but not saying, "This is what we want you to believe" because honestly it's not the state's business or place to be choosing what religion the children are going to have.

That it's the overwhelming majority religion of the Louisiana population isn't really enough to justify it because if that was the case, then any jurisdiction that had a religious majority could start to impose religious law.  The Sharia law, for example, if very conservative Muslims took over a town.  That would not be acceptable at all - but the reason it should be unacceptable is not because it's Muslim, but because of the same reasoning - that it imposes a religious view on all of the students.  Even if all the students have Muslim parents, it still would be unacceptable under the Constitution.

"... even if those classrooms are completely made up of non-religious students."
Yeah, right. LOL.
(The rest of the highlighted portion:) I'll ask you directly the question that I posted previously to the entire audience, and slightly alter it. What would be your legal theory about the constitutional permissibility if Louisiana passed a law that said all public school classrooms -- of the eighth grade perhaps -- must show the movie "The Ten Commandments," directed by Cecil B. DeMille and starring Charlton Heston?

I don't quite get what the "Yeah, right" was about.  What is it that you are saying?  That it would be impossible to find a classroom in Louisiana that had students in it that had no particular religion, or were not interested in learning about a particular religion?

In the legal theory question, the key word there is MUST.  MUST means mandated by the state to show that particular movie.  I can't think of any movie that would be mandated by a state legislature.  What is it about "The Ten Commandments" that merits that it be viewed in all eighth grade classrooms?  Wouldn't there be a rationale for why that particular choice was made?

It would be up to the state if I was a judge to clarify what about that movie makes it something that must be shown.  I very well might okay it, if the state comes up with a good enough answer.

For a movie such as "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," a state might say they want to encourage a debate about American politics, such as corruption.

If the movie was "Titanic," a state might say they want to educate kids about the sinking, or talk about class distinctions in 1912.

For "The Ten Commandments," you could argue that you want to show students an example  of popular 1950s cinema.  You could say, "We want them to see the use of special effects in the parting of the Red Sea."  You could say, "We want them to see an example of how Hollywood studios portrayed religious history."

There has to be something more than: "We want the kids to learn the Ten Commandments."

There is not an objection per se to The Ten Commandments (1956) being shown in a public school, but the mandate of the state that that's the one movie out of the thousands that have been made that has to be seen would certainly raise a question in a judge's mind: "What is the state's reason for doing this?"

[DaleCooper]

The Ten Commandments movie is an incredibly loose adaptation of Exodus.

[MarkD]

~~~

I don't quite get what the "Yeah, right" was about.  What is it that you are saying?  That it would be impossible to find a classroom in Louisiana that had students in it that had no particular religion, or were not interested in learning about a particular religion?

Yup. Bingo.

In the legal theory question, the key word there is MUST.  MUST means mandated by the state to show that particular movie.  I can't think of any movie that would be mandated by a state legislature.  What is it about "The Ten Commandments" that merits that it be viewed in all eighth grade classrooms?  Wouldn't there be a rationale for why that particular choice was made?

I am quite sure that any state legislature that would pass a law like the one I mentioned has exactly the same reason for wanting it to be shown to all students as Louisiana wanted to put the Ten Commandments poster up in all the schools. The legislature, having been thwarted by some court of law, would like to experiment with some alternative ways of exposing all of the students to the ideas/principles in the poster and seeing if the courts would let them get away with it.

It would be up to the state if I was a judge to clarify what about that movie makes it something that must be shown.  I very well might okay it, if the state comes up with a good enough answer.

~~
~~

For "The Ten Commandments," you could argue that you want to show students an example  of popular 1950s cinema.  You could say, "We want them to see the use of special effects in the parting of the Red Sea."  You could say, "We want them to see an example of how Hollywood studios portrayed religious history."

There has to be something more than: "We want the kids to learn the Ten Commandments."

There is not an objection per se to The Ten Commandments (1956) being shown in a public school, but the mandate of the state that that's the one movie out of the thousands that have been made that has to be seen would certainly raise a question in a judge's mind: "What is the state's reason for doing this?"

In other words, a lawyer trying to do his/her job representing the state legislature's legislation might stand there telling the courts a bunch of big, fat lies. It wouldn't be the first time a lawyer told lies in courts of law, would it? And how gullible might the judges who hear the case be? I was thinking about a deceitful lawyer telling the courts "The legislature wants students to learn about the history of how Hebrew slaves were freed from Egyptian bondage, and what happened to the Hebrews for many years after they were freed, according to how the story was told in one ancient, world-wide-known book."

I asked for your opinion, and I can clearly see what that opinion is when you say "There has to be something more than 'We want the kids to learn the Ten Commandments.' " That is YOUR opinion, and maybe that is pretty similar to the opinions of several Supreme Court Justices. My opinion is very different; I would not force the attorney for the state gov't to say something "more" than that, and I would accept an honest answer, I would not find such a law to be unconstitutional. Just like I do not find it to be unconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegiance to contain the words "under God." I do not find it to be unconstitutional for the federal gov't to print the words "In God We Trust" on all of the currency. I do not find it to be unconstitutional for Congress and the state legislatures to hire legislative chaplains who lead prayer in the legislative chambers (and the SCOTUS upheld that in 1983 (Marsh v. Chambers)).

[Thank you for being a friend...]

~~~

I don't quite get what the "Yeah, right" was about.  What is it that you are saying?  That it would be impossible to find a classroom in Louisiana that had students in it that had no particular religion, or were not interested in learning about a particular religion?

Yup. Bingo.

In the legal theory question, the key word there is MUST.  MUST means mandated by the state to show that particular movie.  I can't think of any movie that would be mandated by a state legislature.  What is it about "The Ten Commandments" that merits that it be viewed in all eighth grade classrooms?  Wouldn't there be a rationale for why that particular choice was made?

I am quite sure that any state legislature that would pass a law like the one I mentioned has exactly the same reason for wanting it to be shown to all students as Louisiana wanted to put the Ten Commandments poster up in all the schools. The legislature, having been thwarted by some court of law, would like to experiment with some alternative ways of exposing all of the students to the ideas/principles in the poster and seeing if the courts would let them get away with it.

It would be up to the state if I was a judge to clarify what about that movie makes it something that must be shown.  I very well might okay it, if the state comes up with a good enough answer.

~~
~~

For "The Ten Commandments," you could argue that you want to show students an example  of popular 1950s cinema.  You could say, "We want them to see the use of special effects in the parting of the Red Sea."  You could say, "We want them to see an example of how Hollywood studios portrayed religious history."

There has to be something more than: "We want the kids to learn the Ten Commandments."

There is not an objection per se to The Ten Commandments (1956) being shown in a public school, but the mandate of the state that that's the one movie out of the thousands that have been made that has to be seen would certainly raise a question in a judge's mind: "What is the state's reason for doing this?"

In other words, a lawyer trying to do his/her job representing the state legislature's legislation might stand there telling the courts a bunch of big, fat lies. It wouldn't be the first time a lawyer told lies in courts of law, would it? And how gullible might the judges who hear the case be? I was thinking about a deceitful lawyer telling the courts "The legislature wants students to learn about the history of how Hebrew slaves were freed from Egyptian bondage, and what happened to the Hebrews for many years after they were freed, according to how the story was told in one ancient, world-wide-known book."

I asked for your opinion, and I can clearly see what that opinion is when you say "There has to be something more than 'We want the kids to learn the Ten Commandments.' " That is YOUR opinion, and maybe that is pretty similar to the opinions of several Supreme Court Justices. My opinion is very different; I would not force the attorney for the state gov't to say something "more" than that, and I would accept an honest answer, I would not find such a law to be unconstitutional. Just like I do not find it to be unconstitutional for the Pledge of Allegiance to contain the words "under God." I do not find it to be unconstitutional for the federal gov't to print the words "In God We Trust" on all of the currency. I do not find it to be unconstitutional for Congress and the state legislatures to hire legislative chaplains who lead prayer in the legislative chambers (and the SCOTUS upheld that in 1983 (Marsh v. Chambers)).

I don't belong to any particular religion myself, so to me I don't have one that I believe must be taught to children.

Teach them about religion in the context of history?  Yes, of course, because that's part of world history.

I know that what's happening in Louisiana and other states is not being done out of a concern to better teach history to children.

We all know what this is about and it's nothing new.  You brought up the Pledge of Allegiance.  The original Pledge that schoolchildren in this country read for many decades never had the words "under God" in it.  From 1892 to 1954, the Pledge never referenced a deity, and during the first half of the 20th century, this country was much more Christian than it is today.

The Cold War-era desire to distinguish ourselves from communism is what motivated that decision.

You also brought up chaplains in Congress.  There are chaplains of various faith groups, and various interpretations of those faiths, that are asked to lead the prayer for the day.  One could argue that's certainly not an establishment of one religion over another.  There are, as far as I know, no mandates that all of the chaplains leading the prayers be Christian, or Jewish, etc.

Back to the Ten Commandments, I only know a few of them, but as I was reading them, I noticed they were not just statements like "Don't tell a lie" or "Don't hurt people".  They are Christian commandments on how to live.
 
“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy”.  Those words come from the Biblical book of Exodus.  I had to look that up just now.

What if a child asks the teacher what all of these commandments mean?  What's the answer going to be, if its coming from a teacher that is not a Christian?

In a Christian school, the teachers know how to answer that.  In a Christian school, the faith is taught by people who truly believe in it.  If I was a parent that was devoutly Christian and wanted my child to learn about the faith, I'd want it to be done by someone that was going to give an answer in line with what was being taught by me.  In a public school, there's no guarantee that the teacher is going to even be from the same religion as a family is.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

The Ten Commandments movie is an incredibly loose adaptation of Exodus.

Yes, the book of the Bible called Exodus, is where it seems to come from.  Is that part of the Old Testament or the New Testament?  Is it part of Jesus' teachings?  I'm asking because I honestly do not know.  I went to a Catholic sunday school class for several years but we never really learned about the origins.

[DaleCooper]

The Ten Commandments movie is an incredibly loose adaptation of Exodus.

Yes, the book of the Bible called Exodus, is where it seems to come from.  Is that part of the Old Testament or the New Testament?  Is it part of Jesus' teachings?  I'm asking because I honestly do not know.  I went to a Catholic sunday school class for several years but we never really learned about the origins.

They aren't Christian commandments. They're the foundation for the Law of Moses, which is more expansive than just the ten commandments. Much of the Mosaic law is ceremonial rather than moral, and most of the moral laws are extremely dated and immoral by today's standards as well as Christ's standards, unlike the morality of the Christian New Testament, which I think holds up very well.

I'd argue that any display of the ten commandments would be idolatrous and also an insult to Jesus Christ, whose followers are not meant to adhere to the Law of Moses, which would include at least one of the ten commandments (keep the sabbath holy). I don't think anything I have said is particularly radical, including the accusation of idolatry seeing as how even in the Old Testament itself one of the artifacts from Moses's day (the bronze serpent) became an idol to the Jews and was destroyed because of it.

But to answer your question, all of this ten commandments crap from conservatives and fake christians is an empty virtue-signal and 100% anti-Christ. It's all culture war BS, and a desperate attempt to force their worldview onto an increasingly irreligious generation.