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

[DaleCooper]

How dare anyone suggest the Ten Commandments are largely irrelevant to modern life.  Children must be reminded every day that it is a sin to covet thy neighbor's slaves.

Covetousness, the desiring of something that is rightfully someone elses, is the root of all sorts of evil:

This is a movie, and the scene is about an extreme example, but covetousness keeps people from being happy and content in so many circumstances.

What is it with you Trump cultists and that movie recently?

All these people drink from the same fountain, so when one social media account starts saying something they all follow suit. Notice how they're all saying now that the 10 commandments are the foundation of western law. It's not a coincidence, these are their talking points.

[Hindsight was 2020]

How dare anyone suggest the Ten Commandments are largely irrelevant to modern life.  Children must be reminded every day that it is a sin to covet thy neighbor's slaves.

Covetousness, the desiring of something that is rightfully someone elses, is the root of all sorts of evil:

This is a movie, and the scene is about an extreme example, but covetousness keeps people from being happy and content in so many circumstances.

What is it with you Trump cultists and that movie recently?

Probably building up to using Buffalo Bill as a stand in for trans people

[Fuzzy Bear]

How dare anyone suggest the Ten Commandments are largely irrelevant to modern life.  Children must be reminded every day that it is a sin to covet thy neighbor's slaves.

Covetousness, the desiring of something that is rightfully someone elses, is the root of all sorts of evil:

This is a movie, and the scene is about an extreme example, but covetousness keeps people from being happy and content in so many circumstances.

What is it with you Trump cultists and that movie recently?

I'm making a point on coveting, not on Trump, or anything else.

[Ferguson97]

pride flags are not religious symbols.

Yes they are.

And what religion would that be?

[T'Chenka]

Pride Flags are not a symbol of basic human decency. They are a political statement that directly conflicts with the Scriptural religious beliefs of every "Christian denomination", Jews, and Muslims.

Yes, they are.

By your logic, you can use religion as a shield to uphold all kinds of abhorrent beliefs. If - hypothetically speaking - the Holy Bible, or a major religious text in whatever particular secular society we would be discussing, said "the black people beyond Egypt are subhuman. They are not actually "people" in God's eyes, and therefore you should not treat them as such. Do not marry them, do not break bread with them". If a major holy book in a secular country said that, then "black people are people too and they are equal", would not be, quote, "a symbol of basic human decency", because they contradict the book. It would be, quote, "a political statement".

So, in conclusion, please explain to us why "it says it in the book" is carte blanche to justify anything and everything, without providing any further reasoning that could hold up to any sort of scrutiny.

( edited for spelling, oop )

[Ferguson97]

Pride Flags are not a symbol of basic human decency. They are a political statement that directly conflicts with the Scriptural religious beliefs of every "Christian denomination", Jews, and Muslims.

"A symbol of basic human decency" and "directly conflicts with the scriptural religious beliefs of Christians, Jews, and Muslims" can both be true.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Pride Flags are not a symbol of basic human decency. They are a political statement that directly conflicts with the Scriptural religious beliefs of every "Christian denomination", Jews, and Muslims.

Yes, they are.

By your logic, you can use religion as a shield to uphold all kinds of abhorrent beliefs. If - hypothetically speaking - the Holy Bible, or a major religious text in whatever particular secular society we would be discussing, said "the black people beyond Egypt are subhuman. They are not actually "people" in God's eyes, and therefore you should not treat them as such. Do not marry them, do not break bread with them". If a major holy book in a secular country said that, then "black people are people too and they are equal", would not be, quote, "a symbol of basic human decency", because they contradict the book. It would be, quote, "a political statement".

So, in conclusion, please explain to us why "it says it in the book" is carte blanche to justify anything and everything, without providing any further reasoning that could hold up to any sort of scrutiny.

( edited for spelling, oop )

Religious teachings are protected under the 1st Amendment.  Religious PRACTICES are a different matter, but Religious Teaching is prohibited.

Public schools that actively contradict what God considers to be ordained marriage in conflict with what Scripture teaches, or what God-sanctioned sexuality is, are, indeed, moving into the religious thicket.  The Pride Flag IS a political statement and a statement that, unavoidably, contradicts teachings of all three (3) major religions on marriage.

Students wearing Pride Flag shirts, is protected speech, but so is a kid wearing a shirt saying "Jesus Saves".  What is prohibited is messaging from school figures that coerces students to affirm the Pride Flag and what it stands for.  To say "We don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation here!" is one thing, and that is a statement of policy that is protected.  But the Pride Flag is more than a statement of non-discrimination; it's a statement of affirming sexual practices that are not authorized by Scripture.  And NO person should ever be coerced to affirm "Pride", in whatever manner they are being coerced to affirm it in.  And no child should be so coerced; the Rightness or Wrongness of this matter is a matter for parents, and not for teachers.  If teachers can't accept that, they need to find a new job, or be fired if they can't stay within this boundary.

[DaleCooper]

I would happily take down the pride flags at schools if it meant legalistic crap like this went away too. Of course that wouldn't happen, though.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

Pride Flags are not a symbol of basic human decency. They are a political statement that directly conflicts with the Scriptural religious beliefs of every "Christian denomination", Jews, and Muslims.

"A symbol of basic human decency" and "directly conflicts with the scriptural religious beliefs of Christians, Jews, and Muslims" can both be true.

The words in those religious scriptures were written by men a long time ago.  Why should we do what they say?  How are we to know that those men were even good men?

And what deity is telling them what to write?

There is a whole world outside religion, and in that world people believe in kindness, in virtue, in love, and morals.

You don't need to believe in a deity or in any religious dogma to believe in what is good and moral and right.

[Ferguson97]

Religious teachings are protected under the 1st Amendment.  Religious PRACTICES are a different matter, but Religious Teaching is prohibited.

Public schools that actively contradict what God considers to be ordained marriage in conflict with what Scripture teaches, or what God-sanctioned sexuality is, are, indeed, moving into the religious thicket.  The Pride Flag IS a political statement and a statement that, unavoidably, contradicts teachings of all three (3) major religions on marriage.

Students wearing Pride Flag shirts, is protected speech, but so is a kid wearing a shirt saying "Jesus Saves".  What is prohibited is messaging from school figures that coerces students to affirm the Pride Flag and what it stands for.  To say "We don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation here!" is one thing, and that is a statement of policy that is protected.  But the Pride Flag is more than a statement of non-discrimination; it's a statement of affirming sexual practices that are not authorized by Scripture.  And NO person should ever be coerced to affirm "Pride", in whatever manner they are being coerced to affirm it in.  And no child should be so coerced; the Rightness or Wrongness of this matter is a matter for parents, and not for teachers.  If teachers can't accept that, they need to find a new job, or be fired if they can't stay within this boundary.

Students have a right to their beliefs. They do not have a right to harass other students.

It is not inappropriate for a teacher to have a Pride flag in the classroom. It serves as a message to LGBT+ students that they will always be accepted in the classroom by that teacher. Students have a right to feel safe in their classrooms, and teachers have a right to signal to their students that they will help foster that safe environment.

And the presence of that flag is not coercing religious students to affirm beliefs that contradict their faith. That is a ridiculous assertion to make.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Pride Flags are not a symbol of basic human decency. They are a political statement that directly conflicts with the Scriptural religious beliefs of every "Christian denomination", Jews, and Muslims.

Yes, they are.

By your logic, you can use religion as a shield to uphold all kinds of abhorrent beliefs. If - hypothetically speaking - the Holy Bible, or a major religious text in whatever particular secular society we would be discussing, said "the black people beyond Egypt are subhuman. They are not actually "people" in God's eyes, and therefore you should not treat them as such. Do not marry them, do not break bread with them". If a major holy book in a secular country said that, then "black people are people too and they are equal", would not be, quote, "a symbol of basic human decency", because they contradict the book. It would be, quote, "a political statement".

So, in conclusion, please explain to us why "it says it in the book" is carte blanche to justify anything and everything, without providing any further reasoning that could hold up to any sort of scrutiny.

( edited for spelling, oop )

Religious teachings are protected under the 1st Amendment.  Religious PRACTICES are a different matter, but Religious Teaching is prohibited.

Public schools that actively contradict what God considers to be ordained marriage in conflict with what Scripture teaches, or what God-sanctioned sexuality is, are, indeed, moving into the religious thicket.  The Pride Flag IS a political statement and a statement that, unavoidably, contradicts teachings of all three (3) major religions on marriage.

Students wearing Pride Flag shirts, is protected speech, but so is a kid wearing a shirt saying "Jesus Saves".  What is prohibited is messaging from school figures that coerces students to affirm the Pride Flag and what it stands for.  To say "We don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation here!" is one thing, and that is a statement of policy that is protected.  But the Pride Flag is more than a statement of non-discrimination; it's a statement of affirming sexual practices that are not authorized by Scripture.  And NO person should ever be coerced to affirm "Pride", in whatever manner they are being coerced to affirm it in.  And no child should be so coerced; the Rightness or Wrongness of this matter is a matter for parents, and not for teachers.  If teachers can't accept that, they need to find a new job, or be fired if they can't stay within this boundary.

God never weighed in on marriage or sexuality. The people who also thought mixing dyes and eating shellfish was death penalty level blasphemy weighed in but neither God in the OT or Jesus in the NT talked about it. The closests God or Jesus touch on it either involves making bias assumptions about what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah that upset God or extrapolating Jesus’ debate about marriage and divorce that the Pharisees towards a position on gay marriage

[jojoju1998]

Pride Flags are not a symbol of basic human decency. They are a political statement that directly conflicts with the Scriptural religious beliefs of every "Christian denomination", Jews, and Muslims.

Yes, they are.

By your logic, you can use religion as a shield to uphold all kinds of abhorrent beliefs. If - hypothetically speaking - the Holy Bible, or a major religious text in whatever particular secular society we would be discussing, said "the black people beyond Egypt are subhuman. They are not actually "people" in God's eyes, and therefore you should not treat them as such. Do not marry them, do not break bread with them". If a major holy book in a secular country said that, then "black people are people too and they are equal", would not be, quote, "a symbol of basic human decency", because they contradict the book. It would be, quote, "a political statement".

So, in conclusion, please explain to us why "it says it in the book" is carte blanche to justify anything and everything, without providing any further reasoning that could hold up to any sort of scrutiny.

( edited for spelling, oop )

Religious teachings are protected under the 1st Amendment.  Religious PRACTICES are a different matter, but Religious Teaching is prohibited.

Public schools that actively contradict what God considers to be ordained marriage in conflict with what Scripture teaches, or what God-sanctioned sexuality is, are, indeed, moving into the religious thicket.  The Pride Flag IS a political statement and a statement that, unavoidably, contradicts teachings of all three (3) major religions on marriage.

Students wearing Pride Flag shirts, is protected speech, but so is a kid wearing a shirt saying "Jesus Saves".  What is prohibited is messaging from school figures that coerces students to affirm the Pride Flag and what it stands for.  To say "We don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation here!" is one thing, and that is a statement of policy that is protected.  But the Pride Flag is more than a statement of non-discrimination; it's a statement of affirming sexual practices that are not authorized by Scripture.  And NO person should ever be coerced to affirm "Pride", in whatever manner they are being coerced to affirm it in.  And no child should be so coerced; the Rightness or Wrongness of this matter is a matter for parents, and not for teachers.  If teachers can't accept that, they need to find a new job, or be fired if they can't stay within this boundary.

God never weighed in on marriage or sexuality. The people who also thought mixing dyes and eating shellfish was death penalty level blasphemy weighed in but neither God in the OT or Jesus in the NT talked about it. The closests God or Jesus touch on it either involves making bias assumptions about what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah that upset God or extrapolating Jesus’ debate about marriage and divorce that the Pharisees towards a position on gay marriage

It's a slipperly slope though, because if what you're saying is true, then well, let's call into Question the Trinity, because the Bible doesn't neccsarily reference the Trinitarian doctrine.


Sola Scriptura folks.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Pride Flags are not a symbol of basic human decency. They are a political statement that directly conflicts with the Scriptural religious beliefs of every "Christian denomination", Jews, and Muslims.

Yes, they are.

By your logic, you can use religion as a shield to uphold all kinds of abhorrent beliefs. If - hypothetically speaking - the Holy Bible, or a major religious text in whatever particular secular society we would be discussing, said "the black people beyond Egypt are subhuman. They are not actually "people" in God's eyes, and therefore you should not treat them as such. Do not marry them, do not break bread with them". If a major holy book in a secular country said that, then "black people are people too and they are equal", would not be, quote, "a symbol of basic human decency", because they contradict the book. It would be, quote, "a political statement".

So, in conclusion, please explain to us why "it says it in the book" is carte blanche to justify anything and everything, without providing any further reasoning that could hold up to any sort of scrutiny.

( edited for spelling, oop )

Religious teachings are protected under the 1st Amendment.  Religious PRACTICES are a different matter, but Religious Teaching is prohibited.

Public schools that actively contradict what God considers to be ordained marriage in conflict with what Scripture teaches, or what God-sanctioned sexuality is, are, indeed, moving into the religious thicket.  The Pride Flag IS a political statement and a statement that, unavoidably, contradicts teachings of all three (3) major religions on marriage.

Students wearing Pride Flag shirts, is protected speech, but so is a kid wearing a shirt saying "Jesus Saves".  What is prohibited is messaging from school figures that coerces students to affirm the Pride Flag and what it stands for.  To say "We don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation here!" is one thing, and that is a statement of policy that is protected.  But the Pride Flag is more than a statement of non-discrimination; it's a statement of affirming sexual practices that are not authorized by Scripture.  And NO person should ever be coerced to affirm "Pride", in whatever manner they are being coerced to affirm it in.  And no child should be so coerced; the Rightness or Wrongness of this matter is a matter for parents, and not for teachers.  If teachers can't accept that, they need to find a new job, or be fired if they can't stay within this boundary.

God never weighed in on marriage or sexuality. The people who also thought mixing dyes and eating shellfish was death penalty level blasphemy weighed in but neither God in the OT or Jesus in the NT talked about it. The closests God or Jesus touch on it either involves making bias assumptions about what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah that upset God or extrapolating Jesus’ debate about marriage and divorce that the Pharisees towards a position on gay marriage

It's a slipperly slope though, because if what you're saying is true, then well, let's call into Question the Trinity, because the Bible doesn't neccsarily reference the Trinitarian doctrine.


Sola Scriptura folks.

That’s a bit of an apples and oranges comparison because the trinity and its nature are informed through Jesus’ actions not so much making assumptions on positions he never discussed. Plus Jesus saying “I and my Father are one” in John’s gospel is way closer to Jesus discussing the Trinity than anything he said that could be read into His position on homosexuality

[TheReckoning]

Religious teachings are protected under the 1st Amendment.  Religious PRACTICES are a different matter, but Religious Teaching is prohibited.

Public schools that actively contradict what God considers to be ordained marriage in conflict with what Scripture teaches, or what God-sanctioned sexuality is, are, indeed, moving into the religious thicket.  The Pride Flag IS a political statement and a statement that, unavoidably, contradicts teachings of all three (3) major religions on marriage.

Students wearing Pride Flag shirts, is protected speech, but so is a kid wearing a shirt saying "Jesus Saves".  What is prohibited is messaging from school figures that coerces students to affirm the Pride Flag and what it stands for.  To say "We don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation here!" is one thing, and that is a statement of policy that is protected.  But the Pride Flag is more than a statement of non-discrimination; it's a statement of affirming sexual practices that are not authorized by Scripture.  And NO person should ever be coerced to affirm "Pride", in whatever manner they are being coerced to affirm it in.  And no child should be so coerced; the Rightness or Wrongness of this matter is a matter for parents, and not for teachers.  If teachers can't accept that, they need to find a new job, or be fired if they can't stay within this boundary.

Students have a right to their beliefs. They do not have a right to harass other students.

It is not inappropriate for a teacher to have a Pride flag in the classroom. It serves as a message to LGBT+ students that they will always be accepted in the classroom by that teacher. Students have a right to feel safe in their classrooms, and teachers have a right to signal to their students that they will help foster that safe environment.

And the presence of that flag is not coercing religious students to affirm beliefs that contradict their faith. That is a ridiculous assertion to make.

Is a presence of a cross just a message to Christian students that they will be accepted? Or would it be reasonable to think that a cross is promoting a certain ideology?

[T'Chenka]

Religious teachings are protected under the 1st Amendment.  Religious PRACTICES are a different matter, but Religious Teaching is prohibited.

Public schools that actively contradict what God considers to be ordained marriage in conflict with what Scripture teaches, or what God-sanctioned sexuality is, are, indeed, moving into the religious thicket.  The Pride Flag IS a political statement and a statement that, unavoidably, contradicts teachings of all three (3) major religions on marriage.

Students wearing Pride Flag shirts, is protected speech, but so is a kid wearing a shirt saying "Jesus Saves".  What is prohibited is messaging from school figures that coerces students to affirm the Pride Flag and what it stands for.  To say "We don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation here!" is one thing, and that is a statement of policy that is protected.  But the Pride Flag is more than a statement of non-discrimination; it's a statement of affirming sexual practices that are not authorized by Scripture.  And NO person should ever be coerced to affirm "Pride", in whatever manner they are being coerced to affirm it in.  And no child should be so coerced; the Rightness or Wrongness of this matter is a matter for parents, and not for teachers.  If teachers can't accept that, they need to find a new job, or be fired if they can't stay within this boundary.

Students have a right to their beliefs. They do not have a right to harass other students.

It is not inappropriate for a teacher to have a Pride flag in the classroom. It serves as a message to LGBT+ students that they will always be accepted in the classroom by that teacher. Students have a right to feel safe in their classrooms, and teachers have a right to signal to their students that they will help foster that safe environment.

And the presence of that flag is not coercing religious students to affirm beliefs that contradict their faith. That is a ridiculous assertion to make.

Is a presence of a cross just a message to Christian students that they will be accepted? Or would it be reasonable to think that a cross is promoting a certain ideology?

There's nothing in the gay bible that says people who are not LGBTQ+ are sinners who offend God and are going to burn in lake of fire for all eternity. There have also not been wars and genocides committed in the name of the pride flag.

[DaleCooper]

Religious teachings are protected under the 1st Amendment.  Religious PRACTICES are a different matter, but Religious Teaching is prohibited.

Public schools that actively contradict what God considers to be ordained marriage in conflict with what Scripture teaches, or what God-sanctioned sexuality is, are, indeed, moving into the religious thicket.  The Pride Flag IS a political statement and a statement that, unavoidably, contradicts teachings of all three (3) major religions on marriage.

Students wearing Pride Flag shirts, is protected speech, but so is a kid wearing a shirt saying "Jesus Saves".  What is prohibited is messaging from school figures that coerces students to affirm the Pride Flag and what it stands for.  To say "We don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation here!" is one thing, and that is a statement of policy that is protected.  But the Pride Flag is more than a statement of non-discrimination; it's a statement of affirming sexual practices that are not authorized by Scripture.  And NO person should ever be coerced to affirm "Pride", in whatever manner they are being coerced to affirm it in.  And no child should be so coerced; the Rightness or Wrongness of this matter is a matter for parents, and not for teachers.  If teachers can't accept that, they need to find a new job, or be fired if they can't stay within this boundary.

Students have a right to their beliefs. They do not have a right to harass other students.

It is not inappropriate for a teacher to have a Pride flag in the classroom. It serves as a message to LGBT+ students that they will always be accepted in the classroom by that teacher. Students have a right to feel safe in their classrooms, and teachers have a right to signal to their students that they will help foster that safe environment.

And the presence of that flag is not coercing religious students to affirm beliefs that contradict their faith. That is a ridiculous assertion to make.

Is a presence of a cross just a message to Christian students that they will be accepted? Or would it be reasonable to think that a cross is promoting a certain ideology?

The Christian God certainly wouldn't be happy about the presence of a worthless idol.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

How dare anyone suggest the Ten Commandments are largely irrelevant to modern life.  Children must be reminded every day that it is a sin to covet thy neighbor's slaves.

Covetousness, the desiring of something that is rightfully someone elses, is the root of all sorts of evil:

This is a movie, and the scene is about an extreme example, but covetousness keeps people from being happy and content in so many circumstances.

What is it with you Trump cultists and that movie recently?

I'm making a point on coveting, not on Trump, or anything else.

Yes, we get it. Republicans think rules - be they the Ten Commandments or actual rule of law - apply to others, not to them and their leaders.

[SInNYC]

So, are they OK with Sunday (or Saturday as the case may be) events in schoolrooms with the ten commandments posted? It seems to be intentional defiance to me.

How about football teams that happen to have a saturday game and review film on sunday?

[John Dule]

Religious teachings are protected under the 1st Amendment.  Religious PRACTICES are a different matter, but Religious Teaching is prohibited.

Public schools that actively contradict what God considers to be ordained marriage in conflict with what Scripture teaches, or what God-sanctioned sexuality is, are, indeed, moving into the religious thicket.  The Pride Flag IS a political statement and a statement that, unavoidably, contradicts teachings of all three (3) major religions on marriage.

Students wearing Pride Flag shirts, is protected speech, but so is a kid wearing a shirt saying "Jesus Saves".  What is prohibited is messaging from school figures that coerces students to affirm the Pride Flag and what it stands for.  To say "We don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation here!" is one thing, and that is a statement of policy that is protected.  But the Pride Flag is more than a statement of non-discrimination; it's a statement of affirming sexual practices that are not authorized by Scripture.  And NO person should ever be coerced to affirm "Pride", in whatever manner they are being coerced to affirm it in.  And no child should be so coerced; the Rightness or Wrongness of this matter is a matter for parents, and not for teachers.  If teachers can't accept that, they need to find a new job, or be fired if they can't stay within this boundary.

Students have a right to their beliefs. They do not have a right to harass other students.

It is not inappropriate for a teacher to have a Pride flag in the classroom. It serves as a message to LGBT+ students that they will always be accepted in the classroom by that teacher. Students have a right to feel safe in their classrooms, and teachers have a right to signal to their students that they will help foster that safe environment.

And the presence of that flag is not coercing religious students to affirm beliefs that contradict their faith. That is a ridiculous assertion to make.

Is a presence of a cross just a message to Christian students that they will be accepted? Or would it be reasonable to think that a cross is promoting a certain ideology?

If a public area displayed images of a cross, a star of David, and a star/crescent, alongside the message "all are welcome here," that would not be a violation of the Establishment Clause. Many public institutions do this. Schools are also allowed to discuss and display the Bible and the Ten Commandments for the purposes of discussing literature, history, law, or religion from a cultural/secular perspective.

Homosexuality on the other hand isn't a religion, so putting the pride flag in a classroom doesn't trigger any Establishment Clause analysis from the outset.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1805325072904724534

[Skill and Chance]

Religious teachings are protected under the 1st Amendment.  Religious PRACTICES are a different matter, but Religious Teaching is prohibited.

Public schools that actively contradict what God considers to be ordained marriage in conflict with what Scripture teaches, or what God-sanctioned sexuality is, are, indeed, moving into the religious thicket.  The Pride Flag IS a political statement and a statement that, unavoidably, contradicts teachings of all three (3) major religions on marriage.

Students wearing Pride Flag shirts, is protected speech, but so is a kid wearing a shirt saying "Jesus Saves".  What is prohibited is messaging from school figures that coerces students to affirm the Pride Flag and what it stands for.  To say "We don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation here!" is one thing, and that is a statement of policy that is protected.  But the Pride Flag is more than a statement of non-discrimination; it's a statement of affirming sexual practices that are not authorized by Scripture.  And NO person should ever be coerced to affirm "Pride", in whatever manner they are being coerced to affirm it in.  And no child should be so coerced; the Rightness or Wrongness of this matter is a matter for parents, and not for teachers.  If teachers can't accept that, they need to find a new job, or be fired if they can't stay within this boundary.

Students have a right to their beliefs. They do not have a right to harass other students.

It is not inappropriate for a teacher to have a Pride flag in the classroom. It serves as a message to LGBT+ students that they will always be accepted in the classroom by that teacher. Students have a right to feel safe in their classrooms, and teachers have a right to signal to their students that they will help foster that safe environment.

And the presence of that flag is not coercing religious students to affirm beliefs that contradict their faith. That is a ridiculous assertion to make.

Is a presence of a cross just a message to Christian students that they will be accepted? Or would it be reasonable to think that a cross is promoting a certain ideology?

If a public area displayed images of a cross, a star of David, and a star/crescent, alongside the message "all are welcome here," that would not be a violation of the Establishment Clause. Many public institutions do this. Schools are also allowed to discuss and display the Bible and the Ten Commandments for the purposes of discussing literature, history, law, or religion from a cultural/secular perspective.

Homosexuality on the other hand isn't a religion, so putting the pride flag in a classroom doesn't trigger any Establishment Clause analysis from the outset.

Hmmm... a motivated conservative judge could draw a connection to Greco-Roman paganism if they wanted to.  Could see the 5th Circuit doing it.  Probably not SCOTUS, at least not yet. 

*Ironically, this would take down the NJ/NY/VA state flags with it

[Ferguson97]

Is a presence of a cross just a message to Christian students that they will be accepted? Or would it be reasonable to think that a cross is promoting a certain ideology?

A more accurate religious comparison would actually probably be hanging this as a poster

[politicallefty]

Question for anyone and everyone in the forum:
What would be your reaction if a state legislature passed a law, and Governor signed it, that required all public school students -- of one particular grade, like maybe eighth grade -- watch Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments, starring Charlton Heston, every year?

I would probably strike it down.

Well, at least I got one response. And this particular user's reply doesn't surprise me.

I did say "probably", not definitely. Everyone starts at a particular position, but there's a reason we have briefs and oral arguments. I would need to see more details. But yes, you are aware of my strict stance with respect to the Establishment Clause. The government would have a very difficult task before itself though. Unlike many cases involving religion, there is no competing right with the Free Exercise Clause in your hypothetical. Many cases involve the balancing of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. This would be a case of balancing the Establishment Clause with government interests. This new Louisiana law is similar in that respect.

I think our society would instead benefit by requiring all classrooms to display a large poster of the Bill of Rights.

[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.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

And to me the pride flag equivalent would be a poster that has a cross and a Bible passage, and said, "Christian students are welcome here to pray at all times."  And that I think is absolutely fine to do - I see these symbols as promotions of inclusion. 

I can't see anyone objecting to everyday religious expression.  Thus, a school should be able to put up a Christmas tree and not have to call it a "Winter tree".

Students should be absolutely free to express themselves in the schools - the schools are a reflection of them.