Jump to content

Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Ten Commandments outside of Ohio School

Freedom of Religion Public Schools Ohio

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#21 Nikcara


    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 03:59 AM

Ogami, on Jun 11 2003, 11:41 AM, said:

Yep, if you let the Ten Commandments be displayed, then concentration camps and ovens are right around the corner.

That's ludicrous, of course, but that's the mentality you have to have to demand these tablets be removed. How silly.

You know, given that I almost got expelled from a non-religious school once for my faith, I find that rather offensive.  I've been called Satanic, been accused of raising devils and demons, and having orgies in strange places because when asked, I've said 'yes, I'm Wiccan...'.  

Even here I'm slightly nervous saying that, even though I know this is a pretty safe place as far as being accepted for my faith goes.

Therefore, for people like me, going to a school and seeing the 10 Commandments on display everyday is just a little bit stressful.  And given the lack of diversity in most of Ohio I wouldn't be surprised if in most schools there were only a small handful of non-Christain students who would likely be VERY aware of it.  So in my view, either take them down or add a whole lot of similar things from other religions, which would probably also make the local town protest.
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#22 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 04:19 AM

Delvo, on Jun 11 2003, 09:05 AM, said:

Dev F, on Jun 11 2003, 08:09 AM, said:

Independent of the law? It was decided by people whose job is to decide what the law means.
...and who have abdicated that duty, allowing a great many un-Constitutional things both good and bad. The idea of separation of church and state is just one of them. To me, the Constitution SHOULD have said that government money and property shall not be used that way, but it doesn't, and someone declaring that it does doesn't make it so. What it says is "Congress shall make no law...". That's not one of those ambiguous sentences that could have widely different interpretations; it just means what it says. And in this case, that rule isn't violated because there was no law being made when the monument was installed.
But the First Amendment is interpreted through other amendments that are far more ambiguous. The major one that applies in this case is the Fourteenth Amendment:


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Since this amendment does not specifically indicate what constitutes "privileges or immunity," "liberty," or "due process of law," the courts have applied to it -- logically, it seems to me -- many of the rights granted under the original amendments. That's why freedom of religion is now seen as applying to the states as well as Congress, to answer one of the objections from your previous post.

As for the argument that "there was no law being made when the monument was installed" -- the monument must have been installed under some law, mustn't it? That's the only way they'd have the authority to do it. So under First Amendment by way of the Fourteenth, it would be unconstitutional to interpret that law in a way that respected an establishment of religion.

Dev F

#23 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 01:49 PM


1. It serves no secular purpose to promote the tenets of a particular religion. I don't buy the argument that it serves an "architectural" purpose; by that argument a public school would be free to install a JESUS SAVES! mural, as long as the building's design provides an attracted alcove in which to place it.

Well, you're arguing #2 in #1.


2. What purpose does a copy of the Ten Commandments serve, except to advance Judeo-Christian religion? Why not simply install a list of secular moral guidelines, with no mention of "I am the Lord your God" etc.? The only reason to include the Biblical teachings is to trade on religious feeling -- to indicate, essentially, "Do these things because God wants you to." Well, it's not the state's place to tell children what God wants them to do -- or even that there is a God.

*shrugs*. Not much that I see, but I don't see how it advances the religion.


And I don't agree that only a weak-willed child will have his religious beliefs affected by such an installation. The whole point of a school is to affect the minds of our youth,

But they don't. They may instill some facts, but look at smoking and sex rates; even full-fledged 'information' programs don't work, let alone tablets.


and if they aren't supposed to have their feelings changed by what they see on its walls, what's the point of Say No to Drugs posters and the like?

Because DARE has squirrels living in its head.


3. I think officially sanctioning the Judeo-Christian God in a place where the state educates our young people qualifies as excessive entanglement.

Again, this is predicated on the test failing #2.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#24 Laoise


    I am bounce around so well

  • Islander
  • 714 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 02:15 PM

Where I live, all schools are either Catholic, Protestant, or Private, so I don't really have any expirence with the American idea of public schools....

But my gut instinct is that those shouldn't have been there in the first place.  They were serving no purpose towards the non-religious public education that you would expect to be provided by a government that is to be separate from all religion.

'Course, it's not something I'll ever have to personally deal with, so I've really only got my guesses to go on when forming an opinion.
Being Liberal means never having to say you're Tory.

#25 sierraleone


    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,226 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 03:44 PM

^ you don't have any non-demoninational public schools in Alberta???  :wacko:
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#26 Laoise


    I am bounce around so well

  • Islander
  • 714 posts

Posted 13 June 2003 - 06:18 AM

^ In practice, the Protestant schools are non-religious, and the Catholic schools are open to any children whose parents want them educated in a Christian enviorment, regardless of the child's actual religion..  However, the Alberta School Act still says that publicly funded schools are either Protestant or Catholic.  I don't think the actual terminology has been updated since 1905, when Alberta became a province.
Being Liberal means never having to say you're Tory.

Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Freedom of Religion, Public Schools, Ohio

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users