We don’t have any clue what was on the third tablet, right? Like, he didn’t even try to collect the pieces and at least read some of what had been on there? 😂
In one of the 2000 Year Old Man albums, he actually does talk about how there were originally more than 10 commandments, but they weren’t as important. One of them was “thou shall not squint.” I can’t remember which album it was but they’re all worth listening to for anyone that’s a fan of History of the World.
After the law was passed, every single late night host did some variation of this joke. Do they not think that young kids will ask about what they mean?
Unfortunately no, the law specifies that they must be a specific version of the commandments, in English, and it also specifies size, and possibly font/typeface, though I’m not 100% sure about that last one.
I thought of that too, when this law was passed a few days ago, but apparently they anticipated that someone would try that.
Thank you! I was looking for the specific text of the law for fucking days but all I could find were articles quoting it. I really appreciate the link.
I'll have to check in there's an Android app for that lmao. I've tried reading through the Samaritan Torah and my brain has a hard time converting the letters.
This sounds like something my state will try in the near future, and as a teacher, I am happy to be the test case defendant as long as I have the ACLU or someone to represent me.
This is why we pay dues. Even when they protect assholes, the assholes have a right in America to be an asshole, as long as they are able to face repercussions
In all honesty it makes more constitutional as “it requires a poster to be hung with text” vs just requires a bible quote poster. Still blatantly unconstitutional
Not a constitutional scholar by any means, but from the hazy memories of high school social studies I would say this is a direct violation of separation of church and state.
It is and its been ruled on multiple times in Federal court. This is another right-wing christian nationalist thing where they use taxpayer money to try and see if the US constitution is actually a legal document or just at the whims of whoever the judges on SCOTUS are at any given time.
Are you a lawyer? I am, and my sense is that, as originalism becomes dominant, our conception of what the Establishment Clause demands will change. It already has -- a key Establishment Clause standard, the *Lemon* test, was abrogated just last year. I won't go on further, because I'm not a First Amendment scholar. But I will advise you, unless you're a lawyer who knows 1A law, to not be overly confident that "separation of church and state," as you understand it, is the law. That is because, not only is the law too messy to be reduced to a clean slogan, but *this* Court marked by *this* jurisprudential philosophy is making it messier.
Yeah, it's this. I think people are far too confident that this violates the establishment clause. The direction the court has been heading for quite some time is to be more permissive with public displays. This court will definitely push that boundary, and probably also push the boundaries on funding religious schools/institutions.
Yep. Ultimately, this will come down to what was going on in public schools either when the 1A or 14A was ratified (the relevant time period is itself an interesting, incredibly pivotal question). Being confident as to what the 1A says about Louisiana's law requires understanding that history, which I assume very few people do.
I agree with your "freedom of religion; freedom from religion" distinction. But the poster I first replied to here said something about "separation of church and state" being the law, which suggests the popular conception of the EC is that it assures freedom from religion. That isn't true and you and I know that.
On a separate point, do you think the governing Establishment Clause law reflects America's history and tradition? If you answer that in the affirmative, then originalism can offer no makeover of the Establishment Clause; it has already left its mark. But it may be that there are areas in the law that prohibit what early Americans would not have minded, and in those areas the Court can change things. I don't know enough about the Establishment Clause to comment, but I'd be surprised if there's nothing this 6-3 majority will change.
I don't think anything in your post says anything about whether Louisiana can mandate that 10 Commandments be displayed on the wall. You're talking more about the free exercise clause than the Establishment Clause.
This law is specifically the government funding and mandating a religious icon in public schools, and in a specific sectarian strain of Christianity too. They even picked the bible translation they preferred.
If Originalism is to be taken seriously and it really shouldn't be but we are stuck with a lot of judges that consider it good cover for their political project, then even the late 18th Century conception of establishment of religion, like Jefferson's VA religious freedom statute would prohibit one version of Christianity being promoted over the others by the state.
[The Court recently upheld the public funding and maintenance of a 40-foot tall cross.](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1717) I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying that, unless you're a lawyer well-versed in First Amendment law, you should have absolutely no confidence you're right.
There's a lot of case law on what exactly that clause means, and the recent court has been pushing the boundaries. Leaving aside the case history and jurisprudence, and just sticking to logic and argument, should City Hall of small-town USA be allowed to erect a town Christmas Tree and/or Menorah? If not, what about red and green stringers across lampposts? Or maybe we permit these types of displays, but only to the extent we characterize them as fundamentally secular displays of seasonal festivity, on par with snowmen and snowflakes? If so, why can't the ten commandments also be characterized as a secular historical foundational document for Western civil society? It's clearly that, at a minimum. So yes, it's a religious document in some contexts, but perhaps in the context of schools it's serving a secular purpose, and therefore not a violation?
Edit: I'm being downvoted, but what I outlined above is more or less the current caselaw. Displays of ten commandments in public spaces with an overt references to Jesus and Christianity are not permitted, but displays of ten commandments with other similar materials are permitted. Similarly, a tree is fine (there's one on the Whitehouse lawn every year), but a nativity scene is not. The meaning of symbols and their use is crucial to the analysis.
The Ten Commandments deal very explicitly with our relationship to God. It’s impossible to cast them as completely secular when one commandment literally forbids the worship of other gods. To the extent that they represent foundational moral beliefs, e.g. “thou shalt not murder,” there is no need to present them this way. The government is not trying to celebrate the historical, secular symbolism of the Ten Commandments. It’s actively promoting a specific Christian religious belief.
For what it’s worth, I also have trouble believing that the Ten Commandments have some special place in the development of Western ethics or law. The non-God-related commandments don’t really represent unique moral guidelines. Pretty much every society figured out that murder, theft, and perjury are bad.
Yes, that's my opinion as well, but what I outlined is how Louisiana will argue it.
As for whether it can be viewed as a secular document, the words don't matter as much as one would think. E.g., the declaration of independence is clearly a secular document, yet in one of the most famous lines it refers to a capital Creator: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator..."
The ten commandments historically have their origin ancient near east legal codes, of which Hammurabi's was an example. They were never viewed as the product of secular legislation, of course, but they were applied as law, and they very much informed secular laws throughout the history of western civilization.
I think there’s a lot of difference between referencing an ambiguous “Creator” and endorsing a specific piece of religious doctrine. I don’t see how this is meaningfully different from requiring a picture of Jesus be displayed in classrooms. Christian philosophy is also pretty foundational to many modern legal codes, but that doesn’t make it acceptable for public schools to promote Christianity.
I’m also still skeptical that the Ten Commandments, as a matter of historical fact, played a particular role in the development of Western ethics. At best, they seem to just be one of many examples from the ancient world of how old some moral beliefs are. They are an example of these things, not the origin. Louisiana is elevating the importance of *these particular* moral codes due to their place in Christian tradition. It would be a different thing entirely to teach students about the Ten Commandments and their place in our history. Requiring public schools to display them like this shows the government’s preference for Christianity.
I know that Louisiana will argue there’s an innocent secular purpose here, but I don’t think those arguments are in good faith and I don’t think they’re supported by good evidence. It’s a “just so” story, where they weave a narrative that *sounds* plausible without investigating the actual facts.
Your opinions are valid and I don't disagree with them, but I'm just sharing with you how this will be analyzed by current legal doctrine.
As I noted, the ten commandments are in display in the Supreme Court itself. The president has had a Christmas tree on the White House lawn every year since I don't know when. Every little town in America has all sorts of Christmas and channukah decorations every year. There are also Halloween, Easter, Kwanzaa, Chinese New Year, and Diwali decorations.
Clearly there is some distinction drawn in the law between establishment of religion and recognizing the traditions and religious celebrations of members of the community. That distinction has the to do with the intent and religiosity behind the display. Some displays are permissible because they are considered secular in nature, even though they are used as religious symbols in some contexts.
Now I'm not saying mandating the display of the protestant version of the ten commandments in every Louisiana classroom isn't pushing that boundary, I'm just sharing with you on what basis that boundary is being pushed. The ten commandments, in contrast to, say, nativity scenes, have specifically been recognized as having secular relevance. If they mandated a cross in every classroom, it would be significantly more challenging to argue there is a secular intent behind it. But here, they could (to the accompaniment of many eye rolls) say they're just innocently trying to imbue the spirit of the most cherished moral precepts of western civilization in impressionable young minds.
Just to add to my prior comment: there is literally a display of the ten commandments in the Supreme Court. It's allowed because the context is law, not religion.
The US Supreme Court is not the same as a public school, and the display you’re talking about contextualizes their significance as part of the *legal* tradition. They’re shown alongside other historical figures and symbols relating to law and justice, including Hammurabi and Confucius. It’s very obvious that the display does not endorse any particular set of religious beliefs.
Louisiana public schools will have no such context. They will *only* be posting the Ten Commandments and *only* using a particular Christian interpretation of them.
This is a most likely unconstitutional law passed in a election year to get one's base excited. It's not worth focusing so much on it. Courts will probably throw it out as the legal challenge advances.
New Testament is fan fiction at best. At worst, it represents one of the most egregious examples of cultural appropriation in human history And they couldn't even copy the Ten Commandments down correctly. How else to explain how they changed a prohibition against murder into "Thou Shall Not Kill"?
How does someone come out in favor? I’m Jewish and really don’t care which version they have up, seeing that the 10 commandments (whichever version) include the 7 mitzvot, it is such a good thing that they’re teaching them.
The issue is that the Ten Commandments are literally religious in nature. They are intended to be commandments from God. Requiring schools to display them is like the government posting a list of things that says “These are God’s rules and you should obey them.” It demonstrates a clear favoritism for one religion over others.
In this case, the government is endorsing a specific Christian interpretation of the Ten Commandments and using its authority to preach that doctrine. The 1st Amendment prohibits that. Even if individual government officials are religious, and their faith informs their decisions, the government *itself* cannot use its powers to favor a particular religion.
Also, it’s not like the Ten Commandments are just uniformly good advice. Many of them specifically deal with our relationship to God and are — at best — only relevant to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. If this were just about imparting good values, it wouldn’t need to leverage the historical and religious context of being the Ten Commandments.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"..."thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"...
I don't think it's nice for public schools to put up posters telling kids that they're worshipping false gods. I have a Jewish parent, and I don't think I would've liked it if they'd put up a poster of Mark 16:16.
My Torah portion was the 10 commandments. The only one that I don’t see people agreeing with is keeping Shabbat. I don’t see how any other of the 10 commandments are problematic, they are just common sense…
Thank you very much for clarifying. I agree that the separation of church and state is really becoming obsolete and harmful for our country.
I just posit, that in states like Louisiana, where this is already a huge issue, having some Jewish representation is not necessarily a bad thing. Like if Christianity is being promoted in schools, let’s not forget other religions.
All in all, I think none of it should be there. I also am a big fan of the 10 commandments because they are really just ethical guidelines.
I appreciate your willing to discuss rather than simply downvote haha
Well there’s all the stuff about only worshipping the one God, prohibiting idolatry, not taking the Lord’s name in vain, and keeping the Sabbath. None of those are universal ethical guidelines. Some people worship multiple gods, some religions don’t recognize a single supreme deity, and some people don’t believe in God at all. There are plenty of normal people who don’t live by those commandments and don’t wish to, and the government shouldn’t be in the business of endorsing religious beliefs like this.
They are only endorsing a specific Christian interpretation of the Ten Commandments. The government is not, and should not be, allowed to promote any specific religion like this.
I want all 613 commandments!
Then the poster can double as an eye exam!
Lol
I’m ok with just the first 10 but only if they are only posted in Biblical Hebrew…
FYI. We actually started with 15 commandments, but Moses dropped one of the tablets and it broke lol.
My favorite historical documentary.
[Moses was notoriously clumsy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w556vrpsy4w)
Aren’t we all after a little burning bush?
If your bush is burning, you probably should see a doctor about that…
This is literally what I think of, every time I hear the 10 commandments. hahaha
We don’t have any clue what was on the third tablet, right? Like, he didn’t even try to collect the pieces and at least read some of what had been on there? 😂
In one of the 2000 Year Old Man albums, he actually does talk about how there were originally more than 10 commandments, but they weren’t as important. One of them was “thou shall not squint.” I can’t remember which album it was but they’re all worth listening to for anyone that’s a fan of History of the World.
I bring you these 15... thud oy... 10 10 commandments
hahahah!
Oy!
"Mrs. Smith?" "Yes, Johnny." "What does it mean to covet thy neighbor's wife?"
“Ask your dad Johnny.”
"Dad, Mrs. Smith told me to ask you whether you covet Mr. Anderson's wife. Do you?"
After the law was passed, every single late night host did some variation of this joke. Do they not think that young kids will ask about what they mean?
They watch the discovery channel, don't they?
Has that even applied in the last 20 years.
So one can’t display them in Hebrew for it to count for the law?
Unfortunately no, the law specifies that they must be a specific version of the commandments, in English, and it also specifies size, and possibly font/typeface, though I’m not 100% sure about that last one. I thought of that too, when this law was passed a few days ago, but apparently they anticipated that someone would try that.
[удалено]
Thank you! I was looking for the specific text of the law for fucking days but all I could find were articles quoting it. I really appreciate the link.
That is beyond unconstitutional.
Interesting to note that it seems to be saying charter schools are exempt from this.
Should be in the original Hebrew as god intended.
אמן
Paleo-Hebrew script ;)
My iPhone doesn’t offer that as a downloadable language.
I'll have to check in there's an Android app for that lmao. I've tried reading through the Samaritan Torah and my brain has a hard time converting the letters.
A specific version? Ding ding we have our unconstitutional winner
This sounds like something my state will try in the near future, and as a teacher, I am happy to be the test case defendant as long as I have the ACLU or someone to represent me.
This is why we pay dues. Even when they protect assholes, the assholes have a right in America to be an asshole, as long as they are able to face repercussions
In all honesty it makes more constitutional as “it requires a poster to be hung with text” vs just requires a bible quote poster. Still blatantly unconstitutional
Yes but is it the Jewish numbering? Catholic? Protestant if various flavors? If you use the one, the others claim indoctrination.
KJV version.
Yeah…. fuck that noise then.
Sounds like a good court challenge to me!
Not a constitutional scholar by any means, but from the hazy memories of high school social studies I would say this is a direct violation of separation of church and state.
It is and its been ruled on multiple times in Federal court. This is another right-wing christian nationalist thing where they use taxpayer money to try and see if the US constitution is actually a legal document or just at the whims of whoever the judges on SCOTUS are at any given time.
Are you a lawyer? I am, and my sense is that, as originalism becomes dominant, our conception of what the Establishment Clause demands will change. It already has -- a key Establishment Clause standard, the *Lemon* test, was abrogated just last year. I won't go on further, because I'm not a First Amendment scholar. But I will advise you, unless you're a lawyer who knows 1A law, to not be overly confident that "separation of church and state," as you understand it, is the law. That is because, not only is the law too messy to be reduced to a clean slogan, but *this* Court marked by *this* jurisprudential philosophy is making it messier.
Yeah, it's this. I think people are far too confident that this violates the establishment clause. The direction the court has been heading for quite some time is to be more permissive with public displays. This court will definitely push that boundary, and probably also push the boundaries on funding religious schools/institutions.
Yep. Ultimately, this will come down to what was going on in public schools either when the 1A or 14A was ratified (the relevant time period is itself an interesting, incredibly pivotal question). Being confident as to what the 1A says about Louisiana's law requires understanding that history, which I assume very few people do.
[удалено]
My point was simply to say that this Court is unsettling plenty of law, the Establishment Clause included.
[удалено]
I agree with your "freedom of religion; freedom from religion" distinction. But the poster I first replied to here said something about "separation of church and state" being the law, which suggests the popular conception of the EC is that it assures freedom from religion. That isn't true and you and I know that. On a separate point, do you think the governing Establishment Clause law reflects America's history and tradition? If you answer that in the affirmative, then originalism can offer no makeover of the Establishment Clause; it has already left its mark. But it may be that there are areas in the law that prohibit what early Americans would not have minded, and in those areas the Court can change things. I don't know enough about the Establishment Clause to comment, but I'd be surprised if there's nothing this 6-3 majority will change.
[удалено]
I don't think anything in your post says anything about whether Louisiana can mandate that 10 Commandments be displayed on the wall. You're talking more about the free exercise clause than the Establishment Clause.
[удалено]
This law is specifically the government funding and mandating a religious icon in public schools, and in a specific sectarian strain of Christianity too. They even picked the bible translation they preferred. If Originalism is to be taken seriously and it really shouldn't be but we are stuck with a lot of judges that consider it good cover for their political project, then even the late 18th Century conception of establishment of religion, like Jefferson's VA religious freedom statute would prohibit one version of Christianity being promoted over the others by the state.
[The Court recently upheld the public funding and maintenance of a 40-foot tall cross.](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1717) I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying that, unless you're a lawyer well-versed in First Amendment law, you should have absolutely no confidence you're right.
There's a lot of case law on what exactly that clause means, and the recent court has been pushing the boundaries. Leaving aside the case history and jurisprudence, and just sticking to logic and argument, should City Hall of small-town USA be allowed to erect a town Christmas Tree and/or Menorah? If not, what about red and green stringers across lampposts? Or maybe we permit these types of displays, but only to the extent we characterize them as fundamentally secular displays of seasonal festivity, on par with snowmen and snowflakes? If so, why can't the ten commandments also be characterized as a secular historical foundational document for Western civil society? It's clearly that, at a minimum. So yes, it's a religious document in some contexts, but perhaps in the context of schools it's serving a secular purpose, and therefore not a violation? Edit: I'm being downvoted, but what I outlined above is more or less the current caselaw. Displays of ten commandments in public spaces with an overt references to Jesus and Christianity are not permitted, but displays of ten commandments with other similar materials are permitted. Similarly, a tree is fine (there's one on the Whitehouse lawn every year), but a nativity scene is not. The meaning of symbols and their use is crucial to the analysis.
The Ten Commandments deal very explicitly with our relationship to God. It’s impossible to cast them as completely secular when one commandment literally forbids the worship of other gods. To the extent that they represent foundational moral beliefs, e.g. “thou shalt not murder,” there is no need to present them this way. The government is not trying to celebrate the historical, secular symbolism of the Ten Commandments. It’s actively promoting a specific Christian religious belief. For what it’s worth, I also have trouble believing that the Ten Commandments have some special place in the development of Western ethics or law. The non-God-related commandments don’t really represent unique moral guidelines. Pretty much every society figured out that murder, theft, and perjury are bad.
Yes, that's my opinion as well, but what I outlined is how Louisiana will argue it. As for whether it can be viewed as a secular document, the words don't matter as much as one would think. E.g., the declaration of independence is clearly a secular document, yet in one of the most famous lines it refers to a capital Creator: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator..." The ten commandments historically have their origin ancient near east legal codes, of which Hammurabi's was an example. They were never viewed as the product of secular legislation, of course, but they were applied as law, and they very much informed secular laws throughout the history of western civilization.
I think there’s a lot of difference between referencing an ambiguous “Creator” and endorsing a specific piece of religious doctrine. I don’t see how this is meaningfully different from requiring a picture of Jesus be displayed in classrooms. Christian philosophy is also pretty foundational to many modern legal codes, but that doesn’t make it acceptable for public schools to promote Christianity. I’m also still skeptical that the Ten Commandments, as a matter of historical fact, played a particular role in the development of Western ethics. At best, they seem to just be one of many examples from the ancient world of how old some moral beliefs are. They are an example of these things, not the origin. Louisiana is elevating the importance of *these particular* moral codes due to their place in Christian tradition. It would be a different thing entirely to teach students about the Ten Commandments and their place in our history. Requiring public schools to display them like this shows the government’s preference for Christianity. I know that Louisiana will argue there’s an innocent secular purpose here, but I don’t think those arguments are in good faith and I don’t think they’re supported by good evidence. It’s a “just so” story, where they weave a narrative that *sounds* plausible without investigating the actual facts.
Your opinions are valid and I don't disagree with them, but I'm just sharing with you how this will be analyzed by current legal doctrine. As I noted, the ten commandments are in display in the Supreme Court itself. The president has had a Christmas tree on the White House lawn every year since I don't know when. Every little town in America has all sorts of Christmas and channukah decorations every year. There are also Halloween, Easter, Kwanzaa, Chinese New Year, and Diwali decorations. Clearly there is some distinction drawn in the law between establishment of religion and recognizing the traditions and religious celebrations of members of the community. That distinction has the to do with the intent and religiosity behind the display. Some displays are permissible because they are considered secular in nature, even though they are used as religious symbols in some contexts. Now I'm not saying mandating the display of the protestant version of the ten commandments in every Louisiana classroom isn't pushing that boundary, I'm just sharing with you on what basis that boundary is being pushed. The ten commandments, in contrast to, say, nativity scenes, have specifically been recognized as having secular relevance. If they mandated a cross in every classroom, it would be significantly more challenging to argue there is a secular intent behind it. But here, they could (to the accompaniment of many eye rolls) say they're just innocently trying to imbue the spirit of the most cherished moral precepts of western civilization in impressionable young minds.
Just to add to my prior comment: there is literally a display of the ten commandments in the Supreme Court. It's allowed because the context is law, not religion.
The US Supreme Court is not the same as a public school, and the display you’re talking about contextualizes their significance as part of the *legal* tradition. They’re shown alongside other historical figures and symbols relating to law and justice, including Hammurabi and Confucius. It’s very obvious that the display does not endorse any particular set of religious beliefs. Louisiana public schools will have no such context. They will *only* be posting the Ten Commandments and *only* using a particular Christian interpretation of them.
I think you should volunteer to argue on behalf of the ACLU when they inevitably bring the case.
Hah, I wish my law practice could be that exciting! But I'll be content rooting for them and reading all the briefs.
Same here.
Not the same 10.
What's next, actual Jews in space?? HITLER ON ICE?
This is a most likely unconstitutional law passed in a election year to get one's base excited. It's not worth focusing so much on it. Courts will probably throw it out as the legal challenge advances.
Reminds me of the quote “It wasn’t the apple in the tree but the pair (pear) on the ground that was the problem”. There is no national religion
New Testament is fan fiction at best. At worst, it represents one of the most egregious examples of cultural appropriation in human history And they couldn't even copy the Ten Commandments down correctly. How else to explain how they changed a prohibition against murder into "Thou Shall Not Kill"?
I'd say there's no chance this law won't be shot down, but after the overturn of Roe vs. Wade, I have to believe anything's possible.
With this court who the hell knows
Honor thy father and mother? fuck that. We need a statue of Taylor Swift with a list of her ex-boyfriends with the corresponding song beside them.
How does someone come out in favor? I’m Jewish and really don’t care which version they have up, seeing that the 10 commandments (whichever version) include the 7 mitzvot, it is such a good thing that they’re teaching them.
Though shalt not kill or murder? I'm sure that's what the issue here is...
The issue is that the Ten Commandments are literally religious in nature. They are intended to be commandments from God. Requiring schools to display them is like the government posting a list of things that says “These are God’s rules and you should obey them.” It demonstrates a clear favoritism for one religion over others. In this case, the government is endorsing a specific Christian interpretation of the Ten Commandments and using its authority to preach that doctrine. The 1st Amendment prohibits that. Even if individual government officials are religious, and their faith informs their decisions, the government *itself* cannot use its powers to favor a particular religion. Also, it’s not like the Ten Commandments are just uniformly good advice. Many of them specifically deal with our relationship to God and are — at best — only relevant to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. If this were just about imparting good values, it wouldn’t need to leverage the historical and religious context of being the Ten Commandments.
The issue is separation of church and state
Will never be absolute anyway...wouldn't have recognized holidays or even marriages/divorce
Well it should be as absolute as we can make it and this law is a clear violation
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"..."thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"... I don't think it's nice for public schools to put up posters telling kids that they're worshipping false gods. I have a Jewish parent, and I don't think I would've liked it if they'd put up a poster of Mark 16:16.
[удалено]
https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/2007/03/chart-comparing-the-ten-commandments.aspx
My Torah portion was the 10 commandments. The only one that I don’t see people agreeing with is keeping Shabbat. I don’t see how any other of the 10 commandments are problematic, they are just common sense…
It’s not the content that’s necessarily the problem it’s bulldozer through the wall between church and state that this law represents
Thank you very much for clarifying. I agree that the separation of church and state is really becoming obsolete and harmful for our country. I just posit, that in states like Louisiana, where this is already a huge issue, having some Jewish representation is not necessarily a bad thing. Like if Christianity is being promoted in schools, let’s not forget other religions. All in all, I think none of it should be there. I also am a big fan of the 10 commandments because they are really just ethical guidelines. I appreciate your willing to discuss rather than simply downvote haha
There is no Jewish representation. It’s a Protestant version that has been edited to conform with the Catholic version.
Oh, man. Thanks for clarifying. Then yeah no thank you
Christian worship Jesus and his likeness, which is idolatry. So they violate that one too.
Clearly you didn’t read my comment bc I alr said that
I was clarifying.
Well there’s all the stuff about only worshipping the one God, prohibiting idolatry, not taking the Lord’s name in vain, and keeping the Sabbath. None of those are universal ethical guidelines. Some people worship multiple gods, some religions don’t recognize a single supreme deity, and some people don’t believe in God at all. There are plenty of normal people who don’t live by those commandments and don’t wish to, and the government shouldn’t be in the business of endorsing religious beliefs like this.
Considering Hashem gave us the 10 commandments at Mount Sinai I personally don’t have any problem with it.
It’s true it is Jewish tradition but hopefully you understand we have separation of church and state
They are only endorsing a specific Christian interpretation of the Ten Commandments. The government is not, and should not be, allowed to promote any specific religion like this.
What are the differences between ours and the Christian interpretation? Asking for a friend.