powerbelly said:

---

The last people I want teaching my kids about Christianity are their teachers.

---

This x infinity

I'm not giving up the fight until Ezekial 23:20 is on the wall of every classroom!!!!!

You're saying Christian symbols are repulsive to non-Christians, so we shouldn't want them to be visible in the public square because it'll turn them off of Christianity. And you, a non-Christian are here to warn us why? Don't you want people to embrace the truth?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

From an email yesterday from my school district:

Quote:

---

Ten Commandments: SB 10 requires public schools to display a copy of the Ten Commandments in every classroom, and specifies the wording and size of the posters. The Ten Commandments will be on
classroom walls by the start of school. This is the only religious text that will be permitted to be displayed in classrooms unless otherwise tied to a Texas Essential Knowledge standard appropriate for the student's grade level. We look forward to partnering with families as these changes are implemented. Please have a conversation with your students about expectations for the new year before the first day of school, Aug. 13.

---

I know we've already covered this. . . . but I didn't expect it to actually happen. I'm curious about what supporters of this bill actually think this will achieve.

Is posting the 10 Commandments going to convert non Christian children to Christianity? Are we actually wanting public schools and government employees to provide religious instruction to children? Is this about teaching something about American history as some of the Senators that supported this bill said? Its strange that the Constitution or Bill of Rights aren't required to be displayed. . . . .

Surely, this bill is just a reaction to social normalization of things that Christians don't like. But, I think Christians need to be open to the possibility that non Christians see this legislation as political condemnation of non Christians and forced recognition of Christian ideals.

I think some Christians will support this law. I think some Christians will support the 10 Commandments, but see this law as just virtue signaling and think its inappropriate. And I think most non-Christians will dislike it and be furthered turned off from Christianity.

This law feels to me like political theater at the expense of actually bringing people to your faith. And if your faith is more important than your politics, I think you might want to consider the possibility that some percentage of the 10 million non Christians in Texas think you've just given them another reason to dislike Christianity.

TLDR; If you believe it is important to give all people a pathway to the Christian God or to bring them into Christianity . . . . and that this is more important than any political goal. . . . how do you think this law contributes to your goals?

---

Just curious which one of the 10 Commandments are you against?

Sapper Redux said:

---

The first 4 are quite specific to one faith tradition. There are plenty of other faith traditions out there.

---

Not really. Depends on who you say God is. And if anything it was directed towards Jews and not Christians. And I think it is more about the first 3 commandments

But how can anyone disagree with the moral Commandments?

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

The first 4 are quite specific to one faith tradition. There are plenty of other faith traditions out there.

---

Not really. Depends on who you say God is. And if anything it was directed towards Jews and not Christians. And I think it is more about the first 3 commandments

But how can anyone disagree with the moral Commandments?

---

Except it isn't the 6 Commandments. It's the 10 Commandments. And it's bizarre to put them up in a public school. They aren't unique to American history (or that important to it), they don't represent specific laws or statutes, they don't add to any specific class. They're just there to tell kids that they live in a state where Christians in public office are going to put as much Christianity in there as they can get away with.

---

So who are the 10 Commandments directed to? The Jews or the gentiles? And who are the first 3 Commandments directed to?

And fwiw, the 10 Commandments are Jewish law. Not Christian.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

You're saying Christian symbols are repulsive to non-Christians, so we shouldn't want them to be visible in the public square because it'll turn them off of Christianity. And you, a non-Christian are here to warn us why? Don't you want people to embrace the truth?

---

Really, Bob? The only thing that I would call repulsive is your mischaracterization of my post. I never said Christian symbols are repulsive. And I never said they shouldn't be visible in the public square.

I have no problems with Christian symbols and and I have no problem with Christianity being represented in the public square. What I would say is that in a society that values freedom of religion, we should not give priority to one faith over another. And in a society that values skepticism of power, we ought to be terrified of the idea of handing over the stewardship and responsibility of teaching our religious and spiritual values of our children to the government.

Yes, I want people to embrace the truth. Do not confuse your opinion with truth. What I want is for people to be free to pursue truth without a bureaucrat telling them what that must be.

---

The question becomes what society should do when two faiths are in competition with each other and mutually exclusive of each other. This to me is more like having a crucifix above the chalk board than government catechesis.

Christianity didn't become aberrant in schools organically. it took some doing by secularists and groups that are antagonistic toward Christianity to forbid it even in schools in parts of the country where it's practiced unanimously. It worked for them. Why can secularists in public office wield their power to influence the culture, but Christian politicians can't in your mind?

Regarding this specific change to the law, it does nothing to sway me toward the public schools system for my kids, but I think it's something positive and have no issue with it whatsoever.

What was the impetus behind this? I understand we are a nation of rules and law. Eternal, Divine, Natural and human law flow to simple rules in the classroom. Little Johnny can't dance during instruction time because there are rules against that. Those rules are there for a reason.

I'm not stating, just asking.

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

The first 4 are quite specific to one faith tradition. There are plenty of other faith traditions out there.

---

Not really. Depends on who you say God is. And if anything it was directed towards Jews and not Christians. And I think it is more about the first 3 commandments

But how can anyone disagree with the moral Commandments?

---

Except it isn't the 6 Commandments. It's the 10 Commandments. And it's bizarre to put them up in a public school. They aren't unique to American history (or that important to it), they don't represent specific laws or statutes, they don't add to any specific class. They're just there to tell kids that they live in a state where Christians in public office are going to put as much Christianity in there as they can get away with.

---

So who are the 10 Commandments directed to? The Jews or the gentiles? And who are the first 3 Commandments directed to?

And fwiw, the 10 Commandments are Jewish law. Not Christian.

---

Yeah, Christians culturally appropriated them.

And in Judaism, it's actually forbidden for a non-Jew to keep Shabbat. Even when a person is in the process of converting, and learning the laws of Shabbat, he'll be asked to do one act of "work" (like lighting a match) so as to not keep Shabbat completely. That covenant is strictly between God and Israel.

I've heard a Rabbi claim that God intervened to have Christianity and Islam change the day of worship (to Sunday and Friday) to keep Shabbat exclusively Jewish.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

in parts of the country where it's practiced unanimously

---

Please find me a place with zero non-Christians to include agnostics and atheists. We are not a theocracy. We are not a Christian nation. Never have been. The only mention of religion in the entire Constitution is to forbid religious tests and forbid the establishment of a state religion.

---

I have no idea where that would be. I'm saying that's true in principle. I don't advocate for a state religion, but as a matter of fact there were established state religions post-Constitutional convention.

I don't know what you mean by Christian Nation.

Is posting the commandments in TX classrooms enough to establish a state religion?

jkag89 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

in parts of the country where it's practiced unanimously

---

Please find me a place with zero non-Christians to include agnostics and atheists. We are not a theocracy. We are not a Christian nation. Never have been. The only mention of religion in the entire Constitution is to forbid religious tests and forbid the establishment of a state religion.

---

Heck, Catholics, Protestants and Jews can not even agree on how to number them.

If you believe the Commandments are important enough to be part of your child's everyday education, send them to a parochial school.

---

Or, we could just post them in every TX classroom.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

in parts of the country where it's practiced unanimously

---

Please find me a place with zero non-Christians to include agnostics and atheists. We are not a theocracy. We are not a Christian nation. Never have been. The only mention of religion in the entire Constitution is to forbid religious tests and forbid the establishment of a state religion.

---

I am confused by what you mean by Christian nation. I agree we are not a Christian theocracy. But the majority of Americans identify as Christian. Does that constitute a "Christian nation"?

And after further thought, the whole thing is silly to me. And causes unnecessary division and friction. Seems very similar to virtue signaling by the left.

Quote:

---

The question becomes what society should do when two faiths are in competition with each other and mutually exclusive of each other. This to me is more like having a crucifix above the chalk board than government catechesis.

---

This is simply the inevitable consequence of freedom. If you want a nation with freedom of speech, some people will say things you don't like. If you want a nation with political freedom, you'll have competition of political ideas. And if you want religious freedom, you'll have to accept that society is going to be comprised of different faiths. You remove the situation of having competing ideas by removing freedoms. And I don't think you are suggesting that.

The short answer to the question is that we act like adults and figure out how to coexist.

Quote:

---

Christianity didn't become aberrant in schools organically. it took some doing by secularists and groups that are antagonistic toward Christianity to forbid it even in schools in parts of the country where it's practiced unanimously. It worked for them. Why can secularists in public office wield their power to influence the culture, but Christian politicians can't in your mind?

---

If you want to argue that there are occurrences where a secularist has crossed the line, then I'm on board. No argument from me.

But, what I think we need to clarify is that my asking for Christianity to not receive special treatment is not equivalent to oppression of Christians. I'm not asking for special treatment of secular ideas, only equal treatment. Here is what I mean:

If you want your child to be able to wear a Christian t-shirt or wear a crucifix, then others can wear a Star of David, Hilal, Pride Flag, Buddhist symbols, or whatever they want.

If you want your teachers to be able to express their Christian faith, then other teachers can express their non-Christian faiths.

If you want your child to be able to join an afterschool club on campus to pray and to explore their Christian faith, then I want others to be able to do the same for non-Christian faiths and value systems. This one is relevant, because Texas just passed a law saying that LGBTQ clubs have been banned.

If you want to ban literature that simply mentions faiths or value systems you disagree with, then we should ban literature that mentions Christianity. If books that mention opposite sex attraction (which is basically every book you read in high school) is acceptable, then so is a book that mentions same sex attraction.


I don't want to establish a double standard whereby only secularist politicians or leaders are permitted to exert power in favor of only their idea. In most cases, secular politicians are advocating simply for equal voice and equal access toward influencing culture. And they are doing so with push back from Christian politicians who feel that only Christians should be permitted to exert power and influence culture.

Same sex marriage remains a prime example of this. Christians (not all of them) in this country fought like hell to keep others from having equal rights and forced religious definitions onto the legal for years. And when the tides turned and same sex marriage rights were granted, you'd think that the secularists had just banned Christian marriage. . . . . Its like the saying goes - When you accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

And again, before I end, I want to again acknowledge that there are plenty of examples where secularists have crossed a line in demanding their own privilege. Please do not confuse me with the most far left extremes and I want confuse you with the most far right extremes.

Quote:

---

I think that if we want to put stock in the idea we are a Christian nation on account of state Constitutions, founding principles, or the beliefs of the time, then we are also a white supremist nation. And a sexist nation.

---

Absolutely correct.

And beyond the question of whether America was a Christian nation at some point in the past is the question of whether America is currently a Christian nation. I'd ask what it means to be a "Christian nation" in the first place. Is it simply that the majority of our citizens are Christian? Or does it have to be more than that? What rights and privileges are Christians entitled to in this country that I, as a non-Christian, am not entitled to?

Bob Lee said:

---

jkag89 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

in parts of the country where it's practiced unanimously

---

Please find me a place with zero non-Christians to include agnostics and atheists. We are not a theocracy. We are not a Christian nation. Never have been. The only mention of religion in the entire Constitution is to forbid religious tests and forbid the establishment of a state religion.

---

Heck, Catholics, Protestants and Jews can not even agree on how to number them.

If you believe the Commandments are important enough to be part of your child's everyday education, send them to a parochial school.

---

Or, we could just post them in every TX classroom.

---

By whose numeration?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I think that if we want to put stock in the idea we are a Christian nation on account of state Constitutions, founding principles, or the beliefs of the time, then we are also a white supremist nation. And a sexist nation.

---

If you are going to use that myopic lens to paint our founding, why not throw in slave nation founded in 1619. Isn't that also part of the progressive trope?

Are Irish white? Italians? Spanish? French? How did those "white" groups fair in this "white supremist nation" you paint? It would be accurate to say "WASP" as predominate descriptor for our founding fathers. And yes, women had limited rights and there were black slaves (as well as black slave owners). The ideas of "sexism" and slavery were not unique to the US. What was unique was that this nation, along with other European nations, moved in a direction that would eventually allow for womans suffrage and the abolition of slavery. That should be celebrated and pointed out but it gets in the way of people that hate this nation. Importantly, the reason these nations moved in that direction is because of Judeo-Christian values. If you separate those Christian ideals, then there is no moral reason to maintain those principles.

William Wilberforce - Wikipedia

Of course, no one taught about Wilberforce because it doesn't fit the narrative.