There is no excuse for this.
Louisiana became the first state to mandate that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom. Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, showing poor judgments and no spine, signed this foolishness into law. Louisiana is the first sate to do this because no others state is this stupid, apparently. The law is obviously, flagrantly unconstitutional, a bright-line First Amendment violation. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other organizations are going to sue, they will win, and a lot of time and money will be wasted so Louisiana Republicans can grandstand.
Brilliant! The Democrats are basing their 2024 election hopes on painting Republicans as anti-democratic fanatics who would just love to live in a theocracy, so the GOP does this.
An exchange between Republican Louisiana state Rep. Lauren Ventrella and CNN host Boris Sanchez illustrated just how dim-witted the Louisiana GOP’s reasoning is—and Sanchez isn’t exactly Clarence Darrow; a sharper interviewer could have made metaphorical mincemeat out of Ventrella’s lame arguments.
Ventrella began by stating that faith, as represented by the Ten Commandments, are a significant historical component to the founding of the U.S. OK, but that’s not the issue. If schools are going to teach that, the lesson has to be faith-neutral, and using the central religious code of Christianity and Judaism as a centerpiece isn’t neutral.
“Sure, but do you also recognize that the Constitution of this country, its founding document, doesn’t include the word God or Jesus or Christianity and that’s for a reason and that’s because the founding fathers founded this country as a secular one,” Sanchez said. “You don’t see that?”
Ugh. Stay on point, Boris! All that matters is that the Supreme Court has held emphatically that the Constitution forbids the state from dictating religious beliefs. Where the line should be drawn is still a live question, but that the Ten Commandments are over that line is not.
“Boris, I bet you CNN pays you a lot of money. I bet you got a lot of dollar bills in that wallet,” Ventrella replied. Ugh again. She’s after the old “In God We Trust” motto. This is like the open border activists who cite the poem on the Statue of Liberty as evidence of a national policy. Both the motto and the poem are irrelevant.
“What does this have to do with the network that I work for or what I’m getting paid?” Sanchez asked. “Don’t make this about that, answer that question. Why did the founding fathers not include God in the Constitution if they wanted this country to be the way that you see it?”
Boris apparently didn’t see the silly motto argument coming. Well, you know: CNN.
“In God We Trust. We’ll make it about me. I’ve got a dollar bill in my wallet. In God We Trust is written on that dollar. It is not forcing anybody to believe one viewpoint, it’s merely posting a historical reference on the wall for students to read and interpret it if they choose,” Ventrella explained, making no sense. What is stamped on money isn’t the equivalent of highlighting a particular religion in schools. Sanchez then stated the obvious, that the Ten Commandments are more than merely “historical” and obviously advance specific religious beliefs. Of course, and Ventrella and her ilk know this, which is why the party wants the Ten Commandment in the classes rather than the Magna Carta. Her argument is completely disingenuous. And stupid.
“This is a very valuable document. Look, this nation has gotten out of hand with crime, with the bad, negative things that are going on. Why is it so preposterous that we would want our students to have the option to have some good principles instilled in them? If they don’t hear it at home, let them read it in the classroom,” she said. “Which is different than the Mayflower Compact which is mentioned in the document as well. I don’t understand why this is so preposterous in that litigation is being threatened. It doesn’t scare us in the state of Louisiana, we say bring it on.”
Wow. What a moronic rant. Has she read the Ten Commandments? The first one tells readers not to have any other god, and the next three are purely religious edicts. That’s 40%! A poster stating the messages of the next six commandments would be harmless and constitutional, but this law’s intent is promoting juddeo-Christian religious beliefs, despite Ventralla’s posturing
“Because if someone has a home in which they choose to believe something different, which is welcome in this country. It’s literally why people fled to come here to found this country to begin with. Then they should be allowed to. And it’s not really an option if you’re requiring it to be put up in the wall of the classroom,” Sanchez said. To this, Ventrella shrugged that students, parents and teachers who don’t share the “religious views” of the Ten Commandments should just avoid looking at it.
Ooooh, good one, Lauren.
The CNN host compared the Ten Commandments poster to hanging up the Five Pillars of Islam in public school classrooms. That is an excellent analogy, and, of course, all the state rep could do was babble. “This is not about the Five Pillars of Islam. This bill specifically states the Ten Commandments. It is a historical document …” Boris cut her off, since she was ducking the issue or, just as likely, too dumb to comprehend it.
“Sure, but I’m presenting you with a hypothetical that would help you put yourself in the shoes of someone you may not understand and their point of view,” he said. “How would you feel if you walked into a classroom and something you didn’t believe in was required to be on the wall? You can answer that question.” Ventella had no answer, because, again, she knows the objective of the law is religious indoctrination.
“I appreciate you, Boris. I cannot sit here and gather and fathom … you could give me a thousand hypotheticals. But again, this specific bill applies to this specific text. The Quran, or Islam, that is a very broad statement. We’re specifically talking about a limited text, on mind you, a piece of paper that’s not much bigger than a legal sheet of paper. Some kids might even need a magnifying glass to read all of this. This is not so preposterous that we’re somehow sanctioning and forcing religion down people’s throats. I’ve heard the comments and it’s just ridiculous,” Ventrella answered. Translation: “Huminahuminahumina…” She’s got nothing.
She also kept calling the Ten Commandments “historical.” Inigo Montoya has an observation:
There is no justification for calling the Ten Commandments a “historical” document. There is no historical evidence that Moses and the Ten Commandments as stone tablets ever existed, or that the Exodus occurred. These are religious stories, and Moses has the same “historical” status as Adam and Eve, Noah, and other Old Testament figures. A school even calling them “historical” is a religious assertion.
Neither the Constitution, nor precedent, not common sense backs her “it isn’t what it is” blather. Sadly, the conservative media immediately fell into line defending the law, wounding their own credibility in the process. Newsbusters:
This story is ultimately less about the actual Ten Commandments than about what they represent in this particular instance: a challenge to the left’s monopoly on what can be taught in schools. Said differently, Louisiana challenges the (secular) religious orthodoxies of the public education system as run by left-wing administrators in unison with the teachers’ unions…. The media have no problem with kindergarteners being taught on gender, or on third and fourth-graders having access to graphic sexual materials in school libraries. But the Ten Commandments are a bridge too far.
One final Ugh. The story is about the Ten Commandments, and Louisiana’s transparent effort to force a religious code on students in violation of the Establishment Clause. There’s nothing in the Constitution prohibiting public school indoctrination regarding sex. There is very clear prohibition against public schools promoting specific religions.
Ethics Alarms 
I will agree that this plays into the BS of the Left about becoming an authoritarian theocracy under Republicans so it is at best ill-timed. I will also agree that it undermines the Democrat’s desire to be an secular authoritarian oligarchy. But if I had to choose I would probably choose the former.
Just for the sake of being contrarian and stipulating that the SCOTUS has and will continue to state that such a law is unconstitutional I will start with the language of the 1st Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The first amendment states that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. In this case it is a state and not a national edict. What the court will however do is prohibit the free exercise thereof in the classroom funded almost entirely by the state. The government is using religion based organizations to advance its goals of unfettered illegal immigration by funding such organizations so the issue of funding should be moot.
I consider secular humanism as much a religious dogma as Catholicism, or any other dogma espoused by theocratic leaders. Secular Humanism “is a philosophy, belief system, or life stance that embraces human reason, logic, secular ethics, and philosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making” has at its heart the belief that man is supreme, so why does Secular Humanism trump all other dogmas?
The interesting thing is that the Constitution does in fact allude to a supernatural entity from which all persons and their inalienable rights are derived. This idea effectively prevents man from using what it deems to be human reason, logic and secular ethics to abrogate those inalienable rights.
I believe the law would be unnecessary if the secular humanists would allow schools to allow what are deemed religion oriented texts or objects in the classroom on a voluntary basis. These laws get passed to push back against the extreme measures pushed by secular humanists and atheists. I further believe if you want to have an inclusive society, when people have an opportunity to learn about differing religions and begin to understand that virtually all religions have similar ethical rules about theft, honor, sanctity of life etc. we might find we have more in common than we think.
All the bad stuff associated with religion is derived from human interpretation that was based on “human reason and its logic”. We see how fallible our reasoning can be when it is clouded by bias. It makes us stupid I have heard.
“The first amendment states that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. In this case it is a state and not a national edict.”
But as you know, the 14th Amendment made it clear that all of the states are subject to the U.S. Constitution: it was one of the things the Civil War was fought over. So whether it is a state or Congress, and regardless of who funds it, the law is what matters, and the law attempts to force a religious symbol specific to two religions into the public schools.
Can’t do that.
“But as you know, the 14th Amendment made it clear that all of the states are subject to the U.S. Constitution:”
No argument from me on that one. The privileges and immunities and equal protection clauses makes that abundantly clear. The question remains is is the 14th amendment equally applied when it comes to some form of state sanctioned dogma?
The question I have is does that requirement to have the commandments in every classroom amount to the establishment of a Judeo-Christian religion? I am not so sure. What stops others from bring in materials from other religions? Unlike the Lords prayer that Ms. O Hare sued to eliminate have documents in a room do not necessarily mean that the state is establishing it as the only acceptable religion. Like speech you do not like, you don’t censor it you present alternative speech. That can be done here.
School boards and state prescribe a variety of beliefs that are antithetical to the viewpoints of this religion or that religion all the time. Darwinian theory suggests that man evolved from the great apes but that is theory based on variety of assumptions about primate lineage. Darwin merely pointed out that species able to adapt quickly had a superior ability to survive over time. The issue of evolving from apes was the application of his theory and not based on the ability to observe actual changes in primate species.
It does not to me whether one is a believer or not. What does matter to me is that we come to an agreement on how we are to maintain civilized behavior when it comes to respecting other points of view. Our entire abortion issue is the result of competing religions. Humanists say that life is only valuable when man decrees it to be while religious people believe life is sacrosanct upon its creation. Do abortion laws violate the 14th amendment? Apparently not. So logically the Constitution allows the religion of secular humanism to have standing over virtually all other religions.
All theocracies are based on the methods of explaining the unknown. That is what man does albeit relatively badly. Theocracies were a means to ensure civilizations could grow and thrive without devolving into chaos driven by secular parochial interests. Like Darwinism, rules of behavior that worked and promoted group success survived and were metaphorically etched into stone. Sure, the Commandments brought forth by Moses had to have the first four about the deity because without them – like our first amendment – the others could not be justified. I could point out that according to Mel Brooks, there were actually 15 commandments but Moses dropped one tablet on the way down the mountain – but I digress.
Wallphone made some great points below about learning about the great religions of the world and that much of our theoretical science relies on the same faith as those believing that the heavens and the earth were created by a supreme being. Even if you subscribe to the big bang theory, science has yet to explain what preceded it. It is every bit of as conceivable that some supreme being initiated it as believing that some unknown force precipitated the event or that nothing existed beforehand.
What science and religion are always at odds about is the precursors to our existence. Whether you want to believe your science book, the Koran, Bible, or some other religious text the initial origins of life are still unknown. We just seem to arguing over the who or what started it all and how it was done.
“I believe the law would be unnecessary if the secular humanists would allow schools to allow what are deemed religion oriented texts or objects in the classroom on a voluntary basis.”
They already do. Students are of course allowed to bring crosses, Bibles, and whatever other religious items they choose to school.
The question I have is does that requirement to have the commandments in every classroom amount to the establishment of a Judeo-Christian religion? I am not so sure. What stops others from bring in materials from other religions? Unlike the Lords prayer that Ms. O Hare sued to eliminate have documents in a room do not necessarily mean that the state is establishing it as the only acceptable religion. Like speech you do not like, you don’t censor it you present alternative speech. That can be done here.”
This doesn’t make any sense unless. The state establishing that a classroom *must* display the Ten Commandments is fine because a student *can* bring in other religious material if they so choose? You don’t see how that creates a clear hierarchy of religions in the classroom? Do you not understand the difference between mandatory and voluntary?
A few decades ago, several members of our county legislative body had some sort of seizure and decided it would be a good idea to post a large plaque of the Ten Commandments in our courthouse. This had already been ruled on by SCOTUS, of course. After a debate spanning several meetings, the county attorney talked them off that particular ledge. Beyond the legal issue, those commissioners failed to recognize the ethical implications of their attempt.
As a Christian, I oppose the state engaging in religious indoctrination of any stripe. That’s the job of the church and the family. I grew up in a rural community where virtually every family attended one of three churches in a four-mile circle -two Baptist and one Presbyterian. Our community elementary school had no posted copy of the Ten Commandments, but I’d bet that every kid in third grade could have recited them for you. (We did have big copies of the founding documents on one wall of our tiny library, and were taught about them.) Even today, our county population is as thoroughly “Christianized” as any I know of, but we’re certainly no “theocracy.” The vast majority of us honor Christ’s admonition to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Many of our churches (alone or in concert) are active in providing services to the community like food pantries, meals delivered to the elderly, etc. Our works are evidence of our faith. We are not seeking worldly authority.
My personal opinion is that if the church were doing all it should be doing in the world, in both spiritual and worldly matters, we would need a lot less government in general. When the church doesn’t serve, it often gives government an opportunity to get a toehold in our lives that will almost certainly be expanded. One final note; it is obvious to me that it would be impossible for any group to establish or even seriously attempt a theocracy in this country, and the only people thinking this is a real possibility seem to be those with the least knowledge of either God or government. What most of those people mean is that they reject the authority and therefore the moral influence of religious faith, particularly Christian faith. The world rejects the church because the church says, “No!” to sin and stands against the “I’ll do what I want!” philosophy of life. Doing what one wants eventually has negative secular as well as spiritual consequences.
This seems to be the stupidest possible thing being done by the stupidest possible people. I was hoping for a minute that they intended to argue that if gender ideology — which argues for what is essentially an undetectable “soul” which can contradict or determine physical reality and must be appeased — can be advertised in a classroom, other religious teachings deserve equal attention; that the state is currently endorsing a religion, even if it’s adherents believe it to be the literal truth (all religions do) and there isn’t a specific god (many religions don’t have one.) Similar to the Satanists starting after school clubs a few years back.
I think there is a strong argument to be made that gender ideology is a religion, and I would like to see that addressed. There’s no question that the ten commandments are religious, so while it might be useful as an extreme position to force a court to rule on the issue and lay out guidelines, trying to do this seriously is nothing but grandstanding.
“This seems to be the stupidest possible thing being done by the stupidest possible people.’
Now watch her get elected to Congress…
Not just gender ideology–Marxist/Communist ideologues must also be accepted by faith but within one or two generations destroy the society.
The democracy ideology is the same, but those typically end after a few more generations. Republics average similar, and monarchies have a few standouts, but many are worse than dictatorships.
The longest lived government ideology that continues to provide the most freedom is the federated constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives and fewer non-elected positions to serve as checks on accumulation of power.
Evolution ideology says that dinosaurs became your chicken sandwiches. Christian ideology says chickens we’re always here, good created them for man because they make healthy breakfasts, provide pest control, feathers make the best pillows, and are made of tasty meat. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle of those extremes, but it takes a great deal of faith to position yourself at the far of either end.
Despite requiring a great deal of faith, theoretical sciences are sanctioned as teachable. Math is perhaps the purest science, but it still requires faith– imaginary numbers are really a way to make equations fit our rules of how equations are supposed to work. Order of operations requires consensus, and what it is now wasn’t always how it’s now taught.
I had a good month each focused on Confucianism, Muslim, and Buddhist philosophy taught in my public education. None on Judaism or Christianity–maybe because those were supposedly already familiar to the students, but those students raised secular or exchange students perhaps missed a great deal.
The contributions religion provides to the longevity of societies really needs to be investigated, understood and taught. There’s something about it here that contributed to America’s longevity which hasn’t seemed to operate when we attempt to “spread democracy” and freedom in other societies. Maybe the fatalistic influence of religion in the middle east allows the militant dictator. Maybe the communal influence in Asia makes it the only place where communism can hold. Maybe the strict hierarchies of Catholicism allow institutional corruption that saps development.
Agree with your assessment, but I’m genuinely curious why you consider “honoring your father” a religious edict. I wouldn’t make a law out of it, but I’d just bucket it with the Good Ideas (TM) – like not coveting your neighbors wife – which don’t raise them to the level of making them laws anyway.
It’s number 5:
“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.”
I didn’t say that it was. You almost had me thinking I had counted wrong (again.). One through four are specifically religious, or 40%. None of the others are religious by themselves, but of course the Ten Commandments, as code handed down by God according Hebrew and Christian tradition, is religious itself.
Different churches number the commandments differently.
“While the entire Judeo-Christian tradition uses the same Scriptural content for the Ten Commandments, their exact division and numbering varies.
The Catholic tradition uses the division of the Commandments established by St. Augustine. (The Lutheran confessions also use this numbering, while some other confessions & traditions use slightly different numberings.)
Here are the Catholic Ten Commandments:
I am the LORD your God. You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not kill.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.”
All the more reason it can’t be called a “historical document.”
I go by the version I see God writing in “The Ten Commandments.”
“Sure, but I’m presenting you with a hypothetical that would help you put yourself in the shoes of someone you may not understand and their point of view,” he said. “How would you feel if you walked into a classroom and something you didn’t believe in was required to be on the wall? You can answer that question.”
That’s still not a good argument. The Five Pillars of Islam are all over the place in the Middle East. Including schools. That’s their culture. If I was over there, I would respect that. The Pillars of Islam don’t have anything to do with the foundation of American culture. The 10 Commandments and the Bible have a great deal to do with them. Which is why the United States is (still) a more pleasant place to be, frankly. Worldview impacts everything. People might as well say what they’re really thinking.
The Middle East has no establishment clause, so what happens over there is irrelevant. The analogy was a Golden Rule one: there are plenty of students who are not raised as Christians or Jews, and having religious symbols and texts alien to their faiths in a classroom will obviously be oppressive. The Christian and Jewish texts may have had an influence on U.S. culture, but the Founders, sensitive to the religious persecution that led so many to America, made a major point of ensuring that we didn’t repeat the conduct that our ancestors were fleeing.