DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Texas state Senate approves bill to post Ten Commandments in public schools

The Texas state Senate approved a bill on Thursday that would require public schools in the Lone Star state to prominently display the Ten Commandments in every classroom.

The legislation, which passed the chamber with a 17-12 vote entirely along party lines, next heads to the state House of Representatives.

State Sen. Phil King (R), who authored the measure, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that such displays of the Ten Commandments acknowledge “the role that fundamental religious documents and principles had in American heritage and law.”

The Republican lawmaker noted that his new legislation comes in direct response to the Supreme Court’s decision last June in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

In the case, the justices sided with a high school football coach who was conducting prayers with students during and after games and threw out the Lemon Test, which was previously used to evaluate whether legislation violates the Establishment Clause.

“This legislation only became legally feasible with the Supreme Court’s overturning of the Lemon Test,” King said at the committee hearing. “I think this would be a good healthy step for Texas to bring back this tradition of recognizing America’s religious heritage.”

Another bill passed in the Texas state Senate on Thursday would allow school districts to require campuses provide a “period of prayer and reading of the Bible or other religious text on each school day.”

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) touted both bills as part of the fight for “religious liberty in Texas.”

“Allowing the Ten Commandments and prayer back into our public schools is one step we can take to make sure that all Texans have the right to freely express their sincerely held religious beliefs,” Patrick said in a statement.

“I believe that you cannot change the culture of the country until you change the culture of mankind,” he added. “Bringing the Ten Commandments and prayer back to our public schools will enable our students to become better Texans.”

A growing number of elected Republicans are increasingly questioning the separation between church and state.

Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert (R) faced backlash last June when she said she was “tired of this separation of church and state junk.”

“The reason we had so many overreaching regulations in our nation is because the church complied,” Boebert said at the time. “The church is supposed to direct the government, the government is not supposed to direct the church.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) also suggested last July that the GOP should embrace Christian nationalism, or the ideology that the U.S. is a Christian nation and should make laws rooted in Christian values.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...post-ten-commandments-in-public-schools/

Be Damned the constitution!

Not the entire constitution. I mean they still believe in the second amendment.

Yes and they can thank all those dead children for defending their right to bear arms.

Just like some don't believe in the second but fall all over themselves whining about the first when they feel wronged.

Too many people think their freedom is the only freedom and if they don't like what you do you shouldn't.

No I don't think they should be required to display religious text in classrooms, those should be allowed for a specific lesson.

I believe in the second amendment. I don't believe that twisting it into something that gives carte blanche on everything is included in it however.

So you don't believe in the plain text of the second amendment. You believe in your specific interpretation of it. You are exactly the type of person that doesn't believe in the "entire constitution". Deflect and move those goal posts, you are the person you were talking about.

Yet you believe in your interpretation of it. As an example. Somehow you seem to think that somewhere in that second amendment there's some right to own 30 round magazines. Somehow it seems you feel that infringes on your right to keep and bear arms. That's exactly what you accuse others of. An interpretation that's clearly not a part of the second amendment. You can't claim you're promoting the plain text of the second amendment when you are twisting it to include things it clearly doesn't say.

I believe the words "shall not be infringed" mean exactly what they say. I don't be you have a right to "own 30 round" magazines. I believe you have a right to own as large of magazines as you wish to own. Why are 30 rounds so scary to you? Would you be ok with 29? You continue to use arbitrary reasons to deny what the plain text says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Oddly it doesn't say "except for".

You don't believe in the constitution as it is written, you believe in only the part that suit you. You are the problem you whine about.


On edit One other thing. And see if you can keep up on this.

I don't think the constitution GIVES me anything, especially with the second amendment. You obviously do not understand what a right is. The constitution PROTECTS the rights I HAVE. It does not GRANT me the rights. It is there to keep the government from stepping on MY rights. Until you understand that, you will always be anti-constitution and will always rationalize away rights you find distasteful.

The amount of rounds in your magazine holds does not infringe on your ability to keep and bear arms. It does not prevent you from owning such a weapon or bearing it at any point in time.

Like I said, that's your interpretation of it. Exactly the same as you claim others are doing. Your opinions are no more or less valid than that of others. And that's all it is, your opinion.

And the second amendment still doesn't have the word "except" in it.

You think 30 is too much. NY thinks 8 is too much. Do you see how this infringes? When it more than 1 round at a time too much?

You can rationalize all you like, you still are anti-constitution. You just don't like to believe it.

I do not see how it infringes on a persons right to keep and bear arms. That's a pretty basic and easy to understand statement. You like to preach that anyone who disagrees with you is anti second amendment but the actual wording of the second amendment doesn't back you up on that. Expanding your opinion by adding into it what you think it means doesn't make it true or correct.

Which part of the second amendment doesn't back up "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There is no "except" in there. There no "other than" there is no "unless someone is scairt of it" in there.

You continue to try and rationalize away what the amendment says because you do not believe in the constitution or the processes. SCOTUS has called "shall not be infringed" an unqualified command. That means it doesn't have qualifiers such as "if it makes you feel better". It is a direct command that infringement "the action of limiting or undermining something." is not allowed.

This is simple. This is basic. You are too arrogant to allow others freedom you don't believe in. You do not believe in the constitution and you should point that finger at you. You don't like it so it can't be.

It is simple and it is basic. Nothing about a magazine with a lesser capacity prevents you from owning, keeping or bearing arms. Once again anyone who doesn't see this 100% your way you claim is anti second amendment. You state that there isn't an "except" in there. There also isn't an "includes" in there which adds stipulations about a totally different topic which isn't in the second amendment. This is what you're attempting to do.

Thankfully the court has ruled several times that having a different choice does not negate other choices. Just because judaism exists doesn't mean you can't be catholic (this is the argument you are trying to make).

There is an include. It includes arms. Magazines are part of arms. You continue to rationalize this as a privilege. You are wrong. Everything that is arms is included, except the parts that are in the exception clause.

Do us a favor, you own what you think you need and the rest of us can do the same. See how easy that is. If 30 round (or 100 round) magazines scare you don't own them.

There is no such thing as a plain text reading of the 2nd amendment. It require an interpretation as written and that is what we have been doing for the past 100 years.

Machine guns were not available at that time.

There is also a fight about the comma.

And there were no phones to be protected by the 4th.

Oh wait, almost forgot. The first machine gun was invented in 1722. That was 70 years before the constitution. Also, it says arms, not muskets, not swords, not knifes.

Well we can leave the machine guns to the well regulated militia.

Let's recap here. According to you every American has the "right" to keep and bear firearms with "no exceptions". I mean it's a right which is something you don't have to earn or purchase. According to your logic poverty is a restriction to that right. I mean everyone shouldn't have to be a person of means to exercise their constitutional rights, correct? Or is that actually an exception of which you claim there aren't any? According to your logic when followed to its full meaning the government should be providing guns and ammunition to every America citizen who wants one because we can't allow the fact they can't afford one to be some exception to deny them of their constitutional right. I mean if you're going to step in it, step all the way into it.

And for someone that is so firm in their beliefs you don't seem to have a lot of ground to stand on here. Does limiting the amount a magazine holds prevent you from owning that gun? No it does not. Does it prevent you from keeping that gun? No it does not. Does it prevent you from using that gun as it pertains to hunting, shooting or to defend yourself with that firearm? No it odes not.

Your retort? "Does it scare you?"

The Miller decision suggests arms that are covered by the second amendment protections are ones that are useful to military use. So that would cover machine guns.

Heller tells us that the individual right to keep arms is unconnected to militia service.

These rulings are part of SCOTUS precedent now. Believing in the constitution requires understanding that all three branches are co-equal and a check on the others. Again, you either believe in the constitution or you don't.

Nah, FrankZ is fine with the mass shootings.

But he has a problem with “You shall not Murder”

What a stupid thing to say.

And look at you trying to twist words. Poverty does not factor into this. The government cannot infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. Your means to do so are not the government. You've just created the second stupidest* argument against second amendment rights I have heard. To add to that, the second doesn't imply you MUST keep and bear arms. I've never told anyone that they must own anything. This is another straw argument that is nonsense.


"Does limiting the amount a magazine " Magazines are arms.
Infringe - "the action of limiting or undermining something."

Yes, it very much means that limiting magazines is an infringement.

*the first stupidest argument was in the MDGA floor when some random assemblycritter suggested the thrird amendment allows limits on the second amendment due to troops carrying arms and no one can be forced to quarter troops. Yes, they said that.

I am not fine with murder, mass or otherwise. Period.

To suggest otherwise is absolute nonsense, insulting and beneath contempt.

Yet you are fine with everyone running around with their own personal arsenal.

The fact that young children are murdered in their classroom is acceptable under the guise of a constitutional right for someone to bear arms.

A paradox of oxymorons. Makes no sense at all.

Rights are not absolute. That has been established many times before.

I am fine with people keeping and bearing arms. I am not ok with murder. No one has the right to murder someone.

It makes sense, especially when you understand there are more ways to murder someone than guns. Just because someone owns a gun does not make them a murderer.

I've never advocated anything but personal responsibility when it comes to gun ownership and use. I have never advocated murdering people.

That's some trash right there.

Another reason to not take you seriously.

I'd think a statutory requirement to display scripture would be challenged somewhere by someone thru the legal process.

As for nothing infringing on the right to bear arms - rocket launchers are "arms" - surface to air missiles are "arms" - mortars are "arms" .... the second amendment doesn't specify "guns" or "firearms" .... are people actually advocating for those weapons as well as fully automatics?

If everyone did their best to follow the 10 commandments, the world would be a much better place.

Show me the well regulated militia again?

This is true. It would also be true to say that if everyone did their best to follow the five precepts of Buddhism the world would be a better place. There's probably other religious scripture that contains healthy guidelines or laws or whatever you want to call them. None of that makes it justifiable to require the ten commandments to be displayed in public schools.

Much like parting the Red Sea.

While that's certainly true I'm not sure what that has to do with this. Many religions have their own religious texts they believe in and follow. I'm sure most if not all of them have some moral guidelines within those texts. We have laws on the books that make many of the commandments the law of the land.

What Texas is deciding to do is favor the religious text they believe in, the Bible, which is strictly a Christian teaching to display, placing it above every other religious text or teaching. Forcing this text into the public school system to display their preferred religious text upon people of other faiths and religions not to mention those with no faith or religion. The separation of church and state seems pretty clear here.

So you have decided that poverty is the single infringement exception to allowing Americans to keep and bear arms.

Yeah, just like that!

You could have stopped right there, because I didn't look into it any further than that.

I understand that you didn't. I wasn't trying to suggest that you did. That does not however mean that responding in a manner that goes a little deeper than the surface is a bad thing.

Going deeper than the surface in this forum isn't good for your health.

Sometimes that seems to be the case. I've seen many times that indicates it may raise people's blood pressure and temporarily impact their emotional stability.