Public schools would have to display Ten Commandments under bill passed by Texas Senate

Ultimately the 10 commandments are biblical principles for worship and morality for Jews and Christians. Schools and the government as a whole has nothing to do with worship.

 

And interestingly enough, even just numbering the commandments is considered sectarian.

 

Alienate who exactly? Its not like they are trying to separate the children into groups based off of religion. The 10 Commandments aren't going to be in school uniforms or name tags. Anyone is welcome to read them or not, one of the best thing about Texas is that its still a very traditional down south state with the exception of major cities. Church is a part of life for many Texans and there is nothing wrong with that, for state schools to have a part of Christianity is fine. As long they don't push it or try and persuade children towards it I don't see a problem.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summum

Summum contends that the principles and nature of creation are continuously re-introduced to humankind by evolved beings.[5] The group holds that in one such case, Moses in the Old Testament was given both a "lower" and "higher" knowledge from a divine being. The lower knowledge was embodied in the more widely known Ten Commandments, while the higher was expressed in what Summum refers to as the "Seven Aphorisms".[22] According to Summum, when Moses first descended from Mount Sinai, he had with him the higher law inscribed on stone tablets. However, the undeveloped condition of the Israelites prevented them from understanding. Moses returned to Mount Sinai and returned with another set of tablets containing the lower law that was much easier for the people to comprehend. The higher law was only shared with a few capable of understanding its meaning.[23] This appears to coincide with one of Summum's precepts that states, "The voice of wisdom is silent, except to the OPEN MIND",[5] and in this aspect, Summum resembles an esoteric religious movement.

According to the group, the "Seven Aphorisms" are:[24]

1. SUMMUM is MIND, thought; the universe is a mental creation.
2. As above, so below; as below, so above.
3. Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates.
4. Everything is dual; everything has an opposing point; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes bond; all truths are but partial truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled.
5. Everything flows out and in; everything has its season; all things rise and fall; the pendulum swing expresses itself in everything; the measure of the swing to the right is the measure of the swing to the left; rhythm compensates.
6. Every cause has its effect; every effect has its cause; everything happens according to Law; Chance is just a name for Law not recognized; there are many fields of causation, but nothing escapes the Law of Destiny.
7. Gender is in everything; everything has its masculine and feminine principles; Gender manifests on all levels.

Freedom of speech
See also: Pleasant Grove City v. Summum
Summum followers have gained attention as of late in that they have proposed that their Seven Aphorisms be placed in public places alongside the Ten Commandments, specifically in several locations in Utah.[25][26] Christians and town fathers have objected, claiming that the Ten Commandments are of great historic significance to the United States, and as such are not solely a religious statement, whereas the seven aphorisms are a modern philosophy. Summum has prevailed in other litigation where the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Summum was denied its right to free speech and governments had engaged in discrimination.[27][28] The governments in those cases elected to remove their Ten Commandments monument rather than allow Summum to erect its Seven Aphorisms monument.[21] However, Pleasant Grove, Utah, was successful in getting the United States Supreme Court to hear their case. Their argument is that the acceptance of a monument is not an instance of a public forum where speakers may not be discriminated against, but rather a form of government speech that does not require neutral viewpoints.[29]

On February 25, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Summum in the Pleasant Grove case. Justice Samuel Alito, in his opinion for the court, asserted that a municipality's acceptance and acquisition of a privately funded permanent monument erected in a public park while refusing to accept other privately funded permanent memorials is a valid expression of governmental speech, which is permissible and not an unconstitutional interference with the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. According to Alito, "the display of a permanent monument in a public park" is perceived by an ordinary and reasonable observer to be an expression of values and ideas of the government, the owner of the park and the monument, even though the particular idea expressed by the monument is left to the interpretation of the individual observer. Alito made a clear distinction between forms of private speech in public parks, such as rallies and temporary holiday displays (Christmas trees and menorahs), and the government speech represented by permanent monuments. He opined that even long-winded speakers eventually go home with their leaflets and holiday displays are taken down; but permanent monuments endure and are obviously associated with their owners. Alito wrote, "cities and other jurisdictions take some care in accepting donated monuments." While Summum and its supporters attempted to persuade the Court that preventing governments from selecting monuments on the basis of content would be tenable, Justice Alito noted that such a situation would put government in the position of having to choose between accepting permanent monuments with conflicting messages that do not represent the values and ideals of the community, and removing all monuments from public space. As described by Alito, if the law accorded with Summum and its supporters, New York would have been required to accept a Statue of Autocracy from the German Empire or Imperial Russia when it accepted the Statue of Liberty from France.[30]

In a companion case, Summum requested a monument of its Seven Aphorisms be placed next to a Ten Commandments monument in Roy Park, a public park in the city of Duchesne, Utah. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Pleasant Grove v. Summum, Summum claimed the ruling opened the door for a new challenge based on church-state separation claims. Unlike Pleasant Grove, the Duchesne Ten Commandments monument was the only one in the park. Duchesne decided to move the monument to the city cemetery to avoid continuing litigation, citing counsel from their attorney who said the solitary monument would establish a religion for the city. As a result of the monument's removal from the city park, Summum's lawsuit became moot and was dismissed.[31][32]

 

Why not the Bill of Right
The Amendments to the constitution
also

Rocket River

 

People who don't worship God. Or worship a different god. The 10 Commandments should be taught in school, just not turned into a permanent piece. So should the Bible and various other major religious texts. But it should be curriculum not endorsement. Schools should encourage learning about different religious holidays as well. My kids have learned about the traditions of Passover, Easter, Christmas, Diwali, Ramadan, Norouz, and "Asian" New Year already this year. They loved it. But it was not an endorsement of any one of the events.

 

None of that matters. We are a secular nation.

 

We are a free nation more so than a secular nation. Its insane this is the line for you, democrats have been pushing outrages and abusive movements towards children but its okay I guess because we are a secular nation. Should we be bothered that our currency has "IN GOD WE TRUST" ? Is that the line to no longer live in this country so we don't have to use the Christian money when we buy things. Here is something that actually is concerning..

 

You can't just support the parts of the constitution you like and throw out the parts you don't. If you don't understand how displaying the ten commandments in school is a grossly unconstitutional, that's fine. But you should know that it is.

 

Are you trolling ?

 

You are correct. We should remove “in god we trust” from our currency. They didn’t add that until the 50s and they’re trying to do that Christian washing crap again.

And 1 party actually pushes legislation to help children. The other one has a weekly story about a member of their party getting caught sexually assaulting a minor.

 

And has been warming to loosening child labor laws lol.

That's a pretty strong claim, do you have any proof that the government has been trying to push kids to decide their gender and learn butt stuff or is it just some boogeyman story you heard from your favorite right wing hypnotist?

 

which of the commandments are objectionable?

 

For display in a public school?

• "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
• “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.”
• “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”
• “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.”

The first four are explicit religious instructions that have no place in a public school.

 

You really don't know? To many non-Christians or Atheists, the first 4 are.

 

seems pretty harmless

 

"Seems harmless" kinda like the bud light endorsement and the 10000x other things that you folks seem obsessed about huh?

You folks literally destroyed millions of cans of beer cuz your feelings were hurt LOL

 

Ya as harmless as your local public school your kid attends making the students recite the Shahada. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Just cans? You know how expensive ammunition is? See how many spent rounds were wasted over a beer ad campaign.