- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Texas may become first state to mandate Bible readings in public schools
Posted on 1/23/26 at 1:22 pm to Pettifogger
Posted on 1/23/26 at 1:22 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
"It's not about whether they'll do it, it's about the precedent and whether they'll do it"
You obviously have no understanding of the Constitution and Constitutional law. Ignorance is bliss I guess.
1
Posted on 1/23/26 at 1:23 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
it just boggles my mind that the most popular text in human history is ignored in education.
Go back and read the posts between OP's & yours. There are several excellent reasons provided
Posted on 1/23/26 at 1:24 pm to McMahonnequin
quote:
You obviously have no understanding of the Constitution and Constitutional law. Ignorance is bliss I guess.
Never heard of this "constitutional law," can you tell me more?
Posted on 1/23/26 at 1:27 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Pettifogger
This post was edited on 1/23/26 at 1:28 pm
Posted on 1/23/26 at 1:29 pm to Pettifogger
America's founding and secularism are closer than you seem to think. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment clearly states that the government cannot promote religion especially one over another.
So yes shite like this is deeply unconstitutional
So yes shite like this is deeply unconstitutional
Posted on 1/23/26 at 1:34 pm to dawgfan24348
quote:
deeply unconstitutional
bigly
Posted on 1/23/26 at 1:40 pm to dawgfan24348
quote:
America's founding and secularism are closer than you seem to think. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment clearly states that the government cannot promote religion especially one over another.
So yes shite like this is deeply unconstitutional
Sigh
The people's republic of Massachusetts had Congregationalism as their state religion for more than 40 years after the First Amendment was adopted.
The Establishment Clause was not focused on secularism, much less non-Christian faiths. It was adopted in the context of favoring a state denomination over other Christian denominations (ie, in the context of the CoE) and among the varying Christian denominations prominent in the states.
Now, you could argue that the founders, despite that context, intended to leave room for religious pluralism and secularism going forward. I don't think that argument has much heft considering the setting, but it has some straight faced textualist support.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 1:41 pm to McMahonnequin
I'm merely asking for input since you know so much about the Establishment Clause, don't make fun, I'm trying to learn here.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 1:57 pm to Fun Bunch
Congress didn’t make this law. Thanks for the input though.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 1:58 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Why not?
Why ignore the best selling book of all time?
quote:
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 Bible is a religious text. No one should be mandated by the government to read any part of it or any other religious text. The key word is "mandated".
Offer it as a voluntary option, along with verses from the Quran, Torah, Book of Mormon, etc.
If you want your kids to get a religious-based education, send them to a private religious school.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 1:58 pm to chRxis
I don’t want what Iran has. But to pretend that the direction the country is going in with regards to lgbt/dei/anti Christian sentiment is not good.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:01 pm to chRxis
quote:
you saying that morality can ONLY be derived from theology?
It's an interesting debate...but Id say that a beliefe in an objective morality requires some kind of a supreme moral arbiter...I say that as an agnostic.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:03 pm to HouseMom
quote:
I said this should happen in another thread awhile back and was obliterated by some because muh "separation of church and state" in the U.S. The Bible is the most referenced book on the entire planet, and understanding the fundamental tenets of Christianity helps students to make sense of the world around them and specifically the laws of our country. How can you even discuss morality without at least acknowledging religion's place.
We were taught about all of the major world religions in high school, and so were our kids. It's okay to learn about stuff lol.
Definitely, but it should not be "required".
quote:
The list includes a variety of texts, ranging from Sophocles to Fred Rogers and culminating in hundreds of required texts from kindergarten to 12th grade.
All they need to do is allow choice, then it would be just fine with me as long as they also include texts from the Quran, Book of Mormon, Torah, etc. as other choices.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:07 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
If Plano becomes majority Muslim and controls the school board
It is more likely that Plano would become majority Hindu.
The Muslims live further north in Frisco.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:09 pm to Shexter
Nobody should want this.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:15 pm to chRxis
quote:Then answer your own question. What is morality derived from?
then what did we do before the Abrahamic religions existed?
look, the whole "killing others is bad, treat others decent" was around way before any religion was formed and decreed any moral authority...
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:17 pm to Pettifogger
quote:You're gonna get downvoted but you're the only person here that understands the intent of the Establishment Clause.
The Establishment Clause was not focused on secularism, much less non-Christian faiths. It was adopted in the context of favoring a state denomination over other Christian denominations (ie, in the context of the CoE) and among the varying Christian denominations prominent in the states.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:23 pm to ThuperThumpin
quote:
It's an interesting debate...but Id say that a beliefe in an objective morality requires some kind of belief in a supreme moral arbiter...I say that as an agnostic.
Fixed it for you, and you're still 100% wrong.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:24 pm to StrongOffer
It's silly, because it's not really that arguable.
I think it's somewhat natural for them to assume that because I argue from that vantage point I'm endorsing stuff like this, which isn't necessarily true.
Personally, I care more about beating back the the notions surrounding the EC, deism, pluralism as our founding ideal, etc. than I do mandating Bible readings in Texas.
I think it's somewhat natural for them to assume that because I argue from that vantage point I'm endorsing stuff like this, which isn't necessarily true.
Personally, I care more about beating back the the notions surrounding the EC, deism, pluralism as our founding ideal, etc. than I do mandating Bible readings in Texas.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:31 pm to Pettifogger
quote:I was late to this thread but same. I have friend who I've debated with a lot about the country being founded on deism vs Christianity. The only argument is because they don't want to accept that it was founded on Christianity.
Personally, I care more about beating back the the notions surrounding the EC, deism, pluralism as our founding ideal, etc. than I do mandating Bible readings in Texas.
Page 6 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News