- 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: r/teachers - "it's over"
Posted on 8/7/25 at 10:55 am to wackatimesthree
Posted on 8/7/25 at 10:55 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
But you seem to be making the argument that the system of ethics that provides the basis of the Constitution that limits government's power over citizens is a Christian ethic, therefore it should stand outside its own prescribed limits.
Not really. I don't think mandating the 10 Commandments is a great idea.
quote:
I think I still (at least right now) come down on the side of saying that the current prevailing legal consensus on the matter doesn't prohibit that system from being presented. It only says that if you do, you also have to allow presentation of any/all other viewpoints as well.
I'm not talking about the prevailing consensus, I'm talking about what should be, logically. If you teach morality in school in any absolute sense, like telling Johnny that stealing is wrong (as opposed to being against the rules), you are promoting religious values. Logically there is no defined line where teaching stealing is wrong isn't promoting a religious value but teaching them that they shouldn't covet is. This is analog, not digital, unless you just stop telling children that anything is wrong. I don't think we want to do that.
2
Posted on 8/7/25 at 11:11 am to Flats
quote:
Not really.
I see now.
What you are saying is that there is already a set of religious values being presented, therefore the gate is already wide open.
Whether that argument holds depends on what constitutes a religion. Does a moral system alone constitute a religion? Or does it have to include some significant promulgation of additional theology? Does the fact that virtually every religion holds that murder and theft, etc. are wrong strengthen that case or weaken it?
For example, the specific question here revolves around the Ten Commandments. Three distinct religions teach adherence to those same commandments and acknowledge they came from the same source.
Does that fact strengthen your argument or weaken it? I could see it being argued both ways.
From a practical standpoint, what you will never get secular people to admit is that morality without a transcendent moral authority is made-up nonsense. Not Sam Harris, not Matt Dilahunty, and not your average non-Christian teacher in public school.
They are going to maintain until their dying breath that made-up morality is all that exists, and they are using a consensus which they will claim is the best available. (They're also going to claim that you are too, except when your moral claims deviate from the degenerate norm in the US.)
Again, this question has real life impact on real children going to public schools. It's not just a philosophical question. The philosophy is air-tight, but it's not going to be listened to or accepted.
If we want a Christian nation (and I know you said that wasn't you), then I suggest we get busy working on doing things like changing the Constitution. I don't think arguing this point gets us there.
This post was edited on 8/7/25 at 11:15 am
Posted on 8/7/25 at 11:31 am to Smeg
quote:
Hope you boys are proud of yourselves...
You bet I am!
Posted on 8/7/25 at 11:32 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
From a practical standpoint, what you will never get secular people to admit is that morality without a transcendent moral authority is made-up nonsense. Not Sam Harris, not Matt Dilahunty, and not your average non-Christian teacher in public school.
I said logically there's no difference. I don't expect everybody to be logical.
quote:
They are going to maintain until their dying breath that made-up morality is all that exists, and they are using a consensus
Are they using a consensus, or do they use a consensus when they have numbers and the courts when they don't? Getting them to admit that a consensus matters would be a good first step.
quote:
If we want a Christian nation (and I know you said that wasn't you), then I suggest we get busy working on doing things like changing the Constitution. I don't think arguing this point gets us there.
You just said "from a practical standpoint". From a practical standpoint I think we've got a better chance of people accepting logic than we do amending the Constitution.
Posted on 8/7/25 at 11:55 am to wackatimesthree
quote:I actually agree with you on all of this. Hanging a picture of the commandments won't do anything at all on its own. I personally don't care whether or not the commandments are hanging on a wall somewhere in the school, in the classroom or otherwise. My contention is precisely with what you said: that "the problem is the teachers and the administrations. Including the school boards."
There's no reason that can't be discussed in pubic schools right now in the context of philosophy/logic. But it isn't, and it won't be, because the teachers either do not understand what you just said or they actively deny it themselves, on a personal level.
The trouble with public schools isn't whether the Ten Commandments are hung or not.
The trouble with public schools is that they are a collectivist, socialist mechanism and they will always trend towards socialism and they will always primarily attract socialists at heart.
In other words, the problem is the teachers and the administrations. Including the school boards.
And it always will be.
If Trump mandates the hanging of the Ten Commandments and the teacher complies but comes in every morning and says, "Good morning class, how is everyone this morning? Let's take a look at another useless tenet of an ancient religion written by goat herders with no knowledge of science! Who wants to read the fifth commandment today?" then what has it accomplished?
I would argue that it is probably worse than if it was never posted. You might disagree with that, but it's a fact that mandating the posting of the Ten Commandments does not automatically influence students toward anything. The teacher's handling of it determines what influence it has.
You can display anything you want, but you can't make teachers—who are the ones who have all the influence on the kids—submit to God. As long as they are their own god, they will resist influencing children toward the real God.
Surely you know this.
I believe that the teachers, administrators, and school boards should not be hostile to Christianity and not allowed to express such attitudes in their roles. If they are privately hostile towards Christianity in their own hearts and minds or in their homes, then that is on them, but they should not openly express such attitudes in the class rooms.
Posted on 8/7/25 at 12:57 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:That is merely an application of the principle. The first amendment wasn't written to exclude religion from the public space (total "discrimination" of religion), but to prevent the federal government from creating or declaring a singular state religion that all citizens would be required to adhere to, to the exclusion of all others, like the Church of England did.
Discrimination means allowing one religious expression in but not other religious expressions.
It's a legal term in this context, not a general term. Its basis is the first amendment.
In practice, though, it's discrimination in that all religious expression is being disallowed while non-religious expression is tolerated, just due to the technical differentiation between a "religion" and something else, like a non-religious worldview or philosophical ideology.
I consider this discrimination because there is a lot of overlap between religion and philosophy. Especially, there is overlap with concepts of truth and morality and the conception of the "common good" that are part of public discourse. Religions like Christianity include these concepts, and yet they can be left out of that public discourse simply because of the association to religion. That's why atheists and agnostics can have free reign to discuss their ideas, or communists or LGBTQ advocates, because their philosophical ideas are not based in a religious context. Why should competing ideas influenced by religion be left out?
This is why I disagree with the modern understanding of the 1st amendment being a two-way wall of separation in every aspect, because it means that those with religiously-based morals and ideas do not have the a competitive voice against those with secular morals and ideas. That wasn't the intent of the founders, even if they weren't envisioning a "Christian" nation in a formal way.
quote:That's fine as far as it goes (regarding your specific wording and response to someone else). I'm joining the discussion to express my concern with the modern idea of a total separation of Church and State in every respect, as it leads to a limited "competition" in the marketplace of ideas under our current structure.
Look, I chose my words very carefully. I didn't say that choosing no religion over any/all religions was the correct answer, or even the one I adhered to. The guy asked a specific question and I answered it.
Many people feel that it is better to exclude religion altogether. Ipso facto, that also means that many people feel that it is not.
I'm pushing for our nation to be overtly Christian and committed to Christian principles, so clearly I'm not against giving preference to one religion/philosophy over others (which I know is against the 1st amendment). I'm just saying that removing all religion from the public square doesn't eliminate discrimination, but actually discriminates against all religions in terms of the sharing and promulgating of ideas, while giving tolerance/allowance for non-religious philosophies to indoctrinate the masses in places like schools.
quote:It's an issue of semantics. A secular atheist can criticize Christian theism, or at least Christian-based morality, and encourage secular humanism or secularly humanistic morality and ideas without being in strict violation of the 1st amendment, but if a Christian criticized atheism or other non-Christian religions and pushed a Christian-based morality over and against secular humanism or other religiously-based moral codes, that would be a violation. The difference is that of the label of "religion", even if what is being done and discussed is the same in principle.
Sure it's discriminatory. But it's not legally discriminatory. It's discriminatory using the word in a general sense.
It's the legal description that I have an issue with, because Christians can't compete with atheistic communists in the class room because of the legal description or label.
quote:I agree, and part of that process includes public discourse, which is what I'm engaging in right now, to a limited degree.
The Constitution says what it says. If you want to change it to a Christian Nationalist Constitution, which is what you'd have to do in order to insist that Christian and only Christian religious viewpoints are included in public schools alongside secular ones, there's a process for that.
quote:Correct. Being in favor of Christianity doesn't mean I would be in favor of Islam or any other religion. I can equally condemn the secular and discriminatory nature of our laws today as well as condemn other false religions and beliefs.
As it reads now, what you accomplish by forcing the Ten Commandments in public schools is setting the precedent for someone to post religious content that you would not approve of.
quote:Again, I would agree that I don't want Satanic, Islamic, Mormon, Buddhist, Hindu, or Wiccan content being displayed or promoted, and yet I do want Christian content allowed.
You can be of the opinion that you'd rather have that scenario and allow Satanic and islamic and Mormon and Buddhist and Hindu and Wicca content up alongside Judaic and Christian content. That's fine.
quote:That may be so, but the problem is that government employees are influencing their children about religion already, with secular humanism and other atheistic or at least anti-Christian worldviews and ideologies. Instead of getting a pro-Christian message, they are getting a pro-secularism and a pro-humanism message. They are getting LGBTQ+ ideology promoted, and anti-Christian morality pushed on them. Kids can be told to keep their gender identity from their parents and be mutilated without parental consent today. They are being told that their skin color makes them either an oppressor or oppressed. They are being told that man-made climate change needs to be a priority of protest and concern, and so on.
But it's a fact that many people feel like that's a mistake. Their idea is that they don't really want a government employee influencing their children about religion on any level.
The influence is already there. Christians are just at a disadvantage because their voices are not allowed in the public space while the secular atheist's voice, is.
This post was edited on 8/7/25 at 1:00 pm
Posted on 8/7/25 at 1:02 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
That's why atheists and agnostics can have free reign to discuss their ideas, or communists or LGBTQ advocates, because their philosophical ideas are not based in a religious context.
I disagree with this; I think it's plain that the context is very religious. It's just not a theistic religion.
Posted on 8/7/25 at 3:08 pm to Flats
quote:I actually agree with your assessment from a theological perspective. All mankind was created "religious", being made in the image of God, with an innate desire and purpose for worshipping our creator, which is often perverted and twisted so that we create our own gods (even ourselves) to honor.
I disagree with this; I think it's plain that the context is very religious. It's just not a theistic religion.
I was more speaking to the legal differentiation that seems to exist between a "religious" belief and a philosophical belief that isn't based on overt religious teaching.
It can be frustrating to see some people getting a free pass to teach their anti-Christian philosophies just because they aren't tied to a particular religion.
Posted on 8/7/25 at 3:35 pm to VABuckeye
quote:
Other than the Jewish religion, yes. It's against the Constitution, like it or not.
The people who, you know, wrote the Constitution disagree.
Posted on 8/7/25 at 3:38 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
The 10 commandments don't need to be on the wall to teach kids not to lie, cheat, kill, or steal.
Of course they don’t.
And we don’t need to read Homer to teach about literature. We can have them read Twilight. But why not learn from the best.
Posted on 8/7/25 at 3:42 pm to Smeg
Where are they being ordered to hang the Ten Commandments in their classrooms?
Posted on 8/7/25 at 3:47 pm to Smeg
Good.
Posted on 8/7/25 at 3:52 pm to Smeg
So actually be a professional teacher not a mental illness enabler.
Posted on 8/7/25 at 3:57 pm to Smeg
Hopefully this one suicides herself slowly.
Posted on 8/7/25 at 4:18 pm to Flats
quote:
I said logically there's no difference.
Yes. I know.
quote:
From a practical standpoint I think we've got a better chance of people accepting logic than we do amending the Constitution.
quote:
I don't expect everybody to be logical.
I personally don't think there's snowball's chance in Gehenna of any significant number of people willing to accept that logic in this case. It leads to them having to admit that they are attempting to be their own god, and that they aren't fit for the job.
Very few people will do that.
Wide gate to destruction, many will find it vs small gate, few will find it sort of thing.
Posted on 8/7/25 at 4:32 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Again, I would agree that I don't want Satanic, Islamic, Mormon, Buddhist, Hindu, or Wiccan content being displayed or promoted, and yet I do want Christian content allowed.
There's a lot in your post, but it boils down to this one quote.
The way the Constitution was written and has been interpreted for almost 75 years, you don't have the option of allowing Christian content and none of the rest.
It's all or nothing.
And I get that you and the other poster are saying that secular humanism is also a religion, so the legal veil has already been pierced.
Now, maybe you can get somewhere with that...there are court cases in which secular humanism has been treated like a religion in the context of the First Amendment when they wanted the same protections as those espousing religion, so maybe there is a precedent there and maybe that's the avenue to take. Especially with our current SCOTUS.
That might get Christian ethics in, but it still doesn't keep anything else out.
Again, if what people want is Christian ethics and only Christian ethics taught in public schools, some kind of big change is going to be necessary.
The current system doesn't allow for that.
Posted on 8/7/25 at 4:37 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
The way the Constitution was written and has been interpreted for almost 75 years
You’re half right. That’s how it’s been interpreted.
Posted on 8/7/25 at 5:02 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:I understand that the Constitution has been interpreted for a while now to be an all-or-nothing document when it comes to religion. I'm having a discussion on a message board, not arguing in front of the SCOTUS, so I get that my words aren't going to do much here. I'm simply trying to convey the fact that when people support the exclusion of religion from the public space, it amplifies other voices who have their own worldviews and moral codes that they are pushing, mostly unimpeded, under the cloak of secularism. I'm trying to call attention to the fact that people need to stop thinking in terms of religion vs. non-religion in these matters and think in terms of worldview or ideology; some will be religiously based while others secular.
There's a lot in your post, but it boils down to this one quote.
The way the Constitution was written and has been interpreted for almost 75 years, you don't have the option of allowing Christian content and none of the rest.
It's all or nothing.
quote:Yes, but again, it's more than just a double standard in terms of "religion", but also how excluding religious ideology from public spaces while including secular ideology is already dangerous and, I believe, has led to the moral decline that we have experienced over the past century.
And I get that you and the other poster are saying that secular humanism is also a religion, so the legal veil has already been pierced.
quote:I agree that a change is needed. I think the first amendment needs to be updated, since more and more people are claiming to be non-religious and yet are promoting dangerous ideologies that can be combatted by Christianity.
Now, maybe you can get somewhere with that...there are court cases in which secular humanism has been treated like a religion in the context of the First Amendment when they wanted the same protections as those espousing religion, so maybe there is a precedent there and maybe that's the avenue to take. Especially with our current SCOTUS.
That might get Christian ethics in, but it still doesn't keep anything else out.
Again, if what people want is Christian ethics and only Christian ethics taught in public schools, some kind of big change is going to be necessary.
The current system doesn't allow for that.
Posted on 8/7/25 at 5:05 pm to Smeg
Boys? Is that neant as a derogatory term. Fire this puke immediately. See how it works. 2 edge sword.
Posted on 8/7/25 at 5:07 pm to Flats
quote:
Logically there is no defined line where teaching stealing is wrong isn't promoting a religious value but teaching them that they shouldn't covet is.
And then you have the whole "Remember the Sabbath" thing.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it seems that a Muslim group then would have grounds for a suit demanding a display of a quote from the Koran. Otherwise, you have government expressing a preference for one religion over another.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News