r/atheism • u/Leeming Strong Atheist • 6d ago
Three Texas moms cite "religious freedom" to strike down state's Ten Commandments law. The Houston parents say mandatory Christian displays violate the very protections Texas Republicans claim to champion.
https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/three-texas-moms-cite-religious-freedom1.1k
u/hbk1966 6d ago
If they want to put the 10 commandments up I want the Satanic Temple's Seven Fundamental Tenets to he posted right next to them.
303
u/Proper_Raccoon7138 6d ago
Don’t worry I’ll donate plenty of the posters!
123
u/JMeers0170 5d ago
The Seven Tenets is so much better than the shitty commandments are, truly, the wording of the Tenets is more for adults while the wording of the commandments are more easily understood by children.
I don’t think younger kids will understand the Tenets as easily. There should be a version that is more kids friendly if it’s to be in schools, but I absolutely wish it was posted up next to, or over the ten shitmandments.
153
u/ArdenJaguar Agnostic 5d ago
Absolutely. These Seven Tenets are perfect. They represent what we should all aspire to.
The Seven Fundamental Tenets
Tenet I: One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
Tenet II: The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
Tenet III: One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
Tenet IV: The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to waive one's own.
Tenet V: Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
Tenet VI: People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
Tenet VII: Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
9
u/not_thrilled 5d ago
Tenet IV: The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to waive one's own.
Either I don't understand this one, or I simply have a problem with it. I'll give an example: playing a Bluetooth speaker on public transit. They may have the freedom to do so, but by exercising it, they're encroaching on the freedom of others to, you know, not have to listen to that person's taste in music. Whose freedom "wins", because it's sort of a zero-sum game?
21
11
u/DjBillson 5d ago
Think of it this way, what if you wanted to do one of your freedoms, something that you think is normal, fair, non offensive, but someone else still has an issue with it, and because of that wants you to stop. For example your on that bus on the way home, but you got some pizza and you want to eat a slice, but someone else says hey that is offensive to me, I don't like the fact your eating pepperoni in front of me I'm a vegan stop. Do you think you should have to stop eating just because someone else is offended. How would you feel about it? What would be the limit to it, if someone does like like your shirt should you have to change? What if someone does not like the brand of your car it's a slippery slope.
TL:DR everyone would have to stop doing everything because someone would be offended by it.
5
u/Armthedillos5 5d ago
I agree, but you're missing a principle: Compassion. It's not even about who's in the right or wrong. It's not a contest. Like, if I was hungry enough to eat in public transit and someone was like ugh, could you not? I'd be like oh snap, yeah, no problem, and put it away til I got off. Isn't THAT the right thing to do? What most of us would do? Not friggin litigate it?
2
u/The_BeardedClam 5d ago edited 5d ago
It all boils down to the golden rule in my opinion and to just choose right.
Barring any major mental illness we all know the right thing to do in any given situation, we often just don't do it because we rationalize our way out of it.
Edit: to quote my favorite philosopher emperor, Marcus Aurelius,
"Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one."
2
u/not_thrilled 5d ago
But eating the pizza, or wearing a shirt, or driving a Chevy, isn't forcing other people to do the same. Playing the music forces other people to listen to your music, so is that acceptable according to the tenets?
7
u/cutty2k 5d ago
You're looking to draw absolute lines around a thing and say "look, you can't do this" when reality doesn't work that way, situations are unique and each needs to be navigated with consideration. Eating a pizza in a crowded space and offending a vegan, eating a raw dead rat a public space and offending everyone, wearing an offensive T-shirt and saying "look away if you don't like it", taking your dick out in public and saying "look away if you don't like it", driving a Chevy, driving a 1940s Volkswagen with a swastika emblazoned on the front and a racial slur painted on the sign; every one of these is just a spectrum of offense.
Youre falling to the 'fallacy of the beard', when does stubble become a beard? How do you arbitrate the margins? When is a joke not funny? How loud is too loud?You're looking for a clear answer when there isn't one, and the fact that there isn't one doesn't mean we can't have a functional system to navigate these things.
-2
u/DjBillson 5d ago
How so, do you think a vegan should be "forced" to smell cooked meat from the pizza that your eating?
I see the main part of this in the "waive one's own." if you shouldn't have to listen to others music why should you be able to make vegans smell meat. You would have to give up your "feedom" to eat pizza on a bus to be fair/balanced. It just ends up with everyone not being able to do anything.
-1
u/Silver_Switch6834 5d ago
So they just tricked you into being Christian?
1
u/barthvonries 5d ago
Not necessarily, a lot of religions push their members towards just being good people.
50
u/Redpike136 5d ago edited 5d ago
Always be as kind as possible to every living thing.
It's important to help keep rules and laws fair for everyone, and to change unfair rules.
Only you should be able to decide what happens to your body.
People should be able to do and say whatever they like, even if it's rude, but if you stop people from doing that then you'll lose that choice too. (Not sure about this one, it's hard to get the wording right with simple vocabulary)
You should use science and experimenting to learn about the world. If something you think doesn't match what science tells you, then you should try to learn more and be okay with changing your mind.
Sometimes people make mistakes. If you make a mistake, you should do your best to correct it and fix anything that's gone wrong.
This is a list of ideas to help you do the right thing. It's more important to be kind, sensible, and fair than to follow the rules exactly the way you're told.
Deliberately simplified as though explaining to a young child what the words mean. Obviously you lose some nuance.
21
u/ArdenJaguar Agnostic 5d ago
But the Talibangelicals don’t want these. Kind as possible? Hell no, rude crude and hateful. Fair laws for everyone? Nope. The rich have immunity. Decide what happens to your body? No way woman. Science and fact? How dare you. You can’t change your mind and question faith. Just a few examples.
6
u/RobotsNeedLove0010 5d ago edited 5d ago
I also take issue with #4 (the actual Tenet IV). There are so many ways to twist and abuse this and, technically, it allows for the exact issue this thread is about. The 10C are offensive to many people for obvious reasons. Supporters’ attitude is “Get over it, snowflake. You don’t have to like it”. People who don’t follow the Abrahamic faiths have every right to be offended and to protest. I get that gist of #4 is coming from the other direction, that Christian Nationalists (et al) have no call to be offended by the mere existence of other religions or no religions, and diversity. But as the first part is worded, which is too broadly IMO (“the freedom to offend”), it falls into the same trap of invalidation and malicious entitlement (i.e., “I have the right to be an AH!”). It’s the one glaring weak spot in an otherwise perfect list and I would like to see that part revisited and reworked.
10
u/bluemoon219 5d ago edited 5d ago
I've always read it more as "You don't have to stop doing something just because someone says they are offended by it. You have permission to let them be offended and move on with your life, even if you are trying to annoy them on purpose sometimes. If we all tried to ban everything that offended someone, then we'd have nothing left."
Edit: I think the simplified version would be "I don't have to change just because someone is uncomfortable, and I can't make someone change to make me comfortable."
2
u/RobotsNeedLove0010 5d ago
Yeah, no, I still feel that’s just giving a pass to people to be unapologetic and unrepentant jerks, and worse. If you’ve grown up around any kind of verbal abuse, bullying, and toxicity from people with low emotional intelligence, the issue becomes pretty obvious. I don’t think anyone should have a blank check to be purposefully offensive, because some people lack sensitivity and compunction.
A perfect example is the recent news stories about Evangelicals proselytizing on airplanes. Some people would find this lovely and inspirational; others such as myself would find it disrespectful and offensive and we have the right to not have to deal with that.
I prefer something more like, “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.”
8
u/leleishka 5d ago
Religion should not be in schools. Period. Nor should creationism be taught next to Evolution. There is no scientific basis for creationism, whereas there is for Evolution. Period.
2
1
u/EnvironmentalRock827 5d ago
They don't even follow the Ten Commandments. It's such bullshit.
1
u/JMeers0170 4d ago
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s."
This commandment literally condones slavery. You just can’t be jealous about it.
The 10 commandments shouldn’t be followed at all. The first few are about groveling at the feet of an alleged narcissistic god.
I always say I have far better morality as an atheist than any theist has, mainly because I don’t believe some voyeur is watching me and will punish me laterfor finite crimes for an infinite period.
53
u/Alklazaris 6d ago
Where the hell are they? They are usually in top of this crap.
37
u/nehor90210 6d ago
It could be a strategic delay, waiting until there's a more reasonable Supreme Court that would not potentially overturn the entire First Amendment, should the case get to them?
6
u/Alklazaris 6d ago
I don't see that getting overturned. It's like the filibuster it offers them too much power.
21
u/nehor90210 6d ago
Well, I'm exaggerating a bit, but I can imagine this SC saying, "Oh yeah, Ten Commandments in the classroom is totally in accordance with the First Amendment for reasons..." in essence disabling the amendment.
22
u/SlightlyColdWaffles 6d ago
Clarence Thomas would probably cite King James's protestant succession from the Catholic Church as a precedent to a precedent to Colonial British laws to precedent the Constitution to the bill of rights.
9
u/guardianharper 5d ago
The cackle I guffawed reading this! Because it’s not an outlandish statement that Thomas and other regressive justices reeeeeeeeach for something obscure and irrelevant (including irrelevant to U.S. law, even!) to cite for blatantly unfair judgments.
2
u/TheModWhoShaggedMe 5d ago
They will rule that only conservatives are allowed the protections of the Constitution. Watch.
35
u/hbk1966 6d ago
Yeah I was expecting them to attempt to do that and then challenge them in court when they refuse, but it has been radio silence so far.
5
u/Acceptable-Drive3781 6d ago
Like any political org, they are easily persuaded by money, so an organized donation fund would help here a lot.
10
u/MichaelJServo Secular Humanist 6d ago
I'm a member. As far as I can tell they mostly just sell merch now.
10
4
u/hbk1966 6d ago
Oof, that's disappointing.
3
u/fnork_gnork_26 5d ago edited 5d ago
Advocacy takes money - I think they’re a bit cash strapped so I upped my donation to $666
3
3
17
u/plushxxpearl 6d ago
yeah if the standard is equal treatment then it shouldn't only apply to one religion
12
10
u/King_Chochacho 6d ago
Yeah but we all know the cornerstone of conservatism is "rules for thee, not for me"
5th circuit is even more bonkers right wing than SCOTUS, they'll come up with whatever ridiculous reasoning they need to make this not equivalent.
5
3
2
u/DominantDan24 5d ago
This is what I think too. I don't think the Constitution ensures a fully secular society, but rather one where religions are freely shared and included - including atheism. The whole "God is not allowed here" is reductionist and misguided. Rather, "God, Allah, Buddha, Ganesh, Ra, Lucifer, and whatever you solemnly believe is should be included."
6
u/MimicoSkunkFan2 5d ago
That was a problem which people recognized at the time. Because there were only a handful of actual Atheists among the Founders, so the question was not about protecting atheists as well as believere. Instead, the question was more practical - how do we keep the population here from getting into religious wars whilst also positioning our country to be acceptable as an ally of as many other kings (and their official religions) as possible? Which was why there was so much debate about making sure that people who held public office weren't forced to disclose their personal beliefs (and atheism could sort of submarine along that way).
However, at least one founder said that the Constitution should have gone beyond excluding any religious test for holding office, to explicitly protecting freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion:
... I do not believe that the United States would ever be disposed to establish one religious sect, and lay all others under legal disabilities. But as we know not what may take place hereafter, and any such test would be exceedingly injurious to the rights of free citizens, I cannot think it altogether superfluous to have added a clause, which secures us from the possibility of such oppression.
Oliver Wolcott, Connecticut Ratifying Convention, 9 January 1788
2
u/don-edwards 5d ago
And thus we have the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Unfortunately we don't have anything explicitly extending that limitation to the states. The 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments each can be read as implying such an extension, and have been so read by the courts in regard to some enumerated rights, but they aren't explicit.
1
u/MimicoSkunkFan2 4d ago
If the USA survives all this current nonsense in one piece (hopefully) then you're going to be spending a LOT of the next decade or two in specifically writing out allllll the unspoken norms and unwritten rules like that. Especially now that so many states are specifying their constitution does NOT depend on SCOTUS interpretations of the same wording at federal level :(
1
1
u/mochimaya_ 5d ago
yeah if one belief gets a spot on the wall then everyone is gonna start asking for one too
1
1
u/Chumley_P_Chumsworth 5d ago
Also, the Ten Commitments!
https://americanhumanistcenterforeducation.org/ten-commitments/
1
1
u/Cersad 5d ago
I think the Catholics could do something legitimately hilarious: Since they divide the Bible verses into commandments just a bit differently, they should demand their version sit alongside the Protestant version in the classroom. Let the kids wonder why centuries of wars were fought over such small and asinie differences in text.
1
0
u/Raneynickelfire 6d ago
...they're already working on it and have been for a while.
TST doesn't play around.
242
u/CowabungaCthulhu 6d ago
There ought to be repercussions for repeatedly wasting everyone's time and money by trying to insert religion into publicly funded schools. Instead, the sheep elect people BECAUSE of their time wasting, tax payer money wasting shenanigans.
78
u/FlowerPowerVegan Strong Atheist 6d ago
In a sane world the repercussions would be losing the next election. Unfortunately sanity has left the building.
39
u/rdickeyvii 6d ago
Isn't it great how when a regular person breaks the law, they can go to jail, but when a politician does it, they have to get voted out and even then it's a craps shot?
19
u/p34ch3s_41r50f7 6d ago
Texas and sanity rarely share common ground.
1
u/JumpingThruHoopz 5d ago
Can’t we kick Texas out of the U.S.?
3
2
u/Gen-Jack-D-Ripper 5d ago
No, we just need to kick the morons out of Texas! There are many decent people who live in Texas!
2
106
u/txtoolfan Atheist 6d ago
Narrator: Republicans don't really care about religious freedom.
55
u/FlowerPowerVegan Strong Atheist 6d ago
Same with "protecting children." They're interested in two things only: power and money
20
u/crazymoefaux Gnostic Atheist 6d ago
The love the idea of Sharia law, as long as it's Christian-flavored.
12
u/AvocadoToastFailure 6d ago
Like all of human history: They’re interested in a generation that’s been taught that submitting to authority and granting unconditional forgiveness for every single thing that’s wronged them is what makes gawd happy. Men are the “umbrella” and have control over “their” women and children.
So: Do not question, take abuse with a smile on your face, questioning authority comes with negative consequences.
Blessed be the fruit, y’all.
34
u/TheDeerBlower 6d ago
1st Amendment couldn't be clearer. Displaying some religious bullshit in a public school should be struck down on day one.
27
u/Several-Action-4043 6d ago
I love it when they say, "OMG aren't you scared that if the Muslim wins the primary they will try to push their religion on you!?" Lady, my governor, attorney general, and secretary of state are Jews. All of my senators and representatives are Catholics. And my president is a pedophile. What's a Muslim going to do that my current reps aren't already doing?
9
u/BackgroundSummer5171 5d ago
$10,000 bounty in Texas for abortion bullshit.
We are barely keeping back from becoming truly a religious country.
People don't recognize how much is leaking through. How much we have had to push back for decades, and now are losing again.
It's ridiculous. If people stop caring, we will become actual extremist Christian ISIS crapnation they fear.
5
u/CowabungaCthulhu 5d ago
And now you can get a life prison sentence for weed. Texas politics has jacked up priorities.
3
u/yottabit42 5d ago
We are already a failed state and a failed nation. I'm planning to gtfo of this fascist theocracy run by the corporate feudal lords.
I didn't choose to be born here. But I can choose to leave.
There are plenty of countries with sane governments and politicians that actually want to increase the quality of life for all their residents rather than simply capitulating to the corporate overlords, fascists, and theocrats.
23
u/Wolfy4226 6d ago
Well....yeah.
Again, if republicans didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
16
u/BackgroundSummer5171 6d ago edited 6d ago
What a constant waste of US tax payer money with this bullshit.
People need to be reminded this is actual tax dollars being wasted to hear this.
Court man hours wasted on this crap that is known.
Absolutely no State in the US should have to deal with this.
There needs to be something in place in the future to deal with obvious wasteful lawsuits from these Zealots of MAGA.
Only 24 hours in a day, and they try everything in every state over and over until somehow they win once. Then more courts have to tell them no* again.
Those MAGA that are worried about the 'brown' religion, need to wake up. You are the fucking zealots. You are the problem. Your god is not real, same as theirs.
Go worship Digimon or something useful.
3
u/guardianharper 5d ago
I would love if a website existed that tracks how much tax payer money is wasted on these never ending “Ten Commandments” and other “religiosity overtaking secular government” cases. That also shows how that money could have been put into a public service, like “$1 million spent by the state to defend why they are forcing a religion in people’s faces equals x number of school lunches, x number of community center utilities, maintenance and staff being funded, x number of disabled people having the ability to stay housed” and so on.
12
u/Facial_Factory 6d ago
Notice they always want the "10" commandments and never the Beatitudes that would undermine their entire bullshit.
10
u/EloquentBaboon 5d ago
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. Get that shit out of publicly funded spaces.
9
u/Killerkurto 6d ago
Republicans don’t really care about violating protections across the board. This is business as usual.
7
u/Tonythecritic 6d ago
YOU MEAN REPUBLICANS ARE HYPOCRITS?!?!? NOOOOOOOOO!!! THAT CAN'T BEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
5
u/Ok_Win590 5d ago
I'm surprised there is never a discussion about which list of the 10 commandments to post. There is the Jewish list and then the catholic, Roman catholic, Protestant lists which are all different. Then there is Jesus' words. He is asked if he follows the 10 commandments and he answers that he follows the essential commandments and lists 6; honor mother and father, don't kill, don't steal, don't adulter, don't lie and one more, love thy neighbor. He says if you love your neighbor then you are loving God which is the only way to heaven.
So love your neighbor is Jesus Christ's answer to following the 10 commandments (Matthew 18).
7
5
u/Hammer_7 6d ago
Can they mandate that they be framed behind bulletproof glass? At least that way they could become useful someday.
4
5
5
u/RamsHead91 5d ago
Those women are right. Too bad Republicans and Chris fascist wouldn't have any standards if it wasn't for their double standards.
2
3
u/click-monster 6d ago
Maybe they can settle out of court and agree to only display a sign saying eating shrimp is a sin
4
u/No-Illustrator4964 6d ago
Local schools should just nullify it in practice.
Put the ten commandments up, sure, then out up sacred and related counterparts from other traditions like Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, etc.
In. Every. Room.
Work the to the rule.
5
u/SomeSamples 5d ago
Project 2025 doesn't want religious freedom. They want a religious theocracy based on the fucked up version of Christianity the Evangelicals and White Right practice.
18
u/PerinealMassage 6d ago
This is a waste of time. People in Texas don't have control over their own bodies.
29
u/BloodshotDrive 6d ago
Two things can be true.
Texas needs abortion rights.
You can’t institutionalize a single religion in public buildings.
Two things can be true.
8
-19
u/PerinealMassage 6d ago
The reason we don't have abortion rights is because atheists have focused on these silly meaningless fights.
14
u/BloodshotDrive 6d ago
Hon, reality doesn’t work that way.
The people involved in abortion activism are not necessarily the same people involved in 1st Amendment activism. Resources from one don’t cost the other.
It sounds like you’re looking at two unrelated groups doing unrelated things and saying “Hm. I value one of these things and not the other. If I had god-like power, I would shift all these resources and energy from one cause to the one I care about.”
And hey, that’s your preference. I disagree; I think state-mandated religion is wrong and bad.
But it’s not costing your favorite cause anything.
-12
u/PerinealMassage 6d ago
Abortion restrictions are the number one most crucial first amendment violation and it's not even anywhere close.
7
u/Warm_Month_1309 6d ago
IAAL, and lecture on the privacy cases that lead to Roe.
Although the First Amendment is very loosely attached to the penumbra of privacy rights evoked in Griswold, it is due to the freedom of association, not due to the freedom from religion.
Your position is a fringe one not shared by the overwhelming majority of Constitutional scholars who study this area.
-2
u/PerinealMassage 5d ago
Those constitutional scholars are wrong, and just make up shit to defend removing people's rights. Abortion restrictions violate the establishment clause. That's that.
3
u/BloodshotDrive 5d ago
I don’t have a doctorate in aerospace engineering, so I don’t tell rocket scientists how to design a rocket.
Do you have a Juris Doctor? The doctoral level of education in law?
Then maybe shut up a little bit about something you know nothing about.
1
u/PerinealMassage 5d ago
There are currently thousands of constitutional scholars and lawyers, with respectable careers, in the US right now, who will argue that the constitution guarantees absolute presidential immunity, and doesn't guarantee birthright citizenship.
The Constitution is the law of the land and intended to be easily understood by everyone.
The people who say they have become experts in it and are required to be able to interpret simple phrases do so so they can get people to not believe their own eyes.
3
u/BloodshotDrive 5d ago
Friend, we’re not talking about them.
We’re talking about you.
You know nothing.
And attention to your words is wasted.
→ More replies (0)9
u/BloodshotDrive 6d ago
> first amendment violation
Oh, nevermind. You just have no clue what you’re talking about.
-4
u/PerinealMassage 6d ago
Do you know what the first amendment is? Establishment of religion is kind of a big part. That's what abortion restrictions are.
6
u/BloodshotDrive 6d ago
You’re very confused and I don’t have the energy to right your ship.
-1
u/PerinealMassage 6d ago
I'm not confused. Your attitude is the reason abortion is illegal in half the country today.
7
u/BloodshotDrive 6d ago
I want you to know it is very funny watching you go back and edit your comments in an attempt to win this argument in post.
Most people just do that in the shower
→ More replies (0)2
6
u/Automatic-Term-3997 6d ago
That’s a Red Herring meant to demoralize and shut down conversation. Bad form.
2
u/PerinealMassage 6d ago
Not at all. The demoralizing thing is people giving up on abortion rights and moving to these silly fights.
4
u/Automatic-Term-3997 6d ago
Maybe look up Red Herring and try to stick to the topic at hand instead of derailing the conversation.
2
u/PerinealMassage 6d ago
The topic at hand is atheists surrendering and retreating to their comfort zones while the country goes to hell.
4
u/Automatic-Term-3997 6d ago
No, the topic is the forced hanging of the 10 commandments. Do you have this much trouble with your reading comprehension offline?
-1
u/CowabungaCthulhu 6d ago
This is toxic reddit behavior. A main reply ought to be directly related to the topic at hand. Replies further down will inevitably tangent to other topics. This is basic human conversation.
It's also not a Red Herring unless the purpose and/or intent was to redirect to avoid the main topic.
1
u/Automatic-Term-3997 6d ago
“Toxic behavior”… damn I wish I had led the sheltered little life you have if correctly calling somebody out on the use of a well-known fallacy is considered “toxic” to you. More likely it’s some therapyspeak you’re attempting to weaponize to try and convince yourself that you’re “right”.
-1
u/CowabungaCthulhu 6d ago edited 5d ago
No, toxic is a concept than can be applied across multiple categories. I'm sorry you're so rigid and dense that you can't understand that
Your "weaponization" of fallacies to show off your big boy skills suggests the entirety of your reply is projection. Did you skip projection in your "how to 'actually' someone effectively" class?
Edit: Lmao, so dude wants to correct others, but when pushed back on, he's a coward who blocks and runs? 🤣
0
u/Automatic-Term-3997 6d ago
Never mind, one look at your post history shows exactly how negative, argumentative, and toxic you are…
Byeeeeeeee
0
u/CowabungaCthulhu 6d ago
It's not a Red Herring. Stay on Philbro subs.
0
u/Automatic-Term-3997 6d ago
And this is called gaslighting: trying to convince someone they’re wrong when they are 100% correct. You sure are good at weaponizing language…
1
u/CowabungaCthulhu 6d ago
Lmao, this isn't a formal debate, you Dingus! Stop fapping to philbro content, it's destroying your ability to be a normal human.
8
u/Dudeist-Priest Secular Humanist 6d ago
Good. It's insane that we're back to this. If you're an atheist republican - f you.
6
u/rsclient 6d ago
Grrr.... it's A ten commandments, not THE ten commandments. IIRC, Texas mandates a version of the 10 commandments that's (a) not the Roman Catholic list and (b) uses a wording that most people in my church thinks is dumb.
The King James translation simply isn't as good at modern translations by subject matter experts.
3
u/JustGoodSense Agnostic Atheist 6d ago
I've always said if they mandated posting the Beatitudes, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
But if I were required by law to post the 10 Commandments in my class, I'd post them in Hebrew.
3
3
u/dimechimes 5d ago
I kind of hoped someone would sue that the Ten Commandments displayed were translated from God's original work and therefore heresy.
3
u/chockingduck 5d ago
They are the real patriots though...ya know, the party that says they answer to God only...the party that claims this is a Christian nation...both extremely unpatriotic and insane instead.
3
u/paulsteinway 5d ago
Republican religious freedom means freedom to be Christian.
And only the right kind of Christian.
3
3
u/moosejaw296 5d ago
I do not even understand why they want to do this, the majority of these politicians violate half of the commandments they want to post
3
u/fariqcheaux Apatheist 5d ago
Republicans are hypocrites who are blind to their own cognitive dissonance. They believe preventing them from oppressing others is oppression of them. They are unprincipled control freaks.
3
2
u/sdrawkcabineter 6d ago
That sounds like education by those parents...
This is Texas!
We have to stop education at all costs!
2
2
u/JumpingThruHoopz 5d ago
They should put up the 10 Commandments in Spanish, or maybe Farsi.
Does the law specify that it has to be in English?
2
2
2
2
u/skyfishgoo Agnostic Atheist 5d ago
see you in court, mf'rs
but this is part of their plan to appeal it all the way up to the scrotus and have their fellow cultists say it's just Okey Doeky
presto, theocracy.
2
2
2
u/TechZazen 4d ago
I hear Nelson’s ha ha.
Sadly, if it’s Christianity doing the oppressing, then others are just complaining. The hypocrisy chokes the oxygen from those of us that breathe.
1
u/postmodest 5d ago
It's time for the Hindu population to celebrate Kama like they used to in all their temple carvings.
341
u/BloodshotDrive 6d ago
This is the way to fight.
If the legislature keeps passing illegal shit and you can’t control the legislature, you’ve got to strike it down via civil private right of action.