167 points
*

“The purpose is not solely religious,” Sen. Jay Morris, R-West Monroe, told the Senate. Rather, it is the Ten Commandments’ "historical significance, which is simply one of many documents that display the history of our country and foundation of our legal system.”

Only two of them are actually law: Thou shalt not murder and thou shalt not steal.

This is all about religion, and they’re going to get away with it. We’d be better off if our legal codes were based on the seven tenets instead.

permalink
report
reply
40 points
*

Not even two, maybe one and a half as it depends a lot on who you are and whom you’re stealing from. And you can even argue on murder too

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

https://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/murder-in-the-bible/

If I linked 1/3rd of the list of times the Bible condones murder it would be removed as spam.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Hail Satan! or not… I’m not your boss, do whatever

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Hail Satan, and hail yourself!

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

America! Land of the free*!

*: Unless you meant freedom of religion. You better not! We’ll sue/burn/shoot/jesus you if you do! Ultraconservative Christianity or death!

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

*unless you also meant freedom of expression or freedom of bodily autonomy

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Wait, what’s getting jesus’d…?

Oh, I did not think of the implications of making that a verb.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Flip it around on them, and say that if the Ten Commandments are so important, why they support Trump, who regularly breaks them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Because the Lord works in mysterious ways, or some other dumb shit excuse.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

we make exceptions for even the murdering and stealing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

All the time, and especially for cops. (It’s called ‘qualified immunity’ and ‘civil forfeiture’ instead of murdering and stealing, but it’s the same thing.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
139 points

Religious people just love indoctrinating children. It’s their whole thing. Get them while they’re young and dumb and won’t realize it’s all just make believe bullshit.

permalink
report
reply
49 points

It makes me so angry because children are vulnerable and trusting; exploiting that to get them to believe in nonsense is evil.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

But when I try to indoctrinate children I just get burned at the stake

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Shitty people love indoctrinating children.

Religion, much like many idealogical groups, gives an easy place for assholes to find confirmation of their own shit ideas, and a shield of “righteousness” and “I’m doing it for their own good” to hide behind lest the dying gasps of their withered conscience interrupt them.

There’s plenty of secular belief systems along these lines as well. Many racist groups like skinheads, neonazis, and the KKK spread through indoctrination of children (parents passing beliefs to children) and appeals to young people as “the solution” for the confusion and isolation they feel growing up.


I’m Christian, I feel that the ten commandments are some of the best secular life advice the bible has to offer, and this mess is complete and utter unmitigated bullshit.

No if ands or buts, whoever was involved in this clown show of a law deserves to be instantly stripped of any governmental or education system titles or powers and banned from holding any position of power for life.

Any religion, belief system, or idealogical concept worth anything should be capable of standing up on it’s own.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I’m Christian, I feel that the ten commandments are some of the best secular life advice the bible has to offer, and this mess is complete and utter unmitigated bullshit.

Not to start an argument, but I just can’t understand how you think it’s a fit guide for secular life. Half of the commandments are explicitly religious, and the other half are basic common sense laws that are already encompassed by the Golden Rule that many cultures and religions came up with independently (including the Abrahamic ones elsewhere in their religious texts).

But, to go into more detail (and using the full text, not the abbreviated versions that make it look kinder):

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.

Standard monotheism, nothing to say here. It’d be weird if it weren’t here, and it’s better than most declarations in that it only applies to that religion’s adherents and doesn’t explicitly deny the existence of other gods (a note: IIRC the golden calf was created through a miracle and nobody acted as though that was weird, but I’d like if someone more scholarly could chime in).

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Funny how the first set of tablets was destroyed when Moses discovered his people losing faith and worshipping an idol, and the replacements he made contained a law specifically against that very uncommon occurrence. Surely that law was in the original tablets as well and not just added as a reaction to those events…

As for the second half, I don’t know how anyone could read this, considered the most literal word of god in their religion, and say it’s a good basis for morality. Punishing innocent children for their ancestors’ actions or beliefs is straight up evil.

It also explicitly states that his love is conditional, something that strongly conflicts with the main modern offshoots of the religion.

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

Weird how the only commandments specifying something is unforgivable are for things that bruise their deity’s ego, but then again the OT god was an incredibly petty tyrant.

Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.

I’ve never really looked into the Sabbath so I’m not going to touch this one. I am mildly annoyed that the justification for their rest day is yet another ego-stroking thing instead of something for the benefit of the people. Imagine how much better things might be if several large religions stressed the importance of breaks for reasons of physical and mental health.

Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

Anyone who had abusive, neglectful, or narcissistic parents could tell you the problem with this one, but I can’t fault an insular, patriarchal religion from several millennia ago for trying to keep families together during an especially trying period when thoughts of desertion must have been common.

You shall not murder.

You shall not commit adultery.

You shall not steal.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

These are the only ones I have zero problem with. They are also exactly what you’d expect someone to set as law when leading a bunch of people, especially if problems are starting to crop up due to low morale.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Note that all examples here were considered property (morality rules get a pass for things like slavery and owning your wife if they’re old enough) so this is technically a repeat of the law against stealing. Or, since it states that coveting is forbidden, it would cover stealing and be an example of thoughtcrime.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Strangely, I NEVER believed. I was raised Roman Catholic— went to catholic school, was made to be an altar boy, the whole 9. Even back in kindergarten I thought it was just stories. I’m not “smart” or anything, I’ve just never been susceptible to bullshit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
113 points

The Satanic Temple has entered the chat

permalink
report
reply

Conferencing in the ACLU

permalink
report
parent
reply
109 points

Did I misunderstand what “separation of church and state” meant?

permalink
report
reply
32 points

Depends. Are you a Louisiana Republican legislator?

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Based on this ruling, I don’t think I’m qualified.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

https://news.cornellcollege.edu/2019/11/ask-expert-separation-church-state-mean-americas-public-schools-report/

Laws are only useful if successfully upheld in court. For some reason these never get challenged enough. Strange.

permalink
report
parent
reply
81 points

violating the constitution by establishment of a religion

permalink
report
reply
22 points

Louisiana is a real conservative religious armpit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-36 points
*

States can establish religions. Federal government can’t.

Edit: Forgot that federal government can indoctrinate religion just fine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points
*

States can establish religions. Federal government can’t.

Over the last 150 years, the Supreme Court has pretty consistently found that the Bill of Rights applies to state as well as federal government: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

See especially https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education:

Everson v. Board of Education … was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that applied the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to state law.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

Mandatory “one nation under god” pledge in school classes disagrees that religion cannot be established.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

That’s not how it works. State law can’t supersede federal law.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

State law can’t supersede federal law.

And Congress cannot pass laws on that. Constitution says so.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Not if the 14th amendment has anything to say about it. The incorporation doctrine of the 14th amendment applies the first 10 amendments to the state level as well.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

permalink
report
parent
reply

Not The Onion

!nottheonion@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome

We’re not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from…
  2. …credible sources, with…
  3. …their original headlines, that…
  4. …would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

Community stats

  • 6.4K

    Monthly active users

  • 787

    Posts

  • 28K

    Comments

Community moderators