SB 1515 is just wrong

[srothstein]

"I can't believe anyone would support having the government tell us what religion we should be posting. This a clear violation of the 1st Amendment."

This one stumped me. I am in the process of looking up the the author's intent for SB1515 (Senator Phil King maybe). Why exactly is SB 1515 "wrong"?

As was pointed out, there are different versions of the Ten Commandments for different religions. In addition, there are a lot of religions that do not believe in the Ten Commandment. Whichever version you post in a government building (like a school) is establishing a specific religion as the state religion. This is a violation of the exact wording of the First Amendment.

About the only way I could see it being legal is if you posted it with things like Hammurabi's Code, the Magna Carta, and the Constitution, making it a display on the history of law.

Which specific religion?

Depends on which translation and grouping they use. It could be Judaism or it could be Christianity.

Reading the link to the Wikipedia article you listed, and following its links to the Van Order v. Perry case, makes it even more confusing. Some of the reasons they (well, Breyer mostly) gave for finding it to be secular were who paid for it and how they went about it. They examined who paid for it (the Elks and Cecil B. DeMille) and how long it had been there with no problems (40 years). An interesting point is that the Elks met with representatives of several faiths to find a secular wording of it. I wonder how many of the faiths in those meetings were some variety of Christianity and how many were Muslim or Buddhist.

But the big difference is that the monument was paid for by a private group and donated to the state. This bill requires the poster, specifies it can be paid for with public funds or by private donation, and does not give any explanation for why it should be there. Based on the case McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union, which was decided the same day as the Van Order case, it would look to me like the bill under discussion would be found unconstitutional. In that case, they even took my other suggestion of adding other documents to make it more of a basis of law display and still lost.

All told, SCOTUS has made this a very confusing area to look into.

[EP45]

The post stated SB 1515 is just wrong. The topic author went on to explain this is a violation of the first amendment. I am assuming the wrongness is due to violation of the Constitution.

“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.”

Further individuals made the comment that posting the Ten Commandments is wrong; basically going further than stating SB 1515 is wrong.

Additionally, the different versions of the Ten Commandments were mentioned; initially breaking it down to Christian v. Jewish Ten Commandments. The topic author then actually stated that the Christian Ten Commandments are actually the 2 Commandments (I am Christian and still believe in the Ten Commandments). We do not have to guess which version would be placed, the wording is in SB 1515.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica there are several numberings. Some include the prologue and first utterance as the first commandant (Jewish tradition) and others consider the final commandments on coveting as one commandment.
https://www.britannica.com/question/How ... traditions Wikipedia also has an interesting table that can reference the Ten Commandments to scripture in the Quran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

It appears that the SB1515 Ten Commandments is Identical to the State Capitol Ten Commandments which is stated as secular (as opposed to religious I suppose).

I feel the removal of numbers, changing of commas, etc. is not the real issue of the Ten Commandments. Kind of sounds like anti-second amendment types who try to say that the founding fathers did not want us to own guns and try to use punctuation to make their case.

You can actually read Senator King’s intent and rationale (https://trackbill.com/bill/texas-senate ... s/2386016/)

Now, you can make a First Amendment argument against SB 1515, but to make that argument against the display of the Ten Commandments might be interpreted as “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. If making that argument, I think it is incumbent to scrub all government edifices of the Ten Commandments including the Texas State Capitol and the US Supreme Court.

I would not say SB 1515 is wrong, I would say it is controversial. It may be misguided (and there is usually a discussion and amendment process to bills). I am not sure that the law might not be better to allow the display of the Ten Commandments. Regardless, maybe Senator King is attempting a direct shot against the Democrats.

Now transgender flags and other like symbols in the classroom are wrong.

If the Ten Commandments were displayed in the classroom, I believe that would be a good thing. To mandate it, I am less enthused but do not find it completely objectionable. I consider myself a Constitutionalist (not everyone on the board is). I believe SB 1515 might be problematic, but it is not wrong to display the Ten Commandments.

I would finally say in a historical context and not religious,

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; …” Isaiah 5: 20

[oohrah]

It was among dozens of bills that didn't get a House floor vote before the midnight deadline. Freedom from religion (and Christian Nationalists) preserved.

[wheelgun1958]

I still fail to understand how a state posting something on state funded property has anything to do with US Congress. The 1st states CONGRESS shall pass no law.... Likewise if the power is not given to the fed, it's a state issue.

[RoyGBiv]

I still fail to understand how a state posting something on state funded property has anything to do with US Congress. The 1st states CONGRESS shall pass no law.... Likewise if the power is not given to the fed, it's a state issue.

Incorporation

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/ar ... -amendment

If you want 2A to apply to the States (decided in 2010, McDonald v Chicago), you should also want 1A (and the rest of the Bill of Rights)... YMMV, of course.

[wheelgun1958]

I still fail to understand how a state posting something on state funded property has anything to do with US Congress. The 1st states CONGRESS shall pass no law.... Likewise if the power is not given to the fed, it's a state issue.

Incorporation

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/ar ... -amendment

If you want 2A to apply to the States (decided in 2010, McDonald v Chicago), you should also want 1A (and the rest of the Bill of Rights)... YMMV, of course.

The right of the people is quite different than Congress shall make no law. It beating a dead horse but I still don't see it.

[srothstein]

Part of the 14th Amendment says:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This means that if you have a right under the Constitution, it also applies to the states. So while the First Amendment says Congress, the 14th makes that mean No Legislature.

The part I cannot understand is the theory of incorporation. This is a SCOTUS policy that basically says that until SCOTUS recognizes it as a right under the Constitution, it does not apply tot he states. This is why the order of Heller and MacDonald was so important. Heller was in DC, so it was just getting the federal right recognized as an individual right. MacDonald was in Chicago so it made the right apply to the states also.

[carlson1]

Well no surprise I have ZERO reasons for them to post the Ten Commandments. At one time they were in every school and every courthouse. Put them back.

America's Founding Fathers, all of whom had studied the Bible as an essential part of the classical education, believed that moral and spiritual virtues were necessary for good men to establish good government.

[EP45]

I am with carlson1, put the 10 commandments back. Not sure there is a “freedom from religion” in the first amendment. Again, not sure I loved SB 1515 mandating the 10 commandments; maybe allowing would have been better.

I see the flaw in that the topic author started the conversation based on a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution but the topic author does not believe in the Constitution. I quote:

Re: TX: Lt Gov Patrick says not enough Senate votes to pass Con Carry
#57
Post
by oohrah » Sat Apr 24, 2021 10:39 am
I do NOT support Constitutional carry. There are no bars to carrying a handgun already. Texas is a "shall issue" state. Any law-abiding citizen without a criminal record can buy and carry a handgun if they demonstrate proficiency and knowledge of the law. They cannot be denied. Rights sustained.
I believe with rights comes responsibility. I also believe carrying a gun in public without training or knowledge of the law is irresponsible. I know I will get a lot of pushback on this, so don't expect me to respond to your arguments. Just wanted you to know that there are responsible gun owners out there who do not support this.
search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&author_id=15653

Obviously he carries but he does not believe in Constitutional carry. The operative word there is Constitutional. So finding SB1515 as a violation of the Constitution while not believing in the Constitution would be problematic.
I am of the opinion that SB1515 is not all it was cracked up to be, but posting the 10 Commandments is “not just wrong”.
I really would like to see the 11 Commandment posted as well and believe it even speaks to this topic.

[SecurityGeek]

I realize this is not going to be a popular opinion, but it's issues like this that caused me to give up on religion in general, so here goes.

Out of curiosity, for those wishing to see the ten commandments posted in schools, government buildings, etc. - are these just platitudes to you or are you truly serious about them? If serious, would you be willing to use these as a litmus test for ALL public officials? Personally, I fully agree with and adhere to commandments 5 through 10 (I'm not a religious believer, but the rest are a good start for being a decent human being). Shouldn't we hold our "leaders" to these standards and make adherence to them a prerequisite for public office at any level? I don't see how someone can break the very rules they enforce (or at least expect others to follow) and still keep the public trust.

If we knowingly elect hypocrites, how can we not be hypocrites ourselves? If a candidate cheats on their spouse and steals, but supports the second amendment and lower taxes, they are still a cheater and a thief, and are unworthy of my support and my vote. If I hold my nose and vote for them anyway, their actions have no consequences, so why bother posting the ten commandments? Rationalization is still hypocrisy.

Personally, I'd prefer to see the beatitudes in every school rather than the ten commandments, but that's just me. My real problem is people trying to push their religion on me when they refuse to allow themselves to be held to the same standards.

[EP45]

Quick update as at work. Louisiana passed SB1515 equivalent.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/louisian ... classrooms