Judge pushed enactment of law to display religious code until November in response to parents’ suit

A federal judge blocked Louisiana from posting the Ten Commandments in public schools until November after parents from five districts sued the state over the law.

In a brief ruling Friday, district court judge John deGravelles said that the parents and the state agreed that the Ten Commandments will not be posted in any public school classroom before 15 November. The state also agreed to not “promulgate advice, rules or regulations regarding proper implementation of the challenged statute”.

The state’s Republican governor, Jeff Landry, signed into law last month a bill that requires all classrooms, in K-12 public schools and colleges, to have Ten Commandments posters with “large, easily readable font”. The state is also requiring a four-paragraph “context statement” about how the commandments “were a prominent part of American public education for almost three centuries”.

Soon after the bill was signed, a coalition of parents, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights groups, sued the state saying the bill violates the first amendment.

  • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    111
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The 250th anniversary of the signing of US declaration of independence will be in 2026.

    The state is also requiring a four-paragraph “context statement” about how the commandments “were a prominent part of American public education for almost three centuries”.

    Generous rounding, there.

      • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        3 months ago

        I was born in 1974 but haven’t had my birthday yet…

        Guess I’m 0 today and before the years up I’ll be 100

        No wonder their education system is fubar

    • tburkhol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      3 months ago

      If you start with the founding of Harvard in 1636 and go to SCOTUS deciding that laws requiring the 10 commandments in classrooms are unconstitutional in 1980, then you get almost 350 years.

      • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        3 months ago

        To avoid bias, they should probably post this quote from Thomas Jefferson next to it:

        If God truly does exist, then he more so loves the atheist who questions the world around him than the Christian who blindly follows.

        More than half of the Founding Fathers were agnostic or atheists, and separation of church and state was one of the key principles in their doctrine.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          3 months ago

          What I read is that a lot of them claimed to be “deists.”

          I could be wrong, but I get the distinct impression that “deist” was an 18th-century euphemism for “atheist, but in the closet about it so as not to offend the normies.”

          • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yeah, probably an older form of agnosticism. But they were very clear in their opposition to a religious state. It was why England separated from the Catholic church, and why many groups emigrated to the US - freedom of religion (or freedom from it).

      • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Technically, that’s English, Dutch, French, and Spanish history, not to mention Native American history. And the Native Americans certainly were not influenced by Christianity, except for the part of it that killed the shit out of all of them.

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Only if you define American history as that of the current United States government which would exclude events most if not all would consider core events to American history. Like the Pilgrims landing, Lexington & Concord, and Bunker Hill. If you define it as the history of those who lived on the land you arrive at a different conclusion.

          • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            only 2 of those 3 are American history, and not even exclusively. the first is English and Native American, and the second and third also include the English. expanding the last two references to the entire American War of Independence, that also includes, again, the French.

            so, really, it seems it comes down to your obtuse cherry-picking of events and American exceptionalism.

            • Deceptichum@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              As an Australian, it’s both.

              Colonial history is both the colonisers and the colonies.

            • FireTower@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              The history of the land is the history of America. My “cherry picking” is just pulling events that every American student gets taught in k-12 American History classes. This isn’t American exceptionalism this is recognizing that “French History”, “English History”, and “Native American History” that happen on American soil are American history.

              Trying to divide the history as being that of a government rather than a land is impossible to do as the histories of governments are interwoven.

              History builds on itself. The French and Indian War (1754-63) might not be considered by you to be the history of the USA but it was George Washington that sparked off the conflict. And it would inform the relations with native nations down the line. It also created the terrible economic situation that lead the taxation of the colonies. But for that war we wouldn’t have the America we have today.

              And that war would have been much different if not informed by earlier conflicts like King Phillips War. There’s no fine line to be drawn.

              • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                The history of the land is the history of America. My “cherry picking” is just pulling events that every American student gets taught in k-12 American History classes.

                Some of it, conveniently leaving out the parts which conflict with your point of view. That’s the definition of cherry-picking…

                Trying to divide the history as being that of a government rather than a land is impossible to do as the histories of governments are interwoven.

                yet i easily did it

                save the mental gymnastics for the Olympics in a few weeks, and just admit that you’re wrong.

                • FireTower@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  yet i easily did it

                  You did it wrongly as well. The protestants arriving was critical in establishing Massachusetts as an English stronghold. If the English never colonized MA there would be no Lexington & Concord.

                  Claiming that citing supporting evidence is cherry picking is ridiculous. You imply such without supporting you claim with a single point, as if there was a sea of evidence contrary.

                  What about the French Indian War? Is that American history under your fine line model? How about the Boston Massacre? None of the involved parties there would have even considered independence at the time.

                  • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    You did it wrongly as well.

                    wait for it…

                    The protestants arriving was critical in establishing Massachusetts as an English stronghold

                    my point exactly. funny how i’m “wrong” but you reply by explaining how i’m right.

                    Claiming that citing supporting evidence is cherry picking is ridiculous

                    proving you wrong isn’t ridiculous, it’s just inconvenient for you. claiming that is ridiculous is ridiculous. besides, your “supporting evidence” proves me right. again.

                    What about the French Indian War? Is that American history under your fine line model? How about the Boston Massacre? None of the involved parties there would have even considered independence at the time.

                    From Wikipedia:

                    The French and Indian War (1754–1763) was a theater of the Seven Years’ War, which pitted the North American colonies of the British Empire against those of the French, each side being supported by various Native American tribes. (source)

                    The Boston Massacre (known in Great Britain as the Incident on King Street[1]) was a confrontation in Boston on March 5, 1770, in which nine British soldiers shot several of a crowd of three or four hundred who were harassing them verbally and throwing various projectiles. The event was heavily publicized as “a massacre” by leading Patriots such as Paul Revere and Samuel Adams.[2][3] British troops had been stationed in the Province of Massachusetts Bay since 1768 in order to support crown-appointed officials and to enforce unpopular Parliamentary legislation.

                    In the 18th century, Boston was the capital of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, an important shipping town, and along with Philadelphia and present-day New York City, one of the most influential political, economic, and cultural cities in the Thirteen Colonies of pre-Revolutionary British America. Boston also was a center of resistance to unpopular acts of taxation by the British Parliament in the 1760s.[5] (source)

                    im enjoying your tantrum and your attempt to speed-run the Kubler-Ross model.

                    you’re still wrong, though. try getting your facts straight next time :P

    • Blaine@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      The point they are making was that they were a prominent part of public education in those areas during colonial times.