Ever wondered what happens when religion and public education collide. Will buckle up,
because Louisiana just became the first state to require the Ten Commandments to be displayed
in every public school classroom. That's right, Moses is making a comeback,
y'all, but this time in large, easily readable pont Governor Jeff Landry believes
it's a nod to the original lawmaker, but opponents are gearing up for a
constitutional showdown. Are we witnessing history or just another round of church versus state
drama? Grab your popcorn and stay tuned as we dive into the Commandments controversy
that's putting Louisiana schools in the spotlight. The story is from AP News by
Sarah Kline on June nineteenth, twenty twenty four. So I am going to
our resident correspondent that happens to be outside of the US, Cindy, that
would be you. I am very curious to know what your initial thoughts were
or when you read this story about Louisiana's decision to mandate the display of the
Ten Commandments in every public classroom of a school classroom. Rather yeah, yeah,
I found that ridiculous because it's it's insidious and it's at the same time
it's just so blatant to show that, hey, we are christopascists and we
want to impose our religion to everyone. But it's also stupid because they know
that the second they try and do that, any other religion can do the
same. And so I watched an interview of the woman who proposed this law,
who co authored more precisely, and when the journalist was trying to tell
her that, she just dismissed it. She's just Nona, It's just it's
just a historical document, and that's how she's she's trying to present it so
that it doesn't get struck down. But it will. It will. It's
just the Supreme Court is going to take this away. Although I think it's
going to be interesting to look at the debates they are going to be around
this and see because we know that a strong part of the scorias is trying
to increase what they call regious liberty, which is in fact the ability to
impose their region to others. And so I'm curious to see how they are
going to treat this. I am too, So I'm curious. Jimmy when
you actually read this and I happen to see inside the actual document what their
article there is about the original lawgiver or actually giving credence to the lawgiver.
What are your thoughts when you actually read that concerning the lawgiver and actually giving
them a space in order for them to be able to pontificate what should go
on the losing of the schools law? Well, the original lawgiver is a
subjective term, right, because they're referring to Moses and in this case representative
I believe her name was Kristin Ventrela, who Lauren Ventrala, excuse me,
who was the co author and of course voted for this, referred to Moses
as the original lawgiver as well and said that, you know, Moses needs
to be kind of looked at as a historical person. But we know that
ancient Israeli law, which is where this comes from, takes its roots from
the Acadians, who were also the Babylonians, the Samerians who existed before them,
and also the Egyptians. You know, they borrowed from their sets of
law, and they borrowed from their culture and from their folklore, their mythology
and imported it into their own. And what strikes me is that these Christians
are claiming Moses as their own when Moses is an ancient Israeli quote unquote prophet
supposedly right, who is not in line with Christian thinking. You know,
the the the Israeli ideology has nothing to do with Christianity. If you ask
Israelis, if you ask Jewish people so to take their protagonist and champion him
as the bedrock of Christian law is just factually incorrect. Christian law comes from
so many different so many different sources, and so you can't just stop with
Moses. You have to start reaching around and if you will, and pulling
out all of the other influences. Yeah, so I think that was my
initial my initial reaction to that, you know, Jimmy, I was also
just thinking about how the lawgiver, or the laws that we know about from
ancient jew jail time periods where the Ten Commandments are supposed to be based on.
Even though that's ten commandments, we know that there's actually way more laws
that you know, Jewish people had to keep. Why not all the other
six hundred and thirteen? Why just these ten? Yeah, my thoughts are
that I don't think that Christians even know what's in their Bible. Of course
that's not news to anybody, but they don't read this stuff, and I
don't think that most of them can even recite what the ten commandments are.
But if we look at the other six hundred and thirteen commandments, let's just
take a look at making Deuteronomy twenty two to eight make a guardrail around flat
roofs. I mean, are we serious? This is the same God that
wants to make sure that your roof, if it's flat, has a guardrail
on it. I had no idea that God was so concerned about construction.
And then let's talk about Exodus twenty one twenty eight. Do not eat an
ox that was condemned to be stoned. I had no idea that oxen could
be stoned to death. This is the same God giving these commands. That's
right. Yahweh Yahweh. The ancient Mesopotamian god of agriculture, who was stolen
from the Babylonians and put into Jewish folklore, is you know, cognizant that
oxen can be criminals as well. There's so much stuff not to eat.
Blood man, if the Christians knew that you should not consume blood. How
would that change their worship of Jesus. You got me started, Cynthia.
You got me started, and I'm going to stop myself. But this is
asinine, and I wonder why just stop at ten? Why not go to
the whole six hundred and thirteen? Correct? You know, but I was
going to say about those guardrails, Jimmy, remember Jesus was a conferen Oh,
yeah, that's true. You forgot about that. Yeah. Well,
Cindy, I'm coming back to you because you mentioned about the Supreme Court and
how this could possibly be struck down if it happened to go to them.
Now, since this particular ruling has happened, we do have I believe the
ACLU and also the Freedom from Religion Foundation for that's actually going to be putting
up lawsuits to combat this particular law that has happened for public schools. Now,
given that the US Supreme Court actually ruled in nineteen eighty that a similar
in Kentucky was on constitution unconstitutional. Rather, so, how do you foresee
the legal challenges to Louisiana law playing out now with the court that we have
in the United States? Before I answer your question. I'd like to go
back to what Jimmy was saying, and when you described it like this,
I thought that God is the ultimate micromanager and living in heaven for eternity with
someone like this man, that's a nightmare. Yeah, that is a great
point anyway. Yeah, I think, uh, I think the Scottish is
going to try and and and move around the idea that because on the First
Amendment that talks about religious freedom, there are two different aspects. So I'm
not a lawyer, so I'm not going to to speak about this, but
there are talks about this specific point at the moment, so if you're interested,
look into it. So there are two aspects, and I suspect that
the Scottish is going to try and move the needle onto one while leaving the
other one. And the problem is they're going to be stuck with the idea
that other religion will be able to do the same, like I'm expecting any
minute now that the Saturning Temple is going to try and do the same.
Right going to ask for their tenants to you displayed also in the classroom,
And I suspect that this will change views on for so many people but yeah,
I think scoters is going to try and and and and sneak some some
changes in the in the way the First Amendment is interpreted, just like I
suspect they trained to to do with the immunity case for Donald Trump. Yeah,
well, we'll probably see exactly what happens with the Scotus when it comes
to this. I'm so curious to even try to conjecture what specifically they're going
to do, only because we covered on the nonprofits about the the football coach
that was able to do his whole song and dance on the fifty yard line
when the when the games were over, making everybody come out to pray to
thank God for the game or what have you, and how the Scotis actually
said that, oh, it's fine because you were practicing your freedom of speech
and also your freedom of practicing religion. But this is different because we're looking
at public spaces that are supposed to be for kids and adults who happened to
be of varying faiths. We know that Louisiana, even though it's a lot
of Christians, especially Catholics, live there, and it was very and even
like when you look at the Fred Deli that was a Catholic symbol. But
regardless of that, not only Catholics live there, not only Christians live there,
Muslims live there, Buddhists live there, Satanists lived there, And I
would love to see exactly what the Satan Temple does to combat this. Like
when you know, the overtures to put up the Ten Commandments on public property,
happens, happened before and they say, well, if you display the
Ten Commandments, then we can display the head of bachamt right, So we'll
see what happens. But I'm curious to know from the both of you,
how do you see that play out. So, with the requirement to display
these Ten Commandments, how do you think is going to affect the perception of
public schools as an inclusive and neutral space for education. Jimmy, I want
to start with you first, and then I want to hear from Cindy.
I think this is going to cause a great deal of tension and stress in
the household among families who are not of the Catholic faith or who are Christian.
You know, having to sit in front of a set of rules that
is only specific to one group of people will make others welp feel othered,
and in fact, some of the commentary and adjoint statement from the Freedom of
Religion Foundation and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, as well
as the American Civil Liberties Union said that the law prevents students from getting an
equal education and will keep children who have different beliefs from feeling safe at school.
And that is the problem with having government and religion aligned, because whoever
is aligned with that said religion also feels aligned with that government, and whoever
is not aligned well is part of the problem or part of the others,
okay, And they don't have the same safeties, they don't have the same
vote of confidence that the people in authority places on the ones that are aligned.
And so I think this is incredibly dangerous if it goes unchecked. But
I do think that this is going to get overturned for several reasons. One,
in nineteen eighty, the Supreme Court ruled in a similar Kentucky law or
rually similar Kentucky law excuse me, unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of
the US Constitution. And also, if this is supposed to be a history
document, then it can't possibly have a place in every classroom. It can't
certainly be pertinent to every classroom math science. You know, if this is
a history document, why should math and science students be staring at a history
document? So that right there is justification for its removal at least some classrooms,
I think. But I am not a lawyer like Cidy so eloquently stated,
and so I don't want to give the impression that I know exactly what's
gonna happen or why, but I do think this is not going to stand.
Yeah, what about you, Cindy? Yeah, I agree. Although
the first Amendment says that Congreys shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
or prohibiting its free exercise, and I suspect that it's the second part that
scott us is going to try and use to increase religious liberty. But what
struck me also here is that it seems to me that a lot of Christians
forgot or don't know how many people were killed during wars between Protestants and Catholics,
because you need to be careful about what you asked for, because once
this gets into application, then what prevents anyone to say, Hey, we
are Protestant and Catholics, you don't get to speak here, or you don't
get to display your religious sex because we are Protestant in this state and the
state nearby will do the opposites. And so for those reasons, I don't
think this is going to stand. But I'm still that Spotters is going to
try and use this to expand somehow regish persecution. Yeah, it could go
both ways, and I think that that's something that has been on my mind
and also others that are protesting the law that has recently passed as well,
because again, like I mentioned about the Alabama now Florida coach, and we
also have seen where the SCOTUS has used different edicts to actually propagate I would
say, like religious freedom, Well they disguise us for religious freedom, but
actually just doing an overreach of religious belief. And even later on this week
we're going to be even talking about a certain judge is going to be doing
that as well. But you know, I wanted to ask Jimmy, and
then I wanted to ask and see you know your thoughts as well, Cindy.
The article notes that simpler bills have been proposed in other states, as
we talked about with Kentucky, but they have not succeeded. So what factors
do you think have contributed to Louisiana's success in passing this law and how might
influence other states legislative efforts? Jimmy and then you Cindy. Yeah, So
the factors that I think contribute today versus nineteen eighty is the stark contrast and
polarization between people in this country who consider themselves conservative and who consider themselves liberal.
I think in nineteen eighty we saw a time where people were able to
work together despite their differences, a little bit more than now. Actually I
should say much more than now, even though there was still the same kind
of fingerpointing and division in government. People respected the Constitution. Well, we
have to remember that the Republican Party nowadays, the conservatives in this country who
are on the MAGA movement have no just no respect for the Constitution, which
is why they justify some of the horrible things that they do in the perspectives
and positions they hold. Those people are in government in Louisiana today in twenty
twenty four, and so we are seeing a different kind of conservative managing the
Republican Party. And you know, it's people that feel like their identity is
at risk, and so they're lashing out even stronger, even harder, And
so that is why we have these factors. Now. Hopefully the case law
established by the nineteen eighty Kentucky case will mitigate this. But even so,
I think Cindy's point to the second part of the of the excuse me the
clause and the Constitution the establishment clause, Yeah, hopefully that will embolden people
to take advantage of this and cause these people to say, all right,
you know what, instead of having the head of baff Mit and the five
Pillars of Islam and you know, the Hindu texts and things like that displayed,
we'll just take ours down. And so I think that there could be
some ground gained there. And Cindy, what about you, Yeah, I
think it's it's just a political move. With the election coming coming soon,
I think it's time for people to signal where they are and that's just one
more attempt to do that. And also, just like we saw with rovers
Swayed, there's been countless attempts to to go to the Supreme Court with laws
like this that they knew were completely anti constitutional, yet they tried to do
it because they hope that the scooteris is going to try and change it.
So that's just what it is signaling to the base and try to influence the
country. Via scottis Well, the mandate to display the Ten Commandments in Louisiana's
public school classrooms is controversial, as we just said, and potentially unconstitutional.
It posts a significant risk to the religious diversity, inclusion and the principle of
church state separation. For a skeptical humanist standpoint, the focus should be on
fostering an educational environment that resplect, respects, and reflects the diverse beliefs of
all students, rather than prompting a specific religious doctrine