Speaker 1: Hey everyone, and welcome back to the nonprofits. Today we're
Speaker 1: going to Texas, where the Ten Commandments have made their
Speaker 1: wares into public schools. Demien hasborn, Demien, I.
Speaker 2: Do indeed thank you. In an article from KHOU eleven
Speaker 2: by Ann james On during the twenty first twenty twenty five,
Speaker 2: comes news that Texas Governor Greg Abbott has signed Senate
Speaker 2: Bill ten into law after it passed the Senate twenty
Speaker 2: one to ten and the House eighty two to forty six.
Speaker 2: For those who may not know, Senate Bill ten is
Speaker 2: Texas's version of the controversial laws that have already been
Speaker 2: passed by Louisiana and Arkansas legislatures requiring classrooms in all
Speaker 2: schools in the state to either display a sixteen x
Speaker 2: twenty inch poster of the Ten Commandments in classrooms or
Speaker 2: to accept donations of posters of the Ten Commandments. However,
Speaker 2: the ACLU has already say to that they will issue
Speaker 2: a legal challenge to Senate Bill ten. Let's go over
Speaker 2: to the panel for some discussion.
Speaker 1: Awesome, thanks daman So. I actually remember talking about this
Speaker 1: on an episode with some other nonprofits a few weeks ago.
Speaker 1: Kelly and aj right after a pass in the state House.
Speaker 1: We were really hopeful. There was a representative in Texas
Speaker 1: named James Aillerico that was kind of fighting against this,
Speaker 1: which we were really impressed by because as a Christian Democrat,
Speaker 1: he was fighting for the in favor of a separation
Speaker 1: of church and state, which of course at the ACA
Speaker 1: we align with that. Now that being said, Damien, the
Speaker 1: article cludus in on some of the stated motives for
Speaker 1: the bill, particularly by Representative Noble, that it's foundational to
Speaker 1: our history and to education. Are you convinced by that
Speaker 1: or do you think it's more likely that they're just
Speaker 1: kind of following suit.
Speaker 2: I'm not convinced by Representative Noble in the least. So,
Speaker 2: just to clarify, a Representative Candy Noble is quoted in
Speaker 2: the article as saying, nothing is more deeply rooted in
Speaker 2: the fabric of our American tradition of education than the
Speaker 2: Ten Commandments. The very way we treat others as a
Speaker 2: society comes from the principles of the Ten Commandments. In
Speaker 2: these days of court room mayhem, it's time to return
Speaker 2: to the truth, to the fabric of our educational system.
Speaker 2: Respect authority, respect others, and don't steal tell the truth,
Speaker 2: don't kill keep your word. And I find those very
Speaker 2: ironic things for a politician to be saying myself. No,
Speaker 2: I'm not convinced of the educational value of putting the
Speaker 2: Ten Commandments up in a poster in classroom. I think
Speaker 2: if Texas and these other states that want to claim
Speaker 2: putting the Ten Commandments up as an educational benefit, what
Speaker 2: they really should be doing is focusing on school infrastructure, teachers, salaries,
Speaker 2: teaching conditions, you know, enforcing standards in education to make
Speaker 2: sure that when the children that leave the education system,
Speaker 2: have they been educated or have they been indoctrinated. I
Speaker 2: think that's the big question that they that people need
Speaker 2: to answer.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely, that's a really good way to put it.
Speaker 1: I definitely agree that you mentioned like that the concepts
Speaker 1: she named like that, don't steal the be kind, you know,
Speaker 1: respect authority, things like that, those don't have anything to
Speaker 1: do with educating or being educated exactly. And they're not
Speaker 1: they weren't even novel to the Ten Commandments. Like the
Speaker 1: things that the things that were that are that are
Speaker 1: unique to the Ten Commandments are the things that are
Speaker 1: about that religion. So uh, and there's only two religions
Speaker 1: or no, sorry, only uh, two religions in the world
Speaker 1: that follow those. So, but Jonathan, coming to you, now,
Speaker 1: do you think that taking you know, steps like this
Speaker 1: in public education saying yes, this is something that will
Speaker 1: be included in our public schools. That is that something
Speaker 1: that could be seen as an extension of states' rights
Speaker 1: that they can that they can claim the authority to
Speaker 1: do that, or is it just problematic?
Speaker 3: It's just problematic. The problem, of course, is obvious to us.
Speaker 3: But when people are zealous in their particular religion, it
Speaker 3: doesn't matter what religion it is. They have the feeling
Speaker 3: that everybody should be like them and so and we
Speaker 3: should make sure that everybody's like them so that we
Speaker 3: can be comfortable in our own skins. But the problem
Speaker 3: with that is that not everybody is like you. There
Speaker 3: are other religions involved, and there are quite a few
Speaker 3: people who are not religious at all and really don't
Speaker 3: want to hear your bullshit, you know, so, and that's
Speaker 3: exactly what it is. It's a bunch of bollocks, as
Speaker 3: a friend of mine says, and that and if you're
Speaker 3: going to teach religion, don't claim it's historical. I mean
Speaker 3: any any and don't claim it's a part of Americana.
Speaker 3: Any rational historian who takes a passing glance at the
Speaker 3: foundation of this country will show you one of the
Speaker 3: key foundational elements was the separation of church and state.
Speaker 3: These people had just immigrated from Europe, which has been
Speaker 3: war torn with religious wars for a thousand years. Okay,
Speaker 3: they were sick and tired of people killing each other
Speaker 3: over differences in their belief structure. Okay, so at this
Speaker 3: point they came over here and said, we're not going
Speaker 3: to have that. No religion in government, period. That's what
Speaker 3: the history says. These people want to make it differently
Speaker 3: because they don't feel comfortable. They like being the victims,
Speaker 3: you know, they like, you're repressing our religion. No, you're
Speaker 3: trying to proselytize. That's against the rules. You know, intolerance
Speaker 3: is not tolerable in a tolerance society, you know. So
Speaker 3: it's like that just drives me nuts. But you know,
Speaker 3: I just think that the cult wars is all a
Speaker 3: bunch of bullshit, you know, that they need to come
Speaker 3: off of.
Speaker 1: So you mentioned the persecution complex, but like this is
Speaker 1: kind of a dub for Christians, right, because they've sort
Speaker 1: of they seem to have circumvented the separation of church
Speaker 1: and state. We may not officially have, you know, a
Speaker 1: national religion, but you can you can imagine this might
Speaker 1: this might be what it would look like if we did. So.
Speaker 1: Do you think the persecution complex will finally end? Now?
Speaker 3: They're going to figure out a way to play the
Speaker 3: victim every time they turn around. And you know, it's
Speaker 3: just not the persecution complex. It's that the people who
Speaker 3: don't want their kids indoctrinated into Christianity are going to
Speaker 3: have to homeschool their kids, and that is a big investment.
Speaker 3: One of the parents is going to have to be
Speaker 3: home all the time. There's not going to be double income,
Speaker 3: you know, to pay the astronomical bills that are already
Speaker 3: high but are going to go higher in the next
Speaker 3: six months, so three months probably. But you have to
Speaker 3: understand that people don't have the ability to do that.
Speaker 3: So they do get a w for that, because they're
Speaker 3: still going to be able to put their religion in
Speaker 3: front of young minds who aren't fully developed yet and
Speaker 3: don't have the critical skin thinking skills. Some of them do,
Speaker 3: I know a couple of them, but most don't in
Speaker 3: order to be able to sort that out and say, yeah,
Speaker 3: this is crap and this part of it's good and
Speaker 3: this part of it's almost crap. You know, they know
Speaker 3: how to when they start learning how to think, that's
Speaker 3: when they start getting indoctrinated, because if you do it
Speaker 3: too late, once they're in high school and their brain
Speaker 3: is almost put together, it doesn't do it completelyun till
Speaker 3: age twenty five, but it's still plastic enough to where
Speaker 3: if you wait much longer than that and they've already
Speaker 3: formed whatever, they're going to be at that point. So,
Speaker 3: you know, and that just drives me crazy. You know
Speaker 3: that we are we're basically abusing children by forcing religion
Speaker 3: in the classroom. That's abusing everybody's child. Who isn't that
Speaker 3: particular brand of Christian They're using a Bible that none
Speaker 3: of the Catholics believe is true. Catholicism is the largest
Speaker 3: denomination of Christianity in the United States true, you know,
Speaker 3: And so you know, they're they're they're thumbing their nose
Speaker 3: at the Catholics, They're you know, they're thumbing their nose
Speaker 3: at the Mormons, They're thumbing their nose at the Jehovah's
Speaker 3: witnesses there, which of course I don't mind them doing that,
Speaker 3: but I think it would be better down if they
Speaker 3: just tried to, you know, at least be nice to people,
Speaker 3: you know, but I guess being nice is not a
Speaker 3: Christian thing anymore. But I'm going to stop ranting right now.
Speaker 1: No, totally fair, get let it all out. But Damien,
Speaker 1: you and I we found you, and I found a
Speaker 1: little bit of irony. And the same quote from Noble
Speaker 1: about Mayhem, do you want to do you want to
Speaker 1: ask man on that?
Speaker 2: Look, there was a quote from I think I didn't
Speaker 2: mention it before, where this representative Noble said, in this
Speaker 2: time of court, in these days of court room Mayhem.
Speaker 2: And it's just interesting how the very the number one
Speaker 2: Republican in the land, Donald Trump, is part of the
Speaker 2: reason for the courtroom mayhem that you know, he's he's
Speaker 2: trying to push all these all these legislator, let all
Speaker 2: these pieces of legislation and executive orders through, and he
Speaker 2: keeps on getting blocked by the court. And then the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court comes and like bails him out. And this
Speaker 2: is interesting, how you know the GOP are going, Oh, look,
Speaker 2: these days of court room mayhem that my party is
Speaker 2: is fueling. As I say, Jonathan made an interesting point
Speaker 2: about parents homeschooling their children, because it's also fact that
Speaker 2: lots of Christians homeschooled these children because they don't want
Speaker 2: to be indoctrinated. They don't want these shorten to be
Speaker 2: indoctrinated by secular education.
Speaker 1: By evolutionists, by evolutionistnessness. It is getting more common, definitely.
Speaker 1: I have family members who who I guess not so
Speaker 1: much anymore, at least for the first couple of years
Speaker 1: for one of their children they were they were homeschooling.
Speaker 1: But uh yeah, it's it's it's become more common. But
Speaker 1: it is those pressures and those I guess difficulties that
Speaker 1: that it comes with that you mentioned to Jonathan, that
Speaker 1: just makes it, while more popular, less and less viable
Speaker 1: as time goes on. So yeah, I agree, like, yeah,
Speaker 1: there there is mayhem, but like who who has the ability.
Speaker 2: To stop that? Who is supreme?
Speaker 1: Exactly? Like there's you know you you guys are they're
Speaker 1: deep in it, so it's like, you know right exactly.
Speaker 1: So I mean, and we mentioned before the thing that
Speaker 1: I think is the most that stands out the most
Speaker 1: to me is that once you ask them to justify
Speaker 1: the claim that oh this is foundational to our history
Speaker 1: and to education. And I was like okay, like in
Speaker 1: what way? And then she lists, you know, these virtues
Speaker 1: the what do we say, don't steal, don't murder, don't lie.
Speaker 1: I mentioned the Sumerians earlier, the Code of Nama or
Speaker 1: Ornamu sorry, was written in the third millennium, which is
Speaker 1: like like it was twenty one hundred BC. Yes, sorry, yeah,
Speaker 1: third millium BC, which is yeah, before the earliest writings
Speaker 1: we have in Biblical Hebrew. So like, these are concepts
Speaker 1: that that pre date Christianity, pre date Judaism. They don't
Speaker 1: come from Christianity. So you could just easily say again.
Speaker 3: I said, we are we are social animals and being
Speaker 3: nice to people and not murdering them. In that is
Speaker 3: when we were on the savannahs of Africa, probably is
Speaker 3: asked australopithesies. We had that because we're great apes and
Speaker 3: that and we're social animals and you don't do that
Speaker 3: to our own people. Now we were cleannish. We might
Speaker 3: do it to the guys down there, you know, down
Speaker 3: the block, but we're definitely not to our own company. Yeah,
Speaker 3: we have.
Speaker 1: Guy, the guy that's going around harming everybody else might
Speaker 1: harm you and you don't want to be harmed, so
Speaker 1: you get rid of them. So yeah, we we've have
Speaker 1: not only are there, you know, secular foundations for these
Speaker 1: but non Ten Commandment foundations for these principles. So you
Speaker 1: could just as easily give this same educational and historical
Speaker 1: value with the Code of Hammer Robbie as you could
Speaker 1: with the Ten Commandments, if not more, because it's even older.
Speaker 1: It's more foundational. If the if levitical law deuteronomical I
Speaker 1: don't know if that's the word is uh is based
Speaker 1: on codes that came before it, like the Code of Hammerrobbie,
Speaker 1: then you get arue that it's more foundational than than commandments.
Speaker 1: What are your guess that's on that?
Speaker 2: Oh? Look the Ten Commandments. Well, firstly, the ironic thing
Speaker 2: here is that the version of the Ten Commandments that
Speaker 2: the that Governor Abba wants to put in schools firstly
Speaker 2: is the King James version, which is like ye old,
Speaker 2: ye old English, I'm literally reading from it now and
Speaker 2: like it says, the text must read as follows the
Speaker 2: Ten Commandments. I'm the Lord thy God, thou shalt have
Speaker 2: no other gods before me, those shalt not make thyselves
Speaker 2: thyself any graven images. Like if they're trying to put
Speaker 2: this in for an educational educational content, wouldn't be like,
Speaker 2: wouldn't be easier to put it in plain English rather
Speaker 2: than King James, King James English.
Speaker 3: Well, now, literature wise, now let me make a point here,
Speaker 3: literature wise, if they read this when they get to
Speaker 3: the Bard, you know, to Shakespeare got right there with it.
Speaker 1: That's exactly thought. But then like a let clan, then
Speaker 1: we might.
Speaker 3: Have tro to Shakespeare. You read a couple of psalms
Speaker 3: out of the Bible, you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, maybe not like the whole one. Don't make them
Speaker 1: reading the whole one.
Speaker 3: They're pretty boring.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I do find it. Go ahead, so I do
Speaker 2: find it somewhat interesting though that representative noble, who seems
Speaker 2: to be one that's really pushing the public case for this,
Speaker 2: is saying, you know, respect authority, respect others, don't tell
Speaker 2: the truth, don't kill yet. Texas has in Texas is
Speaker 2: one of the few states in America that still has
Speaker 2: the death penalty. I mean, like that to me, just like, guys,
Speaker 2: do you not see the hypocrisy, do you not? You know?
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, it's it's.
Speaker 2: Exactly. Now if I can add an update to the case,
Speaker 2: k h O eleven put out another article I think
Speaker 2: yesterday saying that sixteen families have actually filed a federal
Speaker 2: lawsuit against several school districts across the state to block
Speaker 2: the new law.
Speaker 1: Amazing, but you know, and actually I remember now from
Speaker 1: the last time I talked about this, there was a
Speaker 1: section of the bill and I don't know if it
Speaker 1: was amended. Well, no, because I think it's that this
Speaker 1: was It had already passed the House when we talked
Speaker 1: about it, so as it was delivered to the governor.
Speaker 1: There is a section that requires the state attorney general
Speaker 1: to act in defense of any school district that becomes
Speaker 1: the target of a lawsuit, and the state is responsible
Speaker 1: for paying the if that if that district loses that case,
Speaker 1: the state is responsible for paying those uh those fees.
Speaker 1: So the the any laws. Well, but then it comes
Speaker 1: from taxpayer money, So that that's I actually it's.
Speaker 3: Going to come from taxpayer money either way.
Speaker 2: So section section maary, the attorney General may settle or
Speaker 2: compromise any and all claims under the subsection and if
Speaker 2: you look at at a section, if notwithstanding any other law,
Speaker 2: a public elementary or secondary school is not exempt as well.
Speaker 2: So yeah, So basically they're trying to right railroad the
Speaker 2: law to open up this this this whole to support
Speaker 2: the Ten commandmentsy and then saying to the governor general
Speaker 2: side of the attorney general that you know, you're on
Speaker 2: the hook for any lawsuit that that comes from this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and so yeah, and it's it's just kind of
Speaker 1: like a vicious circle of God damn it because look
Speaker 1: at you know, these families are suing, which I think
Speaker 1: they absolutely should, but what it will happen is even
Speaker 1: if they do win those cases, it will be their
Speaker 1: tax dollars that are paying them back for having their
Speaker 1: rates violated. So it just it makes my skin crap.
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: I have question, given that Louisiana and Arkansas already have
Speaker 2: this legislation in place, hasn't made any notable difference in
Speaker 2: the education standards of those states.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not sure. I don't know if it
Speaker 1: has been in place long enough for there to have
Speaker 1: been measurements taken.
Speaker 3: The Louisiana law is already in the appellate courts from
Speaker 3: the challenges.
Speaker 2: So it's probably like I'm asking, it's like as a
Speaker 2: dead series question, Like I'm trying to be as impartial
Speaker 2: as i can to the people that might support.
Speaker 3: I'm not laughing at you. I'm just laughing at the situation.
Speaker 3: To me, it's so humorous.
Speaker 2: But yeah, I'm just wondering, has anyone actually gone out
Speaker 2: and done the studies, like the research collected to the
Speaker 2: data to go, Look, I think we really should put
Speaker 2: the Ten Commandments into schools because there is educational benefit
Speaker 2: in doing so.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't know if there's been any data gathered
Speaker 1: on it. Honestly, that's a good question. O.
Speaker 3: The Louisiana case, there was a bunch of not studies,
Speaker 3: but there was a bunch of at least statements about
Speaker 3: that as far as what would be gained or not gained.
Speaker 3: I think they had some expert witnesses and that sort
Speaker 3: of thing. I don't remember a lot about it, So
Speaker 3: I'm not going to say that it's absolute where it's
Speaker 3: that I really know what I'm talking about, because they
Speaker 3: obviously don't. But you know that it's just that I
Speaker 3: think they did in those lawsuits. They were saying that
Speaker 3: it's educational, and the judge didn't buy it. They put
Speaker 3: presenter on there, this is educational evidence, and the judge said, nope,
Speaker 3: it's not you. And that's why it went to the
Speaker 3: next higher court. When it finally gets up to the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court, they'll make a decision, probably the wrong one.
Speaker 2: So you know, possibly this and this actually highlights something
Speaker 2: else I noted in the article was that so the
Speaker 2: original article puts this line in, but supporters are banking
Speaker 2: on the current conservative leaning Supreme Court to overturn that precedent.
Speaker 2: They argue the Ten Commandments serve a historical rather than
Speaker 2: religious purpose in school. And so the fact that supporters
Speaker 2: accounting on a GOP stacked court to help defend against
Speaker 2: this legal and upcoming lee we challenge says two things
Speaker 2: that the law itself is so prima facie unconstitutional that
Speaker 2: it's inevitable will land at the Supreme Court. And two
Speaker 2: that people see the court as partial to their way
Speaker 2: of thinking, meaning that the court is not impartible.
Speaker 1: That's correct, which so yeah, huge red flag right there
Speaker 1: itself is a problem.
Speaker 3: Regardless of not just said with the last the last
Speaker 3: four months of decisions by the Supreme Court in this session,
Speaker 3: and the decisions they came out with were absolutely unconstitutional.
Speaker 3: They ceased caring about the Constitution at this point, so
Speaker 3: you know, at that point we lost our democracy, and
Speaker 3: so we're no longer a democratic republic.
Speaker 2: I think it's a good argument for termal limits.
Speaker 3: Agreed, there you go. That would be the original seventeen
Speaker 3: hundred liberal position on that. I think it was Madison,
Speaker 3: but I'm not I can't remember. Might have been Jefferson,
Speaker 3: could have been Atoms for that matter. They were all
Speaker 3: juxtaposed to each other. But I think it was that
Speaker 3: you can't have judges not have a lifetime appointment because
Speaker 3: then it becomes a political position. Well, they're subject to
Speaker 3: influence from the outside because they have their jobs to
Speaker 3: worry about, you know, if they have to get re
Speaker 3: elected or they have to pass some sort of thing
Speaker 3: to get there, then that's not being self contained as
Speaker 3: a judicial element. So you know, that was I think
Speaker 3: the rationale for that. However, in the modern day, when
Speaker 3: we're living so one day where this means that actually
Speaker 3: there'll be more than two or three presidents before you
Speaker 3: kick the bucket.
Speaker 1: You know, years ago, a lifetime the term was like
Speaker 1: another twelve years maybe.
Speaker 3: Yeah, twelve to twenty years. Yeah, you know somebody who
Speaker 3: was you know, like twenty when you got appointed. It
Speaker 3: was only going to be like forty when you passed out.
Speaker 2: You know, I'm actually reading the tics of the bill,
Speaker 2: and there is nothing in the bill about improving education.
Speaker 2: The bill is literally just to force schools to put
Speaker 2: a sixteen by twenty inch durable poster, durable poster or
Speaker 2: framed copy in classrooms. And as you were joking before.
Speaker 3: It's never been in a kindergarten class. How do you
Speaker 3: make a durable poster that will last subjective through five
Speaker 3: year olds?
Speaker 2: As we were joking before the recording was putting on
Speaker 2: the ceiling that wait, it won't wave anyone.
Speaker 3: Don't let it within hands reach of any of those kids. Boy,
Speaker 3: they'll field there with that.
Speaker 2: The law doesn't say where it has to be put.
Speaker 2: It just has to be visible.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it just has to be visible from anywhere in
Speaker 1: the classroom.
Speaker 2: And it doesn't say you can't have rude images on
Speaker 2: the around the poster as well.
Speaker 1: It has minimum specifications, it doesn't have a maximum specifications.
Speaker 2: There you go, that's it.
Speaker 1: At this point, and that there's nothing else about education
Speaker 1: and the bell it's just about this, and so it's
Speaker 1: really clearly like, Okay, some people want to do this,
Speaker 1: so we're going to make everybody have to do it,
Speaker 1: so that the people who want to do it are
Speaker 1: now allowed to do it, and like they won't get
Speaker 1: in trouble for it. They won't get we'll basically just
Speaker 1: change the line. They'll just stop doing it again, but
Speaker 1: they'll be fine.
Speaker 2: And we're going to make a completely bs reason for
Speaker 2: doing it as well.
Speaker 1: That we can't back up more than just repeating it.
Speaker 2: And look, in all fairness, like if you want to
Speaker 2: go to a religious school where you know, a school
Speaker 2: that is run by people who believe in Judeo Christian religion,
Speaker 2: it's sure, that's okay, send your children to those schools. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and you can have them have them in a Christian
Speaker 2: focused education as much as you want. We have private
Speaker 2: schools here that are run by either the Lutheran Church
Speaker 2: or the Catholic Church or Anglican Church, whoever, whoever. That's fine.
Speaker 2: But I think when it comes to public funded education,
Speaker 2: like gods just kill.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, you gotta. It has to be for the
Speaker 1: public at large.
Speaker 3: And an inclusive I know that's a bad word nowadays,
Speaker 3: but it has to be inclusive of the other religions
Speaker 3: as well.
Speaker 1: Don't be so woke, Jonathan.
Speaker 3: You have a T shirt on that it says woke
Speaker 3: as fuck, so you know that's my T shirt, So
Speaker 3: I guess I can be that way.
Speaker 1: Fantastic. Well, for our public at large, we want to
Speaker 1: hear from you. What are your thoughts?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 1: Get in the comments.