From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

I wonder if BTR1701 agrees with me that the Louisiana statute requiring
display of the Ten Commandments is an unconstitutional Establishment.

Here's the King James Version. I got a kick out of the state's argument
that "Don't kill or steal shouldn't be controversial". I'm not seeing
secular language in Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

In Roarke v. Brumley, en banc, the 5th Circuit reversed the
injunction upheld by the 3-judge panel, claiming that lacking evidence
that the posters themselves weren't an Establishmemt, they just couldn't sustain the injunction.

I'm quoting them below. They simply cannot all be the basis for civil
law.

Ten Commandments

Exodus 20:1-17 King James Version

1 And God spake all these words, saying,

2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of
Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any
thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that
is in the water under the earth:

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the
LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon
the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD
will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou
shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that
is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the
sabbath day, and hallowed it.

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the
land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

13 Thou shalt not kill.

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

15 Thou shalt not steal.

16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox,
nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Feb 22, 2026 at 1:03:06 AM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

I wonder if BTR1701 agrees with me that the Louisiana statute requiring display of the Ten Commandments is an unconstitutional Establishment.

It apparently isn't unconstitutional for them to be displayed on the walls of the Supreme Court itself, so I can't imagine why they'd be unconstitutional in Louisiana.

Here's the King James Version. I got a kick out of the state's argument
that "Don't kill or steal shouldn't be controversial". I'm not seeing
secular language in Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Yeah, they should probably trim it to The Seven Commandments or something.


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 2026-02-22 4:03 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

I wonder if BTR1701 agrees with me that the Louisiana statute requiring display of the Ten Commandments is an unconstitutional Establishment.

Here's the King James Version. I got a kick out of the state's argument
that "Don't kill or steal shouldn't be controversial". I'm not seeing
secular language in Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

In Roarke v. Brumley, en banc, the 5th Circuit reversed the
injunction upheld by the 3-judge panel, claiming that lacking evidence
that the posters themselves weren't an Establishmemt, they just couldn't sustain the injunction.

I'm quoting them below. They simply cannot all be the basis for civil
law.

Ten Commandments

Exodus 20:1-17 King James Version

1 And God spake all these words, saying,

2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of
Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that
is in the water under the earth:

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the
LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon
the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD
will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou
shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that
is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the
land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

13 Thou shalt not kill.

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

15 Thou shalt not steal.

16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox,
nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

I still have trouble seeing how putting up a sign is the same as
establishing a state church. Isn't that what the Establishment Clause is designed to prevent?

I don't doubt that the sign shows a strong bias in favour of
Christianity over other religions and could be seen as a problem from
that perspective but I don't think you've established a state church by displaying that sign.

A state church would have a structure and an organization, a hierarchy
of leaders and members, known rules and, in Europe at least, might
subject you to paying tax to it. None of that happens by putting up a sign.
--
Rhino
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Feb 22, 2026 at 1:03:06 AM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

I wonder if BTR1701 agrees with me that the Louisiana statute requiring >>display of the Ten Commandments is an unconstitutional Establishment.

It apparently isn't unconstitutional for them to be displayed on the
walls of the Supreme Court itself, so I can't imagine why they'd be >unconstitutional in Louisiana.

That this crap is still debated 2 & 1/2 centuries into our history is
due to the Suppreme Court's reluctance to decide. Remember the session
with two contradictory opinions about religious displays at courthouses?
The first was historic and not unconstitional, the second was not
historic so unconstitional.

Here's the King James Version. I got a kick out of the state's argument >>that "Don't kill or steal shouldn't be controversial". I'm not seeing >>secular language in Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Yeah, they should probably trim it to The Seven Commandments or something.

Let's ask Mel Brooks to edit.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Feb 22, 2026 at 1:06:48 PM PST, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-22 4:03 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

I wonder if BTR1701 agrees with me that the Louisiana statute requiring
display of the Ten Commandments is an unconstitutional Establishment.

Here's the King James Version. I got a kick out of the state's argument
that "Don't kill or steal shouldn't be controversial". I'm not seeing
secular language in Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

In Roarke v. Brumley, en banc, the 5th Circuit reversed the
injunction upheld by the 3-judge panel, claiming that lacking evidence
that the posters themselves weren't an Establishmemt, they just couldn't
sustain the injunction.

I still have trouble seeing how putting up a sign is the same as establishing a state church. Isn't that what the Establishment Clause is designed to prevent?

Yes, much like the Commerce Clause, the Court has taken the Establishment Clause and twisted way beyond what it was intended to be. As you say, it was a way of preventing the establishment of a national church, not to ban any mention of religion, however minute, from government institutions.


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-22 4:03 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

I wonder if BTR1701 agrees with me that the Louisiana statute requiring >>display of the Ten Commandments is an unconstitutional Establishment.

Here's the King James Version. I got a kick out of the state's argument >>that "Don't kill or steal shouldn't be controversial". I'm not seeing >>secular language in Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

In Roarke v. Brumley, en banc, the 5th Circuit reversed the
injunction upheld by the 3-judge panel, claiming that lacking evidence
that the posters themselves weren't an Establishmemt, they just couldn't >>sustain the injunction.

I'm quoting them below. They simply cannot all be the basis for civil
law.

Ten Commandments . . .

I still have trouble seeing how putting up a sign is the same as >establishing a state church. Isn't that what the Establishment Clause is >designed to prevent?

At a minimum, yes.

The clauses of the First Amendment are interpretted broadly. The
Establishment Clause prohibits goverment from promoting one belief at
the expense of another. The free exercise clause prohibits government
from preventing its citizens from expressing what they believe.

I don't doubt that the sign shows a strong bias in favour of
Christianity over other religions and could be seen as a problem from
that perspective but I don't think you've established a state church by >displaying that sign.

A state church would have a structure and an organization, a hierarchy
of leaders and members, known rules and, in Europe at least, might
subject you to paying tax to it. None of that happens by putting up a sign.

The Establishment Clause prohibits direct state support to religion.
However, on the basis of "The power to tax is the power to destroy,"
which is read into the free exercise clause uniquely and no other aspect
of commerce, religion benefits from tax-exempt status at federal and
state levels.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2