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

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.

    • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
      243·
      4 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
        45·
        4 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
          34·
          4 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.

          • FireTower@lemmy.world
            42·
            4 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
              24·
              4 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
                42·
                4 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
                  24·
                  4 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

                  • FireTower@lemmy.world
                    41·
                    4 months ago

                    So you honest to God believe that the Boston Massacre isn’t an important event in American history? Just as the the French-Indian War which had it not occurred the Revolution wouldn’t have happenen?

                    My supporting evidence only has served as a platform for you to hang your own argument off of. If you needed to go to Wikipedia to learn about the French-Indian War just now you’ve no place to qualify American History as solely that of the English.

          • Deceptichum@quokk.auEnglish
            62·
            4 months ago

            As an Australian, it’s both.

            Colonial history is both the colonisers and the colonies.