They are not bad rules to live by, maybe the guys in charge should start following them as a test run to start with before they impose them on the "peasants".
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
223 points (100.0% liked)
politics
24061 readers
3129 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Rules for thee, not for me
The billionaire and ruling caste needs not follow for they are ascended beings who know what is best
some of them are pretty reasonable, but others are just outdated, even from a pragmatic "rules for society" sense.
Murder, theft and perjury? Bad, shouldn't do 'em. Adultery? Super shitty, no argument. Not sure it's in the same order as murder, or even petty theft.
Coveting, or more modernly called "embracing feelings of strong envy"? Isn't that just saying not to do the thing that causes stealing sometimes? It's not really a societal thing, just a life tip.
Honor your parents? Maybe, but some people have really shitty ones, so being sent to hell for not obeying your abusive Dad is actively cruddy. I'll charitably accept it as "care for the elderly".
That's something like 50% that I'd call good rules. Most of the rest are just "God says to like God".
Adultery, in my opinion would just fall under perjury as it amounts to breach of (the marriage) contract from a legal standpoint. That means the only significant rules are against lying, stealing, and illegally killing people. That's just 30% of them.
They should really put up signs that simply say, "DON'T BE A DICK" Of course, if you put up that sign, conservatives would all get up in arms claiming that it's a partizan political attack aimed at them because being a dick is a fundamental part of conservatism.
Those could be useful in case some tyrant takea over and says he's your god now, like he's some Egyptian pharaoh building gold statues to himself...it's a declaration of independence for another age :D
...not that modern fanatics could ever reach that conclusion, they couldn't spot satan even if it were telling them to vote for him to punish the unbelievers.
That first one is rather pesky for non believers.
just skip it, lol, it's just a formality anyway. Or is it? 🤐
If Jesus is to be believed, it’s actually the only one that really matters. (“If you believe in me….”)
The first several are entirely related to worshipping Yahweh. It has no business being in public school, aside from maybe inside a history textbook.
Rosenthal introduced an amendment that would have required public schools to display the Jewish and Catholic versions of the Ten Commandments, in addition to the Protestant version, which all have slightly different wording. The amendment’s failure to pass, he argued, showed the hypocrisy of the bill’s supporters.
They're not mad about the forced religious indoctrination...
They're mad that their religion doesn't get included
Could be that is the case, or it could be that they intentionally proposed the amendment knowing it wouldn't pass in order to prove that the proposed law was attempting to establish a single state religious preference.
I don't know their motives, but it sounds like the sort of thing the Satanic Temple would do, albeit using actual, mainstream religions instead.
They're using this language to set a precedent for future court fights over 1st Amendment violation of Established Religion.
It effectively establishes the legislature had the opportunity to be inclusive, but choose to strictly defined these laws as conforming to a single, selective orthodoxy. They're legislating a State Religion, which is illegal under the Constitution.
Whether the courts give a shit? Probably not. But this is how you lay the foundation for a judicial challenge on constitutional grounds.
If one religions message is shown, all other religions message need to be shown.
If one guy punches my kid in the nuts, everyone gets to punch my kid in the nuts!
While I agree with you, legally speaking the state is prohibited from establishing a religion, not from having religious symbols in general.
Traditionally many have opted to entirely separate them, but this has led some to claim that an antipathy for religion is also a lack of the required indifference to religion.
In my opinion this is well over the line, since a permanent display installed by the school is different from a student initiated activity or cultural event with religious context.
Given that line of argument though, it's much easier to overturn these types of laws by showing that they have preferences, rather than it being too much.
The satanic temples whole thing is basically saying that if you want the ten commandments, you need to display our commandments too. Right up there with arguing abortion is a religious sacrament.
It's a setup for a lawsuit, not a serious demand.
Yes if the state is going to mandate they get punched in the nuts as some sort of religious aspects the other religions get their own nut smashing things too... It's all our non. Using t his tactic has stopped many religious bills
Enemy of my enemy is my friend or something?
No
Because there should be zero religious indoctrination in schools, and this person is arguing there isn't enough
Regardless which one of these two "wins" it's still not solving any problems. Which I really thought was obvious enough it didn't need explicitly said, yet here we are.
this person is arguing there isn’t enough
This person is arguing that the state legislature is so inflexible in its definition of "The Ten Commandments" that they won't even accept the widely circulated variants employed by two of the world's largest religions. This is laying the foundation for a Constitutional argument against the law by demonstrating that the legislature is attempting to codify a State Religion.
Regardless which one of these two “wins” it’s still not solving any problems.
The point isn't to "win" the legislative fight. Dems are in the minority, so anything Rosenthal puts up is doomed to fail anyway.
The point is to clearly establish the intent of the legislature for the benefits of a future court challenge. In this case, Rosenthal is clarifying that the Texas legislature is not merely interested in displaying some religious swag, but in having the state of Texas statutorily defining what the Ten Commandments are.
That's a clear violation of the rights of any Texas resident who adheres to an alternative interpretation.
I think this is a good thing, because my religion will be allowed too.
https://www.spaghettimonster.org/
Rejoice! For His omnipotent noodly appendages boiled for your sins.
Ramen.
Braise Him Pho-ever, r'Amen!
Imagine existing in 2025 and still thinking Texas and freedom go hand in hand.
Anyone in protest of this bill, should it pass, should post the commandments in Farsi and see how that goes over with the facists.
My kids would get a "Get out of jail free" card for tossing that into the trash in their classroom.
You should reprimand them.
It's probably made out of metal or paper. That should definitely be thrown into the appropriate recycling bin.
The oligarchs behind our laws don't really believe any of that. Religion is probably the most useful tool capitalism has.
Who the FUCK cares about the JEWS?
-The ADL!
so no four noble truths or seven tenets or eight fold path? Outright religious discrimination then.
The amendment’s failure to pass, he argued, showed the hypocrisy of the bill’s supporters.
OH SHIT GOT EM
Jon Rosenthal's just about the last good liberal in Texas. The man's a real people's champion and a staunch fighter. Would that the Texas Ds had a hundred more candidates just like him.