deddog said:

---

Ervin Burrell said:

---

deddog said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

deddog said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

Why the hell would you want public school teachers explaining to your 1st grader what adultery is?

---

GROOMERS!!!

---

Yes because teaching kids that it's ideal to have a nuclear family with a father and mother at the center of it, for life .. is the same as a trans pedo reading books to a 3rd grader.

---

It's good to see you have a balanced view of the world. I'm sure there tons of instances of "trans pedos reading books to 3rd graders" in Texas public schools. I bet it happens everyday in most schools.

---

you're the one equating adultery to grooming.
And every damn class I've been to has a Pride flag.
But oh no, how dare we have the commandments.

---

Zero percent chance this true.

---

100% true.
Are you in Austin ISD? Go to Bowie High School and tell me things are different.

I have been disgusted by AISD. They went off the deep end once Trump won. There is a reason that their enrollment is falling year after year, but they continue to double down on the insanity.

Democrats pontificate on threads like this, but every Austin democrat i know sends their kids to private school. The rest of us have to suffer the results of their continued stupidity and ignorance of what's happening in our schools.

---

To all the naysayers challenging deddog's claim that he saw LGBTQ flags in every classroom, his statement actually clarifies it was rooms that HE visited; he didn't say it was in every classroom, of every school in the state. He even identified where he saw such: Austin ISD.

As an attorney prepared to offer sworn testimony under threat of perjury & likely disbarment if I'm proven to be lying (since perjury & misuse/ conversion of client funds almost always results in disbarment on 'moral turpitude' grounds), as well as a Christian in recognition of the "Thou shall not lie" contained on the very Ten Commandments at issue in this thread, I too echo deddog's observations (at least in Kindergarten through fourth grade, which is when my ex-wife & I agreed to send our son to a private Catholic school); in fact, at Maplewood Elementary, I saw the exact same **** deddog is claiming! Plus, they held SEVERAL "Pride Week" events theought the calendar year. It was an over-the-top, in your face, dogmatic obsession at Mapplewood & other AISD schools to actively promote the LGBTQ "community", which'allegedly' was done pursuant to policy &/or an AISD directive. I also saw BLM, Green Energy, Climate Change, Patriarchy, & other Left-leaning causes prominently displayed in common areas & likewise in a a majority of the classrooms!!

HTownAg98 said:

---

Pull up the constitution, search for the word "God," and tell everyone how many hits you get.

---

Zero; but, how many times does it mention abortion, & does it even use the pronoun "she" anywhere either? Another "hot button" issue is 'gun control'; regarding that issue, it's the only issue addressed directly by the 'Top 10' (a/k/a "Bill of Rights") that utilizes a "shall not" admonition. Therefore, say what you will about God or abortion, but the 2nd Amendment was written in such a way that there is no gray area because that "shall not" leaves zero wiggle room!

This is political pandering at its finest. No way the supreme court upholds this....

Anyone who supports this should know its a double edged sword. Would you be okay with buddist texts, hinudu texts, ISLAM text? No. Leave religious instruction out of public schools.

Vepp said:

---

This is political pandering at its finest. No way the supreme court upholds this....

---

I wouldn't be so sure of that!

Quote:

---

Anyone who supports this should know its a double edged sword. Would you be okay with buddist texts, hinudu texts, ISLAM text? No. Leave religious instruction out of public schools.

---

I'd be okay with it.

BMX Bandit said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

That's cool, but what about this quote from James Madison?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

---

How does this establish a religion? Or prohibit the free exercise thereof?

---

The Supreme Court has clearly stated multiple times that a state-mandated religious displays that favor one religion over another that are not integrated with a secular display violate the establishment clause. See McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, Van Orden v. Perry, and Lynch v. Donnelly for a primer on endorsement of religion and the establishment clause.

---

Interestingly, you didn't bother to say how these 10 commandments under the texas statute established religion.

As for the suggest primer, are you talking about the Van Orden case where 10 commandments were allowed at the courthouse? the Lynch v. Donnelly where a nativity scene was allowed at a shopping mall area? those cases don't exactly prove your point.

As for McCreary, it was such a "Clear" decision that they couldn't even get limp wristed Anthony Kennedy to go along with the liberals. that was a much different court of court than the one we have now.

perhaps you should read up on kennedy v Bremerton for the current's courts thoughts on the establishment clause and the lemon test being on life support.

So I'll try again. How specifically does this law establish religion? Because 2 of the 3 cases you cited said the displays that made the leftists skin burn did not violate the constitution.

---

Referring to your statement about those 2 cases, I think the operative term was "allowed". In the proposed Texas law, the operative term is "required".

It is on this point that I think the Texas law is not likely to survive Constitutional muster

Texas can enforce a law requiring the Ten Commandments be displayed in public classrooms, a divided Fifth Circuit ruled. https://t.co/IjUIbz5q6Q

— Bloomberg Law (@BLaw) April 21, 2026

I can't find the opinion on the court website, but it appears the decision was 9-8.

I have a feeling the Supreme Court may not uphold this one. As much as the conservatives on the court have championed religious freedom I can't think of a case where they were in support of the government forcing religion on anyone. It's usually them ruling against the government forcing government on religion.

Opinion here:

Huge win today from the en banc Fifth Circuit: Texas’s law that requires the Ten Commandments posters in public school classrooms is constitutional. https://t.co/McZ4BEPPA4

— Eric Rassbach (@ericrassbach) April 21, 2026

Quote:

---

First, the Establishment Clause. Plaintiffs primarily claim we are
bound by Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) (per curiam), which
invalidated a similar Kentucky law decades ago. We disagree. Stone applied
an analysisthe "Lemon test"which confounded courts for decades. See
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Mercifully, the Supreme Court
jettisoned Lemon and its offspring some years ago. See Kennedy v. Bremerton
Sch. Dist., 597 U.S. 507, 534 (2022) (recognizing the Court has "abandoned
Lemon"). With Lemon extracted, there is nothing left of Stone.

---

sounds familiar

Sorry if already said but this is a back door for Islam to come through.

whoop1995 said:

---

Sorry if already said but this is a back door for Islam to come through.

---

And is as bad a take now as it was then

DeschutesAg said:

---

Two of the freedoms and rights sought by many of our forebears who left Europe was freedom of religion and freedom from a religion being forced upon them. This law and the court decision fly in the face of both of those basic fundamental freedoms.

---

You have no clue what this decision even says.

B-1 83 said:

---

9-0 two second SCOTUS slap down incoming……as it should.

---

Wanna bet?

deddog said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

deddog said:

---

Its not just symbolic.
It's a moral code that we can all live by, irrespective of your religion.

---

Have you read the first commandment?

---

Fair. I guess it never bothered me even before I was Christian. No adultery? Honor your mother and father? Not steal? Not murder?
None of that should be controversial

---

Well, as long as you agree it's okay, that's all we need.

As soon as you allow government to be involved in anything religious you're opening it up to the whims of politicians and the tyranny of the majority. See marriages if you need a reminder.

Some great quotes

Quote:

---

After decades of confusion, the Supreme Court finally confirmed Lemon's demise. Plaintiffs ignore the obituary. Under the guise of applying Stone, they would have us exhume Lemon and parade its corpse around the
Federal Reporter. That we cannot do.

---

Quote:

---

The key phrase"an establishment of religion"was readily understandable to founding-era citizens. See District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. 570, 57677 (2008) (relying on a phrase's "normal meaning . . .
known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation"). The reason is
simple. At the time, establishments were "a familiar institution."
McConnell, Establishment, supra note 12, at 2107.13 Someone on the streets
of 1789 Boston, reading that phrase, would have instantly thought of the
Church of England, the colonial established churches, or the current state
establishmentsin other words, a polity's official church or religion. Ibid.

---

Quote:

---

The leading scholar in the areawhose work on this precise point the
Supreme Court has relied on, see Kennedy, 597 U.S. at 537 n.5has
categorized the evidence into elements or "hallmarks" of founding-era
establishments. Those include (1) government control over religious
doctrine, governance, and church personnel; (2) compulsory church
attendance; (3) compelled financial support, especially in the form of land
grants and religious taxes; (4) prohibitions on worship in dissenting
churches; (5) use of church institutions for civil functions; and (6) restriction
of political participation to members of the established church

---

Quote:

---

S.B. 10 looks nothing like a founding-era establishment.
At the outset, we note that S.B. 10 plainly lacks the features of founding-era establishments. For example, whereas establishments commonly punished dissenters through fines, taxes, and legal disabilities, see
supra Part IV.B., S.B. 10 does none of those things. If students disagree with
the Commandments or ignore them or laugh at them, S.B. 10 imposes neither
penalty nor sanction, formal or informal. And S.B. 10 obviously does not
regulate what any religious institution teaches, how it worships, or whom it
employsas establishments often did. See supra Part IV.B.
Nor does S.B. 10 compel financial support for religious institutions.
True, S.B. 10 permits using public funds to procure displays. Tex. Educ.
Code Ann. 1.0041(e) (West 2025). But it neither requires such funding
nor compels anyone to pay for the displays. This is again a far cry from
historic religious establishments, which typically relied on forced exaction of
religious taxes to support churches and clergy. See Everson, 330 U.S. at 10 n.8
("Almost every colony exacted some kind of tax for church support."). For
their part, Plaintiffs rely on none of these features of establishments to attack
S.B. 10.

---

Quote:

---

ut this principle has no application to government use of religious
language or symbolism. See Lynch, 465 U.S. at 687 n.13 (declining to apply
denominational preference cases to city crche). Nor could it. Consider the
cities of Corpus Christi, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Fe,
San Jose, St. Augustine, and Sacramento, to name just a few. Do those names
represent "denominational discrimination"? Or take our national motto. See
36 U.S.C. 302 ("In God We Trust"). Does it show "favoritism" for
monotheism over polytheism?

You get the point. If the rule against "denominational favoritism"
applies in this area, all religious language and symbolism will have to be
scoured from public life. While some constitutions have achieved this feat,
ours is not one of them.

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Some great quotes

Quote:

---

After decades of confusion, the Supreme Court finally confirmed Lemon's demise. Plaintiffs ignore the obituary. Under the guise of applying Stone, they would have us exhume Lemon and parade its corpse around the
Federal Reporter. That we cannot do.

---

Quote:

---

The key phrase"an establishment of religion"was readily understandable to founding-era citizens. See District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. 570, 57677 (2008) (relying on a phrase's "normal meaning . . .
known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation"). The reason is
simple. At the time, establishments were "a familiar institution."
McConnell, Establishment, supra note 12, at 2107.13 Someone on the streets
of 1789 Boston, reading that phrase, would have instantly thought of the
Church of England, the colonial established churches, or the current state
establishmentsin other words, a polity's official church or religion. Ibid.

---

Quote:

---

The leading scholar in the areawhose work on this precise point the
Supreme Court has relied on, see Kennedy, 597 U.S. at 537 n.5has
categorized the evidence into elements or "hallmarks" of founding-era
establishments. Those include (1) government control over religious
doctrine, governance, and church personnel; (2) compulsory church
attendance; (3) compelled financial support, especially in the form of land
grants and religious taxes; (4) prohibitions on worship in dissenting
churches; (5) use of church institutions for civil functions; and (6) restriction
of political participation to members of the established church

---

---

Ludicrous rationalizing by the court.

It's bad day for those of us who value our right to freedom of religion and our right to freedom from religion.

But it's a good day, for the moment, for the Dan Patricks and Leonard Leos of this country.

This fight isn't over. It will never be over, not until every religion in this nation respects the rights of non-believers, too.

" Ludicrous rationalizing by the court" is lib speak for "originalism"

Please explain how this establishes religion.

NM ..the sip spoiled my rreply with his ridiculous gif. Which i starred.
Because it's a great movie.

DeschutesAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Some great quotes

Quote:

---

After decades of confusion, the Supreme Court finally confirmed Lemon's demise. Plaintiffs ignore the obituary. Under the guise of applying Stone, they would have us exhume Lemon and parade its corpse around the
Federal Reporter. That we cannot do.

---

Quote:

---

The key phrase"an establishment of religion"was readily understandable to founding-era citizens. See District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. 570, 57677 (2008) (relying on a phrase's "normal meaning . . .
known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation"). The reason is
simple. At the time, establishments were "a familiar institution."
McConnell, Establishment, supra note 12, at 2107.13 Someone on the streets
of 1789 Boston, reading that phrase, would have instantly thought of the
Church of England, the colonial established churches, or the current state
establishmentsin other words, a polity's official church or religion. Ibid.

---

Quote:

---

The leading scholar in the areawhose work on this precise point the
Supreme Court has relied on, see Kennedy, 597 U.S. at 537 n.5has
categorized the evidence into elements or "hallmarks" of founding-era
establishments. Those include (1) government control over religious
doctrine, governance, and church personnel; (2) compulsory church
attendance; (3) compelled financial support, especially in the form of land
grants and religious taxes; (4) prohibitions on worship in dissenting
churches; (5) use of church institutions for civil functions; and (6) restriction
of political participation to members of the established church

---

---

Ludicrous rationalizing by the court.

It's bad day for those of us who value our right to freedom of religion and our right to freedom from religion.

But it's a good day, for the moment, for the Dan Patricks and Leonard Leos of this country.

This fight isn't over. It will never be over, not until every religion in this nation respects the rights of non-believers, too.

---

So what religion are you?
Or are you athiest?

Just curious.

deddog said:

---

Now, i'm curious.
What religion are you?

---

Nvm

IIIHorn said:

---

deddog said:

---

Now, i'm curious.
What religion are you?

---

Was this question for me?

---

ha no.

this is a cartoon show right here. You can save it with another bad joke. Which i will star again, because i laugh at all of them.

deddog said:

---

NM ..the sip spoiled my rreply with his ridiculous gif. Which i starred.
Because it's a great movie.

---

Thank you for your patience with me.

deddog said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

deddog said:

---

Now, i'm curious.
What religion are you?

---

Was this question for me?

---

ha no.

this is a cartoon show right here. You can save it with another bad joke. Which i will star again, because i laugh at all of them.

---

You have a low threshold for entertainment!

Texas velvet maestro said:

---

The politically driven folks who demand the display of the 10 commandments probably will be the first to ignore them. I feel it's strictly for our entertainment. performative.

---

Have you heard about the agnostic, dyslexic insomniac?

deddog said:

---

DeschutesAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Some great quotes

Quote:

---

After decades of confusion, the Supreme Court finally confirmed Lemon's demise. Plaintiffs ignore the obituary. Under the guise of applying Stone, they would have us exhume Lemon and parade its corpse around the
Federal Reporter. That we cannot do.

---

Quote:

---

The key phrase"an establishment of religion"was readily understandable to founding-era citizens. See District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. 570, 57677 (2008) (relying on a phrase's "normal meaning . . .
known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation"). The reason is
simple. At the time, establishments were "a familiar institution."
McConnell, Establishment, supra note 12, at 2107.13 Someone on the streets
of 1789 Boston, reading that phrase, would have instantly thought of the
Church of England, the colonial established churches, or the current state
establishmentsin other words, a polity's official church or religion. Ibid.

---

Quote:

---

The leading scholar in the areawhose work on this precise point the
Supreme Court has relied on, see Kennedy, 597 U.S. at 537 n.5has
categorized the evidence into elements or "hallmarks" of founding-era
establishments. Those include (1) government control over religious
doctrine, governance, and church personnel; (2) compulsory church
attendance; (3) compelled financial support, especially in the form of land
grants and religious taxes; (4) prohibitions on worship in dissenting
churches; (5) use of church institutions for civil functions; and (6) restriction
of political participation to members of the established church

---

---

Ludicrous rationalizing by the court.

It's bad day for those of us who value our right to freedom of religion and our right to freedom from religion.

But it's a good day, for the moment, for the Dan Patricks and Leonard Leos of this country.

This fight isn't over. It will never be over, not until every religion in this nation respects the rights of non-believers, too.

---

So what religion are you?
Or are you athiest?

Just curious.

---

Protestant Christian.

DeschutesAg said:

---

deddog said:

---

DeschutesAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Some great quotes

Quote:

---

After decades of confusion, the Supreme Court finally confirmed Lemon's demise. Plaintiffs ignore the obituary. Under the guise of applying Stone, they would have us exhume Lemon and parade its corpse around the
Federal Reporter. That we cannot do.

---

Quote:

---

The key phrase"an establishment of religion"was readily understandable to founding-era citizens. See District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. 570, 57677 (2008) (relying on a phrase's "normal meaning . . .
known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation"). The reason is
simple. At the time, establishments were "a familiar institution."
McConnell, Establishment, supra note 12, at 2107.13 Someone on the streets
of 1789 Boston, reading that phrase, would have instantly thought of the
Church of England, the colonial established churches, or the current state
establishmentsin other words, a polity's official church or religion. Ibid.

---

Quote:

---

The leading scholar in the areawhose work on this precise point the
Supreme Court has relied on, see Kennedy, 597 U.S. at 537 n.5has
categorized the evidence into elements or "hallmarks" of founding-era
establishments. Those include (1) government control over religious
doctrine, governance, and church personnel; (2) compulsory church
attendance; (3) compelled financial support, especially in the form of land
grants and religious taxes; (4) prohibitions on worship in dissenting
churches; (5) use of church institutions for civil functions; and (6) restriction
of political participation to members of the established church

---

---

Ludicrous rationalizing by the court.

It's bad day for those of us who value our right to freedom of religion and our right to freedom from religion.

But it's a good day, for the moment, for the Dan Patricks and Leonard Leos of this country.

This fight isn't over. It will never be over, not until every religion in this nation respects the rights of non-believers, too.

---

So what religion are you?
Or are you athiest?

Just curious.

---

Protestant Christian.

---

That's worse

IIIHorn said:

---

Texas velvet maestro said:

---

The politically driven folks who demand the display of the 10 commandments probably will be the first to ignore them. I feel it's strictly for our entertainment. performative.

---

Have you heard about the agnostic, dyslexic insomniac?

---

stayed up all night and with much difficulty I read the book on it. wasn't sure.

Texas velvet maestro said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Texas velvet maestro said:

---

The politically driven folks who demand the display of the 10 commandments probably will be the first to ignore them. I feel it's strictly for our entertainment. performative.

---

Have you heard about the agnostic, dyslexic insomniac?

---

stayed up all night and with much difficulty I read the book on it. wasn't sure.

---

A guy who lies awake all night wondering whether or not there is a dog.

Crazy how thou shall not sreal, thou shall not kill, trigers people. Aren't these things already against the law? I don't even see it as religious. To me it is right or wronf…who doesn't want their children to know this?

No, Catholic would have been worse, but either way, he's not a Christian.

IIIHorn said:

---

Texas velvet maestro said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Texas velvet maestro said:

---

The politically driven folks who demand the display of the 10 commandments probably will be the first to ignore them. I feel it's strictly for our entertainment. performative.

---

Have you heard about the agnostic, dyslexic insomniac?

---

stayed up all night and with much difficulty I read the book on it. wasn't sure.

---

A guy who lies awake all night wondering whether or not there is a dog.

---

Is the dog there in a psychical form? The dog could be in the mental form, or an emotional form. Don't forget the psychology aspect of the mind or spiritual. After all, some cultures worship a dog. Mind provoking thoughts on whether or the dog is really there or not. Me personally, I keep it simple when laying in bed night. What can I set on fire that would fun to watch burn.

Honestly, this whole thing is a big nothing burger. The kids dont look at it, teachers don't point it out. It is just there and it doesn't impact day to day learning in the classroom.