Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/17/2026 5:22:27 PM PDT by Lockbox
Lawyers for a group of Texas families with children in the state’s public schools came to the Supreme Court on Monday, asking the justices to weigh in on the constitutionality of a 2025 law that requires each classroom in that state to display a copy of the Ten Commandments. Asking the justices to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that upheld the law, the challengers told the justices that the lower court “flouted this Court’s binding precedents and gutted the religious-freedom rights of public-school children and parents.”
The justices have considered a similar law before. In 1980, in Stone v. Graham, the court ruled that a Kentucky law requiring public schools to display a framed copy of the Ten Commandments in classrooms violated the Constitution. In an unsigned opinion, the court wrote that “[i]f the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause,” which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
“”””Texas families ask Supreme Court to take up challenge to Ten Commandments in schools””””
—California families ask Supreme Court to take up challenge to trans teachers in schools—
—Conservative activists ask Supreme Court to take up challenge to trans teachers in schools—
I don’t think we would see that first headline if it wasn’t liberals and I don’t think the media would use the second headline for a similar case by conservative families.
“...which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another could be used against other religions.”
Favoring one religion over another is when the government permits, endorses, acknowledges, promotes, and funds Sharia Law.
Exactly
Lasoo time...
“The challengers are public-school families from an array of religious (including Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism) and nonreligious backgrounds.”
.
Right.
I’m SURE there were absolutely no muzz involved.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
.
RABBI MARA NATHAN, on behalf of herself and on behalf of her minor child,
M.N.; VIRGINIA GALAVIZ EISENBERG and RON EISENBERG, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their minor child, R.E.;
CANTOR SETH ETTINGER and SARAH ETTINGER, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their minor child, etc. etc
All Texas has to do is only display half the tablet with just the 5 secular laws visible.
And what three world religions venerate the Ten Commandments?
Oops not one religion is being favored.
Yep.
Yup.
Interesting
This is why every muslim needs to be removed from our country!
Islam is about conquering and subduing peoples and nations with the sword, lies, torture, rape, enslavement and imprisonment. Islam is a terrorist organization. Every sane nation/government in the world should have designated it as such long ago and blocked and/or imprisoned any adherent from entering their country.
Like Europe and nations before them that have fallen to Islam, our leaders are blind!
Check their financials🤔
The first plaintiff is a Rabbi. The second plaintiffs are the Eisenbergs, who, according to the court documents are Jewish. The third plaintiff is Seth Ettinger, a Cantor at Temple Beth-El.
Sadly, society has allowed the meaning of the letters to be perverted to the opposite of their true meaning (allowing for the government to restrict the practice).
We are stuck with the constitution, so the Public Muslim Call to prayer and the Muslim public Prayer Gathering in the streets appears to be covered by the establishment clause. Maybe just one law suit away from getting rid of these.
That’s the way I see it as well. The U.S. citizen is not to be ruled by Sharia Law. So you can see the conflict there.
The Establishment Clause’s foundation is the Danbury Baptists letter to Jefferson.
Here the the meat of that letter.
“It is not to be wondred at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretence of goverment & Religion should reproach their fellow men—should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.”
This is pretty clear that due to the perceived “vagueness” of the Constitution the Danbury Baptists were worried that a self serving reprobate would falsely claim to be working in the name of the the Lord God (Jehovah) and the government while being an enemy of Christianity and “good order”; instead of being lead by the Lord and Christ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-35-02-0331
They were worried about a non-Jesus Christ lead reprobate, an anti-Christ, hurting Christians and the well being of society while doing so in these names.
The “separation” Jefferson mentions in his response is to protect Christians from this; not remove Christianity from America- which is how it is being used.
https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html
“Religion” means Judeo-Christianity, not Islam or what have you.
This is destroying America and enable murderous cults like Islam to take America over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.