Louisiana becomes first state to require that Ten Commandments be displayed in public classrooms

[anotherneil]

This bill is in existence for the simple reason people want to know how SCOTUS is going to rule once it gets there.

the Governor who signed it is reported to have said they can not wait for the lawsuits.

Yeah, I heard about this while monitoring enemy transmissions (a local Right-wing political talk show radio station) when I was driving yesterday.

If SCOTUS looks the other way by ruling in favor of this anti-1st Amendment law, then it would be nothing more than religious judicial activism on their part.

This seems like political tip for tap behavior, and they need to know it off with both the tap and the tip for tap.

I think it's a stupid move for the religious Right to be making, because it will only enrage voters and drive them to electing politicians who will put justices on SCOTUS who might be bound to also be judicial activists in the opposite direction, including in ways that go against them, in the long run - just like having justices on SCOTUS half a century ago who came up with Roe v. Wade resulted in its eventual reversal but may also a political pendulum reversal swing if the current SCOTUS turn out to be religious judicial activists (or continue to be, given the praying coach affair).

 

[Kathryn]

I would love to try to answer the question. But honestly I don't understand it.

Are you saying that the Bible contains contradictory ideas? If that is what you are saying I agree, but I doubt that is what you are saying.

Don't worry, it wasn't for you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The problem is that there are no legal consequences for politicians in public office responsible for this stuff, like being charged with treason or being traitors & having to face a military firing squad, etc.

I don't like MAGA because apparently it takes an insurrection to incite patriotic feelings in me. And there are many I wish woukd dragged behind a shed and shot as traitors, but treason and firing squads seem pretty extreme for this.

 

[Left Coast]

Careful, bother, you are likely to be labeled a fanatic.

Yep, the Founders retained lots of holdovers from theocratic England when they founded this place. They also allowed slavery. So what?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

This is obviously yet another blatant attempt by deranged religious zealots to impudently CRAP on the Bill of Rights & any public office holders behind this are domestic enemies of the state.

The problem is that there are no legal consequences for politicians in public office responsible for this stuff, like being charged with treason or being traitors & having to face a military firing squad, etc. I think it ought to at least result in being expelled immediately from the public office they hold, banishment for life from holding any public office anywhere in the US, and loss of any benefits to which current and former public office holders are or would normally be entitled.

Wow, treason? They are elected officials. This is an issue for the courts not a military firing squad. Jeez.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

By the way, my question still stands about The Golden Rule. Where was it or where is it in the many forms of slavery over the globe and thousands of years of history?

I missed that post first time around.
Conventionally speaking in slavery it's hit and miss. If you see other humans as less than human or inferior, or even believe servitude is good for a peoples, it's hard to apply it to. I must admit that my criticisms of the Golden Rule and my own suggestion to improve it (by considering first how others may want to be treated) would still likely be lost on such hatred and arrogance.
At most there are those who worked and fought hard to improve things for slaves where they could and becoming abolitionists because I think it's a reasonable assumption that no person of sound, rational mind would want to be treated that way themselves.
To speak on Church History, it's interesting to see how this issue has driven wedges between and among people for a very long time, and without doubt America isn't the only state to have a history shaped by it, with Christians themselves on both sides of the debate.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yep, the Founders retained lots of holdovers from theocratic England when they founded this place.

That's why partly my favorite one is Thomas Paine. He went to jail for blasphemy and wrote enough criticisms about Christianity to fill a book, during a time and place when it was not safe to do so.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Still no answer to my question about the Golden Rule. Oh well. Maybe I missed it but I doubt it.

There have been versions since the ancient Egyptians (2040-1650 BCE), and it appears in Buddhism around 600 BCE, and in the Mahabarhatta c 400 BCE. You can find it in Greece, esp. Thales 624-546 BCE. Unfortunately, the oldest I can find in Judaeo-Christian sources is Hillel the Elder c. 110 BCE – 10 CE.

 

[Kathryn]

There have been versions since the ancient Egyptians (2040-1650 BCE), and it appears in Buddhism around 600 BCE, and in the Mahabarhatta c 400 BCE. You can find it in Greece, esp. Thales 624-546 BCE. Unfortunately, the oldest I can find in Judaeo-Christian sources is Hillel the Elder c. 110 BCE – 10 CE.

Right but I believe most of those societies did involve slavery.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Right but I believe most of those societies did involve slavery.

And what does that tell you, that it was right?

Or perhaps that those societies didn't consider some people "human?" Of course, they might have noticed that they could talk to them, and the slaves could talk back, which was impossible with all of their other beasts of burden. That might have led them to suspect they were humans, after all.

Or perhaps -- as I think, and said earlier -- too many people who fancy themselves good Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, Jains, Hindus or everythingelse pay little attention to the demands of their faith when it doesn't suit their purposes. And that tells me that they are phonies when they profess their faith.

 

[Stonetree]

They have values rather different from ours.

Values ?.........People at all levels of society pick from a menu what values, if any, they will honor. Very few honor any value that interferes with their comfort............then we have those who think that the US was someplace special years ago. That's a crock!

 

[Kathryn]

And what does that tell you, that it was right?

Or perhaps that those societies didn't consider some people "human?" Of course, they might have noticed that they could talk to them, and the slaves could talk back, which was impossible with all of their other beasts of burden. That might have led them to suspect they were humans, after all.

Or perhaps -- as I think, and said earlier -- too many people who fancy themselves good Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, Jains, Hindus or everythingelse pay little attention to the demands of their faith when it doesn't suit their purposes. And that tells me that they are phonies when they profess their faith.

No, you're the one who brought up the Golden Rule, not me. And here's what you said about it:

"It would seem to me impossible for anyone, at any time, could suppose slavery was okay if they were also people who asked themselves, "how would I feel if it were me, or my children?" Any honest soul would know in that instant that it is wrong, and to then go on and behave otherwise is deeply hypocritical -- driven, one may hope, by nothing worse than cognitive dissonance.

And every religion of which I am aware has its version of the Golden Rule, as do many of the non-religious philosophies I know (like Humanism, for example).

Therefore, for anyone to suppose that slavery is OK is to thumb one's nose at one's own vauted beliefs." Post #293 I believe. Pretty sure that's the only one in which you discussed the Golden Rule.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Slavery isn’t in the Constitution. Where are you going with this?

Slavery is still legal in the Constitution and the slave trade is quite active to this day.

The plantation owners today however are not private individuals anymore as it is now the government who runs and profits as the post civil war plantation masters.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Oh, the hatred of the southern states is rampant in here.

I don't hate the southern states. I love Dixie. Just hate slavery.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, I heard about this while monitoring enemy transmissions (a local Right-wing political talk show radio station) when I was driving yesterday.

If SCOTUS looks the other way by ruling in favor of this anti-1st Amendment law, then it would be nothing more than religious judicial activism on their part.

This seems like political tip for tap behavior, and they need to know it off with both the tap and the tip for tap.

I think it's a stupid move for the religious Right to be making, because it will only enrage voters and drive them to electing politicians who will put justices on SCOTUS who might be bound to also be judicial activists in the opposite direction, including in ways that go against them, in the long run - just like having justices on SCOTUS half a century ago who came up with Roe v. Wade resulted in its eventual reversal but may also a political pendulum reversal swing if the current SCOTUS turn out to be religious judicial activists (or continue to be, given the praying coach affair).

It is a power play by the religious right that thinks that the current SCOTUS will side with them in their quest to enforce their minority position, actually I think it smacks of desperation though it might succeed for a while.

 

[anotherneil]

I don't like MAGA because apparently it takes an insurrection to incite patriotic feelings in me. And there are many I wish woukd dragged behind a shed and shot as traitors, but treason and firing squads seem pretty extreme for this.

Off topic - I'm specifically referring to the deliberate scoffing at the US Constitution by creating laws that are obviously unconstitutional.

 

[anotherneil]

Wow, treason? They are elected officials. This is an issue for the courts not a military firing squad. Jeez.

A military firing squads means that there was a trial and conviction court.

The problem is with the fact that they are elected official thus face no disincentivizing action to discourage them from creating laws that are obviously unconstitutional - that was the point and you seem to have missed this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Off topic - I'm specifically referring to the deliberate scoffing at the US Constitution by creating laws that are obviously unconstitutional.

No ****. I'm pointing out treason and execution is extreme and unreasonable for such a thing.

 

[Pogo]

Off topic - I'm specifically referring to the deliberate scoffing at the US Constitution by creating laws that are obviously unconstitutional.

The law is an exercise in what you can get away with. If you can convince somebody that your interpretation is within the law as written, then it is.

 

[Sand Dancer]

My point is that there are middle states, northeast states and western states - what is the correlation? The 10 Commandments? I don’t think so.

I was trying to say that maybe the commandments will help them make better choices.