“We write to request that this sign be removed, both because it represents a government endorsement of religion in violation of the First Amendment, and because it advocates a form of ‘justice’ that is incompatible with constitutional principles,” the letter, sent on Monday, reads.How does that statement — "Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue" — advocate a form of quote-unquote justice that's incompatible with constitutional principles? FFRF's idea seems to be that we can't judge the words out of context, and if we add the rest of Deuteronomy, we find a whole lot of "justice" that would be way out of line with the law to be applied in the courthouse. Would an ordinary observer load that meaning into the phrase? Well, the plaque does include the citation "Deut. 16:20." So we're told there is context, and you could check that out or draw up some general memories of what's in Deuteronomy, but I think an ordinary, reasonable observer would give a modern, general meaning to "justice." It's an abstract, noncontroversial value and not an endorsement of any particular religion or even the vaguest notion of God.
ADDED: I did a quick search for the worst idea of justice to be found in Deuteronomy. Maybe you can find something worse, but the one I came up with is Deuteronomy 23:1: "If a man's testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD." That's the New Living Translation. Here's the King James Bible: "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD."
पोस्ट्स
६५ टिप्पण्या:
This stuff makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.
Is the MLK quote about justice rolling down like waters on anything? It’s from the book of Amos.
Social Justice Warriors demand the word "Justice" be banned from a government plaque. OK.
That's an interesting example from Deuteronomy 23 - especially considering how just after that book "finished" and they went on to Judges, Deborah was one of the first (and most celebrated). Granted, she came about having neither a penis or testicles in a different manner, but I think the analogy can be applied as a counter-argument. I guess they figured you just couldn't trust those eunuchs.
You know, the word "the" is also in the Bible.
Transphobic, that explains it coming up now. They probably had to look long and hard ... err, umm far and wide to find a reference to Deuteronomy on a public building.
This group has over $16 Million in the bank/ investments. So I suspect it is just a mini-version of the cash cow SLPC.
No trannies welcome in the House of the LORD.
A fine, longstanding Western tradition.
Quote - end quote.
And now, if we only could get freedom from The Freedom From Religion Foundation, all would be well.
There are various references to crushed testicles in the old testament, which make a person ineligible for various honorable things. However, multiple Israelis have told me that it's not a very good translation -- it's actually a smeared testicle that taints a person. A simple crushing with no shear is OK. Justice can be picky.
How many words are required to identify a phase as religion?
"I think an ordinary, reasonable observer would give a modern, general meaning to "justice.""
It's all very nice to go into legal analysis and refer to reasonable observers, and some such analysis may actually prevail, but what we have here is another form of prog lawfare: making up legal s**t to erase any Christian content from the culture.
You don't want justice, you want to follow the law.
An early admonition against "transgenderism".
How does that statement — "Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue" — advocate a form of quote-unquote justice that's incompatible with constitutional principles?
It would probably all be clear to you if you were the sort who went in for joining outfits with names like "Freedom from Religion Foundation".
But you lack the requisite emotional and mental stuntedness, don't give yourself medals for bravely taking on nonexistent enemies, and probably don't even read comic books or swoon over Ayn Rand novels.
You're just going to have to leave the interpretation here to finer minds.
Maybe you can find something worse, but the one I came up with is Deuteronomy 23:1
If you were to read up on the origins of this, you'd learn that it was likely motivated by the practice at the time of emasculation on the part of idolatrous religions. (Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, pp. 210–211 explains: “Deuteronomy may exclude emasculated men from the Assembly because of the association of emasculation with paganism or because of revulsion against mutilation.)
It's also worth understanding what was meant by "enter into the congregation of the LORD." It was probably more akin to our constitutional requirements for eligibility for elected office. Some interpret it as relating to eligibility for marriage within Judaism.
So not so simple as it seems. In more contemporary terms, it probably excludes transgenders. That doesn't seem to me a great example of "injustice."
And the closest university science buildings will need to be razed if they have any quotes referring to black holes. This is the idiocy of the left. Plain and simple.
But if AOC is right, the world ends in 11+ years, so most of us will get to see (in our own lifetimes) how wrong she is. Maybe then the idiocy will ebb. But I doubt it. Ted Danson’s claims were proven false and the Climate Change snake oil salesmen kept right on selling. Al Gore’s claims were proven false and the Snake Oil Industry just started saying “New and Improved”
The proper response would be a letter with a simple terse reply-GFY.
This one seems even more mystifying:
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 King James Version (KJV)
11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:
12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.
The Bible can be quoted as a piece of literature without considering it scripture. See Pete Seeger. Also, these seem like the kind of atheists who have rejected god but are still adherents to a secular religion.
How does that statement — "Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue" — advocate a form of quote-unquote justice that's incompatible with constitutional principles?
It doesn't.
But that is not the statement in question, which is: "'Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue …' – Deut. 16:20."
That is from the New American Standard translation and similar newbies, but KJV is better, as usual: "That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.")
"In linguistics, ellipsis or an elliptical construction is the omission from a clause of one or more words that are nevertheless understood in the context of the remaining elements", and here the words which are nevertheless understood are "... that you may live and possess the land which the LORD your God is giving you." So it means: pursue justice for your own benefit and real estate.
"If a man's testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, ...
There are eight mentions of "justice" in "Deut.", and that wasn't one of them, so it would seem that you have rather typical feminist fantasies.
I would think that "Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue" is entirely comparable with Constitutional Principles and compatible with the idea that Justice should be blind.
Justice and only justice. Not retribution. Not revenge. Not personal biases. Not political purposes. Not based on wealth or power of the subjects. Not preferences by individuals or judges. Not preference FOR special classes of individuals.
Justice that is only justice should be based on nothing but the readings of the existing laws.
If you don't like the existing laws, then there is a means to change those in the Constitution.
This from a town named for a Catholic saint?
"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD."
Modern exegesis holds that quotation to be more metaphorical than literal. Translation: Betas need not apply.
Suits me.
Wait till they see what is on the walls inside some of the courtrooms: tablets
depicting the Ten Commandments!
Bummer about the stones.
If I were a man who thinks he is a woman and in consequence cuts my privy member off, the least of my problems would be whether I shall enter into the congregation of the Lord. On the other hand, I may well be looking for approval or consolation wherever I can find it.
To be honest, I haven't spent much time trolling Deuteronomy. But then, I take the INSPIRED word of the Bible as my sufficient guide to eternal life, so I have cut out a lot of the tribal stuff from the Old Testament, seeing it as not inspired.
By the way, what is Islam's position on transgender issues. I am asking for a friend. I want to what the position of FFRF position is on Sharia law. I bet it is nuanced. FFRF could lose their heads if they speak up in the wrong forum.
If you have to really know your bible to know something is a bible quote, then it's not functionally bible quite.
"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD."
Transgenders need not apply?
I’m against removing it, since without Hebrew Justice, justice as we know it would not exist, but the short answer to your question is that the statement is literally a commandment made by God.
And when the government promotes God’s commandments in God’s literal words, it’s engaging in an establishment of religion.
It’s not establishing a religion.
That quote happens to fit that business.
Why do they hate justice? Do they not believe in justice?
Perhaps the old Deuteronomist was merely making a descriptive, rather than normative statement: A man with crushed testicles or lopped penis literally cannot enter into anyone in the Lord's (or anyone else's) congregation.
Continuing with Deuteronomy....
2 “If a person is illegitimate by birth, neither he nor his descendants for ten generations may be admitted to the assembly of the LORD."
Terrible!
3 “No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants for ten generations may be admitted to the assembly of the LORD...."
Sounds like Trump's latest immigration idea. (Kidding!)
6 "As long as you live, you must never promote the welfare and prosperity of the Ammonites or Moabites."
I cut out verses 4 & 5 but you can see Ammon and Moab are shitlist countries.
10 “Any man who becomes ceremonially defiled because of a nocturnal emission must leave the camp and stay away all day. 11 Toward evening he must bathe himself, and at sunset he may return to the camp."
Ha ha. This one is hilarious. I think we should have this in the United States. Leave the camp and stay away all day! Ha ha.
12 “You must have a designated area outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself."
Hell, yeah!
13 "Each of you must have a spade as part of your equipment. Whenever you relieve yourself, dig a hole with the spade and cover the excrement."
Exactly.
If I quote Mae West am I establishing her?
Judge: Young lady, are you trying to show contempt for this court?
Mae West: I was doin' my best to hide it.
What doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
--Micah 6:8
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is just another reason why the US should join the rest of the civilized world in adopting a "Loser Pays" standard in court cases.
And I say that as an atheist.
rhhardin said...
You don't want justice, you want to follow the law.
3/24/19, 9:41 AM
Why? One of your less charming traits is to state your personal opinions as if they were facts, unalterable, Holy Writ.
In Chinese history, which is remarkably cyclical, when the eunuchs start running the palace and the bureaucracy, its a sign of the end-times for the dynasty.
What religion is it establishing, EP?
I don't know what being a eunuch has to do with being an officer of the court, but it's possible that Tony Soprano and Paulie "Walnuts" Gualtieri touched on the idea. Paulie told Tony that snakes are auto-fertilizing hermaphrodites, who can "fuck themselves," and therefore shouldn't be trusted.
David Chase doesn't make it clear if Tony buys the credibility argument, but he does buy into the musing on their biology.
rhhardin said...
You don't want justice, you want to follow the law.
Why?
The same reasons that societies are based on the "rule of law" and not the "rule of justice".
Justice and only justice. Not retribution. Not revenge.
Without adding fuel to the fire of the anti-sharia conspiracists, courts of law were quite the innovation over the prevailing blood feuds of the day. Justice was outsourced to a dispassionate third party, deciding based on established principles that relegated justice to the aggrieved and the accused, and limiting intra-tribal and tribal warfare and bloodshed.
The Hebrews seem to have taken less enlightened liberties with direct descendants, but otherwise may have gone along with the paradigm.
Less clear however is their take on juries, which can clearly make your justice less dispassionate. Juries in ancient Greece could number into the thousands, which makes mob violence seem like a given.
“Any man who becomes ceremonially defiled because of a nocturnal emission must leave the camp and stay away all day.
I remember reading about wet dreams in my Boy Scout handbook. I thought it weird, and then I had one. I'm looking forward to a second one.
What does it say about the “short fingered man” or is it some other religion that declares that “the short fingered man shall not rule over us”. Maybe it’s in the Epic of Gilgamesh, IDK.
BTW, not cutting off your penis or crushing your stones is good life advice that will keep you out of trouble if followed religiously.
In future headline news, the Freedom From Religion Foundation will sue all public school districts to prevent them from teaching children to do unto others as they would have others do unto them as an unacceptable intrusion of religion into public education. The Foundation is also considering suing to ban the use of such statements as "you shall not kill," "you shall not steal," and "you shall not lie".
These are fundamentally unhappy people who take pleasure in the destruction of society for destruction's sake, they do nothing to build it up.
Concerning interesting passages from elsewhere in Deuteronomy, the part about a man's manhood getting mutilated is still relevant today, as a man is not permitted to marry under Catholic canon law if he is perpetually unable to have conjugal sex prior to the marriage.
It's not hard to find weird shit in Deuteronomy. It was written thousands of years ago, in a society that we would find very primitive and completely alien. What is interesting is how much of it does stand the test of time. Some of it articulates principles of justice for the poor, women and foreigners. Justice for the poor meant leaving some of the harvest in the fields so that poor people could come along and gather it up. Note that it doesn't say, collect all the harvest and give some to the poor. Instead, leave some behind so the poor could do their own work and gather up what you leave behind. I find that an interesting contrast to the welfare state today.
an ordinary, reasonable observer would give a modern, general meaning to "justice."
You're dealing with FFRF, not a "reasonable" observer.
Second: I've now learned the origin of the term "stones." Thought that was quite a bit more ....uhhh.......modern.
Someone could have a serious conversation about the parallel between banning Moabites and Ammonites and banning certain peoples from immigrating to the US. Certainly wouldn't win a PC Nobel Prize, but who cares?
Was it preservation of bloodline or preservation of theological purity? Hmmmmm? If the latter, then those who fret over the Judaeo-Christian culture have rather interesting backup, no?
Aunty Trump--'What does it say about the “short fingered man” or is it some other religion that declares that “the short fingered man shall not rule over us”.'
Remember when Spy Magazine in the eighties used to refer to Donald Trump as a "short-fingered vulgarian"? Yipes!
You don't want justice, you want to follow the law.
3/24/19, 9:41 AM
Why? One of your less charming traits is to state your personal opinions as if they were facts, unalterable, Holy Writ.
It's a reference to a story about Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Considering Hebrew modesty, it's a little odd that circumcision became the mark of the Covenant and not a neck tattoo. And what about the poor guys whose cutting was botched--was that rule just for them?
Another interesting question is why it took thousands of years to get to Hands off my Uterus.
Any man who becomes ceremonially defiled because of a nocturnal emission must leave the camp and stay away all day.
So a wet dream gets you the day off? That's awesome. Better than a snow day.
The person who put up (or left up) the superstition-based poster is a Democrat activist and a racist who broke campaign finance laws.
True or false?
Amos has it right:
“Take away from Me the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, with the operative word being "also".
If the words of founder James Monr are carved into the courthouse steps, is the government endorsing freemasonry?
Ken B: "This stuff makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."
I sympathize, but it's good to hear an atheist say it.
Obadiah @12:38 PM gives us wise words.
Speaking as an atheist, that is. Since that seems to matter, to some.
Human nature is immutable over space and time. Know this, grasshopper, and set your expectations accordingly.
The concept of justice that western civilization inherited from the Bible are not necessarily the actual laws used by the ancient Israelites. But, it is rather the idea that the law is to be applied fairly, with no preference for the rich or the poor. The book of Proverbs covers that. You don't have to promote a religion to agree with that. Judges accepting gifts or bribes is condemned several times in the Bible, which is proof that it has probably always been a problem at some level.
I think these freedom from religion people are just trouble makers.
societies are based on the "rule of law" and not the "rule of justice".
Why then prohibit
Obstruction of Justice
"There are eight mentions of "justice" in "Deut.", and that wasn't one of them, so it would seem that you have rather typical feminist fantasies."
It may not contain the WORD justice, but it's a law that illustrates an IDEA of justice, and a bizarre and primitive one.
Go do your spadework.
What religion is it establishing, EP?
It's the Christian version of the Hebrew Bible, so that might offer you a clue.
It's the Christian version of the Hebrew Bible
Anyone have a Torah handy? How does it differ?
Ralph L said...
You don't want justice, you want to follow the law.
3/24/19, 9:41 AM
Why?
It's a reference to a story about Oliver Wendell Holmes.
3/24/19, 1:20 PM
Thanks-RH usually tells who he is copying out of his Great Books for us each day. I had not been familiar with the quote, and still can't find it. Googling, I find Holmes was an enemy of natural law, which doesn't please me. He was Buck v Bell, too.
Process arguments are all very well, but all that any law or set of laws can be, is a machine for dispensing justice.
Instead of googling
chapter:verse KJV,
Google
chapter:verse JPS
chapter:verse Tanakh
chapter:verse Masoretic
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा