Louisiana Moves To Make The Bible The State Book

220px-Rembrandt_-_Moses_with_the_Ten_Commandments_-_Google_Art_Projectrep6Usually the selection of a state bird or state song is not particularly divisive or even notable. The same goes for a state book (though it seems a bit odd to select a single book for a state unless it is written by a native son or daughter). Louisiana however could find itself in court as it moves to make the Bible the state book. Rep. Thomas Carmody, R-Shreveport, proposed the official adoption but insisted that it should not be viewed as any type of state endorsement. It is simply the selection of one faith’s religious book as the official book for the entire state. Who could possibly view that as a state endorsement?

It does seem at times that religious legislators look for any opportunity to entangle government with religion. This seems particularly gratuitous. Indeed, the best defense for the state may be that the selection is really quite meaningless. However, there are presumably some government action — and clearly endorsement — associated with the selection.

A House committee has approved the selection by an 8-5 vote so it will now go to the full House for debate. The concern is that few members want to be seen voting against the Bible. In the meantime, a state that has long been denounced for its lack of funding of key programs, particularly educational programs, would be triggering another costly court fight in its effort to endorse a religious faith.

Carmody insisted that the adoption of the religious book for one faith is “not to the exclusion of anyone else’s sacred literature.” Of course, their books would be excluded from the list of official state books but that is not exclusion from . . . well its just not exclusion.

He received bipartisan support for his measure with favorable votes from Reps. Taylor Barras, R-New Iberia; Johnny Berthelot, R-Gonzales; Robert Billiot, D-Westwego; Terry Brown, I-Colfax; Mike Danahay, D-Sulphur; Dalton Honore, D-Baton Rouge; Stephen Ortego, D-Carencro; and Tom Willmott, R-Kenner.
The greatest irony is that some opposition has come not in the adoption of the Bible but what version of the Bible would be adopted — potentially triggering an intra-sectarian fight. Will it be the King James version or some other version?

If the Bible is the official state book, there may be demands that it be featured more prominently in Louisiana schools, incorporated into lessons, and even promoted on state sites or campaigns. Then citizens can be exalted to read such passages as John 14:6: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Carmody in the meantime has continued to express disbelief that anyone would see a constitutional issue or be insulted in any way. After all, he insisted “It’s not meant to be offensive. There’s no requirement that they would have to follow this particular text.” Of course note, he is not seeking to bar you from reading other books. However, if he is successful, there can be only one state book and that is the Bible.

Carmody is a real estate broker and a founding member of the Louisiana Legislative Conservative Coalition.

booksBy the way, if the state were to honor a great Louisiana book (one of my favorites), an obvious choice would be A Confederacy of Dunces by American novelist John Kennedy Toole. It seems as relevant today as in 1980. After all, Carmody may find the views of the main character, Ignatius, rather attractive. Ignatius insisted that “with the breakdown of the medieval system, the gods of chaos, lunacy, and bad taste gained ascendancy.” and warned that “[a] firm rule must be imposed upon our nation before it destroys itself. The United States needs some theology and geometry, some taste and decency. I suspect that we are teetering on the edge of the abyss.”

Source: NOLA

116 thoughts on “Louisiana Moves To Make The Bible The State Book”

  1. Perhaps my fair-use quoting the last few sentences from Franz Kafka, TheTrial, Breon Mitchell, tr., Schocken Books, 1998, will illumine my sense of my encounter with human society:

    Logic is no doubt unshakable, but it can’t withstand a person who wants to live. Where was the judge he’d never seen? Where was the high court he’d never reached? He raised his hands and spread out his fingers.

    But the hands of one man were right at K.’s throat, while the other thrust the knife into his heart and turned it there twice. With failing sight, K. saw how men drew near his face, leaning cheek-to-cheek to observe the verdict. “Like a dog!” he said; it seems as though the shame was to outlive him.

    I was born more than five decades after Kafka was born, and had access to aspects of science not available to Kafka.

    As I am a seemingly a human person who is willing to live as living becomes possible for me, my will to live vastly exceeds mere wanting to live. Perhaps that is why the logic of the social construction of reality is such that I have been able to withstand it for almost three-quarters of a century to date?

    In my life, there is no judge to be seen. There is no high court to be reached. There is no man who can thrust a knife into my heart, as my real heart is outside the reach of all humans, myself included.

    There is no shame to outlive me, and there is no shame for me to outlive.

    And there is no castle.

    There is only life; life learning to love itself.

  2. Dr. Harris, keep writing, I enjoy reading your comments and I’m pretty sure I understand your meaning… Eventually. You force me to exercise my brain and that’s a good thing. 🙂 You are indeed human, isn’t it grand that we humans come in so many varieties?

  3. Paul, and Charlton, and others,

    I find that I am not an Aspie, and am actually a form of Autie (pre-DSM-5™ lingo) in that i have a profound, and apparently intractable form of language delay; I have never learned to experience thoughts in the form of words. I never developed word-consciousness. What I have instead of declarative brain conscious is procedural brain consciousness, which I find to be the form of consciousness of prenatal life wherein no words have yet been learned.

    I experience thought in concrete form, not in abstract form, and my only access to what seems to me to commonly be deemed abstract thought is as a proper subset of concrete thought.

    Whereas I make an effort to communicate accurately with other people, my communication capability is, for me, as though limited severely by aspects of human language which function as though to make my communicating accurately almost totally impossible. This, I take to be the mere result of human language having been developed during a phase of human evolution wherein genuine honesty in human intra-personal and inter-personal communication is a societal taboo deemed through inadvertent consensus to be absolutely inviolable.

    For me, the result of that is my finding that I can almost never find words that successfully convey much of anything of my intended meaning. So, for want of else, I use variations on the theme of successive approximations as my main communication resource. That, alas, leads some folks, so I observe, to overlook the fine details of the often-subtle changes I make in using words, and takes many people into mistakenly thinking that I am repeating myself when I am actually avoiding doing that.

    A fairly close relative of mine completed law school and passed the bar examination, and was admitted to the bar. That relative, so I have come to understand, was somewhat concerned about the way adversarial practice of law seems to require deception for its effectiveness in serving a client’s purported best interests.

    In 1957, I graduated from high school and matriculated at Carleton College, with the notion in mind of being a physics major. For my birthday in 1957, one of my mother’s uncles, Hjalmar Lundquist, an engineer working at National Vulcanized Fiber, gave me a copy of Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers, Ninth Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957.

    My family had visited Hjalmar and his wife a few years earlier, and he had indicated to me that he thought I would wisely become an engineer. So, to encourage me to consider engineering as a life-work, he gave me that handbook. I would like to fair-use quote from the Preface in that book, on page v:

    “Competence as an engineer seems to depend on ability to appraise new problems, break them into significant ingredients, and then analyze each by itself and with its companions until the conclusions can be translated into a solution.”

    I have a way to paraphrase that, using words of my own choosing:

    “Competent ethical engineering requires accurate understanding of the nature of an engineering problem, accurate analysis of the engineering problem, and accurate synthesis of an efficient, economical, and effective solution to the engineering problem.”

    When I began studying and learning engineering, using a college level radio engineering textbook that I had borrowed from the local public library, during the first week after I had completed fourth grade, the thought came to me that the one scientific problem that most intrigued me might only be solved using the accuracy of thought that is essential to accurate engineering work.

    The engineering problem that most intrigued in my age of traditional infancy, as also intrigued me when I began studying engineering at college level was, and yet remains, the one partly addressed by my bioengineering doctorate:

    How to use engineering to accurately synthesize a viable solution to the problem of human destructive violence; meaning, for me, destructive violence such as was demonstrated by the events of World War II that came to my attention during the first six or so years of my life.

    As it was vividly obvious to me that conventional engineering education of the 1950s did not include the social and biological education I would need for accurate analysis of the engineering problem that intrigued me, I set out to collect enough of a liberal arts college education as essential background for an engineering approach to solving the problem of human destructive violence. Three years of liberal arts at Carleton College gave me enough of philosophy, zoology, contemporary religious thought, sociology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and English liberal arts college classes to allow me to commence my effort to learn enough engineering methods to have a chance to proceed with engineering studies.

    While yet in grade school, I recognized that the a-priori probability of my developing an engineering solution to the problem of human destructive violence was, at best, nearly infinitesimal, or less. I also recognized that the plausible benefit to humanity, if an engineering solution to the problem of human violence were developed and found valid, would be so a-posteriori immense as to make the a-priori infinitesimal probability of success totally unimportant. Yeah, I did understand Bayesian probability theory while a grade school student.

    While taking a break while writing this #$^%, I happened upon a book in my library, put out by “European Medical Research Councils, a Standing Committee of the European Science Foundation, The long-term treatment of functional psychoses: needed areas of research: Proceedings of a Workshop held in Villa Lante, Bagnia, 9-11 May 1983, Cambridge University Press, 1985. From the Introduction, by T. Helgason, page 4, “The aim of all our efforts is to prevent or cure mental illness and, failing that, to improve the quality of our patients’ lives as much as possible. Quality of life for the chronic patient has always been a major concern of health personnel. Society at large, however, has always been reluctant to put aside sufficient resources for this purpose.”

    In my work, the beliefs which necessarily underlie belief in adversarial law and jurisprudence are, from a bioengineering perspective, of the nature, in both form and function, of a long term (many millenia) functional psychosis that is the essence of the social construction of reality in its contemporary structure.

    Therefore, I anticipate that my work may be regarded as a variation on some theme of social heretical apostasy by anyone and everyone whose psychological defenses are well-adjusted to the foibles of the structure of contemporary society and its inextricable destructive violence.

    Or, am I an unwitting moth, attracted to the light of a candle flame, the heat of which will burn me to death, harboring the tragic delusion that I am somehow human?

  4. “Like other Southern states, the population of Louisiana is made up of numerous Protestant denominations, comprising 60% of the state’s adult population. Protestants are concentrated in the northern and central parts of the state and in the northern tier of the Florida Parishes. Because of French and Spanish heritage, whose descendants are Cajun and French Creole, and later Irish, Italian, Portuguese and German immigrants, there is also a large Roman Catholic population, particularly in the southern part of the state.” Wikipedia

  5. Paul,
    I know that, but that is my personal preference based on my Gaelic speaking family heritage. After all, the legislators who are pushing this are favoring their own personal preferences, so methinks that puts us on an equal footing. Mike S., as a Jew, may have some different preferences too.

    I will take the LA legislature seriously when they start taking the First Amendment seriously. Until then, I plan to make fun of them in the name of the FSM, who will hopefully slap them upside the head with His noodly appendage. rAmen.

    1. SWM – thanks for the census record.
      Charlton – I think if LA is going to get this through, they just have to select “The Bible” as the state book, without selecting a version. Then everybody is covered

  6. Paul,
    You are relatively new to the blog, so don’t know the history. Dr. Harris tells us he is a high functioning autistic, probably Asperger’s. He is also clearly OCD, which often goes hand in hand with Asperger’s. Just have to take his rambling in stride. I don’t think he can say, “Good morning,” in less than three paragraphs, and I don’t mean that in a snide way, because the condition is certainly not something he wished on himself.

    1. Charlton – I try to read each submission to each thread I am subscribed to. Dr. Harris makes it difficult for me to get through his, both because of length and convolution. I am sure that somewhere in there is something worth saying, but he does not make it easy to ferret out. It is akin to reading James Joyce. Thanks for the heads up.

  7. Brevity is incapable of containing an infinitude of infinities; therefore, brevity excludes me and my life and my life work.

    Had there been a point to my prior posted comment on this thread, it would have been of the inescapable falsehood of communicating complexity without complexity, hence, what I write is always pointless.

    Does that convey the point that I am not making?

  8. I seem to have done many foolish things during my short life so far. The most foolish of all, perhaps, was my becoming a zygote. That seemingly set off a cascade of yet more foolery.

    I was a fool to study communication theory and information theory as a bioengineering graduate student.

    I was a fool to learn enough of information and communication theory as enabled my learning that any communication symbol may symbolize any amount of information.

    The word, “bible” is, for me, a communication symbol,, so, the word, “bible” can symbolize any number of books. Hence, for me, and, I may offer to suggest, perchance for no one else in all of eternity and all of infinity and all that is beyond all of eternity and all of infinity and all of beyond all of that, ad infinitum, the word, “bible” is a symbol for every book ever written and every book ever not written.

    Where can I buy, at an affordable cost, accurate replicas of every book that was in the “ancient” Library of Alexandria before it was combusted? Please advise, lest the “bible” as the State Book of Louisiana, be incomplete…

    Count, without error, all the points in a line of infinite length. Now take four such lines connected by right angles at their end points to form a square. Now count, without error, all the points in that square. Now take eight more lines of infinite length and connect them with right angles to form a cube. Now count all the points, without error, in that cube. Now construct an infinite number of such cubes, and count, without error, all the points in that cube. Now construct an infinite number of such cubes and count all the points in all those cubes, doing so without error.

    Is the capacity of humans to encounter human error any less than the number of points in an infinity-transcending number of such infinitely infinite infinities of infinitudes?

    How can the limit boundary of human foolishness be measured without error?

    I can, methinks, only tell of my own experiences. I have never come upon the limit boundary of my foolishness. Am I an ordinary fool, not knowing of my foolishness because I am beyond immensely too foolish to know how foolish I am?

    To what measurably inerrant extent am I more, or less, foolish than is anyone else?

    1. J Brian – your thoughts seem to be scattered in all directions. I am sure you are trying to make a point, but if you remember from your communication theory, get to the point. 🙂 Brevity is always better than an extended epistle here.

    1. J Brian – thanks for not making that point. Still, at some point one needs, as my father was wont to say, “To shoot, shit, or get off the pot.” 😉

    2. Carlton – if you spent your formative years in LA then you know it is largely Roman Catholic. Why would they want a Bible in Scots?

    1. Carlton – unless you live in LA, I do not think you get get to ‘insist.’ 🙂

  9. Paul Schulte:
    Your comment illustrates a truth many people fail to grasp: religious accommodation is and always has been primarily a function of religious political power rather than reasoned, coherent jurisprudence.

    1. Mike – the judiciary often give us tortured, made up out of wholecloth decisions which show that they made up their mind and then tried to find the legal reasoning behind it. When they couldn’t find it, they made it up. Roe v. Wade is a perfect example.
      The ACLU is another bag of worms. They make big bucks suing school districts, municipalities, etc. We, the tax payers, end up paying both sides of those cases. When they win, they demand attorneys fees and often get them. So we taxpayers pay for the defendant’s legal costs and then we have to pay the plaintiff’s, too.
      Consent decrees are a section of the legal system that should be abolished. It allows plaintiffs (usually the govt) to financially twist the arm of the defendant, who agree to stop doing something they really weren’t doing before, just to stop the financial pain. It is the plea bargain of the civil division.

      When I become Emperor of the United States I am going to get rid of both plea bargaining and consent decrees. I will also require the government to pay the legal fees and costs of any person found not guilty in criminal cases and if the defendant wins in a civil action the government will also pay their costs and fees. I will also change the our legal system for criminal prosecution and defense to the same the British have. Studies have shown that the longer an attorney works either prosecution or defense, the more their mindset locks into that. Nancy Grace is a perfect example of this. That woman could not see the defense side of a case if it bit her in the nose. As Emperor, all that will change.

  10. Annie:
    Your comment strikes a chord with me. My family moved to Huntsville, Alabama in 1963 when my father took a job there as an instructor with NASA. I worked in a supermarket there that summer and met the most insular, narrow-
    minded people I have ever encountered before or since. I recall being startled and amused at some of the myths about Catholicism I heard that summer. A few were vicious, but most were merely ignorant. And I did meet some very fine people as well. But overall it was a trip back in time. That summer also meant King in Birmingham and George Wallace’s segregation forever rant opposing integration of the University of Alabama. That’s one town I didn’t regret leaving.

  11. mespo – have you actually read the Tynsdale version? Since it was burned a lot, there are few copies available. Wondering where you got your hands on one.

  12. Mike, growing up in the Assemblies of God church (Pensacola Seminary trained ministers) we were taught that the Catholics were idolaters. Not only do fundamentalist evangelicals reject Catholicism, they also reject most other Protestants, unless they are of the variety that believes in being “saved”. I know full well that the prosthelatising that these people do invades every aspect of life, weddings, funerals, picnics, social gatherings of any kind, are subject to “witnessing for the Lord”. It’s an obnoxious and in your face type activity that adherents are told to engage in as true “Christians”.

    1. When I was in public grade school there was a daily prayer. The Roman Catholic kids went outside the classroom while this occurred. We felt we were the lucky ones. 🙂 We were never looked on differently by the teachers or other students, it was just what went on.
      Every year I am required to go to a banquet where a Protestant minister gives an opening prayer, usually at some length, before we start eating. I have never felt offended by the prayer
      Saying some religions are annoying is like saying some humans are annoying. We cannot get rid of all humans just because some are annoying. I have learned over the years to tolerate everyone’s religion or lack thereof. And I have learned how to gently turn people down who come to the door or accost me in public places.
      The only time I have come unglued is when the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles wanted to interfere in the politics of Arizona. I called his office and left a scathing message on his phone. Unlike my Congressmen, who have people answer their phones, the Archbishop answers his own. Sadly, I only got his message machine. 🙁

  13. davidm:

    Mr. Lay and Mr. Freeman are hardly examples of people oppressed for their religious beliefs. Mr. Lay is the principal at Pace High School in Pensacola and a deacon at his evangelical Baptist church. The litigation originated with a series of complaints, many from Catholic parents, that Mr. Lay and his subordinates actively proselytized students. Evangelicals are so-called because they evangelize. The suit was not a little dustup over an innocuous prayer before lunch. (I would add that there were also suggestions that some Catholic students at Pace were made to feel unwelcome by their Baptist classmates. As you probably know, there are prominent conservative evangelicals who are staunchly anti-Catholic). The case resulted in an admission of liability by the school board and entry of a consent decree.

    The video you chose to cite related to a subsequent contempt motion. The motion was denied, but Mr. Lay was admonished by the court for his rather casual treatment of the decree.

    I suspect you also know that Pensacola is the virtual capital of fundamentalist Christianity in Florida. It is the home of Pensacola Christian, a college of questionable academic merit best known for developing the Abeka curriculum, a model of rote fundamentalist indoctrination to which thousands of young minds are daily exposed with the generous assistance of our tax dollars.

    1. Mike Appleton wrote: “The case resulted in an admission of liability by the school board and entry of a consent decree.”

      I attended the trial of these men in Pensacola, so I know a lot of the details. The school board was terrified by the ACLU and mishandled the legal challenge mounted by the ACLU. Seeking to avoid the legal expense to the taxpayer of fighting the ACLU in court based upon constitutional grounds, they entered into a consent agreement with the ACLU prior to this transgression of praying. The consent agreement is what made it a crime for them to pray or exercise other forms of religious freedom. IMO, it is wrong for anyone to face jail time and fines for praying over lunch at the dedication of a field house among mostly adults and a handful of culinary students who had helped prepare the lunch. You allude to Baptists trying to evangelize Catholics, but none of that was alleged at trial. The charge concerned a principal asking the athletic director to pray before the meal which was contrary to a court injunction.

  14. This is not a lauded source but it describes my feelings regarding all religion.

    I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. What god desires is here [points to head] and here {points to heart] and what you decide to do every day, you will be a good man – or not. – from the movie Kingdom of Heaven

  15. @Mespo: I am so glad to find your comments on this; thanks! I was made to read a few stories in the Bible in Catholic school and they bored me to tears. I was much more fond of the books my mother read, esp. the ones with step-by-step photographs of surgeries. I didn’t mind the New Testament as much but studying for an exam in religion was pure torture. Living among the self-righteous in our neighborhood, especially after my parents divorced, was another form of torture. My mother expected excellent grades in all subjects at school except for religion and German. Her family made sure to cure her of these expectations and I’m proud of continuing that tradition.

  16. mespo727272,

    My personal favorite translation of the so-called “Christian Bible” happens to be the translation used in my childhood home and the translation given to me by my parents on my eleventh birthday, so given to keep me from wearing out the family copy.

    That translation is, The Bible: An American Translation,, The University of Chicago Press, 1935. It is sometimes called, “The Chicago Bible,” and sometimes called, “The Smith-Goodspeed Bible.”

    It is the first translation of “The Christian Bible” that I ever read that, in some specific ways, made any intelligible sort of sense to me.

    For example, I can make no intelligible, scientifically useful sense of the beginning words of the Book of Genesis as found in the King James Version, to wit, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

    However, the words that begin the Book of Genesis in The Bible: An American Translation do make intelligible, scientifically useful sense to me, those words being, “When God began to create the heavens and the earth,…”

    The contrast, for me, is profound. In the KJV, creation is a past event, long over and done with, and my life experience disallows my ignoring the blatantly obvious ongoing creativity that thoroughly permeates my actually-lived life.

    For me, if for no one else, the word, “God” is a semiotic symbol for that which is important to me in my life which I do not completely understand and which has made life, as I can observe it, possible, and which has also made my observing live as I observe it possible.

    Furthermore, for me, “religion” is a perhaps-useful and perhaps-not-useful name for human brain activity regarding that which is important in human life which humans as yet only incompletely understand. Therefore, “religion” is a proper aspect of human biology for scientific scrutiny and study by biological scientists whose science includes humans and humanity.

    For me, if for no one else, authoritarianism is a property of human confusion when human scientific hypotheses become regarded as facts and not as mere guesses worthy of rejection to such extent as they are false and/or mistaken.

    Methinks that the only way to maintain false beliefs in the presence of clear falsification evidence is through some form or other of authoritarian coercive tyranny, as in a parent is asked,”Why?” enough times that all that the parent can finally say is, “Because I said so!”

    My parents never got to what it would have taken for them to have said to me, “Because I said so!”

    What my parents did instead of some form of, “Because I said so!” was some form of, “That is a good question. Let’s see what we can learn together about it.”

    At home and at church (my dad was always the minister of the church my family regularly attended during my childhood era), I was never told what to believe; rather, my parents only asked me what I had learned and shared with me what they could of what they had learned, always telling me that, for me, my own beliefs might be better for me to use than any beliefs someone else told me to believe, their beliefs included.

    Accordingly, on the Turley Blog and elsewhere, I never intend to persuade anyone to believe what I believe, and I never believe anyone else could have had life experiences which allowed their beliefs to be other than as they are.

    I have never been taught to believe any religious creed or any religious dogma, or any religious doctrine.

    So, being alive, being something approximating infinitely ignorant, and being aware of my knowledge being very small in relation to my ignorance, I am necessarily religious by default and I, therefore, have a religious creed, a religious dogma, and a religious doctrine, and I do not believe in any of them.

    My religious creed: “There shall be no other creed.”
    My religious dogma: “There shall be no other dogma.”
    My religious doctrine: “There shall be no other doctrine.”

    Those religious aspects of my life have sometimes resulted in my having a sometimey frighteningly freaky relationship with the rule of law. For me, the rule of law is a religion to which I do not subscribe and which my conscience precludes my being a member thereof.

    Also, the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Law and Jurisprudence, in its present form and function, is, for me, inescapably an unconstitutional established religious cartel the dicta, dogma, doctrines and holdings of which almost always violate my conscience.

    Consider Article I, Section 18, of the Wisconsin Constitution, as found a while ago via the Internet:

    Freedom of worship; liberty of conscience; state
    religion; public funds. SECTION 18. [As amended Nov. 1982]
    The right of every person to worship Almighty God according
    to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall
    any person be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of
    worship, or to maintain any ministry, without consent; nor shall
    any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be
    permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious
    establishments or modes of worship; nor shall any money be
    drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or
    religious or theological seminaries. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29,
    vote Nov. 1982]

    The Courts, in the United States of America, as I experience them, assert the right to violently infringe my right “to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of my conscience,” as my conscience has only one dictate, that dictate being that my conscience has no other dictates.

    My conscience precludes, without dictate or dictating, my abiding by any religion which denies itself through deception and dishonesty, as I experience deception and dishonesty. The adversarial system, merely by being adversarial, denies itself through deception and dishonesty.

    Given that what I find to be the foundational premise of adversarial law and jurisprudence, that actually avoidable offenses actually occur, is easily demonstrated, through the null-hypothesis/alternate-hypothesis pure-dichotomy scientific methodology, the false belief that people commit actually avoidable offenses for which a forfeit is justified is a scientifically-falsified religious doctrine/dogma/dicta/holding/whatever.

    In accord with my conscience, I choose to exclude from my life any and every religious teaching which I find is scientifically false, doing so in accord with Article I, Section 18, of the Wisconsin Constitution.

    There is a simple remedy, one which I have quite exhaustively tested during my life of more than seventy years so far; that remedy is removing from the interpretation of the laws all recognized forms of corruption.

    The commonplace belief to the effect that people actually make actually avoidable mistakes or actually commit actually avoidable offenses is false, and is the result of what has been named, in the science of neurology, “time-corrupted learning” which has also been named “trauma” which has also been named “moral injury.”

    Remove time-corrupted learning from the interpretation of the laws, and the interpretation of the laws will cease to be corrupt in the time-corrupted sense.

    Remove trauma from the interpretation of the laws, and the interpretation of the laws will cease to be corrupted by trauma.

    Remove moral injury from the interpretation of the laws, and the interpretation of the laws will cease to be corrupted by moral injury.

    Neonates are free of socially-learned time-corruption, as they have yet to become time-corrupted by trauma and trauma-generated moral injuries.

    Who, among us, was not once a neonate? All we need to accomplish is remembering how we lived before we were corrupted by human socialization norms?

    Scientific falsification of the above writing is welcome.

  17. Well, davidm, as you are wont to do, you gave us about half the truth in your analysis of Madison’s theological views with some cherry-picked quotes. While it’s true that Madison surely loved the deity to keep citizens in line, he showed disgust at those claiming to work for Him and who sought to inject themselves into the politics of the day:

    Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects. [James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., January 1774]

    That’s why he was such a fervent opponent of meddlesome religion and religionists who spent their time whining about how victimized they had become.

    What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not. [Pres. James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]

    Every American should read ” A Memorial and Remonstrance” with the same fervor and awe that we read “We The People ….”

    1. Mespo wrote: “Well, davidm, as you are wont to do, you gave us about half the truth in your analysis of Madison’s theological views with some cherry-picked quotes.”

      You are being a little generous here. I would say that I gave much less than half the truth about Madison’s theological views. My limited comments were offered simply to counterbalance what someone else had posted.

      Madison’s views were similar to mine in the sense that he rejected the “legal establishment” of religion. When religion is institutionalized, it becomes corrupted. This is why I often repeat that I am not religious but I am a theist. Like Madison, I reject religious establishments while embracing a faith in God.

      I will say that your view that Madison used religion to keep people in line might be taken by some to ascribe evil to Madison. It implies that he was manipulator of citizens and used religion to do it. In contrast, my judgment is that Madison was sincere in his principles. While he argued on the basis of principle against using taxes to pay Congressional clergy, when it came down to it, he did not feel so strongly as to veto the bill to establish them. Instead he signed it into law knowing that it would likely never be repealed. Some might argue him to be an unprincipled man for this, but I see it rather as humility. He recognized that his perspective was not shared by everyone. He had an ability to compromise when there were competing considerations about an issue.

      Madison’s overriding principle was liberty of conscience. It started when he observed Baptists being imprisoned in Virginia for doing nothing more than publishing their viewpoints. Madison writes about six Baptists in particular that he visited in jail and defended publicly. There is little doubt in my mind that Madison would have just as quickly visited rushed to the defense of men like Frank Lay and Robert Freeman who faced criminal prosecution for praying over lunch.

      I agree strongly with Madison’s “A Memorial and Remonstrance” as well as Jefferson’s “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.” Unfortunately, many people gloss over how both works embrace theism while rejecting the governmental institutionalization of religion. In “A Memorial and Remonstrance,” Madison speaks of our duty to our Creator and as quoted before, says that “before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe.” In like manner, Jefferson appeals to the Almighty God because the theistic right of men being discussed is considered a natural right, an unalienable right. This foundational thesis for both works should not be glossed over. There is no doubt from these writings that both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were creationists, and that makes their philosophy closer to my own than to yours.

Comments are closed.