A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a Muslim prison inmate in Arkansas, Gregory H. Holt (also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad), can grow a short beard for religious reasons. The case is The case is Holt v. Hobbs, 13-6827. It represents a trifecta loss. The federal magistrate (Joe J. Volpe), the district court judge (Brian S. Miller), and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Judges Bye, Arnold, and Shepherd) all ruled against Holt only to see a unanimous Supreme Court reject their reasoning. Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor both wrote concurring opinions.
Notably, Magistrate Volpe recommended denial of this claim even though he stated in the hearing: “I look at your particular circumstance and I say, you know, it’s almost preposterous to think that you could hide contraband in your beard.”
Holt cited the hadiths, accounts of the acts or statements of the Muhammad and the attributed statement of Muhammad that Muslims are commanded to “cut the mustaches short and leave the beard.”
More than 40 state prison systems allow short beards and most allow longer ones. States like Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia bar beards except under limited conditions.
Holt challenged the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) grooming policy under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)(1)-(2), and sought a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. He claimed that one of his fundamentalist Muslim beliefs was that he must grow a beard and that the prison burdened his ability to practice his religion though a grooming policy, which allowed trimmed mustaches but no other facial hair. The policy allowed quarter-inch beards only for a diagnosed dermatological problem. Mr. Holt sought permission to maintain a half- inch beard –insisting that it would balance his religious beliefs with ADC’s security needs. The prison insisted that it had accommodated Holt in a variety of ways including a prayer rug and a list of distributors of Islamic material, corresponding with a religious advisor, allowing to maintain the required diet and observe religious holidays. Prison officials also claimed the grooming policy was necessary to further ADC’s interest in prison security.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., wrote the opinion. He was notably the the author of the majority opinion in Hobby Lobby, where a sharply divided Court ruled in favor of the religious rights of a private business in a dispute under the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare.
Alito rejected the claims of prison security in the denial of a beard. Alito applied the same legal test that used in June in the Hobby Lobby case in finding that the facts “easily satisfied” the requirement of showing that the ban on beards burdened his religious practices. While officials claimed that even short beards can conceal “anything from razor blades to drugs to homemade darts” or SIM cards, the Court did not buy it. Alito found that security “would be seriously compromised by allowing an inmate to grow a half-inch beard is hard to take seriously . . . An item of contraband would have to be very small indeed to be concealed by a half-inch beard and a prisoner seeking to hide an item in such a short beard would have to find a way to prevent the item from falling out.” He further noted that, despite this stated concern, Arkansas prisons do not require “shaved heads or short crew cuts.”
The case is an important reaffirmation of the Hobby Lobby reasoning, this time with all nine justices signing on. The opinion is replete with citations to the earlier case. RLUIPA is the sister statute to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), which was applied in Hobby Lobby. The opinion cuts back a bit on the excessive deference afforded to prisons in past cases, though only with regard to religious practices:
RLUIPA, like RFRA, “makes clear that it is the obligation of the courts to consider whether exceptions are required under the test set forth by Congress.” . . . That test requires the Department not merely to explain why it denied the exemption but to prove that denying the exemption is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Prison officials are experts in running prisons and evaluating the likely effects of altering prison rules, and courts should respect that expertise. But that respect does not justify the abdication of the responsibility, conferred by Congress, to apply RLUIPA’s rigorous standard. And without a degree of deference that is tantamount to unquestioning acceptance, it is hard to swallow the argument that denying petitioner a 1⁄2-inch beard actually furthers the Department’s interest in rooting out contraband.
Eighteen states supported Arkansas and all states will now have to meet this more demanding standard in such conflicts.
Holt is by no means a sympathetic character, but that is not relevant to the basis for his constitutional claim. He is serving a life sentence for a vicious assault on his ex-girlfriend in which he slit her throat and stabbed her in the chest. He has also threatened to “wage jihad” against various people.
This is an impressive win for University of Virginia School of Law Professor Douglas Laycock and his legal team in their representation of Holt.
Here is the opinion: Holt v. Hobbs, 13-6827.
What legitimate penological purpose is frustrated here? None.
“But Anarchist 2 was right. and you know it. You use this as an agenda.”
Happypappies,
You’ll need to be more specific; Anarchist said many things and it would be helpful if you identified exactly what was right and why you believe it so.
Regarding the other matter; you are an interesting lady in that you appear to have a sort of ala carte approach to Christianity; not much different when it comes to blog civility; as long as the incivility is not directed to you then; to each his own.
Matthew 7 verses 1, 2 and 3 speak of not judging; but then in verse 5 it clarifies the previous interpretation:
7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
Then we get verse 5 that doesn’t say NOT to judge; but to only do so if you are not committing the same sin.
“You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
Then Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:19 and 20:
“Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.”
In 1 Corinthians 5:6 and 7:
“Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch–as you really are.”
I interpret this all to mean you have chosen to honor the teachings of Christ in the way you live; you have “removed the plank” from your own eye. However, you do not honor Christ by ignoring those that would dishonor his temple. By not condemning the practice you are actually supporting the practice. And your support actually emboldens our culture to further abuse of God’s temple (or blog incivility).
Olly
You are right – about picking at you that is. What made me realize it was I went on a giant fishing expedition all through the blog looking for all of the negative remarks that Espositso (called me a paranoid schizophrenic) and sundry others have made here.
I can’t believe some of the remarks and their incivility that passed through the system until JT started jumping on them.
I would like to think that my behavior was better than it just was but I guess I was carrying a grudge and did not know it
I am a big fan of the Sermon On The Mount and The Beatitudes Our Bible Study Group did a whole 9 month study on the Beatitudes and we are now doing Paul. 2nd Corinthians.
What you must understand about me is whenever I stray as far as I just did, I start behaving like that. I am extremely musical and sing with all those Sacred Choirs all the time with people who are very talented and have no ego about it and just do it to glorify God.
Anyway, after I recommitted to a form of Agnosticism because I felt doubt and that made me feel like a cheat to be around people who are so committed to this eternal life thing that makes no sense and sounds like something made up by mad to keep his fears at bay.
So, today, I was cleaning, and people like Schulte and Davidm2575 will not believe this and I will forget it because these kind of things always fade away from me when they happen. Anyway, I was cleaning, and I was feeling sad and empty because the music had stopped. I did not really think about why but I saw “Him” in the back of my mind he he communicated he was here and why didn’t I believe it anymore and it made him sad, That he loved me.
Those guys will say I believe in fairies and unicorns you know and Espositso will say I am hallucinating. But the music is back and I am humble again.
😉
“I asked you a question yesterday- what philosophy provides the framework for classic liberalism. If you would have known that it’s skepticism, and that Locke’s epistemology is based upon his concept the humans are born with a “tabula rasa” (blank slate) for a mind. According to his view, there is no human nature. We have no ideas, thoughts, human capacity, and we aren’t even a distinct individuals at birth, everything about us is acquired from the world around us, and nothing comes from within. This is in contrast with Rousseau’s concept that we are born good, Hobbes view that we are born evil, and Noam Chomsky’s linguistic theories that are summarized as “Fish swim, birds fly, men speak”.
They are granted by nature- that means that men can’t take them away. the reason why Locke, Hobbes or Rousseau advanced the idea of Natural Rights is because Feudalism political organization at the time did believe that men had no rights other than the king wished to grant. Second, we’re seen to have exchanged our natural rights for membership in a Republic. We have no rights to do anything other than the law allows, and if anyone does attempt to assert their natural rights within society, then they are considered to be dangerous, immoral, and criminal. The only time we’re allowed our natural rights (philosophically, we are never granted the right legally) is when the government has sunk so deeply into tyranny that the benefits of membership in that society cease to outweigh the benefits of living in a State of nature and we overthrow the republic.”
Anarchist,
You could spare yourself quite a bit of time if you limited yourself to civil commentary. I have no idea why you feel the need to make this more complex than necessary. Classical Liberalism is a political, social and economic philosophy and at its core are natural rights. You can believe man is born evil, good or an empty vessel; what actually matters is that man has proven to be all those things.
Regarding natural rights; again it doesn’t matter what you believe the source of them to be, we have them. We have these rights in nature and it’s these rights that we bring with us when agree to join civil society. And it’s the security of these rights why government is established. These rights are inalienable, meaning we cannot give them away and they cannot be taken away.
Classical liberalism is dedicated to the principle of limited government. The limits are in the powers granted by the people to government and they are enumerated in the constitution. These powers have their source in the natural rights of the people are to enable government “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty”. It is noted in the 9th and 10th amendments that nothing in the establishment of government infers the people have “no rights to do anything other than the law allows”.
One reason to make this more complicated than necessary is if one hasn’t yet grasped the fundamental principles involved. The elements are simple; natural rights, human nature, civil society and government. The tragedy throughout history is that very little emphasis is placed on the first two. We fail to understand that the evil of our human nature will manifest itself through the very government established to secure our natural rights. This is where the people must exercise the right THEY STILL HAVE to “alter or abolish” the existing form of government.
I realize this won’t wash with you but I really don’t care. If you should respond, I will do the same thing with your commentary as I’ve done above; I’ll remove the tripe and see what remains.
Thanks
@Olly you have not been responding to my comments on our previous ahhhhhhh disagreement on natural rights.
Regarding natural rights; again it doesn’t matter what you believe the source of them to be, we have them. We have these rights in nature and it’s these rights that we bring with us when agree to join civil society. And it’s the security of these rights why government is established. These rights are inalienable, meaning we cannot give them away and they cannot be taken away.
But Anarchist 2 was right. and you know it. You use this as an agenda.
happypappies Nov11 2014
Burning “witches” at the stake was vile in the extreme. Wanting to do away with every Muslim is Vile in the extreme because of their religion. I certainly get tired of the ad hominem attacks on this site and even though this one wasn’t directed at me, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a woman choosing to terminate a pregnancy, and furthermore, the hypocrisy is overwhelming as they are going to do it anyway and you would have them go to a back alley and poison themselves with your righteousness. And I would never get an abortion myself. I am a Christian, but I would never spew such self righteous vituperative poison.
Olly
“there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a woman choosing to terminate a pregnancy,”
“And I would never get an abortion myself. I am a Christian”
I’m trying to reconcile these two statements without the word HYPOCRISY being included.
What am I missing?
happypappies
Olly, I am not a hypocrite because I chose not to terminate a pregnancy. It is my body. Another Woman has her body and her set of morals and to subjugate her to a back street alley because of your insufferable belief is beyond belief. There are so many terminations of pregnancy in the Bible it is unbelievable
Olly –
Do you consider the United States and yourself to be God? Because the Ten Commandments do not state “Thou Shalt Not Kill thy unborn baby at any stage or or prevent a baby at any stage.” Which is why I pulled those archaic verses out of the Old Testament. Again, Do you consider yourself to be God? Are you so self righteous that you can hold your standards to others? I believe Jesus said let anyone who has not sinned cast the first stone against the adulterous woman. Or, are you going to tell me murder is a worse sin than adultery because Jesus told you so or St. Paul was divinely inspired to say?
Olly
Happypappies,
I’m a citizen of a nation established with the purpose of securing unalienable rights of its citizens. Not rights because we are Christian, but rights because we came into existence. The fact they align with certain religious principles is of no consequence because they exist for ALL, including non-believers. The reason this distinction is important is because our human nature will drive us to believe many things, but the security of unalienable rights should always stand as a barrier to the worst of our nature.
Am I God? Is the United States God? Rhetorical perhaps, but deserving a response. Who among us is playing the role of God by choosing not to secure the life of all humans? Me or you? I believe man’s (woman’s) unalienable right to life begins when life begins. I believe abortion is unnecessary in the absence of life. I believe in the case of rape and incest (violations of one’s natural rights) and the life of the mother, the decision to terminate the pregnancy is justifiable. This remains in alignment with the security of natural rights AND my Christian principles.
I love it when people attempt to use religion to justify infringing the natural rights of others. It is so entertaining.
There. You see how you are doing it there? Davem2575 did not see this lovely exchange but now it’s right here.
Not that you care or it’s even your fault but I was damaged when this was happening. It should have been apparent.
Little Inga saw it. She can be pesty but she is sweet and has a good heart
Pappies in November
I spoke with a lady in my church tonight after Choir and Bell Practice because you distressed me and asked her what she thought as I am Libertarian and she is Conservative. She said she would try to stop the person but it was their body in the end. She also said like you in a case of rape and incest it was understandable.
As far as that last statement goes. I don’t even want to try to understand it it hurts me so badly to be honest with you. That is so ugly. You asked me for a Bible Verse and I gave it to you. I have not really been cutting here but I have been defensive because you are mean. and I don’t know why. So I give up. I am done with the thread. You win.
Olly
Mean!? Mean is creating the Trojan Horse of providing women a safer means (in many cases) of post-conception birth control and thus enabling an entire industry the opportunity to kill babies even AFTER they survived the procedure. And thanks to this wonderful decline in our culture, we have 20 somethings now believing the right to kill a child as old as 4 years old is justifiable since those children are not yet self-aware. Isn’t that special?
Go sell “mean” to those poor souls that nearly made it. And pray for those not yet “self-aware”. Own it.
Power trip much? You don’t know what was going on there do you.
happypappies
Olly – I just erased an entire comment back to you because I am trying to reach you. I am going to try again. I am a Christian. I would not get an Abortion because it is not my way. You talk of beliefs. I believe that God already knows intrinsically what we are about and up to. I also believe he gave us 10 commandments. Now, I am thinking about you and your avatar says US Navy, Just like my Husband. The way you talk I imagine you have seen some action. Enough to know how precious life is. Okay, I get it. I teach all that I know the sanctity of life. But I grew up in an area where there was a different sort of folk. They were ignorant. And I promise you that if a baby was aborted, it would go straight to heaven instead of living a hell on earth in a welfare shack learning to be the same way it’s parents were. Or worse yet, the child who was raped in a blue collar Catholic Neighborhood by her daddy ending up pregnant would still have an option rather than being dead of sepsis and shame.
I do own your comment. So much so I felt like I had been punched in the stomach. When I was young and didn’t know any better, I argued in school at the age of 13 against abortion. The only one in the class. Against it to the Class President Mickey Stallings that swore the Fetus was not alive until it was 3 months old. I was in tears over that. You see, my Father was Agnostic and that colored my views more than Christianity and that’s what made me want to save the baby’s life. That life was so precious. Because you only had one chance to live. imo then. I did not yet know about all the cruelties of the world. So, I wish we could please put this to rest, And you could please stop pinning the tail on a Donkey that does not exist.
Olly
“I teach all that I know the sanctity of life.”
“And I promise you that if a baby was aborted, it would go straight to heaven instead of living a hell on earth…”
happypappies,
I certainly don’t want to cause you distress. The only reason I engaged you on this topic is because I couldn’t rationalize what appeared to be conflicting principles. I have no doubt you have sincere motives; as I suspect many pro-choice advocates do. The two quotes from you above clearly demonstrate your compassionate intent but you are overlooking the more fundamental aspect of natural rights.
There is a reason certain rights (natural rights) are treated as unalienable (inalienable) and your quotes are a perfect example. Opening the door to the best of our human nature also opens it to the worst. And NEVER has a republic survived an unfettered government. Since the purpose for government is to SECURE our unalienable rights, the only acceptable creative solutions to the myriad of problems are those that DO NOT infringe those natural rights. Thank you.
So – you think that unfetters the government because it is not the way you see it should be.
Interesting way of interpreting Natural Rights.
on 1, November 13, 2014 at 8:53 pm Annie (Inga)
Well thanksgiving is coming, turkey on the brain isn’t so strange. But Sandi do you mean me in your above comet or did you mean Happypappies. I don’t think you’re mean or evil at all. That Olly though, whew, he’s a mean one all right.
Isn’t that sweet.
🙂
It doesn’t matter what you say to me now Ollie. I am ready.
Happypappies,
It’s true that I have challenged you on your previous statements regarding abortion. This is what I recall your position to be. You stated because of your Christian beliefs, you wouldn’t get an abortion; but you also stated your Christian faith wouldn’t allow you to judge another in their choice. Do you believe Christ wants us to protect the innocents and at the same time support those that do not? Do you not see how that would be considered hypocritical? Now if I understood you incorrectly then I truly apologize.
“Give up and ignore you” is the only remedy for this ilk.
Olly-
Here we go again-
“There is much more to learn but I am certain I understand what the framer’s believed to be the purpose for government.”
And what would that be?
“I know they believed in natural rights”
You just haven’t nailed down what natural rights are, and you never will because you honestly think you can just fake it and no one will know.
“I know they believed . . . the absolute certainty that human nature will never change.”
I asked you a question yesterday- what philosophy provides the framework for classic liberalism. If you would have known that it’s skepticism, and that Locke’s epistemology is based upon his concept the humans are born with a “tabula rasa” (blank slate) for a mind. According to his view, there is no human nature. We have no ideas, thoughts, human capacity, and we aren’t even a distinct individuals at birth, everything about us is acquired from the world around us, and nothing comes from within.This is in contrast with Rousseau’s concept that we are born good, Hobbes view that we are born evil, and Noam Chomsky’s linguistic theories that are summarized as “Fish swim, birds fly, men speak”. So, again, this thing that you think you know about the founding father or classic liberalism is just one more example of you making it up and hoping no one will notice.
” I also believe you can tell the depth of the underlying principles in each participant by their civility and humility; those two qualities tend to go hand in hand.”
I disagree. I’ve found, through being involved in a large messageboard in which most of the people lived near the same area, that those that try the hardest to present a squeaky clean facade generally do so because they have the most to hide. The truly sociopathic are chameleons, and they are thrilled with the ability to obscure their personality in a virtual environment and the opportunity for lying that it provides. As an example, the first couple of paragraphs of your last post in which you attempted to paint yourself as a devoted and earnest seeker of the truth was completely fabricated because that’s what how you want people to view you, and that’s how you want to view yourself. You are exactly the opposite, as your unwillingness to admit that your entire view of Classic Liberalism was derived from skimming the topic for 30 seconds on Wikipedia, so you went to greater lengths than most would because you are attempting to keep your facade in tact through the beating it’s been taking on this subject.
If you actually had an honest bone in your body, and di have an honest thirst for knowledge, you’d just tell me, “So I overstepped my boundaries and I’m just starting to learn about classic liberalism. Screw you!”. That would be exponentially superior than continuing to drag out this charade. That would show some character; some integrity.
“They understood the risk human nature was to the security of natural rights”
Jesus. Once again, the concept of natural rights has you thoroughly bamboozled. They are granted by nature- that means that men can’t take them away. You just don’t seem to grasp that the reason why Locke, Hobbes or Rousseau advanced the idea of Natural Rights is because Feudalism political organization at the time did believe that men had no rights other than the king wished to grant. Second, we’re seen to have exchanged our natural rights for membership in a Republic. We have no rights to do anything other than the law allows, and if anyone does attempt to assert their natural rights within society, then they are considered to be dangerous, immoral, and criminal. The only time we’re allowed our natural rights (philosophically, we are never granted the right legally) is when the government has sunk so deeply into tyranny that the benefits of membership in that society cease to outweigh the benefits of living in a State of nature and we overthrow the republic.
“They understood the risk human nature was to the security of natural rights and they were not foolish enough to believe society would ever advance to the point no government would be necessary.”
Are you just a glutton for punishment? Are you sitting in front your your computer in full bondage regalia waiting eagerly for the next humiliation? If so, you’re in luck, because I have a few quotes to answer the nonsense you spouted in the above quote!
Thomas Paine
(common sense)
government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil
(Rights of man)
“The more perfect civilization is the less occasion has it for government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and govern itself… It is but few general laws that civilized life requires, and those of such common usefulness, that whether they are enforced by the forms of government or not, the effect will be nearly the same.”
““There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces a greater variety of abilities and resource, to accommodate itself to whatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act; a general association takes place, and common interest produces common security. ”
Henry David Thoreau-
“I heartily accept the motto, ‘That government is best which governs least’; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe–‘That government is best which governs not at all’; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.”
So there you have it. It looks like you have once again had your ass handed to you for expecting complete nonsense that you invent to actually pass for reasoned and informed opinions.
“Interestingly, you haven’t actually proved anything I’ve said was wrong;”
Not you you. You’ve got a cognitive disorder and you are quite possibly a pathological liar. You just keep lying no matter how clearly you are shown to be clueless. You’re living in a fantasy world.
One last thing-
A democracy cannot be both ignorant and free. –Thomas Jefferson
You have no desire to cure your ignorance, and so you are useless in any struggle for a more free or equitable society. You’re a complete fraud.
Anarchist 2.0 I don’t know if David will look this far down the thread but I would wish him to know that I do not find you arrogant…. I had to read your comments twice to see where you were coming from. It was very late and hard to concentrate.
This is why.
I lambasted you regarding my free speech rights and you respected that because you were trolling the internet. I gave you good information and you were interested and said
“happypappies-
” That was a Libertarian Movement from the Left that started with Ad Busters”
Anarchist 2.0 said, “I didn’t know that. Do you have any more info about that?”
I do not find that arrogant. Especially after the way I went after you regarding Finney and so forth.
I do know how Olly gets about Natural Rights. But David m2575 has some kind of deal going on also. He has mentioned in the past that he is an Atheist – but he and Olly both have gone out of their way to pick me apart
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/12/18/missouri-legislation-would-require-women-to-get-consent-of-man-for-an-abortion/
on 1, December 20, 2014 at 7:30 pm happypappies
davidm2575
happypappies wrote: “As a Christian, it is not up to us to judge and punish and force this woman to our wills because their is a viable fetus in her. It is her body. Not her husbands.”
The Christian concept actually is that her body is not her’s, but her husband’s, and her husband’s body is not his, but her’s. That is the Christian concept of marriage.
“The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.” (1Cor 7:4)
That’s romantic davidm2575 but its between the husband and the wife there isn’t it if you are going to start following Paul’s epistles…….which as a woman……a Presbyterian one, I question anyway. They were written for a different time and people and I am not a Fundie so it doesn’t matter to me what it says in First Corinthians. That just looks like Romantic Twaddle. I don’t think that Paul was Divinely Inspired every time he opened his trap. He was a human being.
happypappies wrote: “He has mentioned in the past that he is an Atheist…”
No, you must have misunderstood something. I am a theist. I have stated this many times from the first weeks of my presence on this blog.
In regards to my remark about the Christian perspective over who has authority over the spouse’s body, it was nothing personal. You maintained that you were representing the Christian perspective. That is what provoked me to offer you the perspective of another Christian who is purported to be an apostle of Christ and co-founder of Christianity. You replied that you believed apostle Paul was wrong and that part of the Bible that he wrote was not Divinely inspired. Clearly, Christians do not agree with one another on this part of the Bible. I stand by what I said and you stand by what you said. We can still be friends.
Platonic? You don’t understand Davidm2575 and I will find the thread, I thought it was the right one when I posted this comment above and it was you but I thought that was of interest so I posted it because I wanted to get into it anyway. Olly went after me about Abortion and how I was a hypocrite. You have no idea. I will find the thread
Anyway, I find it interesting you say you are a theist so I misread and put an a on it. I really thought you said that. So it’s best to clear it up right away.
Paul was interesting but I don’t think they were divinely inspired. I don’t believe in Supernatural events. But by the same token I do think you can glean wisdom from a Holy Book if you have the mind for it.
Such as when Jesus said, You must lose yourself in order to find yourself. I feel that you must let go of human conceptions learned about romantic love, love of money, love of power needs for attainment that society has painted for you in order to find yourself. And once you do that – you can live life fully and eternally and joyfully and take care of others and the gift of life and the extended life will come from your joy and care.
The Bible actually says this in many places but people take that Apocalyptic literature literally and think it is supposed to be a verbatim event.
Isaiah 65 17-22
The Glorious New Creation
17 “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;
And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create;
For behold, I create Jerusalem as a rejoicing,
And her people a joy.
19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem,
And joy in My people;
The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her,
Nor the voice of crying.
20 “No more shall an infant from there live but a few days,
Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days;
For the child shall die one hundred years old,
But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.
21 They shall build houses and inhabit them;
They shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 They shall not build and another inhabit;
They shall not plant and another eat;
For as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people,
And My elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
Understand that Elect is another misunderstood concept
Isaiah 31 33-34
New Covenant
…33″But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34″They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more
Even in the Bible these ancient people were taught forgiveness 2700 years ago. This is my point. And they were taught that everlasting life was long life.
So anyway — I never thought I wasn’t your friend. I think you are very smart and I think with smart people that you can be open because they can take it.
🙂
Anarchist, Olly has spoken on Classical Liberalism long before you came around here. Your perspective that he skimmed Wikipedia for 30 seconds in order to talk about it is so far off base that there is a high chance he will give you up and ignore you. Also, we do have a civility code here, and your incivility in calling him a complete fraud, suffering a cognitive disorder, and suggesting that he is possibly a pathological liar goes way over the line. I have no authority here, but as a fellow citizen, I merely ask you not to insult my friend. If you refuse, then will have proven to me that you need government and anarchy does not work.
Anarchist,
“We need organization, and we need codes of conduct,”
Whatever you do don’t call it government or the rule of law. 😀
You spend so much time expressing your bombastic opinion of what you believe others know or don’t know that you fail to see the incongruity in your own beliefs. Interestingly, you haven’t actually proved anything I’ve said was wrong; if you remove the ad hominems, there really is nothing noteworthy in your comments. I bet underneath all that blather that you really do have some depth of intellect, and I believe I have plenty I could learn from you; unfortunately your ego and ideology betray that sort of dialog.
So teach me something by answering this question: When in the history of civil society (gosh, thanks for teaching me that term) has man’s “genetic capacity to live in groups” and “ability to resolve disputes” eliminated the need for a governing authority and the rule of law?
David,
I appreciate your comments and you stated very well my purpose for participating in this blog. I consider every participant as having something to offer that I can learn from. I’ve only been at this for 8 years in various blogs and the same ‘personalities’ will present themselves every time. The challenge is in determining what is of value and then knowing when that person has nothing more to offer. I like this blog because it gets me out of my comfort zone and I’m forced to study things I would not have normally considered.
I’m often amazed at the degree people will go to attack the character of others simply because they disagree with them. I do somewhat agree with Anarchist that some participants in blogs aren’t there to learn but rather to be social. They function more like a gang and look to their leader to validate their own conduct. Incivility is rewarded by the followers fawning praise who themselves rarely offer anything of unique value. It’s actually very predictable and quite pathetic. I also believe you can tell the depth of the underlying principles in each participant by their civility and humility; those two qualities tend to go hand in hand. I have seen examples of this from some liberal participants but by and large, it’s the conservatives that will conduct themselves with civility.
I have a lifetime of learning ahead of me and will never declare I’m an expert in anything we discuss. I will offer my opinions and when I’m wrong will actually express my appreciation for the opportunity to learn just one more thing. My studies into classical liberalism began out of a necessity to understand what I’m supposed to know as a citizen in this country. I needed to understand not just the ‘what’ of things but the ‘why’. There is much more to learn but I am certain I understand what the framer’s believed to be the purpose for government. I know they believed in natural rights, the need for government and the absolute certainty that human nature will never change. They understood the risk human nature was to the security of natural rights and they were not foolish enough to believe society would ever advance to the point no government would be necessary.
David-
” I think”
Prove it.
” I’m pretty sure Olly does not care about getting into some pissing contest with someone named Anarchist,”
You’re right. He must have gotten tangled up in his keyboard while falling down the stairs and through sheer chance, happened to bump into all the right keys on the way down and then hit ‘post comment’. And to show what a run of bad luck he was having, it happened three times.
“nor is he trying to prove his manhood by proving he understands classic liberalism.”
Well, that’s good, since he was actually accomplishing the opposite.
“I would love to hear you explain in more detail what you mean by this statement.”
I posted a link to my view. If you’re interested, you can read it. It’s long and boring though. You’ll probably want to steer clear.
Now I could make fun of you or I could point something out to you and see how open to dialogue you really are. You make way too many assumptions, and express knowledge of other people’s motive and intentions that you would have to be psychic to know. You don’t know whether olly is a “seeker of truth”, you don’t know his motivation for engaging in debate. You don’t know my motivation for engaging in debate. . .You made a bunch of claims to knowledge that you don’t have, and each one of them just eroded the validity of your comment. You actually take it so far that you wander past speculation into the realm of paranoia (“he has a finney icon and his name is “anarchist”. I can’t understand that combination of factors, so he is obviously attempting to sow confusion and disorder!”)
“How nice to know that you are an omniscient god with perfect knowledge of everything.”
Oh, the irony. If that’s how you perceive me for claiming that you can’t predict the future, how do you think YOU come across for making a half-dozen declarations about the intent and motives of others that you could only know if you lived inside their heads?
” So you already have it all figured out that anarchy is the proper evolution for society and anyone who disagrees with you is doing so without sufficient evidence.”
Thanks for providing a good example of a straw man fallacy. I would back up and explain it you again, but that would just give you more straw to work with.
“as long as there are even a few lawbreakers in society”
If there is no government, there are no law breakers. More importantly, we aren’t a bunch of toddlers can can’t function in society without being forced to. We have the genetic capacity to live in groups, and we have much greater ability to resolve our disputes than we are allowed to exercise. Insisting that we need government to punish us is just a slave mentality. We need organization, and we need codes of conduct, but the only time society needs to be forced into it is when the organization and conduct we are forced to adopt are not in our best interests.
“It is also the basis of new governments”
I guess Ghengis Khan, Stalin, or Hitler didn’t get the memo.
” previously when I simply asked you to explain it, you did not answer. ”
Then I didn’t see your comment.
“Understanding one another is a much more noble goal ”
I agree. That’s why I chose to comment on the behavior that Olly is displaying-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXeEOgntkkk
He has a complete lack of understanding of the principles he claims to hold dear. He wants to be viewed as having expertise in classic liberalism, and he’ll argue it to the death, but he won’t actually read the source material. He won’t sign up for a philosophy class at his local junior college. He won’t put the work into it that the subject matter deserves. He, like most of the conservatives in America currently, has been trained by right-wing media and socialization to adopt such an immense level of intellectual laziness that he’s just a barking seal. That’s an induced cognitive disorder. There is no reasoning with him, no possibility for rational discussion. Reason didn’t lead him into that disorder and reason won’t lead him out of it.
Last, consider my appreciation for Charles Finney. I view Christianity to be a doomsday cult. I think evangelists just manipulate people through fear, etc. However, I like Finney, although I strongly disagree with his views. I respect the fact that he unflinchingly applied his intelligence to the best of his ability (except in his systematic theology, in which he was just phoning in and he knew it), held to his convictions, and was genuinely sincere. When Finney preached, he forced Christians to use reason. He preached like a lawyer addressing a jury, and he stated plainly many times that if Christian principles or ideas were presented that didn’t make sense, Christians should disregard them. That’s very unique for a christian preacher. I would respect Olly too if he applied his conscience and intelligence to his views rather than engaging in a charade. Too bad he doesn’t though.
happypappies-
” That was a Libertarian Movement from the Left that started with Ad Busters”
I didn’t know that. Do you have any more info about that? There were a significant minority of Libertarians, Ron Paul supporters and even some Republicans involved in Occupy, but their presence was sandblasted away by the media. The movement as a whole was controlled by prominent Democrats in the communities in which the occupations took place- Democrats that rarely, if ever, stepped foot into any of the occupations that sprung up across the country. The leaders controlled the movement from the shadows through “finance committees” in each of the occupations. Many of the occupations were incorporated by the leaders and all decision making capacity was secretly vested in board members of those corporations while publicly they were claiming that occupy was a leaderless movement. Following the example of the Romans, those leaders adopted a Panem et Circenses tactic, so a “general assembly” was created so the mob could argue issues and vote. I was at a general assembly once and it was the most absurd, blatantly Orwellian political meeting I’d ever attended. Behind the speaker was a giant screen with images projected on it and the word “obey” would be projected in two foot tall letters when the corporate officers would speak or propose rules.
In one city, one of the main leaders was found to have been a police informant throughout the occupation. It took me a week or so to work my way up the heirarchy to discover who she was, and I finally found out because one of her flunkies mistook me for a member of a finance committee in a different city. When I met her, and took her picture, she realized I wasn’t who she thought I was, so she tried to have me arrested before I could make the picture public. Eventually, a hacker posted private docs to pastebin exposing her as an informant and she disappeared with the around 15,000 in donations that had been collected.
Occupy Wall Street was a sham, essentially. Since Americans have been apolitical for so long, all the college kids and ideologues that were first drawn to the movement were completely naive and quickly steamrolled by more astute political operatives that managed to con them into obedience. Near the end, people that said anything negative about the leadership would be harassed and followed around by people with cameras. By the time it ended, about 90% of the people in the Occupations were the homeless that weren’t really interested in the political aspect of the occupation, they were just drawn by the free meals and ability to live somewhere for a while without being hassled by the police.
Anarchist 2.0
You caught me just before I am getting ready to shut down. Yes, I had an Atheist friend in Egypt with whom I have lost contact with at the time of the Murabank revolution. He was so disappointed when the Muslim Brotherhood was allowed to take over. At any rate he received E Mails from this Ad Busters and asked me if I wanted to go. Well, I am all protested out but I was interested in anything that was a movement against Wall Street as their unregulated activities are the basis of our problems in this country.
You saw that about that movement too huh? Sad… But that is how people are. They do not ever become whole. They run after some cause or another all their life whether it’s love or religion looking for themselves and they don’t know it because our stupid culture teaches us that we should look for “love”and “money” and “God” Never ourselves. If it would just do that, we would not have these problems. And, to wax back to my previous subject, I think Jesus right when he said “You have to lose yourself in order to find yourself.” Because unless you can let all those aforementioned things go, you can’t find yourself because they are in the way. And that is the eternal life everyone is always blathering about. They talk about it in Isaiah 65 17-22 “”No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, Or an old man who does not live out his days; For the youth will die at the age of one hundred And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed.…”
Just a metaphor for living a longer life because you are living for the day in joy instead of what was that you said
By the way, I found you interesting enough to read through your notes again. lololol Olly Mike Appleton Rescued me on Natural Rights once because I kept saying over over that I was a Christian, I would never have an Abortion, but if another woman wanted one, it was her body and I would defend her right to have it. In his mind I was a murderer by default and a bad Christian because he was a Classical Liberal
And Finney hated Calvin and that is why he would not go to Princeton. I am educated on this. He is more like the first TV Evangelical Personality before there was TV
Finney’s revival work was Arminian—it did not depend on such spiritual intervention. This meant that conversion, dammed up by Edwardsian error, could now be loosed. Finney even saw himself as an evangelistic hero for unblocking the dam: “It fell to my lot, in the providence of God, to attack and expose many fallacies and false notions that existed in the churches, and that were paralyzing their efforts and rendering the preaching of the Gospel inefficacious” (Memoirs, 536-37)
Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2012/03/how-charles-finney-trumped-jonathan-edwards-in-america/#ixzz3PdbFGgpE
Whatever. He said he had a direct line to God and that you don’t need salvation – only faith – well whatever – I suppose it’s only semantics or minds games in this case. 😉
Oh, and by the way Anarchist 2 you have bad information. That was a Libertarian Movement from the Left that started with Ad Busters on Face Book that started with wikileaks Global Day of Action on March 10,of 2011 According to Armine Yalnizyan, a senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives:This is an awakening. The Occupy movement, if it succeeds, is like a kind of second chance to have that conversation we didn’t have [in 2008 amid the recession]. … Civil rights [protesters] and feminists changed societal thinking. If this movement turns into a real movement, it will change our thinking about the relationship between the rich and the rest of us. … Occupy Wall Street is partly about Wall Street, and Bay Street, and taxes – But it’s mostly about getting governments to serve the interests of the other 99%.
— Armine Yalnizyan, senior economist, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternative
Apparently you weren’t network savvy then or you would have been asking about it and maybe you would have heard the tremendous Libertarian Speech the Original Occupy person gave that was anonymous but it was pulled almost immediately from youtube.
The collective protests are primarily targeting the global financial system, and also against social and economic inequality and corporate greed in general, as well as the corrupting influence of corporate money and lobbyists on government and democracy.
This was a loosely held group in Canad and then Obama and his minions decided to claim it and then I suppose it was a free for all from there.
I couldn’t believe that militant bullcrap in Clayton. “Wallstreet Wallstreet” lololol What a joke. We are a free market society and we want Adam Smith’s Calvinistic Invisible Hand to guide our markets. Not the Federal Government and all the graft that comes along with it.
That’s right I said Calvin.
Maybe you don’t know this but you fell into a nest of Presbyterians here. We don’t like emotional fits and arrogance. We don’t like a lack of humility and stompy feet and demanding of apologys
Your notions of anarchism have led you to make all sorts of wild assumptions about my motives and views; assumptions that didn’t pan out. Aside from that, Finney was kicked out of the Presbyterian church for his “heresy”, he was widely opposed by most protestant clergy of the day,and he founded the first church of his day that people could attend without cost (it cost money to attend church in his day). He placed his conscience above obedience, and that’s the basis of anarchism of any stripe- or at least it should be.
“His goal is disorder and confusion.”
So he is so arrogant that he won’t try to go to school and learn anything because he knows it all. Like you. And he uses emotion to browbeat his congregations to “convert” but they don’t have to “pay” hmmmm sounds like the government. Then after throwing a hissy fit and dragging everyone along with him, he splits the church and becomes a well known figure anyway. Wooooonderful. someone for you to look up to. Now you can criticize and look down on the rest of us. Great.
You know what? The Presbyterians are the most logical people there are and they will tolerate just about anything but manipulation. Especially emotional. I am an existential Christian meaningI believe in a Sovereign God and I follow Christs Teachings but the Living God is withing all of us and life everlasting is on the planet we have to take care of the way I see it not an afterlife. And that is fine with my Church and I am not kicked out for heresy.
You do not go to a Christian Church to create Disorder and confusion. That is the work of the devil or, if you will, that is an evil thing to do.
David, Olly et. al.
If any of you cogent gents care to discuss a subject with someone in another sphere of reality, why don’t you engage with me. I am a jovial sort. I don’t spew invectives. I was born in a radical family and have unique views, but I’m not a phony intellectual. My jibberish actually makes some sense. Good day to you, and me, and the man behind that tree.
David-
“Olly, you are debating with an ANARCHIST about the validity of government. Think about it. ”
No David, he’s not. We’re discussing whether Olly understands classic liberalism or not.
“Think about arguing with Occupy Wall Street.”
Occupy Wall Street was a movement orchestrated by well connected Democrat business leaders, educators, etc. Anyone else involved was just a prop to make it appear as if the movement was progressive.
“How do you argue the valid basis for government with someone who does not believe any government is legitimate?”
Anarchists in general are communists sans “scientific socialism”. However, I don’t fit within that classification. My view of anarchism is more anthropological, and it isn’t shared by any anarchist I know-
https://greycoast.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/anarchism-lester-macgurdys-viewpoint-on-portland-occupier/
Given technological advance, and the enormous ability of people to organize, communicate, and conduct trade globally, will government always be necessary to maintain order in society? If you answer yes, then you have reached a conclusion without sufficient evidence, which makes your conclusion invalid. If you say no, then you’re an anarchist.
“He obviously craves disorder rather than the order that a government brings.”
And you’re obviously wearing a yellow t-shirt and eating potato chips right now.
” this anarchist, for the reason of promoting confusion has an avatar of a lawyer”
Another unfounded assumption based upon gross generalizations, eh? I have Finney as an avatar because the guy was brilliant and I respect his views, though I don’t agree.I’ve read most of his writings (or actually, the transcriptions of his writing taken down while he was preaching). His systematic theology wasn’t very good, since he was trying to combine Calvinism and Armenianism in a way that isn’t logically consistent. His sermons on the revival of religion is great though.
“[finney is]probably as far away from anarchism as a person can get.”
Your notions of anarchism have led you to make all sorts of wild assumptions about my motives and views; assumptions that didn’t pan out. Aside from that, Finney was kicked out of the Presbyterian church for his “heresy”, he was widely opposed by most protestant clergy of the day,and he founded the first church of his day that people could attend without cost (it cost money to attend church in his day). He placed his conscience above obedience, and that’s the basis of anarchism of any stripe- or at least it should be.
“His goal is disorder and confusion.”
Another swing and another miss. Why would I work to confuse twenty people, most of which are already thoroughly confused, on a messageboard? What would I gain by doing that? You just don’t grasp the basic reality of messageboards, that being that debate on them doesn’t change anyone’s view. We develop political views by socialization, not reason. Since I understand that reality, I don’t make any effort to be on my best behavior in order to be convincing.
I read the post of yours on slavery and I thought at the time that you had some education in law. I hope that isn’t the case though because if you’re a lawyer, your habit of making hasty generalizations is going to lead to a disappointing career.
Anarchist 2 I left you a very long rebuttal if you care to peruse it. 😉
Anarchist wrote: “No David, he’s not. We’re discussing whether Olly understands classic liberalism or not.”
LOL! I think “we” is the wrong pronoun choice. Surely you meant to use the pronoun “I”. I’m pretty sure Olly does not care about getting into some pissing contest with someone named Anarchist, nor is he trying to prove his manhood by proving he understands classic liberalism.
For the most part, I found your responses to him very evasive. You are more concerned about lifting your ego up above his than in understanding reality. In contrast, Olly is a seeker of truth and understanding. He shares the foundation of truth as he understands it. His frustration with you is because instead of engaging in intellectual understanding, you dodge and weave, moving toward disorder and confusion instead of synergy of knowledge.
As long as your goal in discussions is to prove others are more ignorant than you are, you are likely to find a chilling reception from some here. On the other hand, if you are interested in advancing knowledge, not only for yourself, but for other participants here, then you may find that there are some worthy people here with knowledge in a wide variety of fields.
Anarchist wrote: “My view of anarchism is more anthropological…”
I would love to hear you explain in more detail what you mean by this statement. About the only anarchist I have had any modicum of respect for is Noam Chomsky.
Anarchist wrote: “Given technological advance, and the enormous ability of people to organize, communicate, and conduct trade globally, will government always be necessary to maintain order in society?”
Surely you realize that not everybody avails themselves of these tools. The truth is that not everybody in society needs government, but as long as there are even a few lawbreakers in society, then society as a whole will need government. It doesn’t really matter how much knowledge we have or how easily available it is. Government is needed because of lawbreakers.
Anarchist wrote: “If you answer yes, then you have reached a conclusion without sufficient evidence, which makes your conclusion invalid. If you say no, then you’re an anarchist.”
I see. So you already have it all figured out that anarchy is the proper evolution for society and anyone who disagrees with you is doing so without sufficient evidence. How nice to know that you are an omniscient god with perfect knowledge of everything. Most of us see ourselves as being imperfect in knowledge, which is why we discuss with others, to learn what they know.
Anarchist wrote: “Your notions of anarchism have led you to make all sorts of wild assumptions about my motives and views…”
Just took a stab in the dark because previously when I simply asked you to explain it, you did not answer. I figured if I put forward some speculation, you would finally respond. Looks like I was right.
Anarchist wrote: “He placed his conscience above obedience, and that’s the basis of anarchism of any stripe…”
It is also the basis of new governments, like our founding fathers created for us. Anarchists do not have a monopoly of being the only ones who protest bad government.
Anarchist wrote: “You just don’t grasp the basic reality of messageboards, that being that debate on them doesn’t change anyone’s view. We develop political views by socialization, not reason.”
I have changed my views a number of times because of this board. Obviously if you are not a rationalist, your views are likely to be more dependent upon socialization rather than reason. Nevertheless, there is a socialization process going on with message boards if a person participates enough to develop an understanding of the participants. Some people really detest others on this board, and some people develop an affection for others. These are the same dynamics that happen in more traditional social interactions.
Anarchist wrote: “I read the post of yours on slavery and I thought at the time that you had some education in law.”
No. I am a biologist by training who earns a living as a computer software developer. In regards to law, I am self taught and the lawyers here laugh at me often, making jokes about how useless it is for me to apply myself to learning law. I became interested more in Constitutional law because my work with the poor led me into governmental conflicts, which in turn led me into political activism. Such led to my being arrested sometimes and having to understand law in order to continue with my activist activities in regards to the poor.
Mike Appleton, the man with which I have been in dialogue with on this issue of slavery, he is the lawyer. Mike is a very fine lawyer. We disagree often in perspective, but he puts up with my ignorance and helps me further my education by engaging with me. Despite our differences, I respect him and his knowledge of law. He has at times caused me to study for many hours to understand his way of thinking. For that, I am appreciative. Understanding one another is a much more noble goal than proving that someone like Olly does or does not understand classic liberalism.
I think that the court decisions in Germany about tenants peeing or smoking in the apartment houses is relevant to Bearded Wonder guy in prison. This is from Yahoo news just now:
Berlin (AFP) – Tenants of a rented apartment may stand up while peeing in their own bathroom and not worry about the consequences, a German court said Thursday.
The district court in the western city of Duesseldorf ruled in favour of a man suing the owner of his flat for the full refund of his 3,000-euro ($3,490) deposit, the court said in a ruling obtained by national news agency DPA.
The proprietor had told the tenant he would withhold 1,900 euros because the marble floor of the washroom was permanently stained by splashed urine.
Judge Stefan Hank agreed with an expert’s report that it was in fact uric acid that had eaten through the floor but said that standing to urinate was widespread.
He said the flat’s owner should have made his tenant aware that the marble was highly vulnerable.
“Despite the increasing domestication of men in this area, urinating while standing up is indeed still common practice,” Hank said in the ruling.
“Someone who still practises this previously dominant custom is regularly confronted with significant disputes, particularly with female cohabitants. However normally he must not reckon with damage to the marble floor of a bathroom or guest toilet.”
Tenants’ rights are a frequent subject of litigation in Germany.
Last June, the same Duesseldorf court ruled that an elderly smoker must vacate his home of around 40 years after neighbours complained about his cigarette smoke.
It said that the pensioner had not tried to prevent smoke from seeping into the communal hallway of the apartment building and had failed to adequately air his flat and empty his ash trays, it said.
Here is the last paragraph from a Seventh Circuit opinion denying relief to the Church of The New Song and its founder name Theriault.
This is what happens when religion, prisons and Faith, make their way into the courts.
“In addition to the cases discussed in this opinion, Theriault has been involved in numerous lawsuits as either a plaintiff complaining of prison conditions or as a defendant being prosecuted for unruly prison conduct. See Theriault v. United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 434 U.S. 953, 98 S.Ct. 493, 54 L.Ed.2d 321 (1977); Theriault v. Carlson, 339 F.Supp. 375 (N.D.Ga.1972), vacated and remanded, 495 F.2d 390 (5th Cir. 1974), rehearing denied, 498 F.2d 1402, cert. denied sub nom. Theriault v. Silber, 419 U.S. 1003, 95 S.Ct. 323, 42 L.Ed.2d 279 (1974), on remand, 391 F.Supp. 578 (W.D.Tex.1975), vacated and remanded, 547 F.2d 1279 (5th Cir. 1977), rehearing denied, 551 F.2d 863, cert. denied, 434 U.S. 871, 98 S.Ct. 216, 54 L.Ed.2d 150 (1977), rehearing denied, 434 U.S. 943, 98 S.Ct. 441, 54 L.Ed.2d 306 (1977), appeal dismissed, 574 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Theriault, dist. ct. aff’d in part, vacated and remanded in part, 526 F.2d 698 (5th Cir. 1976), after remand dist. ct. aff’d in part and remanded in part, 531 F.2d 281, rehearing denied, 534 F.2d 1407, cert. denied, 429 U.S. 898, 97 S.Ct. 262, 50 L.Ed.2d 182 (1976), dist. ct. aff’d, 555 F.2d 460 (1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 870, 98 S.Ct. 212, 54 L.Ed.2d 148 (1977); Theriault v. Pittman, 423 U.S. 818, 96 S.Ct. 155, 46 L.Ed.2d 114 (1975); Theriault v. Pittman, 423 U.S. 854, 96 S.Ct. 101, 46 L.Ed.2d 78 (1975); Theriault v. Pittman, 420 U.S. 989, 95 S.Ct. 1437, 43 L.Ed.2d 680 (1975); Theriault v. Carlson, 353 F.Supp. 1061 (N.D.Ga.1973), reversed, 495 F.2d 390 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied sub nom. Theriault v. Silber, 419 U.S. 1003, 95 S.Ct. 323, 42 L.Ed.2d 279 (1974); Theriault v. United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 416 U.S. 980, 94 S.Ct. 2414, 40 L.Ed.2d 777 (1974); Theriault v. Bartels, 415 U.S. 979, 94 S.Ct. 1567, 39 L.Ed.2d 875 (1974); Theriault v. United States, 481 F.2d 1193 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1114, 94 S.Ct. 847, 38 L.Ed.2d 742 (1973); United States v. Theriault, dist. ct. reversed and remanded, 440 F.2d 713 (5th Cir. 1971), dist. ct. aff’d, 474 F.2d 359 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 984, 93 S.Ct. 2278, 36 L.Ed.2d 960 (1973); Theriault v. United States, sentence vacated and case remanded, 434 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 869, 92 S.Ct. 124, 30 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971), aff’d, 467 F.2d 486 (1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 984, 93 S.Ct. 2280, 36 L.Ed.2d 961 (1973); Theriault v. Establishment of Religion on Taxpayers’ Money in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 411 U.S. 946, 93 S.Ct. 1937, 36 L.Ed.2d 418 (1973); Theriault v. Silber, 405 U.S. 1048, 92 S.Ct. 1328, 31 L.Ed.2d 590 (1972); United States v. Theriault, 447 F.2d 1361 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1064, 92 S.Ct. 750, 30 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972); Theriault v. United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 404 U.S. 936, 92 S.Ct. 304, 30 L.Ed.2d 269 (1971); Theriault v. Pittman, 404 U.S. 952, 92 S.Ct. 305, 30 L.Ed.2d 269 (1971); Theriault v. Mississippi, 404 U.S. 818, 92 S.Ct. 156, 30 L.Ed.2d 119 (1971); Theriault v. Harris, 404 U.S. 870, 92 S.Ct. 125, 30 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971), 403 U.S. 923, 91 S.Ct. 2238, 29 L.Ed.2d 702 rehearing denied, 404 U.S. 877, 92 S.Ct. 34, 30 L.Ed.2d 125 (1971); Theriault v. Blackwell, 437 F.2d 76 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 953, 91 S.Ct. 1637, 29 L.Ed.2d 122 (1971); Theriault v. Daggett, 401 U.S. 983, 91 S.Ct. 1205, 28 L.Ed.2d 335 (1971); Theriault v. United States, 401 U.S. 983, 91 S.Ct. 1205, 28 L.Ed.2d 335 (1971); Theriault v. United States, 409 F.2d 1313 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 933, 90 S.Ct. 274, 24 L.Ed.2d 231 (1969); Theriault v. United States, 402 F.2d 792 (5thCir.1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 965, 89 S.Ct. 2110, 23 L.Ed.2d 751 (1969), rehearing denied, 396 U.S. 870, 90 S.Ct. 42, 24 L.Ed.2d 128 (1969); Theriault v. Peek, 406 F.2d 117 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 1021, 89 S.Ct. 1644, 23 L.Ed.2d 47 (1969); United States v. Theriault, 268 F.Supp. 314 (W.D.Ark.1967), aff’d, 401 F.2d 79 (8th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1100, 89 S.Ct. 898, 21 L.Ed.2d 792 (1969), rehearing denied, 394 U.S. 939, 89 S.Ct. 1201, 22 L.Ed.2d 474 (1969); Theriault v. Mississippi, 433 F.2d 990 (5th Cir. 1970); Theriault v. Mississippi, 390 F.2d 657 (5th Cir. 1968)
BarkinDog – it does appear that the plaintiff head of CONS has waaaaaay too much time on his hands.
Did you folks ever hear of the prison religious group known as the Church Of The New Song? They sued in federal court to exercise their rights to have service and other religious habits respected. The acronym says something about their religion and all religions. CONS.
That is supposed to be revoked. I have already apologized for my keyboard so hopefully the new one will be here soon 😉