[Texas] Carter Co-Authors Strict Voter ID Legislation
Honestly, the Voter ID is not that big a deal for me. It seems like a good idea and I would support it except Texas is in the middle of a $25 billion budget crisis. If voter fraud is such a rampant problem for Republicans, how did they manage to win the majority in the last election?
Can we start focusing on real problems instead of trying to shift blame elsewhere?
And didn't Perry spend most of his re-election campaign bragging how his fiscal conservative values saved Texas from the national recession?
Texas Budget Cuts Could Shrink Mental Health Help
Well at least we know how they will fund all those ads they will buy to convince Texans what a good idea Voter ID is.
Texas Lawmakers Propose Raiding Auto Theft Fund
While we are talking about the constitutionality of forcing people to buy services they may not want, can we put car insurance on the table?
Sorry. I am not exactly happy with my law makers right now.
HD, your thoughts?
HD is temporarily off the net, last I heard.
I'm a registered Texas voter -- made sure to register for the sole purpose of voting AGAINST that snake Perry -- and I share a lot of CourtFools' concerns. Namely, Perry's "conservative fiscal values" are similar to Bush's: cook the books and selectively don't mention large expenditures in order to make things seem better than they are.
I'm a fiscal conservative, but in the older sense of "wanting to actually balance the books," not in this Neocon sense of "cooking the books until they look like maybe they're balanced."
This new "anti-voter fraud" initiative consists of (a) politicians passing meaningless laws to justify their wretched, worthless existence; and (b) shifting attention away from the budget problems and onto everyone's favored scapegoat, "those illegals!"
...Sorry. I am not exactly happy with my law makers right now.
Right now?! They've been making me cranky for ever a decade. :)
To be honest, I have not been paying attention until recently.
Partly because I am a state employee right now and I fear for my job.
To be honest, I have not been paying attention until recently.
Partly because I am a state employee right now and I fear for my job.
Ah. If it helps, many of us in FL are not exactly happy with the Thief in Charge, aka Governor Scott, either.
82nd Legislature Regular Session file House Bills as of 02/03/2011
Anyone else see a re-occurring theme?
Why just the ten commandments? Why is no other religious ordinance equally protected?
|
Why just the ten commandments? Why is no other religious ordinance equally protected?
They should be. I would assume they're not because I've yet to see anyone sue over a religious ordinance display that is NOT the Ten Commandments, but assumptions...yeah.
On the other hand, I'm glad you're getting involved. What does it mean that no matter what his or her stance on issues, when a citizen gets involved in government, they're pretty much universally unhappy with what they see?
:P
|
Why just the ten commandments? Why is no other religious ordinance equally protected?
They should be. I would assume they're not because I've yet to see anyone sue over a religious ordinance display that is NOT the Ten Commandments, but assumptions...yeah.
On the other hand, I'm glad you're getting involved. What does it mean that no matter what his or her stance on issues, when a citizen gets involved in government, they're pretty much universally unhappy with what they see?
:P
Because the people who are happy don't generally come on the Net/write to their local paper/call the local radio or TV station to say how happy they are? The disenchanted are always louder than the contented. This doesn't mean they should be dismissed, but just because all the pople you see are complaining doesn't eman all the people are complaining.
HB 47; WTF is a tire deflation device!?
Are they going to include tire pressure gauges, pocket knives, and pens??
*facepalm*
The board of trustees of an independent school district may not prohibit the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments in a prominent location in a district classroom.
I want a bill that prohibits anyone from preventing me from posting selected Islamic suras in prominent locations in all classrooms. Wait, no, I don't. Will someone remind me again why the Ten Commandments need to be posted, front and center, in math class?
Something like the USMA honor code: "A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do," would be appropriate and useful -- I'd support that being posted. But a reminder to the kids to keep the Sabbath holy (just to rub in the fact that it's not even Friday yet, much less Sunday?) doesn't seem to merit a law enforcing its inclusion.
It's stuff like this that firmly convinces me that my assessment of "politicians passing meaningless laws to justify their wretched, worthless existence" is dead-on accurate.
The board of trustees of an independent school district may not prohibit the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments in a prominent location in a district classroom.I want a bill that prohibits anyone from preventing me from posting selected Islamic suras in prominent locations in all classrooms. Wait, no, I don't. Will someone remind me again why the Ten Commandments need to be posted, front and center, in math class?
Something like the USMA honor code: "A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do," would be appropriate and useful -- I'd support that being posted. But a reminder to the kids to keep the Sabbath holy (just to rub in the fact that it's not even Friday yet, much less Sunday?) doesn't seem to merit a law enforcing its inclusion.
The Sabbath is Saturday but you can't expect a bunch of bible-belters, who only thump the bible not read it, to know that.
Edit: That was a jab at holier than God politicians, not Kirth.
It's stuff like this that firmly convinces me that my assessment of "politicians passing meaningless laws to justify their wretched, worthless existence" is dead-on accurate.
Also it's sad how these idiotic laws just keep piling up year after year and decade after decade.
Because, like it or not we are a country founded on the CHRISTIAN principles that are embodied in the ten commandments.
Dude, have you ever so much as glanced at the U.S. Constitution? Please find me the article that says we need to honor the Sabbath, or have no other gods, etc., etc. Or just quote any article at all, in the entire Constitution, that gives the slightest bit of credence to your statement.
Alternatively, find me the Commandment that dictates a representative government.
In short, your statement is completely false.
[Texas] Carter Co-Authors Strict Voter ID Legislation
Honestly, the Voter ID is not that big a deal for me.
Voter ID law is politics at its most cynical.
It's stated purpose is to prevent election fraud. No one can question that election fraud is a bad thing (I'm from Chicago; I know), preventing it a good thing, and that stricter ID laws prevent some scintilla of fraud from occurring.
It's also generally understood that there's a much more prevalent effect of tending to impair the voting rights people who already fall to the more disenfranchised side of the electorate, both in reality and in spirit. In a lot of ways, it's the spirit that's more troubling, because it's not like it causes everyone else to perceive an increased value for their own votes.
It's almost unsporting.
|
Because, like it or not we are a country founded on the CHRISTIAN principles that are embodied in the ten commandments.Dude, have you ever so much as glanced at the U.S. Constitution? Please find me the article that says we need to honor the Sabbath, or have no other gods, etc., etc. Or just quote any article at all, in the entire Constitution, that gives the slightest bit of credence to your statement.
Alternatively, find me the Commandment that dictates a representative government.
In short, your statement is completely false.
Alternately, find me a single founding father that quoted the Quran or gave thanks to Allah. My statement is not false, you simply don't like it. Luckily, your dislike of a thing does not change it's reality.
George Carlin said it best as to why the Ten Commandments should never be posted in a state or federal building (emphasis mine)
"The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse? You cannot post "Thou Shall Not Steal," and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians! It creates a hostile work environment!"
The man was a genius...RIP, George...
Because, like it or not we are a country founded on the CHRISTIAN principles that are embodied in the ten commandments.Why just the ten commandments? Why is no other religious ordinance equally protected?
Assuming for a moment that you're right (and I don't think it's baseless, but I do think it's an oversimplification) it's a weak argument. If the U.S. is a country founded on Christian principles, then why is there a law that allows one rather specific passage? Why not the New Testament in general? And note even one that's expressly core to (or, indeed, critical to) Christianity? It's almost disrespectful.
|
|
Assuming for a moment that you're right (and I don't think it's baseless, but I do think it's an oversimplification) it's a weak argument. If the U.S. is a country founded on Christian principles, then why is there a law that allows one rather specific passage? Why not the New Testament in general? And note even one that's expressly core to (or, indeed, critical to) Christianity? It's almost disrespectful.Because, like it or not we are a country founded on the CHRISTIAN principles that are embodied in the ten commandments.Why just the ten commandments? Why is no other religious ordinance equally protected?
Because it's easier to reintroduce a single passage than it is the entire Bible, which was once accepted and welcome in it's entirety in the classroom. Whether an individual is Christian or not there is very little fault that can be found in the ten. Well besides that other gods line, that would be hard for non-Christians, but other than that they are pretty basic human decency.
[Texas] Carter Co-Authors Strict Voter ID Legislation
Honestly, the Voter ID is not that big a deal for me.
Voter ID law is politics at its most cynical.
It's stated purpose is to prevent election fraud. No one can question that election fraud is a bad thing (I'm from Chicago; I know), preventing it a good thing, and that stricter ID laws prevent some scintilla of fraud from occurring.
It's also generally understood that there's a much more prevalent effect of tending to impair the voting rights people who already fall to the more disenfranchised side of the electorate, both in reality and in spirit. In a lot of ways, it's the spirit that's more troubling, because it's not like it causes everyone else to perceive an increased value for their own votes.
It's almost unsporting.
I'm conflicted. Any law that says, "Show me your papers.", makes me uncomfortable, but it seems odd to me that the standard for voting should be lower than the standard for getting a beer. I have had to produce ID for voting for decades; it seems like there should be some minimum standard to discourage fraud.
Because, like it or not we are a country founded on the CHRISTIAN principles that are embodied in the ten commandments.Why just the ten commandments? Why is no other religious ordinance equally protected?
Most of the CHRISTAN principles laid down in the 10 commandments are contrary to democracy and free trade so what you said can't be true.
I am the Lord your God
You shall have no other gods before me
You shall not make for yourself an idol
Do not take the name of the Lord in vain
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Honor your father and mother
You shall not kill/murder
You shall not commit adultery
You shall not steal
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
You shall not covet‡ your neighbor's wife
You shall not covet‡ anything that belongs to your neighbor
So the founding fathers are just like Texas Republicans and don't read the bible, or more likely they just don't follow its teachings.
Whether an individual is Christian or not there is very little fault that can be found in the ten. Well besides that other gods line, that would be hard for non-Christians, but other than that they are pretty basic human decency.
Have you ever actually read the Ten Commandments? Half the things are nothing more than orders peculiar to your religious practice. They've got nothing to do with human decency and everything to do with following Yahweh's orders, quite often at the explicit expense of human decency:
No gods but Yahweh? I think freedom from religious impositions is a cornerstone of human decency. Demanding instead that we all follow this guy, whether we want to or not, is its very antithesis.
Even if you follow him, no images? No taking Yahweh's name in vain? Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of my concept of human decency. This, again, is its antithesis.
Honor your mother and father? Whatever they did or didn't do? I've known people who had mothers and fathers who beat them, who raped them, who did everything in their power to make these poor children feel absolutely worthless and helpless. Asking them to honor their parents is more than indecent, it's outright sick. Parents don't automatically deserve respect any more than anybody else does. And again, freedom of expression must include saying things people don't like.
That puts us about halfway through and we've yet to find human decency. Fortunately it arrives with the no killing business. I'm fine with that one, except that the context makes it clear that killing isn't wrong because it's wrong, but rather because your god says it is.
Took long enough to find a worthwhile commandment, didn't it? You know, one that isn't bound up in your particular religious tradition but actually does have some kind of connection to human decency instead of merely to your religious practice and its various rules?
It would be a trivial exercise for this non-Christian to find fault with all but the no killing rule, and that's the one everybody else always starts looking for loopholes in.
So...try again?
Also: Ninjaed by Xabulba.
Alternately, find me a single founding father that quoted the Quran or gave thanks to Allah.
I don't need to -- I never made the claim that the U.S. was founded on Islam, unlike your claim that it was founded on the Ten Commandments.
|
|
Alternately, find me a single founding father that quoted the Quran or gave thanks to Allah.I don't need to -- I never made the claim that the U.S. was founded on Islam, unlike your claim that it was founded on the Ten Commandments.
Insert holy scriptures/deity of your choice, I used Islam simply because it is the most commonly discussed non-christian religion these days.
Xabulba, Samnell... yeah, not even gonna bother. Go ahead and chalk that up as a 'win' if it makes you feel better.
Xabulba, Samnell... yeah, not even gonna bother.
I didn't expect you to dirty yourself with actually reading your commandments, but thanks for confirming it.
|
|
Alternately, find me a single founding father that quoted the Quran or gave thanks to Allah.I don't need to -- I never made the claim that the U.S. was founded on Islam, unlike your claim that it was founded on the Ten Commandments.Insert holy scriptures/deity of your choice, I used Islam simply because it is the most commonly discussed non-christian religion these days.
Xabulba, Samnell... yeah, not even gonna bother. Go ahead and chalk that up as a 'win' if it makes you feel better.
Wolfthulu,
Just curious but how is the 1st Amendment, which Jefferson said in a private letter was to buiild a wall of separation between church and state, compatible with your belief that the US was founded as an explicitly Christian nation?While you're at it, could you point out where God or Christ appears in the Constitution of the US?
Insert holy scriptures/deity of your choice, I used Islam simply because it is the most commonly discussed non-christian religion these days.
Ah, so you're starting with the implicit assumption that (1) the U.S. must have been founded on a religion. Then, since (2) none of the others were in vogue here at the time, it therefore must have been Christianity?
I'd suggest that your initial assumption (1) bears questioning, not the second one. I'd propose that the framers were well aware of the centuries of strife in Europe that resulted from excessive church/state entanglement, and opted instead to found the U.S. on different principles -- things like reresentative government, balance of power, and the consent of the governed. Reading the Framers' letters can be instructive, especially with regards to how any number of them specifically wanted Christianity to be written into the Constitution, but that in the end all mention of it was left out -- and why that was.
|
|
Alternately, find me a single founding father that quoted the Quran or gave thanks to Allah.I don't need to -- I never made the claim that the U.S. was founded on Islam, unlike your claim that it was founded on the Ten Commandments.Insert holy scriptures/deity of your choice, I used Islam simply because it is the most commonly discussed non-christian religion these days.
Xabulba, Samnell... yeah, not even gonna bother. Go ahead and chalk that up as a 'win' if it makes you feel better.
just a point, Jefferson owned a Copy of the Qur'an and thought very highly of the religion as did John Adams *Though his son I believe thought differently*.
|
|
Insert holy scriptures/deity of your choice, I used Islam simply because it is the most commonly discussed non-christian religion these days.Ah, so you're starting with the implicit assumption that (1) the U.S. must have been founded on a religion. Then, since (2) none of the others were in vogue here at the time, it therefore must have been Christianity?
I'd suggest that your initial assumption (1) bears questioning, not the second one. I'd propose that the framers were well aware of the centuries of strife in Europe that resulted from excessive church/state entanglement, and opted instead to found the U.S. on different principles -- things like reresentative government, balance of power, and the consent of the governed. Reading the Framers' letters can be instructive, especially with regards to how any number of them specifically wanted Christianity to be written into the Constitution, but that in the end all mention of it was left out -- and why that was.
The founders knew the difference between a State Religion and a Religious State. It is entirely possible to have one without the other.
The founders knew the difference between a State Religion and a Religious State. It is entirely possible to have one without the other.
I agree. And it worked out nicely for us -- we ended up with a relgious state (in the repsect that people have freedom of worship, and a clear majority use that freedom to practice Christianity) without having a state religion (Christianity, which the Constitution is in no way founded upon, or any other).
|
|
just a point, Jefferson owned a Copy of the Qur'an and thought very highly of the religion as did John Adams *Though his son I believe thought differently*.Alternately, find me a single founding father that quoted the Quran or gave thanks to Allah.I don't need to -- I never made the claim that the U.S. was founded on Islam, unlike your claim that it was founded on the Ten Commandments.Insert holy scriptures/deity of your choice, I used Islam simply because it is the most commonly discussed non-christian religion these days.
Xabulba, Samnell... yeah, not even gonna bother. Go ahead and chalk that up as a 'win' if it makes you feel better.
I own a Quran too. A Book of Mormon as well for that matter. I can totally respect parts of them both, yet I do not subscribe to the whole in either case.
|
|
Wolfthulu,
Just curious but how is the 1st Amendment, which Jefferson said in a private letter was to buiild a wall of separation between church and state, compatible with your belief that the US was founded as an explicitly Christian nation?
The wall of separation is not to keep religion out of the public square - not to protect government from the effect of a religious people. It was to protect the people from a state religion (i.e. the Church of England).
The establishment of the nation didn't at its founding and doesn't now require that all citizens follow a Judeo-Christian religion. But the very foundations of the idea that men have rights comes from Judeo-Christian philosophy.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams
Whether you think that a generally religious populace is necessary or not, many of the founding fathers thought it so at our founding. It is much easier to argue that we are no longer a religious people (as a whole) than that Americans weren't at the founding.
|
|
just a point, Jefferson owned a Copy of the Qur'an and thought very highly of the religion as did John Adams *Though his son I believe thought differently*.
I've never heard of Jefferson thinking "very highly" of Islam before. He studied the Qur'an, first to expand his legal thinking, and later, when President, for context in dealing with the Barbary Pirates.
He explicitly wanted Jews, Christians, and Muslims treated equally under the law, but some have made the argument, due to how he organized his personal library, that he saw Islam as a step up from paganism but below Christianity.
In any case, any state-sponsored religion would be a "no-no," to use a technical legal term.
But the very foundations of the idea that men have rights comes from Judeo-Christian philosophy.
That idea is not unique to that philosophy, though, any more than the idea of "murder is bad" is unique to a particular religion (i.e., it's not). Nor did the idea of rights of man even start with Judeo-Christian philosophy; Cf. the ancient Greek Stoics, for example.
|
|
Wolfthulu,
Just curious but how is the 1st Amendment, which Jefferson said in a private letter was to buiild a wall of separation between church and state, compatible with your belief that the US was founded as an explicitly Christian nation?The wall of separation is not to keep religion out of the public square - not to protect government from the effect of a religious people. It was to protect the people from a state religion (i.e. the Church of England).
The establishment of the nation didn't at its founding and doesn't now require that all citizens follow a Judeo-Christian religion. But the very foundations of the idea that men have rights comes from Judeo-Christian philosophy.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams
Whether you think that a generally religious populace is necessary or not, many of the founding fathers thought it so at our founding. It is much easier to argue that we are no longer a religious people (as a whole) than that Americans weren't at the founding.
This is true, however, a public school is an arm of the government and therefore has no business endorsing any religion over all others, even if it happens to be a popular one. Actually, especiall yif it happens to be a popular one as then you have the majopprity sayign to everyone else: "Believe this or you're not welcome".
This is not about keeping religion out of the public square, it's about preventing the government from forcing one religion on people.
The idea that killing and stealing = bad originated in your particular religion of choice is rather self-indulgent.
And how about this bit of heresy…I do not particularly care how the founding fathers felt about religion. I do not want anyone shoving theirs down my throat. You certainly would not want me posting my personal beliefs in a classroom.
Just to point out, Xabulba, every one of your 'part of Aramaic culture since before Christ' and 'since pre-Babylon' points are non-points. The Ten Commandments are from Judaism, not Christianity, and are thus obviously older than Christ or Babylon.
Samnell, you are grasping at straws with which to build a man if you think that 'Honor your mother and father' would be applied to rapist molester parents.
However. America. Land of the Free. Not Land of the Christians. Here are some of the Founding Fathers' thoughts on Christianity.
"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."--- Benjamin Franklin, Works, Vol. VII, p. 75
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" --- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814
"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." --- Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval, 1810
"It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentence toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it." --- Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, 1820 ---
"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
Just to point out, Xabulba, every one of your 'part of Aramaic culture since before Christ' and 'since pre-Babylon' points are non-points. The Ten Commandments are from Judaism, not Christianity, and are thus obviously older than Christ or Babylon.
Babylonian culture is older than Judaism and the Zoroastrian religion founded in Babylon is the foundation of the Judeo-christen traditions. So the ideas/laws presented in the Ten Commandments were presented by Zoroaster first.
Everything I've read points to Zoasterism being younger than Judaism, although the shift in practices and ideals once the two encountered each other is undeniable. However, Zoasterism didn't influence the 'don't kill' law or Ten Commandments. At the time of the Ten Commandments, Israelites were hardly monotheists, which is the most important facet of Zoasterism that influenced Judaism.
However, I was thinking neo-Babylon, not Hammurabi's. Hammurabi is younger than Abraham but older than Moses, so his law would have predated the Commandments by nearly 500 years. I suspect however, the code against killing is much older than that.
All of this is distracting from the important issue: punish the brown people for trying to make their lives better.
(b) An entity described by Subsection (a) may not adopt a
policy under which the entity will not fully enforce the laws of
this state or federal law, including laws relating to:
(1) drugs, including Chapters 481 and 483, Health and
Safety Code; and
(2) immigrants or immigration, including the federal
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. Section 1101 et seq.)
It is entirely o.k. for an entity described by Subsection (a) to adopt a policy under which the entity will not fully enforce any other laws of this state or other federal laws…especially healthcare.
This reminds me of the signs which state it is an offense not to follow other posted traffic signs or the one where you have to sign agreeing that, it is in fact, your signature.
However, I was thinking neo-Babylon, not Hammurabi's. Hammurabi is younger than Abraham but older than Moses, so his law would have predated the Commandments by nearly 500 years. I suspect however, the code against killing is much older than that.
Hammurabi does have the advantage of having existed, which grants him seniority.
And:
Samnell, you are grasping at straws with which to build a man if you think that 'Honor your mother and father' would be applied to rapist molester parents.
If I'd written them, the commandments would have suggested honoring only things that deserve honoring, not every person who ever managed to procreate. But I didn't, and what's in them is what's in them.
To insist they apply only to parents worthy of respect is to inject into the words a sentiment clearly alien to them. Just as the first commandment doesn't have any exceptions for other gods than Yahweh who are harmless sorts, or even really cool, the one in question doesn't exclude rapists, child abusers, or the like.