re: #325 Obdicut

Okay, then you’re not talking about the law as it exists in the US, so who cares?

If you don’t know that the law in the US came from enlightenment thinking, that the creators of the Constitution were very much men of the Enlightenment, I can’t do much to help you except to tell you to read up on the subject.

not necessary. I was addressing the evolution of law from ancient systems. Jewish law, hamurabic codes, druidical law, ten commandments etc. US Law coming out of the Enlightenment is not in dispute.

This is a good place to start: [Link: www.amazon.com…]

I was asking you to display the courtesy of making your argument easy to read.

I am Jewish.

by which you must mean you are an atheist son of a Jewish mother. my father was a christian son of a Jewish mother. no snark, real question: is it proper to refer to my father as Jewish?

I’m glad you’re acknowledging that they’re going on. For some reason, that eventually the courts are striking some— but not all— of them down, is a ‘pendulum swing’ to you. Weird.

A few are, like DADT, with harsh opposition from the GOP.

Which is my point. There’s a large percentage of the population passing such laws. Your contention that the pendulum has swung the other way is without merit.

If we start from the assertion that the body of laws governing the US grew from Philosophy and the Enlightenment, then obviously the preponderance of laws are not the result of fundamentalist theocrats. What few exist are not generally well supported or enforced. DADT is a good example of that condition. Many recent attempts of god-says-so laws have been voted down. The times are changing, and its not toward christian theocracy, despite the candidates forum.