174
top 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 44 points 4 days ago

The right sure loves punching down. Just like the Bible tells us to do.

[-] UpperBroccoli@lemmy.blahaj.zone 38 points 4 days ago

Judge a society by how it treats its weakest members. And judge hard.

[-] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I know I should be used to it by now but it shocks me that there are likely millions of christian conservatives who would yell at you for this, even though this sentiment is literally echoed exactly by Jesus.

And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

That verse swings both ways. God isn't counting all your good deeds for the 'least of my brothers', but none of your transgressions against them.

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 days ago

Conservative (and let’s be real, also neoliberal) Christians hate that verse. There are so few places in the NT where Jesus explicitly says “you will go to hell for this,” and that’s one of them. They get extremely uncomfortable if you make them think about how they believe they will one day have to stand in front of God and explain why they ignored this verse.

So naturally I advocate bringing it up to them as much as possible. There actually are a lot of deeply Christian people who are disturbed by the dissonance there, and for the most part the messaging just isn’t happening. Like, what is the biggest Jesus advertisement campaign right now? Probably the ~~Protestant Buddy Jesus~~ “He gets us” campaign, which doesn’t really say much of anything.

[-] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 4 days ago

Yes, I'm sure some of those judges are hard right now

[-] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 37 points 4 days ago

So then where are people supposed to sleep when nothing else is available, how can it possibly be a crime to give yourself shelter and sleep?

[-] negativenull@lemmy.world 24 points 4 days ago

It is now illegal to sleep while homeless

[-] hypnoton@discuss.online 6 points 4 days ago

So poverty leads to slavery via the 13th amendment.

That's dark.

I can't believe the billionaires aren't yet worried about their safety. This environment is the stuff of revolutions.

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

There's also death. Don't forget about death.

[-] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Guess we're about to find out what happens when you take 600,000 economically disparaged people and temporarily lock them up in an understaffed for profit penal institution that is currently in the middle of historically low classes of recruits. Im sure this will make everyone involved a better person.

[-] SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

A crime wave they can blame on democrats?

[-] Phegan@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

Slavery 2.0

[-] rand_alpha19@moist.catsweat.com 19 points 4 days ago

SCOTUS: "Good news, everyone! We figured out how to keep up the prison population amid record low crime rates so you won't have to pay minimum wage, isn't that great?"

[-] dhcmrlchtdj__@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago
[-] Snowclone@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

What was that thing Jesus said? Do unto others?.... the greatest commandment is to love one... give all your possessions and follow..... something something... the least among you..... snaps fingers Hate gay people! That's what I'm supposed to do! Control women's medical choices, and make sure gay people have no rights. of course!

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 6 points 4 days ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


It comes as cities nationwide grapple with a spike in the number of people without access to shelter, driven in part by high housing costs and the end of aid programs launched in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ruling is likely to clear the way for state and local officials to mete out civil punishments in an effort to curtail homeless encampments, which have spread throughout the West as a result of a federal appeals court decision in the case involving anti-camping ordinances from Grants Pass, Oregon.

A number of state and local leaders across party lines have defended camping bans as necessary for protecting public health and safety, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found laws imposing civil penalties on homeless people for sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go are unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court reversed that decision, concluding that the enforcement of laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

In 2013, local officials decided to ramp up enforcement of ordinances that prohibit sleeping or camping on public property or in city parks.

A divided panel of three judges on the 9th Circuit upheld the district court's decision, finding that Grants Pass couldn't enforce its anti-camping ordinances against homeless people merely for sleeping outside with protection from the elements when they have nowhere else in the city to go.


The original article contains 678 words, the summary contains 237 words. Saved 65%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Zeke@fedia.io 3 points 4 days ago

The Supreme Court is out of control. No one should have this much power.

this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
174 points (98.3% liked)

politics

18069 readers
3775 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS