jryan

I think that the government just assumed that you love standing in queue.

I certainly have. I grew up in a denomination with a very heavy emphasis on scripture. I can still recite whole chapters. I've taken nothing out of context.

Well, yes you have, as I have pointed out already. So I'm not sure how much weight I should put in the rest of your claim.

Merged post follows:

Blessed are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes; truly I tell you, he will fasten his belt and have them sit down to eat, and he will come and serve them. If he comes during the middle of the night, or near dawn, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves... Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives...

 

Jesus is blessing slaves who do their master’s bidding and asking for people to be like his slaves.

He's talking about Christians. I seriously doubt your claim of understanding the context here.

As I showed you in Corinthians Paul has stated that no man is slave to anyone but God, and God is like no human Master as his commandments lead to happiness and salvation rather than mere toil and strife.

I don't think it was in bad taste as he was speaking to a very common problem in human societies and telling people that only through God can they rise above it.

What verses does this refer to specifically, and in what Bible translation? The ending of Mark 13 is the closest to what you've stated, but in context, it's not an endorsement of slavery, it's an admonishment to be ready for the Second Coming.

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013:32-37&version=NIV

 

 

It's a metaphor.

Another close approximation is Luke 12:37... but again, it does not say what Iggy wants it to say:

(King James Version)

"Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he comes shall find watching: truly I say to you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them."

So yeah, it is a metaphor for Christian life. You live in service of the Lord not knowing when your judgment will come. In this case the master, when he returns, will become the servant to those who have remained ready... hardly a message that is condoning slavery.

Merged post follows:

Also, there is another important bit of context in the use of "Doulos" by the Bible, and by Paul especially. Paul viewed his relationship to God as that of a slave to a master. He could not break his bond to God and he had been "bought with a price" (being the sacrifice of Jesus for his sins).

In this passage Paul is not condoning "doulos" to any but God, but as a servant of God you are commanded to treat your fellow man with respect and love even if they are your earthy master.

Earlier Paul says the following to the Corinthians:

Your spirit and body are God's, not man's. Hardly seems a ringing endorsement of Earthly slavery. Also, servitude to God here on Earth is really not the same thing as what we connote with Earthly slavery.

So knowing in what context Paul used the term duolos is rather important. As I said many times already, each passage in the bible comes attached to a thousand passages of context. Addressing individual passages without the context is of little value.

Now you have the very beginnings of Paul's context. I suggest you read all of Paul's epistles (Corinthians 1&2, Galatians, Thessalonians 1&2, Philippians and Colossians) if you want to really understand the context of his various passages.

Believe all you like, but what do you think the effect of them being required to do everything legally possible to enforce this particular law will be?

Well, it will be legal, for starters...

Perhaps the verse in question is actually Paul telling the slave not to be discouraged about being a slave, since their real master is the LORD. It doesn't really seem to be speaking out against slavery.

 

 

 

I don't think so. The language(and positioning of the text) elsewhere is similar to that which he used in telling women to be submissive to their husbands. You'd be better off trying to compare it to that.

 

The fact is he didn't tell the Christians that they need to free their slaves, but why would he? It was an acceptable part of the culture.

 

It's an example of where the textual and cultural context are important.

But again, the term being used here is "servant", not slave. The resident cook at the White House isn't a slave, right?

And the passage about women being subservient has a lot more to it than just that. And the Bible is filled with strong women... heck, this thread was started in part because of the Catholics reverence of Mary.

Yet he said for them to be obedient. Hmm....

He is working both sides toward a peaceful resolution.

Also, "the liberal New York Times"? Should I start prefixing any references to News Corp, Fox, etc. as "the ultraconservative News Corp"?

Haven't you already started a thread that specifically asks others to do just that?

From the opening post in that thread:

"If someone starts a thread citing only a News Corp source, provide additional sources, commentary, your own opinion, and gently remind the poster that News Corp is not a traditional news organization and is attempting to foster a particular narrative in which they present news which is not objective and in many cases can lead to counterproductive discussion."

Isn't Pangloss simply "gently reminding" that the New York Times has a liberal bias?

He's not endorsing Slavery in those passages he is simply acknowledging that slavery exists.

... WHAT..?

 

Dude.. The bible is in hebrew/aramaic. The word "Saturday" came *after* the word "Sabbath" was invented, and given to the same day.

And you've completely missed my point.

If you want to argue the meaning of Hebrew words and meanings you have to accept that you can't flippantly bounce back and fourth between two common ENGLISH translations as if they are the same thing.

I don't get what you were trying to say there, but there *are* other languages than English, which came to them.

I know there are other languages, mooeypoo. You are putting the cart before the horse. But you have your logic so tangled it is hard to untangle it.

I'll try again: Shabbat in Hebrew has two meanings.. one if a verb (rest), the other is a noun (day of the week- Saturday). The latter was derived from the former.

Note that the wording in the Ten Commandments is important here as well:

Exodus 20:9-10) " 9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work. 10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns."

Deuteronomy 5:13-14) "13 For six days you shall labour and do all your work. 14 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you."

Exodus 34:21) "21 For six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even in ploughing time and in harvest time you shall rest."

The wording here is important, but the original Hebrew text is not terribly enlightening as to the day we are to keep Holy either. I mean, the EXACT translation of the Hebrew is: "Rest To Keep it Holy Remember Day"

So again, I see nothing wrong with the English translations above, and none of the translations mention a specific day of the week for which we are commanded to rest... but rather to rest one of every seven. So the choice of Saturday is a Judaic tradition, but not a mandate by the Ten Commandments.

In other words: Did the Jews shabbat on Shabbat before they were commanded to shabbat on Shabbat? And was Shabbat called Shabbat before they were commanded to shabbat on Shabbat? Because if Shabbat is called Shabbat BECAUSE they shabbat on Shabbat and they didn't shabbat on Shabbat before they were commanded to shabbat on Shabbat then how can we assume that a commandment for us to shabbat mean explicitely that we must only shabbat on Shabbat?

As an aside: if shabbat was coined from Shabbat did the Jews shabbat on Shabbat, or did they shabbat at all before ordered to shabbat on Shabbat?

As you can see, your insistence on combing the two meanings in Hebrew into one only complicates the matter, and you can't assume that at the time of the writing of the writing of the Ten Commandments that Shabbat and shabbat were the same "shabbat".

First there was the day. Then it recieved the name "Shabat" after what God allegedly did at that day. Then came other languages who called this day other names, one of which is "Saturday".

So they had no word for rest before they had the word for the day? Poor buggers. So it was a Commandment before Moses, then?

The literal translation of Shabbat is rest, becfause the bible dosn't speak swahili. It speaks hebrew/aramaic.

No, I'm pretty sure "shabbat" translates to "wegine" in Swahili. But it oddly doesn't translate to Jamamosi.

If your law is that it can be whatever, then I assert the definition of "God" is, actually, "mooeypoo" and demand you bow to my omnibeauty.

The law reads that it can PRECISELY be whenever. Just that it is one day out of seven, of one day after six.

You're making no sense. Literal is literal. Either you believe the bible is given by god (and then the original is obviously superior to any *human* nterpretation) and that it's literally true (in which case, words are judged by their proper contextual meaning, such as "Sabbath" the day and the meaning) or you don't.

No, mooeypoo, the point is that the word "shabbat" has two meanings in Hebrew and you can't assume that the fourth commandment means both.

You are making no sense, jryan.

I'm making perfect sense given the confusion of the Hebrew translation and their recycling of words. Like going to a Sunday mass expecting ice cream.

No, I'm not wrong, I'm just making a different assertion than you thought I did.

Here's a claim: I follow the cultural spirit of Star trek the original series (TOS).

 

If I start wearing mini skirts and bang anything that movies, I am consistent.

If I put up the "TNG" uniform and claim TNG is updating TOS, then I just found a reason why I don't follow TOS but rather TNG. Sure, they're connected, they have the same writers more or less, the same producer and inventor, and sometimes cross-over characters. But if I go the TNG-way of the uniform, then I don't do the TOS wya.

 

I don't need to know what was said in star trek voyager as to *why* or *how* or *who* not to do the TOS or why is it okay not to follow TOS to know that if I don't go by the TOS uniforms, then I don't follow the TOS.

Are you high?

I don't care if you follow the new testament or the book of the dead. IF you claim you follow the ten commandments, you need to follow the ten commandments.

Which I do.

Since you don't follow them, you feel the need to explain why. I don't care why, because I'm not religious. I don't follow them either.

I'm just consistent enough to admit that.

The bible is explicit. Shabbat. Also, in days of slavery, did Christians let their slaves rest on Shabbat? Their livestock and pets not work? That's the continuance of the commandment.

Now you have opened a third aspect to the debate. But you know, slave owners were not adhering to much of the bible anyway, when you include the New Testament.

And yet, it's not Sabbath, is it? Historically, the day changed FROM Sabbath *TO* Sunday. On purpose. To distinguish the Christians from the Jews, and to welcome the pagans.

Actually, it changed from Saturday to Sunday, or from Shabbat to Reeshon, You are mixing languages and further confusing the discussion, otherwise.

Knowingly, the day changed from what is claimed in the commandments.

No no no no no. You only assume that the term Shabbat in the Ten Commandments is the day of the week and not the action for which the day was named. YOU believe that, but it isn't demonstrably so. The actual wording doesn't help to solidify your interpretation, either.

I don't care that you do it or not do it but you're not being consistent when you claim to follow a literal text that you keep excuse why it's perfectly fine you're not following literally.

 

Literal, or not literal, jryan? Pick one.....

I choose the literal interpretation using Shabbat the verb, you choose the literal translation using Shabbat the day. You have absolutely no grounds on which to fault my very literal translation. You have tried, but you have failed.

Or you get so comfortable with your jailbreak iPad that you forget it's actually a jailbreak iPad when you take it in for service a few months later.

I'm surprised that Apple hasn't just written their own flash compatible plug-in by now. That's what Microsoft would have done!

Cap'n, the ten commandments say you should not work on the Sabbath.

If you work on the Sabbath you disobey the ten commandments.

 

 

If Jesus said "oh, wait, it's not Sabbath, it's just a seventh day.. count from whenever!" then he changed the LITERAL meaning to a symbolic meaning.

Saturday translates to "Shabbat" in Hebrew because the Hebrew word for "rest" is "shabbat". "Rest", on the other hand, doesn't mean "Saturday".

So the LITERAL translation of Shabbat can be "Saturday" or "rest" but doesn't have to be both.

Merged post follows:

Oh, jews today disagreed on what consists work too, so you have arguments of should you turn the lights on or not, or pick your nose or not, or drive a car, etc.

 

But Christianity's day of rest is Sunday. Not Sabbath. There's not even an ATTEMPT to 'not work'.. or not do work. There's a change of day.

 

I don't make claims on what Jesus said, though. I make claims on actual actions. If you follow the corrections in the sequel, that's fine. Don't claim to follow the original, then.

 

~moo

And you are COMPLETELY wrong there as well.

A great many Christians don't work on Sunday. The whole idea of a weekend was to correspond with Jewish and Christian Sabbath observances!

As the U.S. became more multi-cultural Sunday became a little more loose to accommodate non-Christians. But in my lifetime (I'm 39) I can remember a time when there was nothing open on Sundays because everyone was observing the Sabbath.

Even today you will find Christian companies like Chick-fil-A that are closed on Sunday to observe the Sabbath.

My statement is very clear: The 10 commandments appear in the "old" testament. The ten commandments are very clear. You either follow them, or you make excuses as to why you're not supposed to follow them.

I mad ethe odd choice to fisk this response from the bottom up, so I have answer the root of this assertion already. In the preceding responses I will spell out why I agree with this statement in part, but fall short at the point where you insist that your interpretation of the law, whatever the source, is the one and only interpretation.

That might look to you as a 'strictly jewish perspective', but that's because Christianity, by definition, *changed* the original jewish laws. That's fine and good, but it only proves my point.

Actually no. The only major change to the Christian rules is that Judaism is still waiting for the messiah while Christians are not. As such they accept the messiah's interpretation of the law over yours. Your interpretation is not necessarily the correct one, and I have made plenty of arguments already as to why it's most likely not correct.

Christianity changed - or refined, or reinterpreted, or switched, or any other word you want to put here that means 'no longer follows the same exact thing' -- the laws that judaism follow, either by adding them in the new testament or by reinterpreting the old testament.

They follow the the same laws, they just don't buy into your interpretation of them.

Reinterpreting means you're not going by the literal meaning.

No, it means I am not going by your interpretation. As I said before, King SOLOMON didn't follow your interpretation, so your interpretation is not at all compelling.

The rules say you should keep the Sabbath - "Shabat". They don't say 'the seventh day, please count it', they don't say 'boobapalooba' now translate it, they say SHABAT. That day exists. It's not a sunday.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I would guess that the Jews didn't call the day "Shabat" until after they determined they should rest on it. And as I said earlier, the law says to keep the seventh day Holy. Beyond tradition can you name a reason why Saturday is the Sabbath rather than Sunday? It seems to me that if the Nicene Christians rested on Saturday and then again on Sunday, and then every seventh day after that then they were only guilty of being lazy one day, but adhered to the letter of the law thereafter.

So since that one sin would be punished to the 4th generation, and we're 30+ generations removed, I think we are in the clear.

But anyway, beyond Jewish tradition I see no reason why I should read that law as anything other than keeping every seventh day holy. But since Jesus nor I are slaves to Jewish tradition, I'm not sweating your interpretation, nor am I accepting it as the Truth.

You either follow this rule and then you can say you follow the ten commandments or you don't follow this rule, in which case you DON'T follow the ten commandments.

This is not a true statement.

Whether or not you think you should or shouldn't follow the 10 commandments is irrelevant to my point. My claim is that if you *STATE* you are following it, you better make sure you are, otherwise you're bieng inconsistent.

You're arguing that there is only one possible interpretation of the 10 commandments and it is, I'm guessing, the one you were raised with. How ever you came to that conclusion, your simply wrong. As I have pointed out several times now your interpretation of the 10 commandments is not even consistent within the Old Testament, let alone the New Testament. Whereas the interpretation I have offered is consistent in both.

Your defense of this on the grounds that the Bible is inconsistent therefor your inconsistent interpretation is valid is simply begging the question.

Which you seem to be right now with the Sabbath.

The commandment is very clear. You need to really reinterpret things in light of a whole new doctrine (like you do, it seems) to excuse not doing it.

And *still* that would just mean that you're not doing it. So don't claim you do..

That's like telling a Parisians that they aren't following the law because their law isn't how the British do it.

Just be consistent.

I am.

Yeah, that happens often with sequels.

Not a sequal... a refinement.

Merged post follows:

 

You really ought to read the New Testament to see how Jesus deals with the Pharisees.

I think mooeypoo is just arguing that the Pharisees (now Rabbinical Jews following the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70AD) were right and Jesus was wrong.

There was no doubt about Sabbath, jryan. It's called "Shabat" - the word ITSELF means "rest".

 

There was a shift in the calendar in terms of months calculation. That has nothing to do with Sabbath.

I can see that you are approaching this on a strictly Jewish perspective, but your statement above is completely wrong from a Christian perspective. I am trying to correct that misconception.

There IS a link between the Nicene calendar schism and the switch to Sunday as the Lord's day. The link was that the Jewish calendar was found to be insufficient for observing the feast of the resurrection, so a more accurate calendar was necessary, and the fact that the Resurrection happened on a Sunday was the reason they moved their day of worship to Sunday.

See the common link? It is the resurrection. Since Jews don't believe in the resurrection it makes perfect sense that they wouldn't alter their tradition to accommodate it. But since Christians DO believe in the Resurrection, and see t as the single most important even in human history, and the single most important even in God's relationship with man, it makes perfect sense for them to move their day of devotion to Sunday as a symbol of their gratitude for the resurrection.

Once you realize that Jesus was not a stickler for tradition, and that the resurrection is the single most important even in human history for Christians, your objection to the change of the sabbath on strict Jewish rationale is not compelling.

Christianity has different traditions and focuses than Judaism. Who knew?!

It is a well-known fact that Christ kept the traditional Jewish Sabbath, which is Saturday.

 

You should do some research into the Jewish Calendar. A lot of interesting information regarding when the Sabbaths should be kept can be found in the Calendar.

 

Another thing, Do you know who changed the traditional 7th day Sabbath to Sunday? It was at the Council of Nicea which took place after there was a split in the early church and many things began to get changed.

 

It's almost like people don't understand History. If they would just look a littler further than their nose they would also find the reason the Catholics do the sprinkling of Holy water.

It's funny you should mention not understanding history because you ignore the reason there was a calendar schism at all with the Jewish calendar. The reason was that the council had determined that the Jewish calendar calculations were faulty, or irregular.

The Council set out to standardize the calendar around the observable Spring equinox allowing for a clear and universal time keeping system throughout the Christian communities to ensure a standard observance of Christian Holidays.

As such, the Christian Calendar had 12 months, varying from 28 to 31 days standard, with one day added to the calendar every 4 years rather than the Jewish calendar that had 12 moths of between 29 and 30 days in length and that added a leap month 7 out of every 19 years.

The Christian Sabbath is based on the resurrection of Christ, which happened on a Sunday according to scripture. That the Christians find more importance in the resurrection than the Jewish law should not come as a surprise to anyone. Jesus, as stated earlier, was not as concerned with the strict Jewish tradition, and more concerned with the whole point of the day and the various laws. As such, Christians see Sunday as the Lord's day as it was the day of the Lord's resurrection.

Again, you can continue to argue against the Christian tradition, but understand that many of these divergences from Jewish tradition have been well considered by Christians over the last 2,010 years and all boil down to one big difference between the two religions: Jews don't think that Jesus was the Messiah and therefor don't feel compelled to change based on Jesus' declared clarifications of God's law... the Christians, believing that Jesus is Lord, tend to listen to Jesus' interpretations more than they listen to the Old Testament interpretations or modern Jewish interpretations.

But hey, even Solomon appears to have disagreed with strict orthodox Jewish interpretation....

 

BTW, you will not get any argument from me that the bible is internally inconsistent. None. There's no doubt that it is.

 

~moo

It's not inconsistent, however, except when you choose to cut it up piece meal and try to have various individual passages fight to the death in an ill conceived theological cage match.

No, my understanding of the passage comes from the original context in the original language. Look at both repetitions of the ten commandments, and then at the several "expansions" and you will see it clearly.

I see it clearly, mooeypoo. The instruction in Deuteronomy 5:8-9 and Exodus 20:4-5 are very clear, and the latter mention in Exodus 34:17 all relate to the same commandment, but as I said, the two more verbose of the passages logically connect the casting of images and the worshiping of those images in the same commandment. Otherwise the passages would be either reversed or the second passage would not be necessary.

No one argues that religions use theological arguments to solve problems like these, I'm sure Christianity (on its various sects) is doing that as much as Judaism and any other religion.

 

But if you claim to follow the *literal* meaning, then there's little to argue about the *literal* meaning. If it's not about literal meaning that we talk about, rather the interpreted-symbolism, then we can discuss different interpretations all we want, but that would make no interpretation inherently better than the other.

As I stated earlier, it is very easy to get into logical quicksand if you insist on being both literal and granular in your use of the Bible. Most passage come with a thousand passages of context.

Do you do any form of work? Do you buy anything on Sabbath?

As a disciple of the New Testament, yes I do, on occasion. In the Bible Jesus was questioned about the rigor of the Jewish Sabbath as well, and Jesus didn't agree with the strict interpretation:

Again, I would ask you to know the New Testament before you judge Christianity by the Old Testament.

Merged post follows:

I'm sorry I have to comment on this. What day do you attend church jryan?

I go on Saturday usually but I have gone on Sunday as well. Which day is the 7th day of the week is one of those arguments I tend not to get involved in because it is as simple an argument as whether or not Sunday is the end of the weekend or the start of a new week.

Merged post follows:

Oh, and while I am at it, here are the references used for article 2130 of the Catholic Catechism:

Though all of 1 Kings 7 is about Solomon's cast images.

As such, it is hard to see how we are supposed to take Exodus 20:5 or Deuteronomy 5:8 as standalone passages or commandments. The Catholic interpretation is logically consistent throughout the Bible whereas the strict Jewish or Christian Fundamentalist interpretations are not.

Read the other posts, jryan. Idol is the english translation. The aramaic/hebrew is clear in saying no picture, symbol, statue or relief image of *anything*. Regardless of praying, you are not to have them. *THEN* it continues to say that you can't pray to them either.

 

Quite clear.

Your understanding of this passage assumes that the two passages are not connected while the Catholic belief is that they are. I accept the Catholic definition since IF the point of the first passage was to outlaw images of all kinds then the second passage is superfluous.

I wouldn't tell you not to make a pie and THEN not eat it.

What about the Sabbath, jryan?

I go to Church.

Why because Mary is in heaven with God?

 

"John 3:13 And no one has ascended up to Heaven except He who came down from Heaven, the Son of Man who is in Heaven."

 

I have it completely wrong then?

One of the many roots of the practice lies in the book of Kings in which Solomon, in keeping with the commandment "Honor thy Father and Mother", allows the intercession by his mother on behalf of others.

"... then the king sat on his throne, and had a throne brought for the king's mother, and she sat on his right. Then she said, 'I have one small request to make of you, do not refuse me.' And the king said to her, 'Make your request, my mother, for I will not refuse you.'" [1 Kings. 2:19-20]

Likewise, Catholics don't consider the souls of the dead any differently than they do the souls of the living. They therefor do not consider Mary or any Saint as having ascended to Heaven anymore than they consider you or I having ascended. Therefor, asking Mary to pray on their behalf is no different than asking you or I to pray for them. They just believe Mary has an inside track.

From the Song of Mary:

"46 And Mary said: My soul magnifies the Lord,

47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.

48 For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant;

For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed."

Catholics tend to agree with Mary's statement above... as does God, who chose Mary for the same reason.

Merged post follows:

In the ten commandments, the text is clear. You are to avoid even having a picture of anyone, related or unrelated to god, as a source of - or conduit to - worship. On top of that come the graven image and the symbol to represent God.

 

You aren't supposed to even have a SYMBOLIC representation of God.

 

Relgious jews don't have posters of their favorite actors, for instance. The might have posters of scenery, or nature, but not of people. The commandment, once read without pre-interpreted-translation, is quite clear.

You are missing the very definition of "idol" in your assertion, which is the graphical representation of a deity to which a person prays. You will note, however, that the Catholic Church does not pray to images or Gods, nor assert the deification of those whose images they do request prayers from.

As such, they do not create nor to they pray to idols.

So apparently there are only three fiscal liberals on this board and they all have $10k+ in the bank.

That's Stimulus money, I bet.

Exactly.. They don't even follow the basic commandments so how can they profess to be Christ's church?

As Rickdog pointed out, you have it completely wrong. When Catholics pray to Mary (or any saint) it is in request that these saints pray on their behalf. This is not the same as creating an image of a false God and praying to it.

Here we might be closer to agreement, I suspect. He has conservatives on the show, and is polite and respectful towards them as host. He's no wacky extremist.

 

But I wouldn't say that so he's focused on accuracy that he never misleads people just to get a laugh. He has no hesitation about pulling out a tiny snipet of a video and then staring into the screen with that wonderful, shocked, deadpan expression.

 

It's pretty obvious his show is built around the liberal perspective, and that's all I mean by "ideology" -- I'm not even implying partisanship. Give the man credit for finding his audience and giving it what it wants: Conservatives (and others, but especially conservatives) served up on a plate. Daily.

Also note that The Daily Show is now writing jokes for President Obama.

Thanks for that voice of reason. Between this thread, the thread on killing rich people (which I find to be absolutely repugnant), and other recent threads here, I was on the verge of abandoning my position at this site.

I don't have a position to abandon, but I hear you! I then realized that refusing to answer such lunacy is no help either. Some kid looking for help on their homework could swing by hear and read that crap and would be in desperate need of the counter argument.

Funny, when I get pulled over by a police officer I just remind myself that if someone were shooting at me they would risk their life to protect mine. After that being disrespectful goes from "fight the power!" to being "I'm a dick!".

This bill was written to mirror the federal laws regarding immigration enforcement, and requires the Arizona police, as per existing law, to check immigration status with the Federal Immigration service. This was done because the first rule in court when a law is challenged as usurping Federal law is whether the state law is sufficiently different as to show a disregard for the Federal law. That can't happen with this law as Federal and State law are the same.

The best argument that I have seen from the opposing side is that courts have found that Federal law is rendered moot when it is not enforced. The argument here is that Arizona is trying to enforce laws that the Federal Government conceivably rendered moot through inaction. This would establish a difference in the Federal and State law as the state law would be enforced.

Good luck on that, though.

This is the fourth immigration law passed by Arizona that is destined for legal challenge, so the Arizona legislature has lots of experience (hence the meticulous adherence to the previous rulings).... and a 3-0 record versus all legal challenges.

It's OK because we now have a "negative spill coefficient".