Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday July 07 2017, @11:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the how-did-THOSe-get-here? dept.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/hobby-lobby-hands-over-5500-illegally-imported-artifacts-180963969/

Big-box arts and crafts retailer Hobby Lobby will surrender some 5,500 artifacts it purchased illegally and pay $3 million after federal prosecutors filed a civil complaint in New York yesterday, reports Dan Whitcomb at Reuters.

The objects are believed to come from Iraq, where they were smuggled into other Middle Eastern countries. In 2010, they were sent to the United States falsely labeled as clay tiles.

[...] The items include 144 cylinder seals, used to roll decorative images onto clay, as well as clay bullae, which were used to create wax tokens to authenticate documents. The majority of the items are cuneiform tablets. Cuneiform is a type of writing developed about 6,000 years ago in what is now southern Iraq, Smithsonian.com's Anne Trubek reports. Over time, the writing, which looks like a series of lines and triangles impressed into palm-size pieces of wet clay, was used for over a dozen ancient languages, much like the Roman alphabet for most European and Romance languages.

So, why was a craft chain buying ancient Iraqi artifacts in the first place? Whitcomb reports that company president Steve Green is the founder of the Museum of the Bible, now under construction in Washington, D.C. He began acquiring artifacts for the museum, including the forfeited items, in 2009.

Also at NYT. DoJ and Hobby Lobby statements.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by BK on Friday July 07 2017, @04:05PM (15 children)

    by BK (4868) on Friday July 07 2017, @04:05PM (#536155)

    Deeply held beliefs seems to always refer to what you are willing to let other people do in conservative circles.

    FTFY.
    Regardless of political lean, laws always seem to be made for 'other people'.

    --
    ...but you HAVE heard of me.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Friday July 07 2017, @04:28PM (14 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 07 2017, @04:28PM (#536162) Journal

    Fuck that, I'll fight for the cases I listed above and others like conscientious objectors(who are real, and don't want to be forced to kill anyone) or Jews/Muslims who don't want to be compelled to eat pork in public prisons/schools/military mess halls, or a host of other cases where someone's being asked to do something that's against their actual beliefs.

    I have this completely overwhelming feeling that you cannot, for the life of you, find a left-leaning example that supports you bullshitty "both sides are bad" ideology. Not for lack of left-leaning people wanting to shift the behaviors and attitudes of others: I personally have a shit ton of things I'd like idiots to stop doing. But because there's an intellectual honesty to it that the right will never, ever have. Ever.

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @05:03PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @05:03PM (#536178)

      Jews/Muslims who don't want to be compelled to eat pork in public prisons/schools/military mess halls

      You're going about this all wrong. What we need is an awareness campaign making sure that Christians know that if they eat bacon or other pork products, Yahweh will torture them for all eternity in hell and then afterwards throw them into a lake of fire after the white throne judgement. They need to know that name-dropping Jesus doesn't mean that Yahweh is ok with them eating pork. We have to save their souls.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @07:10PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @07:10PM (#536224)

        Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself. (Deut. 22:11)

        • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @08:06PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @08:06PM (#536250)

          What version is that?

          I get KJV: "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together." ASV: "Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together." NIV: "Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together." MSG: "Don’t wear clothes of mixed fabrics, wool and linen together."

          At any rate, this is another important rule, and the soul of every Christian who wears mixed fibers is at risk! I'm glad you pointed that out!

          Personally I recommend hemp fiber, which should be in the clear. It's durable, soft, and comfortable. Perhaps that's what Yahweh was going for as well. Christians need to begin wearing clothes made with hemp fiber in addition to avoiding bacon.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @08:55PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @08:55PM (#536260)

            durable, soft, and comfortable

            ...and really cheap and easy to grow.
            ...and it will grow damned near anywhere.
            ...and it improves the soil.

            ...and USA.gov once encouraged its cultivation.
            Hemp for Victory [google.com]

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 08 2017, @11:30PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 08 2017, @11:30PM (#536686)

            Oops, that was Deut. 22:12 I quoted. It's the KJV.

    • (Score: 2) by BK on Friday July 07 2017, @07:05PM (7 children)

      by BK (4868) on Friday July 07 2017, @07:05PM (#536219)

      I have this completely overwhelming feeling that you cannot, for the life of you, find a left-leaning example that supports you bullshitty "both sides are bad" ideology.

      You've set the bar so low that I have to try... and in truth, you gave me one:

      "I refuse to bake these people a cake, because they'll take it to a gay wedding"

      I'll fight for [...] Jews/Muslims who don't want to be compelled to eat pork in public [school] mess halls

      Righty wants to not bake a cake for someone because his sky people don't like something that might be done with it or by the user.
      Lefty wants to compel the school cook to make a different meal because someone's sky people don't like something about the first one.

      And another paired example:
      Righty wants to take a person's freedom and property and then use the threat of force to compel future compliance because that person didn't obtain the right paperwork and permission before crossing a border.
      Lefty wants to take a person's freedom and property and then use the threat of force to compel future compliance because that person didn't obtain the right paperwork and permission before bringing their property (firearm) across a border (NYC & others).

      --
      ...but you HAVE heard of me.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Friday July 07 2017, @07:27PM (6 children)

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 07 2017, @07:27PM (#536233) Journal

        Libertarians. Are. The. Worst. About. This.

        You don't understand the point of contention at all: right of conscience being used as a cudgel to control others, instead of what it's intended to protect.

        Your whine here, literally has nothing to do with what you claimed earlier "both sides" do. And what really galls me more than that is how you're not going to understand that at all. You're going to continue to pout about how the whole world doesn't bend to your broken ideology, not getting that a specific concept was being discussed.

        And the worst part is, I'm pretty sure I'd have to completely overturn your whole ideology for you(which we both know won't happen) before you'd consider reflecting on the small, but very important way you were being a disingenuous shit in the earlier post. You will never cop to the mistake/lie/whatever. I don't know how you're going to refuse to understand that, but you're going to refuse to understand it.

        • (Score: 2) by BK on Friday July 07 2017, @08:06PM (2 children)

          by BK (4868) on Friday July 07 2017, @08:06PM (#536251)

          Libertarians. Are. The. Worst. About. This.

          Thankfully, I'm not one. Are you?

          You don't understand the point of contention at all: right of conscience being used as a cudgel to control others

          But I do. Righty and Lefty both want to use their own choices or belief about what is right (conscience) to control / force the behavior of others. Laws are for the other people.

          I'm pretty sure I'd have to completely overturn your whole ideology for you(which we both know won't happen)

          First, you'd need to better understand it; absent that understanding, your prediction seems to be the most likely outcome. Either way, I'm happy to talk about it if you want to try.

          --
          ...but you HAVE heard of me.
          • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday July 07 2017, @08:22PM (1 child)

            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 07 2017, @08:22PM (#536255) Journal

            Thinking there is moral necessity that should be codified in: i.e. you can't murder someone, isn't the same thing as saying that you personally have a right of conscience to limit what others may do, since you're tacitly connected to them.

            This is neither complicated nor unreasonable.

            And fine, maybe this shitty ideology you're outlining is "ancap" or "objectivist" or some other bullshit that is intellectually indistinguishable to me from libertarianism. I will refrain from calling your insane beliefs that specific name.

            • (Score: 2) by BK on Saturday July 08 2017, @09:15PM

              by BK (4868) on Saturday July 08 2017, @09:15PM (#536640)

              Thinking there is moral necessity that should be codified in [law]: i.e. you can't murder someone

              Lots of other things other than moral necessity get codified in law. If you think otherwise, you can begin by explaining the moral necessity of this example [nyt.com]. A few of these [huffingtonpost.com] also seem fall short of moral necessity.

              You seem frustrated that I am missing your point, but the truth is, you obscured it a bit. Your first post described fairly well known cases [economist.com] pertaining to the law. Your second post in this thread referred to more obscure [cnsnews.com] issues. I thought you were talking mostly about laws or desired laws. This last post seems to indicate you want to talk about something else.

              isn't the same thing as saying that you personally have a right of conscience to limit what others may do, since you're tacitly connected to them

              You mean like this example [washingtontimes.com]? What were we talking about again?

              --
              ...but you HAVE heard of me.
        • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday July 07 2017, @11:05PM

          by mhajicek (51) on Friday July 07 2017, @11:05PM (#536303)

          Here's a better example (not to detract from your assessment of "conservatives" but to add "liberals" to the pile). Some "liberals" want to prevent some people from expressing their views because some other people might choose to take offense to them.

          --
          The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 08 2017, @12:51AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday July 08 2017, @12:51AM (#536334) Journal

          You don't understand the point of contention at all: right of conscience being used as a cudgel to control others, instead of what it's intended to protect.

          Sounds like you have that problem instead. The Right isn't instituting smoking bans, mandatory nutrition listings in restaurants, 55 MPH speed limits, Politically Correct (PC) culture, regulating away incandescent light bulbs and toilets that flush, or trying to start race wars with the pretext of ending racism. There's a lot going on here which you seem to be missing.

          And the worst part is, I'm pretty sure I'd have to completely overturn your whole ideology for you(which we both know won't happen) before you'd consider reflecting on the small, but very important way you were being a disingenuous shit in the earlier post. You will never cop to the mistake/lie/whatever. I don't know how you're going to refuse to understand that, but you're going to refuse to understand it.

          Well buttercup, it would need to be a mistake/lie first. Noting obvious counterexamples to your prior arguments don't count.

        • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday July 08 2017, @02:08AM

          by TheGratefulNet (659) on Saturday July 08 2017, @02:08AM (#536364)

          the 'conservative' mind is too entangled with religion; and while they brainwash them at such a young age (making it very hard to untangle their illogic), they will not willingly let go of their sky daddy myth.

          various countries have tried, over time, to remove/reduce the influence of religion. it never works. the human mind, for MOST of the population, is too easy to manipulate. we are controlled by fear, and fear is how religion gets its bite on you. it lies about 'comfort' in an afterlife, when there is 0.0% evidence of that being a reality. and yet, people fall for that scam and show no signs of smartening up. some of us have done this, but its a tiny percentage, too small to be any kind of major influence in policy.

          --
          "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 08 2017, @12:43AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday July 08 2017, @12:43AM (#536332) Journal

      I have this completely overwhelming feeling that you cannot, for the life of you, find a left-leaning example that supports you bullshitty "both sides are bad" ideology.

      How about when you wrote [soylentnews.org]:

      Post title: "Eat the rich."

      No seriously.

      Kill these people, consume their flesh, and use their skeletons to construct a marginally less shitty society.

      In other words, you don't have a leg to stand on (maybe someone ate it?) in this argument. I doubt you'd advocate the reallocation of your personal protein in some future year just because you happen to fall above the inevitably falling "edible" threshold of personal finances. It's some other person's protein that needs to be redistributed for the common good.

      Funny how often people who have "this completely overwhelming feeling" seem to be deeply hypocritical on the very things that they can't think about.