tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post3563719947782568728..comments2024-01-17T16:21:25.350-08:00Comments on Live, from the Catacombs...: I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an AtheistGinny Krutahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01189832964166135033noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-55820997861808692812012-01-21T05:34:45.203-08:002012-01-21T05:34:45.203-08:00Hey, Mark....."humanity's best hope in th...Hey, Mark....."humanity's best hope in the case of a zombie apocalypse" is my son. Glad to hear you're a fan.John Eberhardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-14171043853962004872012-01-20T11:29:51.005-08:002012-01-20T11:29:51.005-08:00Hey, John Eberhard, are you humanity's best ho...Hey, John Eberhard, are you humanity's best hope in the case of a zombie apocalypse? If so, I'm a fan of your work.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-20012437332932641312012-01-19T16:21:59.576-08:002012-01-19T16:21:59.576-08:00“All represent taxpayer-funded preference of one r...“All represent taxpayer-funded preference of one religion over another, and one to assume that the Founding Fathers would institute one or two such actions while being adamantly opposed to all others is beyond ludicrous.”<br /><br />Some points to consider:<br /><br />• The tradition to open Continental Congress with prayer predates the Constitution, and was perfectly legal when it first began.<br />• Some representatives (e.g. John Jay and John Rutledge) opposed it from the beginning. It was certainly not instituted by all the Founding Fathers.<br />• None of the sessions of the Constitutional Convention were opened with a prayer.<br />• Although the tradition of Congress opening with prayer continued after the Constitution was ratified, attendance was entirely optional.<br />• In 1792 the Congressional Chaplain , Rev. Ashbel Green, complained that upwards of 2/3’s of members of Congress were absent during prayer, and attributed this to the prevalence of freethinking<br />• President Dwight of Yale, said in 1813 that the Congressional Chaplaincy was not being treated with respect by members of congress.<br />• James Madison, who helped plan the Chaplaincy system in 1789, stated in his Detached Memoranda that the fact that chaplains were paid by “the nation” violated the principle of establishment forbidden by the Bill of Rights.<br /><br />Basically, the First amendment was intended to build a wall between church and state, but that wall wasn’t built overnight by ratifying a bill. Indeed, 223 years later Jefferson and Maddison’s wall is still being constructed one brick at a time. <br /><br />Congressional chaplains should not be seen as indicative of the plans the Founding Fathers had for the country, but rather how difficult it is to stop a bureaucratic tradition once it’s started. <br /><br />Congress has enacted many unconstitutional traditions and laws that have taken decades or even centuries to struck down by SCOTUS. The ereality is that until 1940’s, SCOTUS had little opportunity to address the meaning of the Establishment clause, because they have to wait for cases to be brought before it.<br /><br /> Also, you seem to be deliberately ignoring the mountains of evidence showing that the Founding Fathers wished for the First Amendment to ensure strict government neutrality on all religious issues. John Eberhard has done an excellent job of presenting you with the history of the First Amendment, and you should be grateful to him for saving you hours of research time.<br /><br />Some of the evidence you refuse to examine:<br />• Quotations from Madison and Jefferson regarding the intentions of the Establishment clause. <br />• Drafts of the First Amendment that were rejected for not being separatist enough. <br />• The context of a 7-year effort to secure religious freedom in Virginia, which created a religious freedom bill used as the model for the First Amendment. This bill secured equal rights for believers and nonbelievers.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-54181574287369093472012-01-19T13:44:06.343-08:002012-01-19T13:44:06.343-08:00A few parting words: First, you explained scientif...A few parting words: First, you explained scientific theory to me in an extremely condescending fashion. And I was most definitely not speaking in ignorance of what "theory" means in scientific circles. I realize that, because it is made up of facts, it holds more weight. By assuming that I must not understand the word to use it in such a fashion, you display your own ignorance rather than mine. I have a problem with theory (yes, even scientific theory) being presented as indisputable fact. Why? Not because I want schools to include creation or intelligent design (I don't care whether they do or do not) but because I believe that presenting it in that way encourages students NOT to challenge it. It effectively cuts science off at the knees by removing the inspiration for students to attempt to further understand that which (most scientists would admit) is not fully understood. My issue is solely with presenting theory as fact, not with presenting theory in the absence of other theories.<br /><br />I'm not sure why I'm bothering to explain this to you. I'm not sure why you bothered with your last response either. I mean, if you already won, the only possibility would be your need to throw out a few more thinly veiled insults - which would lead those reading to believe that by your own explanation you had been defeated.Ginny Krutahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01189832964166135033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-60248506394442266402012-01-19T12:18:50.880-08:002012-01-19T12:18:50.880-08:00In short, he took replies out of context and juxta...In short, he took replies out of context and juxtaposed them with things they were not a response to our stuff that he just made up out of thin air.<br />He thought I was gone and took the opportunity to make up lies.<br />As I said before, name calling is the last call of the defeated. However, misrepresentation and lies rank right up there.<br />It smells particularly bad when the ones claiming the moral Christian high ground shame it in this fashion.<br />Have a nice life. I'm gone for sure this time, so feel free to make up more lies without being exposed.John Eberhardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-56478685035153451972012-01-19T12:15:10.441-08:002012-01-19T12:15:10.441-08:00As regards jim's "summary:
My reply &qu...As regards jim's "summary:<br /><br />My reply "John: But this long list of Presidents all said things about why religion and government should be kept separate."<br />was in response to <br />Ginny: And it's highly unlikely that later Presidents - Abraham Lincoln (http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/bixby.htm), Franklin Delano Roosevelt (http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/fdr-prayer.htm)and Ronald Reagan ("If we ever forget that we are a nation under God then we shall become a nation gone under) come to mind - would have so often invoked the name of the Christian God and His will in public speeches, for fear of being thrown from office for violating the establishment clause. It is only the court and and the people whose understanding only reaches as far as their tolerance that "understand" the Establishment Clause in the way that you claim it was written.<br /><br />My reply John:Jan 17, 2012 02:55 PM You ignore the fact that sometimes conservative courts push agendas as well. "<br />was in response to <br />jimJan 17, 2012 01:16 PM:It completely ignores the fact that some Justices, and some entire courts, have pushed agendas, and done so successfully. Sometimes, good, sometimes bad.<br /><br />My reply "John: Let me provide you with the dictionary definition of the word theory, since you are obviously not as well educated as I am." I DID NOT SAY THAT. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER LIE BY JIM. <br />What I did say was Jan 18, 2012 05:44 AM:Let me help you to understand the word "theory", so you will understand why your earlier question was based on basic scientific ignorance. Put simply, you confuse the technical scientific meaning with the non-technical non-scientific meaning.<br />It was a response to Ginny Jan 17, 2012 04:47 PM:What about the science books that purport theory as fact and do not allow for any other possibilities?<br />NOTE: I also said "I'm not saying you are stupid--indeed, I very much appreciate that we have been able to discourse on a civil level--but your question is based on scientific ignorance"Jan 17, 2012 05:49 PM<br /><br />My reply John: If you keep telling the same joke over and over again, people will stop thinking it's funny. was one small segment of a three separate part post--one right after another--on Jan 18, 2012 07:01 AM in response to <br />Ginny Jan 18, 2012 05:14 AM which DID NOT CONTAIN THE PHRASE jIM SAID IT DID, TO WHIT: "In spite of that, I'll ask this question: How do you address the fact that the Founding Fathers instituted religious rituals in Government? They began Congressional sessions with prayer and held Christian services inside the Capitol building."John Eberhardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-91980496580544824302012-01-19T11:44:43.823-08:002012-01-19T11:44:43.823-08:00Madison certainly spoke out against it. He said &q...Madison certainly spoke out against it. He said "Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative." and<br />"I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation, that the deviation from it took place in Cong. when they appointed Chaplains, to be paid from the Natl Treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their Constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose, a pittance from their own pockets. As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that can now be done, may be to apply to the Constitution the maxim of the law, de minimis non curat."<br /><br />This means: The law does not concern itself with trifles; - a principle of law, that even if a technical violation of a law appears to exist according to the letter of the law, if the effect is too small to be of consequence, the violation of the law will not be considered as a sufficient cause of action, whether in civil or criminal proceedings.<br /><br />In short, it is IN FACT a violation,it was recognized as such at that time by the Father of the Constitution, but the effect of it was so minimal that it would be ignored due to bigger fish to fry in getting our country going. If only he had been able to foresee what the theocrats would try to use it for today.<br /><br />JAMES MADISON: The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles....Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex: or to class it cum "maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura (with faults which human nature either has scattered around through negligence or has guarded against too little].." <br /><br />Did you catch that? "RATHER THAN LET THIS STEP BEYOND THE LANDMARKS OF POWER HAVE THE EFFECT OF A LEGITIMATE PRECEDENT"....just regard it as human negligence or something guarded against too little.John Eberhardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-51452718305313788592012-01-19T05:10:58.178-08:002012-01-19T05:10:58.178-08:00On your response to Jim's post: organized pray...On your response to Jim's post: organized prayer as part of the Congressional session and paid for by the taxpayer is no different in terms of establishment than hanging an innocuous banner on the wall of a school or posting the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court. All represent taxpayer-funded preference of one religion over another, and one to assume that the Founding Fathers would institute one or two such actions while being adamantly opposed to all others is beyond ludicrous.<br /><br />On your response to my post: who is Gina?Ginny Krutahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01189832964166135033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-79210828112225160572012-01-18T22:40:31.984-08:002012-01-18T22:40:31.984-08:00For Gina;
You’ve made many comments suggesting t...For Gina;<br /><br /> You’ve made many comments suggesting that the rights of the school to see the banner need to be weighed against the rights of those who didn’t want to see it. This is a false dichotomy. The banner violated the religious rights of even the Christians that put it up, by creating a divisive system where people were separated into two groups: bullies or victims. Any right-minded person would wish to be in neither group. <br /><br /> It was this fundamental truth that Jefferson appreciated when he stated, “What has been the effect of [religious] coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.”<br /><br /> The disgusting behaviour of the Christians at Cranston is the strongest proof of the need for a broad interpretation of the First Amendment (and no, the behaviour of Ms. Ahlquist does not even remotely resemble the Christian hate displayed.)<br /><br /> So you can appreciate how the First Amendment protects you from becoming a Christian Authoritarian, consider the Stanford Prison experiment. In 1971, 24 young college men were recruited to act in a mock prison. 12 men were randomly assigned to be guards and 12 were randomly assigned to be prisoners. It was planned to run for six months, but had to be stopped after only 6 days because the “guards” took on sadistic and abusing characteristics, and the “prisoners” took on passive and fatalistic characteristics. The lead psychologist wrote a book about it called “The Lucifer Effect: Why good People do Bad Things”<br /><br /> The similarities between Cranston High School and the Stanford Prison experiment are stark, and both followed the same five-step narrative:<br /><br />1 – Legitimacy<br /> A value system is established by an authority that people are expected to adhere to.<br />2- Division.<br /> The system is used to divide a community. In the prison experiment, the division was between guards and prisoners. In the Cranston school, it was between Christians and non-Christians.<br />3- Intimidation<br /> When a person complains over the unfairness of the division, authorities then use fear to silence. Prison guards used physical and psychological abuse. The school authorities used threats of burning in hell, prosecution and name-calling to intimidate Ms. Ahlquist<br />4- Isolation.<br /> Guards used “divide-and-conquer” tactics to make prisoners distrust each other. People who have singled Ahlquist out for their venom include the mayor, Representative Palumbo and the school board. All of these people are abusing their office to single out and victimize a young girl, and divide her from her community. Even small businesses have ostracised her.<br />5- Retribution <br /> When a prisoner was identified as a “ringleader”, the guards made effects to break that person. Since winning the court case, threats against Ahlquist and her family have been made, and her address has been published on the Internet. She has since needed police protection.<br /><br /> At the end of the day, the good Christians at Cranston have been revealed as moral scum, undeserving of any respect. That is what always happens when a religious group is given preferential treatment by the government.<br /><br /> When you go to bed, Gina, you should give thanks to the First Amendment for protecting you from the Lucifer Effect.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-41248855352430907572012-01-18T21:29:40.951-08:002012-01-18T21:29:40.951-08:00I’m going to break my reply into two parts, one fo...I’m going to break my reply into two parts, one for Jim Kruta and one for Ginny Kruta, because they each seem to misunderstand separate components of the debate.<br /><br />For Jim Kruta:<br /><br /> You seem to view the fact that founding fathers instituted religious rituals in Government as indicating that they wanted a religious government. This is not true. Many of the founding father prayed, because most of the men at the time were Protestant Christians. Not all were; Thomas Jefferson, for example, did not believe Jesus was divine. But this prayer in the Capital building was a personal practice that was separate from their professional role in constructing a government.<br /><br /> Also, if someone prayed is no indicator as to wether one supported or opposed a wall of separation between church and state. Many of those who built the wall were Christians, who nevertheless saw that preventing the government from supporting any religion over another was to support liberty.<br /><br /> So wether the founding fathers had religious rituals is irrelevant. You are confusing personal practice with the meaning of constitutional amendments.<br /><br /> The intended meaning of the First Amendment is clear when one studies the earlier drafts of the first Amendment. Rejected drafts included:<br /><br />“Congress shall not make any law, infringing the rights of conscience or establishing any religious sect or Society”<br />or<br />“Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed”<br />or<br />“Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others”<br /><br /> Any of these would have been more than adequate for preventing the establishment of a national religion. They were voted down because that was not the purpose of the First Amendment. What was ultimately ratified was an Amendment that forbids even “respecting” an establishment of religion, showing that the purpose was to prevent government from supporting any one religion over others.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-81862222582003591772012-01-18T15:42:30.194-08:002012-01-18T15:42:30.194-08:00For those of you just joining, let me explain. No...For those of you just joining, let me explain. No, is too much, let me sum up.<br /><br />Jim: How do you address the fact that the Founding Fathers instituted religious rituals in Government? They began Congressional sessions with prayer and held Christian services inside the Capitol building.<br /><br />John: But this long list of Presidents all said things about why religion and government should be kept separate.<br /><br />Jim: That's an interesting point. How do you address the fact that the Founding Fathers instituted religious rituals in Government? They began Congressional sessions with prayer and held Christian services inside the Capitol building.<br /><br />John: You ignore the fact that sometimes conservative courts push agendas as well.<br /><br />Jim/Ginny: That is true as all humans have agendas. It's difficult not to. Considering your own agenda, how do you address the fact that the Founding Fathers instituted religious rituals in Government? They began Congressional sessions with prayer and held Christian services inside the Capitol building.<br /><br />John: Let me provide you with the dictionary definition of the word theory, since you are obviously not as well educated as I am.<br /><br />Ginny: That's very fascinating. Keeping that in mind, how do you address the fact that the Founding Fathers instituted religious rituals in Government? They began Congressional sessions with prayer and held Christian services inside the Capitol building.<br /><br />John: If you keep telling the same joke over and over again, people will stop thinking it's funny.<br /><br />Ginny: If you argue with idiots they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. In spite of that, I'll ask this question: How do you address the fact that the Founding Fathers instituted religious rituals in Government? They began Congressional sessions with prayer and held Christian services inside the Capitol building.<br /><br />John: You called me an idiot. You're mean. I am teh win. Oh, and your logic sucks.<br /><br />Ginny: Speaking of logic, how do you address the fact that the Founding Fathers instituted religious rituals in Government? They began Congressional sessions with prayer and held Christian services inside the Capitol building.Jim Krutanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-79674052145026338172012-01-18T11:04:30.782-08:002012-01-18T11:04:30.782-08:00Actually, the first move of the beaten is to refus...Actually, the first move of the beaten is to refuse to address a salient point - which you continue to do. I have plenty of "defense" in reserve - I'm simply waiting for you to address those points before I bother moving forward. Your failure to answer those in conjunction with your insistence on declaring a win by fiat will also be taken into consideration by those who value facts, evidence, and logic.<br /><br />Incidentally, I ignored the obvious digs at my intellect - being that it is obviously inferior to yours based on nothing more substantial than my continued disagreement with you. I also ignored the pedagogical way in which you attempted to educate me on the meanings of words that I have no difficulty in understanding. You can call someone an idiot without saying the word idiot, and you have been doing that since the very first comment you posted.Ginny Krutahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01189832964166135033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-47051318917624991862012-01-18T10:46:25.770-08:002012-01-18T10:46:25.770-08:00Well, we did manage civil discourse until you stoo...Well, we did manage civil discourse until you stooped to calling me an idiot. The final defense of the beaten is ad hominem attack. <br />You lose.<br />Thank you for the opportunity to expose your ignorance, poor logic, and revisionist history. There was never much hope that facts would influence you, but, hopefully,there was someone reading this to whom facts,evidence, and logic do matter.John Eberhardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-15087040879678782992012-01-18T08:34:37.207-08:002012-01-18T08:34:37.207-08:00I don't want the government to speak for me. I...I don't want the government to speak for me. In fact, if you read posts other than this one, my personal preference is to have the government get the hell out of just about everything. I think that the department of education is one of the first things that needs to go - in its entirety. That would solve your problem - having the state "insert" religion by placing it in schools - and mine - having the state tell your children that the government knows better than parents what is and is not proper to learn, eat and do.<br /><br />I have just one final question: Why have you consistently refused to address the issue that Jim and I both brought up? Namely: if the Founders were so dead set on ensuring that religion and state were NEVER to be intermingled, why did they consistently hold religious services in the capitol building? And why, since 1789, have they used taxpayer dollars to pay a Christian minister to open Congressional sessions with Christian prayer? There is even a dedicated Congressional Prayer Room in the Capitol building where weekly rosary prayer services are still held. (Wednesdays at 11am, if you'd like to attend.)<br /><br />You say a wise man says that you can't tell the same joke over and over and still get people to laugh. Well, a wise man once told me that if you argue with an idiot he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. It's clear that we have both ignored good advice.Ginny Krutahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01189832964166135033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-31218482139655301472012-01-18T07:52:26.284-08:002012-01-18T07:52:26.284-08:00"That being said, at one point does the right..."That being said, at one point does the right of one person outweigh the rights of many?"<br /><br />It doesn't. And no one said it did.<br /><br />"I submit that we are talking about different rights. Jessica Ahlquist demands that her right to avoid religion (one that is NOT explicitly in the Constitution) supersedes the rights of her classmates to exercise theirs."<br />Not only does Jessica demand that, but the judge and established jurisprudence agree she has that right. The rights of her classmates to exercise their religion stop when exercising that religion mingles it with the state. Although they do have a right to exercise their religion, they have no right to mingle it with the state. Established jurisprudence is that the state be neutral in regard to religion and that no one has a "right" mingle their religion with the state.<br /><br />her right does not outweigh their right because you are talking about a right they do not have: the right to mingle their religion with the state.<br /><br />"The two rights are not even similar unless Ahlquist admits that atheism is, in fact, her religion - in which case it is still her demanding that her right outweighs the rights of all others." NO. She could be a Hindu and have a right to not be forced by the state to read Christian prayers (solely) as she goes about her legitimate business with the state. Although atheism is not a religion, the court in a very narrow legal sense has deemed that it is for purposes of Establishment clause protection. Exactly how they came to do that is a very interesting read and I recommend you read through it.<br /><br />"If the majority of people in America were for gay marriage, would it be fair if one person or a small group of people who opposed it were successful at keeping it illegal?" IF there were a RIGHT to not have gay marriage, then....yes, it would be fair. (Surprised?) There is no such right. Again, the whims of the majority have nothing to do with rights." <br /><br />"What if the minority opposition felt that just viewing gay couples and knowing that it was legal for them to be together was an affront to heterosexual couples everywhere?" You don't have a right to not be offended. "What if the minority opposition felt that just viewing heterosexual couples and knowing that it was legal for them to be together was an affront to homosexual couples everywhere?" Put like that, it isn't even a question to you, is it? <br /><br />"What if they couldn't escape viewing married gay couples on the street, in the workplace, etc?"....."What if they couldn't escape viewing married heterosexual couples on the street, in the workplace, etc?" So...what if?<br /><br />"Are you then saying that Constitutionally the gay couples seeking the right to be married should be forced to concede those rights for fear of offending the minority?" Not at all. I'm also not saying if heterosexuals were in the minority that they should concede the right of marriage for fear of offending the minority. This gets into a rather lengthy discussion, but if you want to go there to where how state benefits that accrue to one group of citizens have to accrue to all groups under equal protection, say the word and off we will go.<br /><br />"You want the minority to have a voice - as long as it is your voice. I want to have a voice, lest my voice become the minority." I disagree. I realize you wan to use the government as a proselytizing and enforcement arm for your religion so that you don't become the minority. All I ask for in regard to religion is neutrality from the state. I don't ask for a banner that says "No God". You demand a banner that says there is. You do no want neutrality, you want preference. Outside of the state you can have as loud a voice as you want, and that is all I ask for us.John Eberhardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-64904584570445798752012-01-18T07:01:58.792-08:002012-01-18T07:01:58.792-08:00"The only real question is whether you violat..."The only real question is whether you violate the rights of more people by leaving it up or taking it down. "<br /><br />You just cannot grasp that "more people" has nothing to do with "rights".<br /><br />"no law was established forcing the school to hang the banner" You might as well say "no law was established specifically preventing someone from shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Laws apply to classes of actions as well as to specific actions.<br /><br />There was a law established--the Establishment clause--prohibiting the mingling of church and state. Inknow you don't agree with that decision, but it stands despite your opinion. That law is affirmed in decades of court cases. The school broke that law. In this case, the only legal question is if they broke that established law. This case was not about reviewing the law prohibiting the mingling of church and state--that has been long estabished. This case was about whether the school broke that law.<br /><br />You keep wanting to turn this into a case of this trial putting the Establishment clause on trial. It wasn't about that. The Establishment clause has been through the fires of trial before and has emerged clearly as "Separation". This trial wasn't about that. That bell is rung. This trial was about whether the school broke the extisting established law.<br /><br />"The only real question is whether you violate the rights of more people by leaving it up or taking it down." The majority does not have an existing "right" to mingle church with state. You can argue until your head falls off that they should have, that the SCOTUS never had the right of judicial review, that you know more than they do, etc., etc., but the indisputable fact is established law is absolutely clear that the majority has no right to mingle church and state. Existing established law is the rule we must play by or there is utter chaos.<br /><br />I don't agree with every SCOTUS decision, but I respect their decisions because I certainly recognize that somebody has to be in a position of final authority. For over 200 years that has been the SCOTUS. I recognize that without following established precedent there would inevitably be chaos. I recognize that if individuals pick and choose which existing laws they get to violate we will have anarchy.<br /><br />A wise man sat in the audience and cracked a joke.<br />Everybody laughed.<br />A moment later, he cracked the joke again.<br />Fewer people laughed.<br />He kept telling the joke until no one laughed.<br />Then he smiled and said,<br />You can't laugh at the same joke again and again...<br />but why do you keep crying over the same thing again and again?John Eberhardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-38861437217908652432012-01-18T06:30:40.011-08:002012-01-18T06:30:40.011-08:00"Hold everything - there was a recent case in..."Hold everything - there was a recent case in Australia on a completely different subject?" Ummmmm.....I thought to some extent the subject involved a majority forcing their preferences onto a captive audience. The SUBJECT is essentially the same (without the constitutional church/state legalities), the CIRCUMSTANCES are different. I don't think Mark was saying they are legally one and the same, but that they are generally comparable as far as the privileged majority forcing their preferences onto an essentially helpless minority.....and equally wrong. I think he is pointing out that the these arguments of those for the hanging banner apply equally well to defending hanging the pornography...and that you would be in there defending the right of the guys to force the woman to look at the pornography. <br /><br />You ask "Given how carefully the entire document was worded, if "judicial review" was so fundamental an issue, why do you think it was never enumerated?" My answer, "Because it was discussed and was so blatantly obvious to such an overwhelming majority of the framers that they felt it didn't need to be." My question to you: "If the Court did not and does not have the power of constitutional judicial review, why was it not stopped and corrected at the time of Marbury v. Madison or at any other point since that time?" Corollary: "If the court does not have the authority to judge constitutionality of laws, then who does?" I mean, it couldn't be Congress, for to imagine them declaring a law they had just passed to be unconstitutional is bizarre in the extreme. To assume that Congress, subject to the whims of electioneering and pandering to voters, would always without exception pass laws that do not violate the constitution is fantasy. So, the need for review is undeniable. I ask you: if not the SCOTUS that the framers discussed, exactly who did the framers intend to make that review? Remember,a revision committee was proposed and voted down as unnecessary because they already had the court in place.jnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-12793451978009537312012-01-18T05:44:47.324-08:002012-01-18T05:44:47.324-08:00Let me help you to understand the word "theor...Let me help you to understand the word "theory", so you will understand why your earlier question was based on basic scientific ignorance. Put simply, you confuse the technical scientific meaning with the non-technical non-scientific meaning.<br /><br />From dictionary.com:<br />1.<br />a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.<br />2.<br />a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. <br /><br />In short, one is taken as scientific fact, principle, or law. The other is taken as guess, conjecture, or speculation. <br /><br />You don't get to use them interchangeably.<br /><br />In science, "theory" has the first definition. In the vernacular, and as applied generously to creationism and ID, "theory" has the second definition. Side note: theocrats say "Teach the controversy!" However, there is no SCIENTIFIC controversy, only a religious one.<br /><br />Of course evolution is a theory (as well as a fact!). Scientific theories are carefully built on hypothesis, testing, observation, and coming to a conclusion best fitting the facts. They also get reviewed by peers*, many times over. Theories are explanations of facts, and it takes longer than a morning cup of coffee to produce one. Intelligent Design can't be tested, so it's not even a hypothesis.<br /><br />The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.<br />1) In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.<br /><br /> So, the creationists are confusing the above with the following, in their magnanimous ignorance:<br />2) In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation.<br /><br />Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.<br /><br />I hope that explains why they "dare" to teach science in science classes. If you have some SCIENTIFIC theory they are not teaching in science classes, trot it out and we can discuss it.<br />*ID and creationism have zero peer reviewed articles in mainstream scientific journals according Michael Behe, a prime proponent of ID, in the Kitzmiller v Dover trialJohn Eberhardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-70485404178328725952012-01-18T05:14:15.210-08:002012-01-18T05:14:15.210-08:00Hold everything - there was a recent case in Austr...Hold everything - there was a recent case in Australia on a completely different subject? Then I guess we should just rescind the Constitution and go with that.<br /><br />What none of you seem be getting through your heads: no law was established forcing the school to hang the banner, therefore the Constitution was not violated. The fact that a judge ordered the banner removed was, in fact, a violation of the Constitution because it infringed the "free exercise" of religion of those who put it up.<br /><br />Whether or not you agree with that, whether or not the Supreme Court agrees with that, is not up for debate. The only real question is whether you violate the rights of more people by leaving it up or taking it down. <br /><br />If you read the Federalist papers, the Founders were afraid of three things: tyranny of the one (a king), tyranny of the few (oligarchy), and tyranny of the many (mob rule). To avoid those things they worded the Constitution VERY carefully. You yourself made mention of the fact that the First Amendment had many drafts prior to the final one. Given how carefully the entire document was worded, if "judicial review" was so fundamental an issue, why do you think it was never enumerated? The fact that it was never enumerated brings the Tenth Amendment into play, leaving that particular power out of the hands of the Federal Government - until Justice Marshall grabbed it, that is.<br /><br />That being said, at one point does the right of one person outweigh the rights of many? I submit that we are talking about different rights. Jessica Ahlquist demands that her right to avoid religion (one that is NOT explicitly in the Constitution) supersedes the rights of her classmates to exercise theirs. The two rights are not even similar unless Ahlquist admits that atheism is, in fact, her religion - in which case it is still her demanding that her right outweighs the rights of all others.<br /><br />An example that is better than an Australian sexual harassment case:<br />If the majority of people in America were for gay marriage, would it be fair if one person or a small group of people who opposed it were successful at keeping it illegal? What if the minority opposition felt that just viewing gay couples and knowing that it was legal for them to be together was an affront to heterosexual couples everywhere? What if they couldn't escape viewing married gay couples on the street, in the workplace, etc? Are you then saying that Constitutionally the gay couples seeking the right to be married should be forced to concede those rights for fear of offending the minority?<br /><br />You want the minority to have a voice - as long as it is your voice. I want to have a voice, lest my voice become the minority.Ginny Krutahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01189832964166135033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-31525902323215751702012-01-18T05:13:47.471-08:002012-01-18T05:13:47.471-08:00Oh, Mark, I laughed so hard I almost soiled myself...Oh, Mark, I laughed so hard I almost soiled myself because the "She's a troublemaker with a lot of issues" so perfectly matched Ginny's comment "If she feels that a banner hanging in the hallway makes her "subject" to a particular religion, then she truly has more problems than this one court case could ever fix."<br /><br />Ginny:<br />Oops....there is so much ground to cover--I wanted to go back to your original post and address some things, but probably won't get there--I missed this one: "What about the cities and states that allow Muslim prayer in schools and even build special wash basins and designate Muslim prayer rooms at taxpayer expense?"<br /><br />I wasn't aware of this. This question probably should be brought to trial, and I suspect that it will be.<br /><br />I notice that the wash basins and prayer rooms seem to be almost or wholly at colleges, which, though taxpayer supported, do have more leeway than public primary schools. The flip side of that question would be "What about the states and cities that have chapels on campuses?" I know my university had a state supported chapel, and I really didn't have a problem with it.<br /><br />So, I haven't the knowledge of specific instances nor have I considered it enough to fairly comment on your question. I will share a couple of early thoughts because I don't want you to think I am ignoring your question. There are two things happening in your question: the second is the providing of religious accommodation in the form of basins and specially designated prayer rooms, and I don't think I approve of that.<br />The first is "allow Muslim prayer in schools", and I favor that as much as allowing Christian or other prayer in schools, which is a constitutional right. Please do not confuse that with officially sanctioned prayer or prayer led by state officials: that is a different animal. However, currently,as long as it doesn't disrupt classes and doesn't involve state officials, Christians are welcome to pray in school until their heads fall off and I do believe that opportunity should be equally extended to Muslims.<br /><br />Even the ACLU agrees with what I think you are saying,: <br />"If you start carving out time in the school day that you would not do but for the need to let students pray, then it begins to look like what you're trying to do is to assist religion," says David Blair-Loy, legal director for the ACLU in San Diego (speaking about special prayer times set aside for Muslims).John Eberhardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-3948731473644099352012-01-18T03:53:19.833-08:002012-01-18T03:53:19.833-08:00There was a recent court case in Australia, where ...There was a recent court case in Australia, where a woman sexually sued for harassment when a mostly male workplace refused to take down pornography.<br /><br /> The thing that amazes me if that the complaints of the Cranston Christians almost exactly mirror that of the pro-porn guys. Quotes from guys who felt that they had the right to put up pornography:<br /><br />"The majority here were happy with it. Why should we be put out by one person?"<br />"She di'n't have to look at it if she didn't want to."<br />"She's a troublemaker with a lot of issues"<br />"If she didn't like it, she should have gone elsewhere!"<br />"We shouldn't give her kind special treatment"<br /><br /> Hell hath no outraged bleating like a bigoted group having their privileges taken away.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-79581891782927280232012-01-17T19:42:49.092-08:002012-01-17T19:42:49.092-08:00"If she feels that a banner hanging in the ha..."If she feels that a banner hanging in the hallway makes her "subject" to a particular religion, then she truly has more problems than this one court case could ever fix." <br /><br />So what? Even if I were to grant she has "more problems than this one court case could ever fix", what possible connection does that have to the banner being there illegally? Are you saying, "She has problems so that makes it desirable or acceptable for somebody else to break the law"? What kind of sense does that make? How about your next door neighbor is a creep, so it makes it desirable adn acceptable for you to be a serial killer? Makes as much sense. Or, are you just venting on a defenseless 16 year old girl who hasn't been harassed, bullied, ostrasized, and threatened enough to suit you?<br /><br />Not quite done with this one yet. It isn't only her--again, it appears you didn't even bother to read the judge's decision so that you could understand the reasoning and legal basis behind it. Of course, if you have already decided his reasoning MUST be wrong so "Why bother?", that would explain it. You have no interest in established jurisprudence, which you should understand stands on prior decisions. You can't have a nation of laws where the interpretation changes from day to day, and that is exactly what you are demanding.<br /><br />Had you actually read the case transcript, you would have found that at the school board meetings the Reverend Dr. Donald Anderson, Executive Minister of the Rhode<br />Island State Council of Churches, and Rabbi Amy Levin of Temple<br />Torat Yisrael in Cranston, Vice President of the Rhode Island<br />Board of Rabbis, both expressed the point of view that<br />the Prayer Mural should be altered or removed.<br /><br />The judge found "Like the student in Lee v. Weisman, she is a captive<br />audience. Beyond that, Plaintiff has stated that the presence of<br />a Christian prayer on the wall of her school has made her feel<br />ostracized and out of place. She has also stated that she<br />doesn’t find the text of the Prayer to be offensive. The Court<br />fails to find these statements inconsistent. It is possible to<br />object to the presence of the Prayer Mural without having to find<br />its goals of academic achievement and good sportsmanship<br />offensive. ."<br /><br />The judge also found, "While Plaintiff recalls feeling ostracized<br />and alone, the constitutionality of the Prayer Mural turns not on<br />Plaintiff’s feelings, but rather on the Court’s assessment of how<br />a reasonable and objective observer, fully aware of the<br />background and circumstances, would view the Prayer Mural and the<br />conduct of the School Committee.<br />At that meeting, the SchoolCommittee endorsed the position of those who believe that it is acceptable to use Christian prayer to instill values in public<br />schoolchildren; a decision that clearly placed the ‘nonadherents’<br />outside of the political community.<br />What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the<br />nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to<br />the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy."<br /><br />You say she has problems? The judge said, "Plaintiff is clearly an articulate and courageous young woman, who took a brave stand, particularly in light of the<br />hostile response she has received from her community." Of course, he was supposed to be impartial, and you obviously aren't even close.John Eberhardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-30509686550068345802012-01-17T17:50:56.109-08:002012-01-17T17:50:56.109-08:00From the judge's opinion in Kitzmiller vs. Dov...From the judge's opinion in Kitzmiller vs. Dover:<br />"We find that intelligent design fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that intelligent design is science. They are: (1) intelligent design violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to intelligent design, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) intelligent design's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. It is additionally important to note that intelligent design has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.<br /><br />Science is neither a popularity contest nor a democracy, and you do not teach "not science" in science classes.<br /><br />There is another reason why you do not teach creationism in science classes. Creationism is religion. We have a Constitutional separation of church and state. <br />As to creationism being religion based, established court case after established court case has determined unequivocally that creationism--and its evil twin intelligent design---are religous doctrine. One of the more recent court cases to illustrate this is Kitzmiller vs. Dover, wherein the judge's opinion said:<br />"We do not question that many of the leading advocates of intelligent design have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that intelligent design should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."<br /><br />You might note the judge in this case was appointed by George W. Bush.<br /><br />Creationism, as religious doctrine, must legally be relegated to the church and to the home for instruction. Public school science classes are not the place for religious indoctrination.John Eberhardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-37615547869410556122012-01-17T17:49:51.161-08:002012-01-17T17:49:51.161-08:00"As for "no one making anyone read anyth..."As for "no one making anyone read anything that is anti-religion" - are you kidding me? What about the history books that ignore all references to the judeo-christian ethics that the Founders used to frame the republic?"<br /><br />Ginny, you are equating non-mention with making someone read something. It isn't the same thing. If there is a banner that says, "There is no god. Jesus is a bum." then I would agree with you that there is a problem. But, if there is no banner AT ALL...just silent neutrality, then no one is making anyone read anything.<br /><br />If a history book says "There is no God. Jesus was bum", then I would agree with you there is a problem. But, if the history book mentions neither god nor jesus, then you can't say the book is forcing someone to read anything negative about god or Jesus.<br /><br />Providing a bland page or a non-mention is just plain not making someone read about religion, and I am puzzled that you can somehow think that it is.<br /><br />As to "ignore all references to the judeo-christian ethics that the Founders used to frame the republic?" You will have to provide me with a list of those specific exclusively Judeo-Christian ethics that the Founders used to frame the republic. It certainly wasn't the ten commandments, unless I missed the Constitutional article that addresses Thou shalt have only one god, no graven images, and not work on the Sabbath.<br /><br />"What about the science books that purport theory as fact and do not allow for any other possibilities? " Ginny, you need to look up the scientific definition of "theory". In science, as opposed to the vernacular, "theory" is stronger than fact as it is made up of facts (see Theory of Gravity or Germ Theory). I'm not saying you are stupid--indeed, I very much appreciate that we have been able to discourse on a civil level--but your question is based on scientific ignorance, because you do not even understand the scientific definition of theory. If you would like, I will gladly supply a thorough definition for you. Let me know.<br /><br />I have no doubt you are talking about evolution. To be clear, I don't have a problem with teaching creationism in philosophy or comparative religion classes, along with OTHER philosophies and religions. Of course, I do not support teaching it by itself and as true, which is what a lot of Christians want. Can't do that, as it would be a violation of the separation of church and state. <br /><br />We should not teach creationism in science classes because it (and its evil alter ego, intelligent design) are not science. Teaching creationism in science classes would give creationism a scientific legitimacy which it does not deserve. Do not think for a moment that those calling for it to be taught in that manner are not fully aware of this and, indeed, that is exactly what they want to achieve. Teaching creationism misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, and presents students with a religious alternative to evolution masquerading as a scientific theory.<br /><br />continuedJohn Eberhardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6711646595673778226.post-83854576139348967232012-01-17T16:47:53.646-08:002012-01-17T16:47:53.646-08:00I do have respect for the law. My respect for the ...I do have respect for the law. My respect for the law is what keeps me from advocating vigilante justice in the case of "doctors" who make it their business to end life rather than promote it. Oh, and my tax dollars pay for that too.<br /><br />The Christians who were mean and nasty to Jessica Ahlquist were indeed out of line. I said that several times. <br /><br />As for "no one making anyone read anything that is anti-religion" - are you kidding me? What about the history books that ignore all references to the judeo-christian ethics that the Founders used to frame the republic? What about the science books that purport theory as fact and do not allow for any other possibilities? What about the cities and states that allow Muslim prayer in schools and even build special wash basins and designate Muslim prayer rooms at taxpayer expense? <br /><br />Every American is going to be forced to pay taxes that will at some point pay for something that they disagree with on a fundamental or religious level. I understand this, and while I don't like it, I comply with it.Ginny Krutahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01189832964166135033noreply@blogger.com