Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Alas, poor Ohio .... EvC related news
DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 179 (115154)
06-14-2004 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Coragyps
06-14-2004 10:47 AM


Re: U.S. Constitution
You may want to try posting a better link that actually leads to the story. Such as.....
http://www.freep.com/news/education/utica12_20040512.htm
She used a biblical verse, Jeremiah 29:11: " 'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.' "
This reference to "the lord" is a step in the right direction, albeit an extremely small one considering the venue involved. However, this does not address the issue I raised regardng the aclu challenging the acknowledgement of god by the legislative and judicial branches of our federal government during their opening proceedings. Could it be due to the fact that there are not yet enough atheistic communist liberals on the supreme court for the aclu to have even the most remote chance of success in such an endeavor? That would be a big yes!
Cheers

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Coragyps, posted 06-14-2004 10:47 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Coragyps, posted 06-14-2004 5:40 PM DarkStar has replied
 Message 97 by Rrhain, posted 06-14-2004 11:27 PM DarkStar has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 92 of 179 (115155)
06-14-2004 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by DarkStar
06-14-2004 5:34 PM


Re: U.S. Constitution
are not yet enough atheistic communist liberals on the supreme court
You left out "fornicators with goats," and besides, I can scarcely read your black type on blue background. Please try some other color.
This message has been edited by Coragyps, 06-14-2004 04:40 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by DarkStar, posted 06-14-2004 5:34 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by DarkStar, posted 06-14-2004 5:54 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 179 (115158)
06-14-2004 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Coragyps
06-14-2004 5:40 PM


Re: U.S. Constitution
So offer your opinion as to why the aclu does not file a legal challenge to the legislative and judicial branches of our federal government opening their proceedings with an acknowledgement of god.

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Coragyps, posted 06-14-2004 5:40 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by jar, posted 06-14-2004 6:40 PM DarkStar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 94 of 179 (115163)
06-14-2004 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by DarkStar
06-14-2004 5:54 PM


Re: U.S. Constitution
Ask them?
But it would certainly be a suit that most Christians would or should support.
DarkStar
A lot of the religious oppression forced on the majority by the vocal Christian minority are unfortunately, simply ignored because it is just to easy to give them their way instead of listening to them whine. And whine is one thing they do well.
This was the case back in the 50's when we let Under God be added to the Pledge and In God We Trust be added to the currency. The only ones that really suffered were us kids, we had to take time out of our studies every day to relearn the Pledge, to get used to the flow and meter of it being broken by the insertion of two words.
The money was the same thing. It was a minor anoyance to quieten a major nusance. Nothing more. Period.
Bills still worked at the bar or the ticket counter. Price of hot dogs stayed reasonable. Small loss but great gain. The noise abated.
Unfortunately, the Creationists and Intellegent Design folk learned a lot then. They learned that if they whine enough, the majority will give in just to get them to shut up for a while. It has nothing to do with the merits of the issue.
It is only noise abatement.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by DarkStar, posted 06-14-2004 5:54 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by DarkStar, posted 06-14-2004 9:01 PM jar has replied

  
DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 179 (115183)
06-14-2004 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by jar
06-14-2004 6:40 PM


Re: U.S. Constitution
jar writes:
A lot of the religious oppression forced on the majority by the vocal Christian minority are unfortunately, simply ignored because it is just to easy to give them their way instead of listening to them whine.
Oppression? What oppression. Please be specific about the oppression that you personally suffered. I don't remember being oppressed by christians, not ever, and I have lived through this same time period.
jar writes:
And whine is one thing they do well.
Well, it would seem that they are not alone there!
jar writes:
This was the case back in the 50's when we let Under God be added to the Pledge and In God We Trust be added to the currency. The only ones that really suffered were us kids, we had to take time out of our studies every day to relearn the Pledge, to get used to the flow and meter of it being broken by the insertion of two words.
Imagine the audacity! Children, in a learning environment, being expected to learn how to properly insert two words into an already memorized recitation. How dare they!
jar writes:
The money was the same thing. It was a minor anoyance to quieten a major nusance. Nothing more. Period.
Wow! Good thing they didn't decide to change the colours, or the size and location of the image of the presidents that are depicted on those bills, huh?
jar writes:
Bills still worked at the bar or the ticket counter. Price of hot dogs stayed reasonable. Small loss but great gain. The noise abated.
I guess them there christian folks evil plot to subvert our society didn't have the desired effect and we'uns showed them a thing or two!
Now that is what I call some serious whining, baby.....major, hardcore whining!
Good job, Jar!
Cheers

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by jar, posted 06-14-2004 6:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Rrhain, posted 06-14-2004 11:32 PM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 99 by jar, posted 06-14-2004 11:41 PM DarkStar has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 96 of 179 (115211)
06-14-2004 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by DarkStar
06-13-2004 12:32 AM


Re: U.S. Constitution
DarkStar responds to me:
quote:
Or is it your contention that "religious freedom of speech" is not protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?
Of course it is protected.
But the government is not allowed to speak on matters of god. The laws which the government passes are not allowed to be justified by "god said so."
quote:
The separation of church and state contradicts the traditions of this great country.
How can it when it is the founding tradition of the country? The entire point was to separate church ideology from governmental authority.
quote:
All three branches of the federal government ceremonially recognize a belief in a supreme being.
And all three are in violation of the Constitution when they do so.
It really is that simple.
By the way...Graham Forrester? You're using him as a reference for constitutional law?
quote:
Now it would seem that if all three branches of our Fereral Government recognize that the acknowledgement of god is "not" a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, that you would be able to recognize this as well.
Incorrect.
It would seem that I would be able to recognize that all three branches are in error.
If the rules directly state, "The government is not allowed to acknowledge god" (what on earth do you think "establish religion" means if not acknowledge god?) then it doesn't matter how many branches of government do it or for how long they have been doing it.
Just because two million people do a dumb thing, it's still a dumb thing.
quote:
Or is it also your contention that our officials in all three branches of our Federal Government do not understand, and are in violation of, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?
Bingo!
They're all theists. They are all incapable of understanding what it means not to have god. Take a look at the Newdow case (in which the SCOTUS ducked, by the way). Souter was trying to say that the word "god" cannot possibly mean "god." He, as a theist, thinks that the word "god" is some sort of innocuous concept. But to an atheist, as Newdow pointed out, it is a slap in the face. For government to take the official stance that yes, god exists is to deny the theological opinion of all people who aren't willing to make that claim. While the use of "god" by the government is extremely vague and non-specific, it is still a direct statement that god does, indeed, exist. How is that not an establishment of religion?
Therefore, since freedom of religion necessarily requires freedom from religion, the only possible way in which government can ensure that it does not endorse religion is to remain completely silent on the issue, neither affirming nor denying the existence of god.
quote:
I suppose you could always attempt to convince a super majority of both houses of Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution
Why? We already have an amendment that explicitly states what I want it to say: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. And to make sure that everybody understands that, there's another amendment that indicates that the States are not allow to abridge the rights and privileges granted by the US Constitution.
Why do we need another amendment when all we need to do is follow the ones we have?
The First Amendment means something. Why are you so intent on violating it?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by DarkStar, posted 06-13-2004 12:32 AM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by DarkStar, posted 06-15-2004 12:57 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 97 of 179 (115214)
06-14-2004 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by DarkStar
06-14-2004 5:34 PM


Re: U.S. Constitution
DarkStar writes:
quote:
Could it be due to the fact that there are not yet enough atheistic communist liberals on the supreme court for the aclu to have even the most remote chance of success in such an endeavor? That would be a big yes!
So you are championing moral relativism, then.
There is no standard (the Constituion) and that whatever most people claim to be good and right and just, then that is what is good and right and just. If enough people break the rules, then it's the rules that are in error and not the people breaking them.
You're damned right that the reason the ACLU hasn't gone up against the opening prayers of Congress and the SCOTUS is because there's no way they could possibly win. That doesn't mean that they're wrong. It simply means that the people who sit in judgement are all in error.
Why do you think the SCOTUS punted in the "under god" case? Because they were faced with the choice of either committing political suicide or finding for a legally indefensible position. Newdow is absolutely right: The use of "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance is a violation of the First Amendment's right to freedom of religion as it is a governmental acknowledgement of a religious position as the official stance of the government.
So rather than do the right thing or get crucified for doing the wrong thing, they punted: Newdow, according to the SCOTUS, didn't have standing and thus the case shouldn't even exist.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by DarkStar, posted 06-14-2004 5:34 PM DarkStar has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 98 of 179 (115216)
06-14-2004 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by DarkStar
06-14-2004 9:01 PM


Re: U.S. Constitution
DarkStar writes:
quote:
Oppression? What oppression. Please be specific about the oppression that you personally suffered.
When the president of the United States says that atheists cannot be citizens (George Bush, Sr.), when a judge puts more faith in the Ten Commandments than the Constitution he is sworn to uphold (Roy Moore), just how much equal treatment under the law do you think an atheist is going to encounter?
Do I need to give you the case references of people who have lost custody of their children because they were atheists and the judge decided that such was not a good environment in which to raise children?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by DarkStar, posted 06-14-2004 9:01 PM DarkStar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 99 of 179 (115219)
06-14-2004 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by DarkStar
06-14-2004 9:01 PM


Oppression.
We can start with adding Under God and In God We Trust to the Pledge and Currency.
Then there is the criminal, Roy Moore who simply because of his religious connection was not charged, as he should have been, with malfeasance of office and tried as the criminalb the is.
Although it does not effect me, the "Defence of Marriage Act" can only be seen as religious oppression.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by DarkStar, posted 06-14-2004 9:01 PM DarkStar has not replied

  
DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 179 (115238)
06-15-2004 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Rrhain
06-14-2004 11:19 PM


Rrhain's Deception
You should practice a little more honesty and a little less deception in your posts. You begin your post with;
Rrhain writes:
DarkStar responds to me:
quote:
Or is it your contention that "religious freedom of speech" is not protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?
To which you respond;
Of course it is protected.
But the government is not allowed to speak on matters of god. The laws which the government passes are not allowed to be justified by "god said so."
The very next line in your post reads as follows;
quote:
The separation of church and state contradicts the traditions of this great country.
This is not a quote from me but is actually a posted reference from an outside source, Welcome nexusjournal.org - BlueHost.com, which I am sure was made quite obvious in my post Message 87, but which you conviently ommitted from your reply. Furthermore, it is a single sentence pulled from the top of the entire paragraph that was referenced. Anyone reading your post could easily be misled to think these were my words as you make no clear distinction between my own words and those of other individuals. This is shoddy posting at best, if not an outright attempt at deception on your part.
As to the separation of church and state, that is a given. Even these christians should realize this because it is taught throughout their bible. The kings and the priests were separate entities by decree. But the separation of church and state is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that there is no separation of god and government so long as the people are willing to acknowledge that a bond exists between the two. One need not be a christian to understand the positive effect of having leaders with moral conviction and clarity of purpose in regards to the overall welfare of the populace.
The rest of your post is filled with so much anal pablum that it beggars description. You apparently have convinced yourself, and no one else I am sure, that you are a greater authority on the constitution then are the senators, congressmen, and judges of our federal government.
So much has this self deception been incorporated into your thinking that it has become quite evident to me that your level of cogitation is mediocre at best, and may even sink to the degree that logic and reason, and perhaps even reality, escape you. Initially, I had considered you worthy of continued discourse. I can see from your latest post that such consideration was unwarranted.
Jeers

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Rrhain, posted 06-14-2004 11:19 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 06-15-2004 1:49 AM DarkStar has replied
 Message 102 by Rrhain, posted 06-15-2004 2:54 AM DarkStar has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 101 of 179 (115248)
06-15-2004 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by DarkStar
06-15-2004 12:57 AM


This is shoddy posting at best, if not an outright attempt at deception on your part
I realize how easily one could come to this conclusion, but I personally find it rather hollow to insist that someone is trying to distort your message when your own, undistorted posts appear unchanged earlier in the thread.
How can Rrhain hope to confuse or prevaricate when the actual record perfectly records exactly what you posted? How could he pull one over on anyone when they could just go back and look at what you said?
Nobody's going to rely on Rrhain's quotes to find out what your said, DS. They're going to go back to your post. We don't quote from messages to preserve their exact layout and meaning; we quote to aid thread readability and to make the context of our posts clear.
But it's impossible to take someone's quotes out of context in the very thread in which they first appeared. It's up to you but personally I felt Rrhain's post deserved a better response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by DarkStar, posted 06-15-2004 12:57 AM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by DarkStar, posted 06-15-2004 3:54 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 102 of 179 (115264)
06-15-2004 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by DarkStar
06-15-2004 12:57 AM


Re: Rrhain's Deception
DarkStar responds to me:
quote:
This is not a quote from me but is actually a posted reference from an outside source
I know. But since you proffered it as an argument, it doesn't really matter. Do you not agree with it?
I will handily say that in the interest of clarity, I should have mentioned that you were quoting from an outside source.
Now, respond to the point I made: The separation of church and state is actually a founding principle of this country and was considered so important that it was written into the Constitution.
quote:
The issue at hand is that there is no separation of god and government
But Jesus says there is:
Matthew 22:17: Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
22:18: But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
22:19: Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
22:20: And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
22:21: They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
So since Jesus understands that there is god and there is government and the two are separate, why are you contradicting him?
I thought you were a Christian. If you're not, then that would make sense. If you actually followed a religion where government is derived by the will of god, then I could understand your statement. But that isn't a Christian religion, then.
quote:
One need not be a christian to understand the positive effect of having leaders with moral conviction and clarity of purpose in regards to the overall welfare of the populace.
What does that have to do with religion? Morality and purpose are not the sole purview of religion.
Surely you aren't implying that atheists have no morals, are you?
Given that religion has caused more suffering to more people than any other idea in the history of humanity, I find it difficult to claim that religious leaders are better. They so often lead people to their deaths in the name of god. What do you think is going on in the Middle East regarding Islam, Judaism, and Christianity? In Ireland regarding Catholicism and Protestantism? In this country regarding the Christians and the non-Christians?
Your argument against same-sex marriage is a religious-based one. That causes real harm to real people who do not share your religious attitude.
If we were to seek a reduction in the suffering of humanity, wouldn't one of the first things we ought to do be to tell everybody to get over themselves when it comes to obsessing about other people's sins? Not that they shouldn't be religious...just that they should stop worrying whether or not other people are religious.
quote:
You apparently have convinced yourself, and no one else I am sure, that you are a greater authority on the constitution then are the senators, congressmen, and judges of our federal government.
On this one issue, yes.
It wasn't just me, after all. Did you listen to the oral arguments in the Newdow case? Souter tried to say that everybody understands that when the government acknowledges the existence of god, it isn't really offensive.
But to an atheist, of course it is. It is a direct statement that the government considers the theological opinion of an entire class of people unequal.
The only solution, and the one mandated by the Constitution, is to simply shut up about it. Don't deny god, but don't affirm god, either. God may or may not exist. That isn't the concern of the government. You're an adult and you can decide for yourself. You don't need the government's help.
Suppose Congress and the Supreme Court held a prayer where they invoked the devil, not god. Well, that's a universal concept, too. The devil shows up in most religions and is such an innocuous and secularized concept that it is merely ceremonial.
Wouldn't you be upset over that? Wouldn't you respond that the government has no place invoking the incarnation of evil?
So why does the incarnation of good get a pass? Especially when many people don't think such a thing exists? Shouldn't the government, in its duty to be accountable to all of the citizens it is in charge of, simply say nothing?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by DarkStar, posted 06-15-2004 12:57 AM DarkStar has not replied

  
DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 179 (115279)
06-15-2004 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by crashfrog
06-15-2004 1:49 AM


Rrhain's quotes
crashfrog writes:
I realize how easily one could come to this conclusion, but I personally find it rather hollow to insist that someone is trying to distort your message when your own, undistorted posts appear unchanged earlier in the thread.
Upon close examination of Rrhain's posts, one can not help but notice either a deliberate lack of attention, or an inability to comprehend thoughts expressed in simple prose. As an example I offer this from Message 102
Rrhain writes:
DarkStar responds to me:
quote:
This is not a quote from me but is actually a posted reference from an outside source
I know. But since you proffered it as an argument, it doesn't really matter. Do you not agree with it?
This is the quote to which we are referring:
The separation of church and state contradicts the traditions of this great country.
Message 102 is a direct response to Message 100 in which I clearly state the following:
As to the separation of church and state, that is a given. Even these christians should realize this because it is taught throughout their bible. The kings and the priests were separate entities by decree. But the separation of church and state is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that there is no separation of god and government so long as the people are willing to acknowledge that a bond exists between the two. One need not be a christian to understand the positive effect of having leaders with moral conviction and clarity of purpose in regards to the overall welfare of the populace.
How he could have read my post and then asked the question again is beyond understanding without accepting the aforementioned issues regarding Rrhain's attention to detail, or lack thereof.

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 06-15-2004 1:49 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 06-15-2004 4:21 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 105 by Rrhain, posted 06-15-2004 4:42 AM DarkStar has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 104 of 179 (115283)
06-15-2004 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by DarkStar
06-15-2004 3:54 AM


Maybe he just doesn't understand the context in which you offered a quote that apparently, says the opposite of what you were arguing.
BTW your new posting style isn't working well. Black text on a blue background? I read EvC on my laptop and unless my face is exactly perpendicular to the screen, I can't see a damn thing you've written.
What was so bad about the default white text on blue?
How he could have read my post and then asked the question again is beyond understanding without accepting the aforementioned issues regarding Rrhain's attention to detail, or lack thereof.
Well, I've been reading his posts far longer than I've been reading yours, and that doesn't sound like the Rrhain I've been reading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by DarkStar, posted 06-15-2004 3:54 AM DarkStar has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 105 of 179 (115287)
06-15-2004 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by DarkStar
06-15-2004 3:54 AM


Re: Rrhain's quotes
DarkStar writes:
quote:
This is the quote to which we are referring:
The separation of church and state contradicts the traditions of this great country.

But that's just it. It isn't the tradition of this great country.
This country (and I define "this country" as the creation of the United States with the ratification of the Constitution) was founded on the separation of church and state. It is one of the defining principles of this great country.
How can it be a contradiction when it is the very basis for our existence?
quote:
The issue at hand is that there is no separation of god and government so long as the people are willing to acknowledge that a bond exists between the two.
But that's just it. This country necessarily separates the two. It is the tradition of this great country to keep religion out of government.
Therefore, there is always separation of god and government no matter how much people want there to be a connection.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by DarkStar, posted 06-15-2004 3:54 AM DarkStar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by berberry, posted 06-15-2004 5:38 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024