WHITEHOUSE, TX (KLTV) - The school year is almost here, and if literature of the Bible is not already offered in your child's school, it will be this fall.
Books are a common sight in classrooms around the nation, but the Bible is one book that is not. Come this fall, a Texas law says all public schools must offer information relating to the Bible in their curriculum.
"By the end of the year, what they begin to realize is that it is pervasive. You can't get away from it. The kids came back and were like 'It's everywhere,'" said John Keeling, the social studies chair at Whitehouse High School. Whitehouse already offers a Bible elective. "The purpose of a course like this isn't even really to get kids to believe it per say. It is just to appreciate the profound impact that it has had on our history and on our government," said Keeling.
The law actually passed in 2007, but this will be the first school year it is enforced because the bill says, "The provisions of this act pertaining to a school district do not take effect until the 2009-2010 school year."
This has gained mixed reactions from East Texans. "I think it is a good thing because a lot of kids don't have that experience, and they already want to take prayer out of school as it is-- and you see where our kids are ending up!" said Tyler resident Laura Tucker.
Tyler resident Havis Tatum disagrees with Tucker. He said, "I don't want anybody teaching their religious beliefs to my child unless they want to send their child to my house and let me teach them my religious views. There is no difference."
School officials tell us schools haven't enforced this law because of confusion over the bill's wording and lack of state funding.
For now, each school district must find a way to fill the requirement before the seats are filled with students.
Cliffnotes: Texas is requiring all public schools to incorporate the bible into their curriculum.
What happened to church and state being separate? I'm not a christian, and I know there are people in Texas who are not as well. So this is going to be a huge burden on people on having to learn both creationism and darwinism. No matter what they believe.
This has gained mixed reactions from East Texans. "I think it is a good thing because a lot of kids don't have that experience, and they already want to take prayer out of school as it is-- and you see where our kids are ending up!" said Tyler resident Laura Tucker.
The bible is still a book that can be studied from two perspectives: literary, and historical impact.
The question is, is this a state requirement in order for a student to demonstrate satisfactory completion of age-required schooling (the same as math or any other major discipline) or is this actually a law which bypasses the usual method of indicating what students should learn within a given state.
Why not pass a law requiring every school to be catholic and everyone to have to have a firearm with them at all times in texas? Honestly, sometimes the legislature there confuses me to no end. How is Texas a part of united states again?
On August 17 2009 15:31 micronesia wrote: The bible is still a book that can be studied from two perspectives: literary, and historical impact.
The question is, is this a state requirement in order for a student to demonstrate satisfactory completion of age-required schooling (the same as math or any other major discipline) or is this actually a law which bypasses the usual method of indicating what students should learn within a given state.
Exactly what I think. But teaching bible(?) is a gray area.
On August 17 2009 15:31 micronesia wrote: The bible is still a book that can be studied from two perspectives: literary, and historical impact.
The question is, is this a state requirement in order for a student to demonstrate satisfactory completion of age-required schooling (the same as math or any other major discipline) or is this actually a law which bypasses the usual method of indicating what students should learn within a given state.
Exactly what I think. But teaching bible(?) is a gray area.
This is not the worst thing that could happen, tbh. My high school had a required half-credit course on the bible, and although I'm an atheist and the course was split 50/50 between real history and a study of the "story" of the bible, it was interesting. If I had never had that course, I would probably be getting a lot more angry at this law than I am.
I think almost everyone can agree is bad. Education shouldn't be brainwashing into religious views. If there is already a secular course studying the impact of Christianity (as the article claims there is) then there can be no educational merit to teaching this. I don't mind people learning about their religion but public education should be teach you the skills you need to live in the world and inform you about the world. Religious education for the sake of it achieves neither. If people wish to be privately educated about a religion then they can feel free to, it's their time and money. But public funds would be better spent running a class learning about stuff that exists in a tangible way and actually effects the day to day lives of people.
That and your separation of Church and State which is a good idea for countries which can't be secular without rules telling them to. Obviously more mature countries don't need it for the same reasons as they don't need constitutions or separation of power but while extreme religious views still dominant much of a society it's good to have rules to keep them at bay.
On a slightly related note, a great many schools in Britain are partnerships between voluntary religious organisations and state funding and as such do teach this kind of religious education. As well as prayer in schools and mandatory religious services for the pupils. Any organisation can set up a school in partnership with the Local Educational Authority, from Islamic groups who can dedicate part of the curiculum to oppression studies to McDonalds who can dedicate part of the students time to learning why they should spend money at McDonalds. Kind of insane but that's how our education system evolved. However our society is so overwhelmingly secular that the widespread indoctrination of Christianity into our children completely fails to sway anyone because nobody takes it seriously.
Just one of the things that makes me proud of Britain. Despite being a monarchy with no constitutional limitations on the power of the sovereign, no separation of powers within our government and no limitations on the power of the executive we still manage to achieve a fair imitation of a modern state.
On August 17 2009 15:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Is there a curriculum offering lessons on the Torah, and the Qur'an as well?
That's not the issue here. Even if there were lessons like that, it would technically still be discriminatory against all the various other religions. If you say teaching about only 1 religion is bad, you can't say that teaching about the "big three" is any better.
On August 17 2009 15:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Is there a curriculum offering lessons on the Torah, and the Qur'an as well?
That's not the issue here. Even if there were lessons like that, it would technically still be discriminatory against all the various other religions. If you say teaching about only 1 religion is bad, you can't say that teaching about the "big three" is any better.
if they teach facts about even one religion, it's something positive
On August 17 2009 15:52 29 fps wrote: this is a bad idea. it will set precedent for many more bad things to come.
No, it won't. Even this law is apt to be challenged in court, obviously on the provision of seperation of church and state. I can't imagine that anything more extreme wouldn't be struck down.
On August 17 2009 15:52 29 fps wrote: this is a bad idea. it will set precedent for many more bad things to come.
No, it won't. Even this law is apt to be challenged in court, obviously on the provision of seperation of church and state. I can't imagine that anything more extreme wouldn't be struck down.
i mean, it's bad assuming that it stays. it will definitely be challenged. if it stays, then more shit will happen later.
education is going to hell. must they waste more academic time?
Honestly, I can't make a judgment on this right now. On one hand, it seems bad, but we don't know the way it's being taught. If they're teaching religious views, than obviously it's a bad idea. If they're teaching about the historical impact and it's impact as literature - and face it, the bible has had more impact on American society than any other religious literature, like it or not - then it will probably just be more history - which can't be too bad.
It really depends whether they're going to study it from a religious perspective or treat it as a work of fiction, the same way they treat greek mythology.
As an athiest, I'd have found a month spent studying the bible as a work of fiction fascinating.
Atleast I can dream that they're going to study on nonreligious terms >_<
I think the OP has it exactly right, from the spoilered post:
"The purpose of a course like this isn't even really to get kids to believe it per say. It is just to appreciate the profound impact that it has had on our history and on our government," said Keeling.
If that is the case, they are perfectly right in teaching this. If you should enrol in any subject concerned with the humanities in your later life, knowledge about the bible is essential to understand what's going on. It's a part of very basic education to know what the bible says.
There is the actual law that is about to take effect. I read through a good portion of it, and the apparent intention of the bill is to teach students about the influence of the bible on other aspects of learning and life, i.e. its importance in literature and history.
While the bill is written to avoid criticism relating to religious indoctrination, I fear that such a course could be too easily abused by individual teachers. A separate course devoted to the bible's effects on society etc. seems unneeded. Its effects on literature could easily be taught in a literature class. The bible should have some focus in school, its an important book in western culture. Many works of literature have allusions to the bible (even Harry Potter), elevating certain symbols and stories from the bible to meme-like status.
Despite my support for teaching the bible's importance in history and literature, the courts should overturn this bill. The bible's importance is not so great that is warrants a separate class for its study.
"The purpose of a course like this isn't even really to get kids to believe it per say. It is just to appreciate the profound impact that it has had on our history and on our government," said Keeling.
If that is the case, they are perfectly right in teaching this. If you should enrol in any subject concerned with the humanities in your later life, knowledge about the bible is essential to understand what's going on. It's a part of very basic education to know what the bible says.
"The purpose of a course like this isn't even really to get kids to believe it per say. It is just to appreciate the profound impact that it has had on our history and on our government," said Keeling.
If that is the case, they are perfectly right in teaching this. If you should enrol in any subject concerned with the humanities in your later life, knowledge about the bible is essential to understand what's going on. It's a part of very basic education to know what the bible says.
For a sensitive topic like this... it really needs to be better planned. The state should publish a very specific course outline detailing all of the standards for parents to read prior to their kids taking the course.
The Bible is the best science fiction book ever written or so some may say.
I used to be a christian-Catholic, but I don't what I am right now, I'm in disagreement with a lot of things the Church does and..well, I'm just not up to their...things?.
It's not like high school literature is without bias to begin with...so many dystopian novels are being read (1984, Brave New World) which clearly has some sort of direction and its not purely neutral. If they teach the bible as a literary work though, I dont think theres anything wrong with it, and I say that as someone who believes in the separation of CHurch and state.
I will say that this is very open to abuse by individual schools. But it's a high school class, so there should be a fair amount of atheist students and they and their parents can raise a fuss on a case-by-case basis.
Going through an AP Literature class, I found that knowledge of the Bible and it's stories was extremely helpful in catching allusions and references in the works I was reading.
As many people have said, it is indeed a grey area in terms of teaching the Bible, but we're still required to know distinct references that are just so integrated into society.
The Bible is a book that has been sold and distributed the most, so the impact of it can't be ignored by educators. I am Christian, and I do believe teaching Biblical morals should be saved for the church, but for literary purposes the allusions numerous classical works make to the Bible say something about its impact in human history.
Also I hated English so either way, I feel bad for those kids =P
if schools can teach ppl about things as stupid as evolution then they can surely teach people about the Bible from a historical point of view.. you know the stuff our country was buildt on..
As long as Education remains a Government run system, I am opposed to the introduction of any religious and secular classes, courses, and bias. If, however you allow secular bias, course, and other such of that nature, therefore you must then also allow religious.
I think the hot topic button on this is still evolution. There are still many pervasive holes, and contradictions with evolution; see sharks in the devonian period which contradicts the theory of evolution. I am all for teaching it as a theory, but I can attest the school system teaches it as though it is fact.
In any event, the courts should strike this down. I just hope one day we can move away from Government run education, then things like this aren't a problem and free-choice and competition would allow differing institutions as you see in Colleges.
On August 17 2009 16:42 Aegraen wrote: As long as Education remains a Government run system, I am opposed to the introduction of any religious and secular classes, courses, and bias. If, however you allow secular bias, course, and other such of that nature, therefore you must then also allow religious.
I think the hot topic button on this is still evolution. There are still many pervasive holes, and contradictions with evolution; see sharks in the devonian period which contradicts the theory of evolution. I am all for teaching it as a theory, but I can attest the school system teaches it as though it is fact.
In any event, the courts should strike this down. I just hope one day we can move away from Government run education, then things like this aren't a problem and free-choice and competition would allow differing institutions as you see in Colleges.
listen man, it's very simple: evolution is a fact when it describes what happened, it's a theory when it describes how it happened
On August 17 2009 16:42 Aegraen wrote: I think the hot topic button on this is still evolution. There are still many pervasive holes, and contradictions with evolution; see sharks in the devonian period which contradicts the theory of evolution.
If you study evolution from the perspective of common/modern biology, then you realize it's way too complicated for us to avoid finding any holes or counter-evidence that won't immediately be disproven. Nothing wrong with making evolution prove itself... but when it fails to have a defense to some apparent loophole, don't consider it an anti-evolution victory.
I am all for teaching it as a theory, but I can attest the school system teaches it as though it is fact.
Many of the things taught in public school (things that are not at all controversial) are much less verifiable/verified theories than evolution despite the fact that they are also taught as 'fact' as you say. People don't complain about them because they don't oppose the beliefs of some religious groups.
I think most of you are afraid that the children will be religiously bias and wouldn't have an open mind when it comes to other people's religion especially to atheist, that's why you don't like this law to be passed to public schools.
Well, lets just say it's up to the kids to decide if they will be bias or not but I believe that most of them wouldn't be like that.
And I for one even though I question some Church teachings, still know that is somehow uplifts the spirit of those people who believe, and of course if the professor is liberal in teaching, we shouldn't be worry about what they are teaching..
On August 17 2009 16:55 Licmyobelisk wrote: I think most of you are afraid that the children will be religiously bias and wouldn't have an open mind when it comes to other people's religion especially to atheist, that's why you don't like this law to be passed to public schools.
Well, lets just say it's up to the kids to decide if they will be bias or not but I believe that most of them wouldn't be like that.
And I for one even though I question some Church teachings, still know that is somehow uplifts the spirit of those people who believe, and of course if the professor is liberal in teaching, we shouldn't be worry about what they are teaching..
Please don't bash me!
I'm hoping that the language barrier here is the reason why I can't imagine you were seriously trying to defend the law with some kind of justification in this post...
On August 17 2009 16:42 Aegraen wrote: As long as Education remains a Government run system, I am opposed to the introduction of any religious and secular classes, courses, and bias. If, however you allow secular bias, course, and other such of that nature, therefore you must then also allow religious.
I think the hot topic button on this is still evolution. There are still many pervasive holes, and contradictions with evolution; see sharks in the devonian period which contradicts the theory of evolution. I am all for teaching it as a theory, but I can attest the school system teaches it as though it is fact.
In any event, the courts should strike this down. I just hope one day we can move away from Government run education, then things like this aren't a problem and free-choice and competition would allow differing institutions as you see in Colleges.
listen man, it's very simple: evolution is a fact when it describes what happened, it's a theory when it describes how it happened
Microevolution (within a species) has been proved with fruit flies. Same with chickens. Same with cows. Same with horses. Same with dogs. There is no debate about whether random mutations happen or whether mutations can effect liklihood of survival and whether survival helps genes get passed on. The mechanism of evolution has been proved. The only debate is on macroevolution, ie evolution from one species to another, and tbh that's a no brainer. We know that over time animals evolve, it seems obvious that over a longer period they'd evolve more significantly.
On August 17 2009 16:42 Aegraen wrote: I think the hot topic button on this is still evolution. There are still many pervasive holes, and contradictions with evolution; see sharks in the devonian period which contradicts the theory of evolution.
If you study evolution from the perspective of common/modern biology, then you realize it's way too complicated for us to avoid finding any holes or counter-evidence that won't immediately be disproven. Nothing wrong with making evolution prove itself... but when it fails to have a defense to some apparent loophole, don't consider it an anti-evolution victory.
I am all for teaching it as a theory, but I can attest the school system teaches it as though it is fact.
Many of the things taught in public school (things that are not at all controversial) are much less verifiable/verified theories than evolution despite the fact that they are also taught as 'fact' as you say. People don't complain about them because they don't oppose the beliefs of some religious groups.
I would disagree and say they aren't controversial (such as say; string theory), because they aren't trying to propose a system or set of rules that describes how human beings came to be. When it comes to this, you want to be as skeptical and scientific as you can be.
In labs, trying to run the scientific method on Evolution has been proven to be fruitless. Take for example the fruit fly. Due to their extremely low life spans and fast birth rates it is the best species to conduct these tests on. You can run through thousands of generations quickly. So far, in these tests in precise scientific studies fruit flies are still fruit flies and share all the same characteristics that make them fruit flies.
I do not propose to know how we got here, nor do I fully believe in evolution and I certainly do not believe in creationism, I feel that acting as if we have the knowledge and to teach it as if we know for certain betrays science itself. I am all for teaching Evolution because it is the best theory we have, but that is just it; a theory. We do not know for certain how we came to be. Many people who aren't religious like myself, are also extremely skeptical because the holes aren't just minute as your purtend, but they are gaping and when you are talking about how humans came into existence of course its going to be controversial religion or no religion.
On August 17 2009 16:42 Aegraen wrote: As long as Education remains a Government run system, I am opposed to the introduction of any religious and secular classes, courses, and bias. If, however you allow secular bias, course, and other such of that nature, therefore you must then also allow religious.
What exactly is wrong with education as a government institution? There is no way the world would have developed as quickly as it has without public education. I realize you are a hardcore free market advocate, and I respect that. But how is the son of a poor farm worker going to compete for the best possible education when private institutions demand payment for their services. If the free market works as it should, the better private schools would be able to charge more, as their services are of better quality and higher demand, thus leaving poor, intelligent students to fend for themselves. Granted scholarships would help some break from the lower rungs in society, but shouldn't everybody have equal opportunity to accrue the education needed to compete in a free market society?
On August 17 2009 16:42 Aegraen wrote: I think the hot topic button on this is still evolution. There are still many pervasive holes, and contradictions with evolution; see sharks in the devonian period which contradicts the theory of evolution.
If you study evolution from the perspective of common/modern biology, then you realize it's way too complicated for us to avoid finding any holes or counter-evidence that won't immediately be disproven. Nothing wrong with making evolution prove itself... but when it fails to have a defense to some apparent loophole, don't consider it an anti-evolution victory.
I am all for teaching it as a theory, but I can attest the school system teaches it as though it is fact.
Many of the things taught in public school (things that are not at all controversial) are much less verifiable/verified theories than evolution despite the fact that they are also taught as 'fact' as you say. People don't complain about them because they don't oppose the beliefs of some religious groups.
I would disagree and say they aren't controversial (such as say; string theory), because they aren't trying to propose a system or set of rules that describes how human beings came to be. When it comes to this, you want to be as skeptical and scientific as you can be.
I don't think you understood what I said. I'm saying there are many things taught in school which are much more 'theoretical' than evolution and yet are presented as fact, but nobody complains about those.
I don't really get why anyone should be opposed to this, based on their outspoken intentions: The act above (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB01287F.htm) clearly states what everyone would like. They want to teach the teachers "understanding of how to present the Bible in an objective, academic manner that neither promotes nor disparages religion, nor is taught from a particular sectarian point of view;"
Now it appears to me that most counter arguments focus on: a) omg, they gonna teach creationism again (which is wrong) b) teachers will abuse it and try to indoctrinate children (which is possible, but a void assumption)
Frankly, a) and b) are only pessimistic views of what could happen that are unrelated to the actual bill passed.
On August 17 2009 17:08 Aesop wrote: I don't really get why anyone should be opposed to this, based on their outspoken intentions: The act above (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB01287F.htm) clearly states what everyone would like. They want to teach the teachers "understanding of how to present the Bible in an objective, academic manner that neither promotes nor disparages religion, nor is taught from a particular sectarian point of view;"
Now it appears to me that most counter arguments focus on: a) omg, they gonna teach creationism again (which is wrong) b) teachers will abuse it and try to indoctrinate children (which is possible, but a void assumption)
Frankly, a) and b) are only pessimistic views of what could happen that are unrelated to the actual bill passed.
This should be integrated into the state curriculum... not preemptively made into a law before it's challenged.
Aegraen, the modern cow is a completely artificial animal. As is the modern chicken. Or the modern horse. Take chickens, it's a flightless meal on its period all the time. Modern chickens didn't exist in the wild before mankind, they were artifically created through microevolution in which the ones which produced less eggs were eaten. Same with cows, it's a big placid hunk of beef which produces vast amounts of milk. Never existed in the wild. Bred from Aurochs (now extinct) but the modern cow is very different from the auroch. Again, evolution. Or horses, they used to be about four foot tall and too weak to bear a mans weight. Ever wonder why the Egyptians and Assyrians used chariots rather than cavalry? It's not because they didn't think of sitting on horses, it's because horses were tiny. Now they're far larger. Evolution through selective breeding.
And contrary to your position, fruitflies have been used to prove evolution. I honestly don't get how you can be so wrong on every subject. Do you really imagine wild chickens frolicking in the woods laying six eggs a week and evading predators thirty thousand years ago? Or do you think the invention of farming might have something to do with it.
On August 17 2009 16:42 Aegraen wrote: I think the hot topic button on this is still evolution. There are still many pervasive holes, and contradictions with evolution; see sharks in the devonian period which contradicts the theory of evolution.
If you study evolution from the perspective of common/modern biology, then you realize it's way too complicated for us to avoid finding any holes or counter-evidence that won't immediately be disproven. Nothing wrong with making evolution prove itself... but when it fails to have a defense to some apparent loophole, don't consider it an anti-evolution victory.
I am all for teaching it as a theory, but I can attest the school system teaches it as though it is fact.
Many of the things taught in public school (things that are not at all controversial) are much less verifiable/verified theories than evolution despite the fact that they are also taught as 'fact' as you say. People don't complain about them because they don't oppose the beliefs of some religious groups.
I would disagree and say they aren't controversial (such as say; string theory), because they aren't trying to propose a system or set of rules that describes how human beings came to be. When it comes to this, you want to be as skeptical and scientific as you can be.
I don't think you understood what I said. I'm saying there are many things taught in school which are much more 'theoretical' than evolution and yet are presented as fact, but nobody complains about those.
I understand what you said. I said they aren't controversial because they don't propose a system or set of rules to describe how we came to be. If string theory tried to explain how we came to be, and there was the competing theory of evolution (Just imagine a moment two sets of theories equally viable to explain our existence), it would still be a controversial subject over which to teach, whether to teach or not the various theories; religion or no religion. Religion is not what makes this controversial. Our coming into existence is what makes it a controversial topic.
In any case, I agree also that at least for me, anything that isn't at least viably able to run through the scientific method and corrabated shouldn't be taught as fact. In fact, there are hardly any facts because most of what we know we base on theories. It's a lot more complicated than that, but I don't want to diverge the topic to something else.
On August 17 2009 16:42 Aegraen wrote: I think the hot topic button on this is still evolution. There are still many pervasive holes, and contradictions with evolution; see sharks in the devonian period which contradicts the theory of evolution.
If you study evolution from the perspective of common/modern biology, then you realize it's way too complicated for us to avoid finding any holes or counter-evidence that won't immediately be disproven. Nothing wrong with making evolution prove itself... but when it fails to have a defense to some apparent loophole, don't consider it an anti-evolution victory.
I am all for teaching it as a theory, but I can attest the school system teaches it as though it is fact.
Many of the things taught in public school (things that are not at all controversial) are much less verifiable/verified theories than evolution despite the fact that they are also taught as 'fact' as you say. People don't complain about them because they don't oppose the beliefs of some religious groups.
I would disagree and say they aren't controversial (such as say; string theory), because they aren't trying to propose a system or set of rules that describes how human beings came to be. When it comes to this, you want to be as skeptical and scientific as you can be.
I don't think you understood what I said. I'm saying there are many things taught in school which are much more 'theoretical' than evolution and yet are presented as fact, but nobody complains about those.
I understand what you said. I said they aren't controversial because they don't propose a system or set of rules to describe how we came to be. If string theory tried to explain how we came to be, and there was the competing theory of evolution (Just imagine a moment two sets of theories equally viable to explain our existence), it would still be a controversial subject over which to teach, whether to teach or not the various theories; religion or no religion. Religion is not what makes this controversial. Our coming into existence is what makes it a controversial topic.
In any case, I agree also that at least for me, anything that isn't at least viably able to run through the scientific method and corrabated shouldn't be taught as fact. In fact, there are hardly any facts because most of what we know we base on theories. It's a lot more complicated than that, but I don't want to diverge the topic to something else.
Continue on this is my last post in the topic
Oh I think I understand what you meant. You assumed that I accredited them with not being controversial because they were not being complained about by religious people. If so, the assumption was incorrect and not backed by what I said.
If parents want their kids to have a religious education, they should take them to church or do it at home. Teaching it in school is a terrible idea, especially since different people have different religious views. Even among christians there is a variety of beliefs. Whose will be taught, or whose beliefs will affect a more secular reading?
When we lived in England my little sister went to a local english school (rest of us went to schools on the US Air Force base) and she got taught about the doctrine of the Church of England. My mother objected, but was told that was the only way kids would get an exposure to religion. Maybe there it's true, but over here there are still a lot of religious people, and they often go to church. If they don't, and don't believe, they shouldn't have religion forced on them. If they do believe, they shouldn't have another sect's viewpoint forced on them.
Obviously the Bible can be studied from a literary, historical or archaeological perspective, but who really believes that's going to be how it is in Texas? I'm betting this is a terrible idea.
On August 17 2009 17:38 MamiyaOtaru wrote: If parents want their kids to have a religious education, they should take them to church or do it at home. Teaching it in school is a terrible idea, especially since different people have different religious views. Even among christians there is a variety of beliefs. Whose will be taught, or whose beliefs will affect a more secular reading?
When we lived in England my little sister went to a local english school (rest of us went to schools on the US Air Force base) and she got taught about the doctrine of the Church of England. My mother objected, but was told that was the only way kids would get an exposure to religion. Maybe there it's true, but over here there are still a lot of religious people, and they often go to church. If they don't, and don't believe, they shouldn't have religion forced on them. If they do believe, they shouldn't have another sect's viewpoint forced on them.
Obviously the Bible can be studied from a literary, historical or archaeological perspective, but who really believes that's going to be how it is in Texas? I'm betting this is a terrible idea.
You're right that we have Church of England schools which do teach Anglicanism but equally, even the schools don't take it seriously. It's more of a cultural thing than a religious thing. Nobody is going to get indoctrinated from it because nobody believes in it, even the guy leading the sermons wouldn't dream of forcing it down someones throat. I wouldn't advocate our system in America because you still have evangelists but that kind of furvent believer no longer really exists in this country so it's pretty much harmless.
On August 17 2009 17:53 travis wrote: you guys are so naive if you don't think this is based in spreading christianity
That may be the ulterior motive, but trust me when I say that these types of courses are interesting, helpful, and generally harmless in a country like America which is basically inundated with Christianity.
On August 17 2009 17:44 JohnColtrane wrote: aegraen is the poster i look forward to most on these forums
also i think this is a great idea, i had so much fun in high school reading hilarious stories like how god smited/smote onan for pulling out LOL
I loved how moses accidentally discovered weed! ^_^
then thought that he was talking to God. Damn, that shit is strong!
Onan had sex with Tamar, but performed coitus interruptus each time, spilling his "seed" (semen) on the ground, so that there would not be any offspring which he could not claim as his own.[3] The passage states that this displeased God, who killed him.[4]
On August 17 2009 16:38 Lz wrote: if schools can teach ppl about things as stupid as evolution then they can surely teach people about the Bible from a historical point of view.. you know the stuff our country was buildt on..
Evolution is an integral part of biology, if biology is to be taught then evolution has to be taught along with it. The bible pertains to creationism which is not another subject on it's own. Also the founders of America paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity, and believed above all, in a secular Government. It's absolutely pathetic that i, a non-American should be informing you about this. Please hang your head in shame good sir.
On August 17 2009 18:02 CalvinStorm wrote: Think that's bad? My city has a mandatory course teaching about gay people.
what exactly do they teach?
edit: just so i won't be completely off topic, i believe that the original idea put forth is an excellent one, and that it would benefit an ignorant country like the US ( no offense but ignorance is abundant when it comes to religion, in any country but the US takes the cake from my experience ) But this will be poorly executed by bias teachers, principal, parents, and everyone in between, becuase let's face it, that's America. It's disappointing but their educational system is too corrupt.
On August 17 2009 18:02 CalvinStorm wrote: Think that's bad? My city has a mandatory course teaching about gay people.
what exactly do they teach?
edit: just so i won't be completely off topic, i believe that the original idea put forth is an excellent one, and that it would benefit an ignorant country like the US ( no offense but ignorance is abundant when it comes to religion, in any country but the US takes the cake from my experience ) But this will be poorly executed by bias teachers, principal, parents, and everyone in between, becuase let's face it, that's America. It's disappointing but their educational system is too corrupt.
whoa, whoa, whoa, don't paint all of the US with the texas brush
On August 17 2009 18:02 CalvinStorm wrote: Think that's bad? My city has a mandatory course teaching about gay people.
what exactly do they teach?
edit: just so i won't be completely off topic, i believe that the original idea put forth is an excellent one, and that it would benefit an ignorant country like the US ( no offense but ignorance is abundant when it comes to religion, in any country but the US takes the cake from my experience ) But this will be poorly executed by bias teachers, principal, parents, and everyone in between, becuase let's face it, that's America. It's disappointing but their educational system is too corrupt.
whoa, whoa, whoa, don't paint all of the US with the texas brush
fair enough, by the US i meant anything west of virginia east of nevada and north of florida.
On August 17 2009 18:02 CalvinStorm wrote: Think that's bad? My city has a mandatory course teaching about gay people.
what exactly do they teach?
edit: just so i won't be completely off topic, i believe that the original idea put forth is an excellent one, and that it would benefit an ignorant country like the US ( no offense but ignorance is abundant when it comes to religion, in any country but the US takes the cake from my experience ) But this will be poorly executed by bias teachers, principal, parents, and everyone in between, becuase let's face it, that's America. It's disappointing but their educational system is too corrupt.
whoa, whoa, whoa, don't paint all of the US with the texas brush
fair enough, by the US i meant anything west of virginia east of nevada and north of florida.
I have to break my "My last post in the thread" just to say this.
Will all you christian bashers, bash religion in general, or are you just discriminatory against Christianity? Will you say the same things to a Muslim on the internet? Will you also then say the same things to a Muslim in their face?
Are you going to bash Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. also?
I bet the answer to that is no. What the fuck do all of you have against christianity? I personally do not believe in christianity; I'm agnostic, but I certainly don't hold christianity against those who believe in it like it seems the majority here do.
Religion doesn't make people dumb; dumb people are dumb. In fact, some of the smartest people ever to live were christians. sheesh.
Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA) -- named for the Muslim general who conquered medieval Spain -- is a K-8 charter school in Inver Grove Heights. Its approximately 300 students are mostly the children of low-income Muslim immigrant families, many of them Somalis.
The school is in huge demand, with a waiting list of 1,500. Last fall, it opened a second campus in Blaine.
TIZA uses the language of culture rather than religion to describe its program in public documents. According to its mission statement, the school "recognizes and appreciates the traditions, histories, civilizations and accomplishments of the eastern world (Africa, Asia and Middle East)."
But the line between religion and culture is often blurry. There are strong indications that religion plays a central role at TIZA, which is a public school financed by Minnesota taxpayers. Under the U.S. and state constitutions, a public school can accommodate students' religious beliefs but cannot encourage or endorse religion.
TIZA raises troubling issues about taxpayer funding of schools that cross that line.
Asad Zaman, TIZA's principal, declined to allow me to visit the school or grant me an interview. He did not respond to e-mails seeking written replies.
TIZA's strong religious connections date from its founding in 2003. Its co-founders, Zaman and Hesham Hussein, were both imams, or Muslim religious leaders, as well as leaders of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota (MAS-MN).
Since then, they have played dual roles: Zaman as TIZA's principal and the current vice-president of MAS-MN, and Hussein as TIZA's school board chair and president of MAS-MN until his death in a car accident in Saudi Arabia in January.
TIZA shares MAS-MN's headquarters building, along with a mosque.
MAS-MN came to Minnesotans' attention in 2006, when it issued a "fatwa," warning Muslim taxi drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport that transporting passengers with alcohol in their baggage is a violation of Islamic law.
Journalists whom Zaman has permitted to visit TIZA have described the school's Islamic atmosphere and practices.
"A visitor might well mistake Tarek ibn Ziyad for an Islamic school," reported Minnesota Monthly in 2007. "Head scarves are voluntary, but virtually all the girls wear them." The school has a central carpeted prayer space, and "vaguely religious-sounding language" is used.
According to the Pioneer Press, TIZA's student body prays daily and the school's cafeteria serves halal food (permissible under Islamic law). During Ramadan, all students fast from dawn to dusk, according to a parent quoted in the article.
In fact, TIZA was originally envisioned as a private Islamic school. In 2001, MAS-MN negotiated to buy the current TIZA/MAS-MN building for Al-Amal School, a private religious institution in Fridley, according to Bruce Rimstad of the Inver Grove Heights School District. But many immigrant families can't afford Al-Amal. In 2002, Islamic Relief -- headquartered in California -- agreed to sponsor a publicly funded charter school, TIZA, at the same location.
TIZA claims to be non-sectarian, as Minnesota law requires charters to be. But "after-school Islamic learning" takes place on weekdays in the same building under MAS-MN's auspices, according to the program for MAS-MN's 2007 convention. At that convention, a TIZA representative at the school's booth told me that students go directly to "Islamic studies" classes at 3:30, when TIZA's day ends. There, they learn "Qur'anic recitation, the Sunnah of the Prophet" and other religious subjects, he said.
TIZA's 2006 Contract Performance Review Report states that students engage in unspecified "electives" after school or do homework.
Publicly, TIZA emphasizes that it uses standard curricular materials like those found in other public schools. But when addressing Muslim audiences, school officials make the link to Islam clear. At MAS-MN's 2007 convention, for example, the program featured an advertisement for the "Muslim American Society of Minnesota," superimposed on a picture of a mosque. Under the motto "Establishing Islam in Minnesota," it asked: "Did you know that MAS-MN ... houses a full-time elementary school"? On the adjacent page was an application for TIZA.
In addition to the issues raised by TIZA's religious elements, there are reasons to be concerned about the organizations with which it is connected.
Group linked to Hamas
Islamic Relief-USA, the school's sponsor, is compared to the Red Cross in several TIZA documents. In 2006, however, the Israeli government announced that Islamic Relief Worldwide, the organization's parent group, "provides support and assistance" to Hamas, designated by the U.S. government as a terrorist group.
Meanwhile, MAS-MN offers on its web site "beneficial and enlightening information" about Islam, which includes statements like "Regularly make the intention to go on jihad with the ambition to die as a martyr."
At its 2007 convention, MAS-MN featured the notorious Shayk Khalid Yasin, who is well-known in Britain and Australia for teaching that husbands can beat disobedient wives, that gays should be executed and that the United States spreads the AIDS virus in Africa through vaccines for tropical diseases.
Yasin's topic? "Building a Successful Muslim Community in Minnesota."
TIZA has improved the reading and math performance of its mostly low-income students. That's commendable, but should Minnesota taxpayers be funding an Islamic public school?
Katherine Kersten • kkersten@startribune.com Join the conversation at my blog, Think Again, which can be found at www.startribune.com/thinkagain.
On August 17 2009 18:35 Kwark wrote: I'll far more happily bash Islam than Christianity because stupid fundies make up a greater proportion of Islam than they do Christianity.
As long as you are consistant I have no problem. We'll see how my little + Show Spoiler +
Just from reading the article, this doesn't sound like indoctrination to me. There are significant differences between what I see here and the religious assimilation that others are seeing.
"The purpose of a course like this isn't even really to get kids to believe it per say. It is just to appreciate the profound impact that it has had on our history and on our government."
There's a major difference between religion and an analysis of said religion. For example, something like analyzing the impacts of the Bible/Christianty in racial tensions during the 1960's civil rights movement, is completely different from developing a relationship of love and trust with Jesus Christ, the individual who loved you so much that he willingly died for your sins.
However, because this article doesn't describe in any serious detail what is being taught and how it's being taught, I can't really draw any solid conclusions.
Personally, the biggest problem that comes to my mind from reading this article, is the question of why parents aren't finding out more about this new curriculum before passing their judgements. When people hear the words "we're going to teach the Bible", images of brainwashing, propaganda and indoctrination immediately come to mind. Feelings of uneasiness ensue. All of this is understandable and to be expected. This applies to the related issue of creationism vs. evolution as well; believers of creationism develop the exact same feelings when confronted with the issue of evolution beinging taught at their childrens' schools. All of this stems from the fears of the unknown, the misinformed and/or the malinformed. These people must first try to recognize their own emotions and biases, and then proceed to find out more about what is being taught and how it's being taught before taking a solid stance.
Some questions I want you to please answer for us:
1. Who wrote the Bible? 2. How did it come to be in its current form? 3. What year (or years) was it compiled? 4. Why are there different versions? 5. What are some of the controversies of translation?
Do you realize that practically NO Americans that answer these questions. Considering that it is probably the #1 most influential book in Western Society (even for countries that are now predominantly atheist), its amazing that people know so little about it. It used to be the ONLY book that many people had in their homes and they taught their kids to read by it and yet we don't know who the authors were, who decided what should be included in it.
I think a scholarly approach to the history of the Bible could be appropriate.
That being said, I certainly don't think you needed a state law requiring it and I bet in many schools it won't be as scholarly as I would like it to be. But I do bemoan the absolute ignorance about the origins of the most influential book in the history of Western Society (perhaps the world).
For anyone who responds to this, please first attempt to answer the first questions posed, then respond to the whole post. It will be illuminating I think to realize that even educated people can't tell you how the Bible came to be.
You might wanna read the article a bit closer though:
""The purpose of a course like this isn't even really to get kids to believe it per say. It is just to appreciate the profound impact that it has had on our history and on our government," said Keeling."
How is this different from religious studies really? Sure, if it was some hardline, christian group that advocated having bibles in schools, but it seems like that's not the case.
But yeah, the whole thing is a bit iffy of course.
finally something like this happens. public schools have been in decline for much too long, at long last the good word of the lord will set the kids on the righteous path. i expect increase in mental capacities 100 percent now that god is on the kids side and violence and drugs down 60 percent
On August 17 2009 18:35 Kwark wrote: I'll far more happily bash Islam than Christianity because stupid fundies make up a greater proportion of Islam than they do Christianity.
My thoughts exactly.
Let's face it, muslims are a bit more hardcore than your average christian regarding alot of issues.
On August 17 2009 18:02 CalvinStorm wrote: Think that's bad? My city has a mandatory course teaching about gay people.
what exactly do they teach?
edit: just so i won't be completely off topic, i believe that the original idea put forth is an excellent one, and that it would benefit an ignorant country like the US ( no offense but ignorance is abundant when it comes to religion, in any country but the US takes the cake from my experience ) But this will be poorly executed by bias teachers, principal, parents, and everyone in between, because let's face it, that's America. It's disappointing but their educational system is too corrupt.
whoa, whoa, whoa, don't paint all of the US with the texas brush
fair enough, by the US i meant anything west of virginia east of nevada and north of florida.
-_-
that last post was in jest, surely you agree that when it comes to religion Americans tend to be a bit over bearing and ignorant. I know i lived in the states most of my life.
Aegraen I am not bashing Christianity, I am simply stating that the US is a biased country when it comes to religion, and to answer your question, i will bash any religious fanatic regardless of the book they carry.
When you pledge allegiance to America, you do say, "...one nation under God". In addition to this, the State is not oppressing any religion and thus is not contradicting the First Amendment. This is for the Supreme Court to decide, however, and I could only imagine that someone is going to bring the case before the Supreme Court. In actuality, though, the concept of the separation of church and state, as far as I know, is not in the constitution but is instead a general philosophy that somehow came into the Supreme Court. (Don't ask me about the case or circumstances -- I just don't remember).
To answer a previous The Bible is capitalized because it is the title of a book. It is the same case as if I wrote a book titled A Book.
I'm not a christian, and I really don't think this is that horrible. If parents are given a way to opt their children out of bible study in school, I don't see anything wrong with it really. It's also highly dependent on how it's taught, the bible is still a book and reading it won't necessarily be done solely for the purpose of conversion. I think it's very possible to remain objective while studying the bible, lot's of secular people read it just for kicks and giggles. All I'm saying is that there's a big difference in the teacher standing up in front of the class delivering a sermon and having an analytical dissection of one of the most read books in the world. Admittedly though, I can see some extreme conflict in specifically including the bible and no other books from the Abrahamic religions. But then again everyone studies Greek/Roman/Egyptian mythology, why not Christian? I dunno, it would just have to be presented so sensitively and I doubt public educators could handle it.
Our education system is so terrible right now I don't even know if this could possibly fuck it up more.
teaching the bible / religion is NOT the same as teaching creationism, which begs the followup question; what does everyone mean by christians? are you excluding the certain christian strains?
or do you take the whole bunch as evangelism/lutheranism/catolism?
There is also a radical difference within the "thought process" trough these, i think alot of people agree with the fact that THEOLOGIANS are more than fine, however self-elected pastors with no basis for they're interpretation is a completely other thing, or basically anyone who really thinks they got the truth and the gazillion other are liars and heretics.
There is so many layers of this, and i must admit a certain pessimism towards texas
Oh and a interesting subject being mentioned also, the generall pride/ignorance in the us is most likely a product of the puritans if i got it right? with "individual grace" and everything.
well, that exact verbiage doesn't appear, but it doesn't take a genius to interpret in that manner
couldn't you argue that the state is oppressing, say, islam by not teaching it alongside the bible in foundational religious texts or whatever the hell they are teaching?
On August 17 2009 19:22 benjammin wrote: well, that exact verbiage doesn't appear, but it doesn't take a genius to interpret in that manner
couldn't you argue that the state is oppressing, say, islam by not teaching it alongside the bible in foundational religious texts or whatever the hell they are teaching?
Thomas Jefferson is not the Constitution.
Is the state banning or preventing the practice of Islam? No. So it is not oppressing it.
On August 17 2009 16:55 Licmyobelisk wrote: I think most of you are afraid that the children will be religiously bias and wouldn't have an open mind when it comes to other people's religion especially to atheist, that's why you don't like this law to be passed to public schools.
Well, lets just say it's up to the kids to decide if they will be bias or not but I believe that most of them wouldn't be like that.
The problem is that children are very easily manipulated. The vast majority of religious people are raised in religious families who teach them that they will go to hell etc. This social conditioning stays with them and influences them for the rest of their lives.
Children are not capable of approaching the subject matter with an open mind and lack the ability to assess the validity of what they are being taught, which leads them into a poor frame of thinking. One that isnt based on logic, evidence or truth but rather somone elses values which have been pushed onto them.
Now, if they are going to go about teaching about the bible rather than preaching the bible, then they can go ahead. It is important however that the teacher isnt pushing his or her beliefs onto a child and that the subject is approached without bias.
Savio, I think he was just trying to see how you all reacted. The ones who looked least shocked were probably invited to his office after hours. :p
Although tbh I wouldn't mind watching a bit of gay porn instead of seeing gay pride rallies. The purpose is the same, to shock us into acceptance, and one doesn't clog up city centres for hours.
On August 17 2009 19:29 benjammin wrote: funding the training of teachers to teach explicitly one school of thought on religion is using public funds to prevent the study of other religions
No, it is the teaching of a religion. It is important for preparation into college because world religions is typical subject matter.
On August 17 2009 19:29 benjammin wrote: funding the training of teachers to teach explicitly one school of thought on religion is using public funds to prevent the study of other religions
No, it is the teaching of a religion. It is important for preparation into college because world religions is typical subject matter.
then teach WORLD religions, not ONE religion, only funding training for the teaching of one is oppression
On August 17 2009 19:29 benjammin wrote: funding the training of teachers to teach explicitly one school of thought on religion is using public funds to prevent the study of other religions
No, it is the teaching of a religion. It is important for preparation into college because world religions is typical subject matter.
then teach WORLD religions, not ONE religion, only funding training for the teaching of one is oppression
No, it is the teaching of a religion. I'm not going to repeat that again. No one is oppressing a religion since they still have the freedom to practice it.
With the funding schools get, we're lucky they teach one.
If they ran a political course and only looked at the Republican party it wouldn't be balanced. You wouldn't say people still have the freedom to support the Democratic party and therefore it's fair.
On August 17 2009 19:29 benjammin wrote: funding the training of teachers to teach explicitly one school of thought on religion is using public funds to prevent the study of other religions
No, it is the teaching of a religion. It is important for preparation into college because world religions is typical subject matter.
then teach WORLD religions, not ONE religion, only funding training for the teaching of one is oppression
No, it is the teaching of a religion. I'm not going to repeat that again. No one is oppressing a religion since they still have the freedom to practice it.
With the funding schools get, we're lucky they teach one.
i'm not talking about freedom to practice it, i'm saying that choosing one from many and creating a mandatory state law to enact it and only it is systematically oppressing knowledge of religions other than christianity, i can't see why this point is so hard to concede
oppression is perhaps not the best word for it, however teaching world religion > teaching biblical studies
As a sucker for the theme i must say that it's pretty amazing how religion evolves over time, and it's roots and links.pluss edit: THAT is 10 times more interesting/valuable than the teachings of 1 spesific religion
On August 17 2009 19:38 Kwark wrote: If they ran a political course and only looked at the Republican party it wouldn't be balanced. You wouldn't say people still have the freedom to support the Democratic party and therefore it's fair.
If they only looked at the Republican party, they would learn about the Republican party. They would still have the freedom to support the Democratic party, but they would be more informed, via standard education, of the Republican party. We make the mistake that kids should learn EVERYTHING in school. The only reason to be upset about this is if you allow school to be the child's only source of information. Do you know how much misinformation I received in my education over the years? Like the fact that gravity is caused by the rotation of the Earth...
On August 17 2009 19:29 benjammin wrote: funding the training of teachers to teach explicitly one school of thought on religion is using public funds to prevent the study of other religions
No, it is the teaching of a religion. It is important for preparation into college because world religions is typical subject matter.
then teach WORLD religions, not ONE religion, only funding training for the teaching of one is oppression
No, it is the teaching of a religion. I'm not going to repeat that again. No one is oppressing a religion since they still have the freedom to practice it.
With the funding schools get, we're lucky they teach one.
i'm not talking about freedom to practice it, i'm saying that choosing one from many and creating a mandatory state law to enact it and only it is systematically oppressing knowledge of religions other than christianity, i can't see why this point is so hard to concede
If you're not talking about the freedom to practice a religion, then you're not talking about a constitutional issue; you're talking about a philosophical one.
On August 17 2009 16:55 Licmyobelisk wrote: I think most of you are afraid that the children will be religiously bias and wouldn't have an open mind when it comes to other people's religion especially to atheist, that's why you don't like this law to be passed to public schools.
Well, lets just say it's up to the kids to decide if they will be bias or not but I believe that most of them wouldn't be like that.
The problem is that children are very easily manipulated. The vast majority of religious people are raised in religious families who teach them that they will go to hell etc. This social conditioning stays with them and influences them for the rest of their lives.
Children are not capable of approaching the subject matter with an open mind and lack the ability to assess the validity of what they are being taught, which leads them into a poor frame of thinking. One that isnt based on logic, evidence or truth but rather somone elses values which have been pushed onto them.
Now, if they are going to go about teaching about the bible rather than preaching the bible, then they can go ahead. It is important however that the teacher isnt pushing his or her beliefs onto a child and that the subject is approached without bias.
definatly children can easily be influenced, and i think we can all see that growing up in a country like america, the heaviest influences will always be secular, humanist ones. you can hardly argue that even in texas there is much cultural pressure to be a christian.
so isn't this a good way of balancing that out? if you expose children to many influences, you are lessening the effect any one of them has on them.
if you define religion as a system of beliefs, then secularism/humanism/whatever is the most dominant one in western society, and i think many people are 'indoctrinated' into that, because they are never exposed to any alternatives. another way of viewing children is that they have open minds to anything, which can be abused or not. i think this is a good thing because it introduces an alternative to secularism.
i think that there's a good chance that many children will become christians due to this, and if you're openminded about it i hope you can see that that can't really be a bad thing. imagine the horror of a world where everyone was committed to 'loving their neighbour as they love themself'... sounds terrible huh?
I think that children are Christian because they grow up in a Christian household. Children are still Christian even though it's currently not taught in schools because their parents get them up on Sunday morning and take them to Church.
On August 17 2009 19:29 benjammin wrote: funding the training of teachers to teach explicitly one school of thought on religion is using public funds to prevent the study of other religions
No, it is the teaching of a religion. It is important for preparation into college because world religions is typical subject matter.
then teach WORLD religions, not ONE religion, only funding training for the teaching of one is oppression
No, it is the teaching of a religion. I'm not going to repeat that again. No one is oppressing a religion since they still have the freedom to practice it.
With the funding schools get, we're lucky they teach one.
i'm not talking about freedom to practice it, i'm saying that choosing one from many and creating a mandatory state law to enact it and only it is systematically oppressing knowledge of religions other than christianity, i can't see why this point is so hard to concede
If you're not talking about the freedom to practice a religion, then you're not talking about a constitutional issue; you're talking about a philosophical one.
pretty sure this is a constitutional issue as long as we are talking about public schools taking public funds
when i was in primary school we studied something called "world religion" and it was the egyptian, the greek, the scandinavian etc religions but we didnt do the big three. we studied them from a ficticious perspective and it was fine, but then again, we didnt touch on the big three, probably because we were an international school in hong kong, the school would get a lot of flak from parents.
i can only hope that they study the bible from a fictitious perspective but, knowing texas, I dont think thats the case.
this is very disappointing in the "church separate from state" controversy that has been around since a long time. non religious (note: not just atheists) people make up a large portion of the population (something like 16% ???? not sure but mentioned in the movie Religulous), why are they not given the choice to be excluded from these teachings that doesnt have an evidence to back it up?
I hate how if you're non religious suddenly you're an atheist and then suddenly you have no morals and you worship satan. trying to keep school religion free is the politically incorrect thing to do and it's just a very redneck, backward approach to the whole religion and school thing.
On August 17 2009 19:38 Kwark wrote: If they ran a political course and only looked at the Republican party it wouldn't be balanced. You wouldn't say people still have the freedom to support the Democratic party and therefore it's fair.
If they only looked at the Republican party, they would learn about the Republican party. They would still have the freedom to support the Democratic party, but they would be more informed, via standard education, of the Republican party. We make the mistake that kids should learn EVERYTHING in school. The only reason to be upset about this is if you allow school to be the child's only source of information. Do you know how much misinformation I received in my education over the years? Like the fact that gravity is caused by the rotation of the Earth...
Your education system said that gravity was from the rotation of the Earth? If the Earth's rotation was accelerating then you'd get some gravity that way but it'd be pulling you along the surface rather than down. Everyone who has ever been in a car knows that speed doesn't equal gravity but rather acceleration does. Along with the whole mass thing of course but I assume that somewhere along the line a teacher got confused about the acceleration because otherwise I'd have to lose even more faith in humanity.
If they had made the texts of all the other major religions part of the curriculum I would have though it was a good idea. But only the bible? That's just absurd.
Christians who argue for they'r view often use the gospels as a source of truth and evidence, how is this gonna be handled with the teachers? Are they gonna be able to maintain neutral?
Atleast from my childhood, the whole teacherstaff was 40 pluss and quite conservative
On August 17 2009 19:29 benjammin wrote: funding the training of teachers to teach explicitly one school of thought on religion is using public funds to prevent the study of other religions
No, it is the teaching of a religion. It is important for preparation into college because world religions is typical subject matter.
then teach WORLD religions, not ONE religion, only funding training for the teaching of one is oppression
No, it is the teaching of a religion. I'm not going to repeat that again. No one is oppressing a religion since they still have the freedom to practice it.
With the funding schools get, we're lucky they teach one.
i'm not talking about freedom to practice it, i'm saying that choosing one from many and creating a mandatory state law to enact it and only it is systematically oppressing knowledge of religions other than christianity, i can't see why this point is so hard to concede
If you're not talking about the freedom to practice a religion, then you're not talking about a constitutional issue; you're talking about a philosophical one.
pretty sure this is a constitutional issue as long as we are talking about public schools taking public funds
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The law being passed gives an allowance to teaching the Bible in school given that they do not disparage any other religion and focus on the literary and historical values of the Bible only -- in essence not violating the First Amendment.
That Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion is defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as prohibition of the religion.
The first impressions people get after reading the OP, is that it looks like the state is forcing everyone into the Christian religion, then again that might be true....
However, if this curriculum consists of objective studies on the Bible, looking it at the views of historical and literaturary values, then i guess it isn't such a bad thing at all, the main problem i see with this is that they are forcing it on every kids in school, also i doubt that the school is gonna teach kids about the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Witch Hunts, The Dark Ages, and all the good deeds in history in the curriculum.
On August 17 2009 19:38 Kwark wrote: If they ran a political course and only looked at the Republican party it wouldn't be balanced. You wouldn't say people still have the freedom to support the Democratic party and therefore it's fair.
If they only looked at the Republican party, they would learn about the Republican party. They would still have the freedom to support the Democratic party, but they would be more informed, via standard education, of the Republican party. We make the mistake that kids should learn EVERYTHING in school. The only reason to be upset about this is if you allow school to be the child's only source of information. Do you know how much misinformation I received in my education over the years? Like the fact that gravity is caused by the rotation of the Earth...
Your education system said that gravity was from the rotation of the Earth? If the Earth's rotation was accelerating then you'd get some gravity that way but it'd be pulling you along the surface rather than down. Everyone who has ever been in a car knows that speed doesn't equal gravity but rather acceleration does. Along with the whole mass thing of course but I assume that somewhere along the line a teacher got confused about the acceleration because otherwise I'd have to lose even more faith in humanity.
Faster rotation would reduce gravity due to centrifugal force since we'd constantly be attempting to continue into space. Acceleration does not create gravity but simulates it by enacting on an object attempting to stay in position while another object pushes it along. True gravity is caused by the distortion of space-time by an object's mass.
and i suppose you think it's not disparaging to disregard other world religions in mandating this law? to me this just smells like jesus freaks trying to sneak the good book into public schools
On August 17 2009 20:10 benjammin wrote: and i suppose you think it's not disparaging to disregard other world religions in mandating this law? to me this just smells like jesus freaks trying to sneak the good book into public schools
Nothing is being mandated. The law is ALLOWING the teaching given certain stipulations.
I recall when prayer in school was banned. And I'm not talking about the prayer being initiated by teachers, I'm talking about the suspension of students praying anywhere on school grounds.
On August 17 2009 20:10 benjammin wrote: and i suppose you think it's not disparaging to disregard other world religions in mandating this law? to me this just smells like jesus freaks trying to sneak the good book into public schools
Nothing is being mandated. The law is ALLOWING the teaching given certain stipulations.
On August 17 2009 20:10 benjammin wrote: and i suppose you think it's not disparaging to disregard other world religions in mandating this law? to me this just smells like jesus freaks trying to sneak the good book into public schools
Nothing is being mandated. The law is ALLOWING the teaching given certain stipulations.
On August 17 2009 20:10 benjammin wrote: and i suppose you think it's not disparaging to disregard other world religions in mandating this law? to me this just smells like jesus freaks trying to sneak the good book into public schools
Nothing is being mandated. The law is ALLOWING the teaching given certain stipulations.
I recall when prayer in school was banned.
the law is REQUIRING the teaching
No it isn't.
The law says: ELECTIVE COURSES ON THE BIBLE'S HEBREW SCRIPTURES (OLD TESTAMENT) AND NEW TESTAMENT AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
These courses are ELECTIVES, not requirements of the students, and is secular in its teaching.
On August 17 2009 20:10 benjammin wrote: and i suppose you think it's not disparaging to disregard other world religions in mandating this law? to me this just smells like jesus freaks trying to sneak the good book into public schools
Nothing is being mandated. The law is ALLOWING the teaching given certain stipulations.
I recall when prayer in school was banned.
as it should be
No, it is a violation of the first amendment to prohibit practice of religion.
The school I went to was founded by an Anglican bishop and still got some of its funding from the Church, despite being a state school. There was a chapel and the headmaster would lead us in prayer in the mornings and every now and then we'd sing a hymn. Plus the occasional service in the Cathedral nearby. One of my friends was a Muslim (well, from a Muslim background, he was pretty casual about it all) and managed to get out of it all by saying he shouldn't be forced to worship the Christian God. I tried the same trick and got told to just go along with it anyway. Kind of silly because the only reason he got allowed that time off was because he was Bangladeshi whereas white kids like me aren't likely to complain. But I guess over time that'll change and it'll get increasingly secular as has been the trend. The Government doesn't want to change it because they're getting free money from the Church, the schools don't care because they don't actually enforce the religious thing and I guess the Church would feel kind of guilty about pulling the funding on schools it founded because they're trying to help the community. Plus these days the Anglican church doesn't actually give a shit about whether people worship God, they just spend their time trying to be nice and encourage niceness. All in all it's a great scam to exploit old religious trust funds and I heartily approve.
On August 17 2009 20:10 benjammin wrote: and i suppose you think it's not disparaging to disregard other world religions in mandating this law? to me this just smells like jesus freaks trying to sneak the good book into public schools
Nothing is being mandated. The law is ALLOWING the teaching given certain stipulations.
I recall when prayer in school was banned.
as it should be
No, it is a violation of the first amendment to prohibit practice of religion.
Of course people can pray in school, but beeing forced to do morning prayers etc should be banned.
On August 17 2009 20:10 benjammin wrote: and i suppose you think it's not disparaging to disregard other world religions in mandating this law? to me this just smells like jesus freaks trying to sneak the good book into public schools
Nothing is being mandated. The law is ALLOWING the teaching given certain stipulations.
I recall when prayer in school was banned.
as it should be
No, it is a violation of the first amendment to prohibit practice of religion.
Of course people can pray in school, but beeing forced to do morning prayers etc should be banned.
Sorry I edited after you quoted it. I was talking about personal prayer.
On August 17 2009 20:10 benjammin wrote: and i suppose you think it's not disparaging to disregard other world religions in mandating this law? to me this just smells like jesus freaks trying to sneak the good book into public schools
Nothing is being mandated. The law is ALLOWING the teaching given certain stipulations.
I recall when prayer in school was banned.
the law is REQUIRING the teaching
No it isn't.
The law says: ELECTIVE COURSES ON THE BIBLE'S HEBREW SCRIPTURES (OLD TESTAMENT) AND NEW TESTAMENT AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
These courses are ELECTIVES, not requirements of the students, and is secular in its teaching.
it is requiring the schools to offer the courses, i didn't mean that the students were required to take them, school administrators are powerless if they feel uncomfortable about this policy
can you provide a source where individual displays of prayer are banned in public schools? teacher-led public prayer is (and should be) banned
One of my friends was a Muslim (well, from a Muslim background, he was pretty casual about it all) and managed to get out of it all by saying he shouldn't be forced to worship the Christian God. I tried the same trick and got told to just go along with it anyway. Kind of silly because the only reason he got allowed that time off was because he was Bangladeshi whereas white kids like me aren't likely to complain.
haha replica of my story, doesn't work very well when your father is the minister.
Plus these days the Anglican church doesn't actually give a shit about whether people worship God, they just spend their time trying to be nice and encourage niceness. All in all it's a great scam to exploit old religious trust funds and I heartily approve.
Kind of the same story as norway, and i sincerely believe it comes from the fact that they're educated theologians and not just preachers. as with my family: my father is much more secular than my mother
edit: because the "sacraments" is not what matters
I think a course that looked at all religions from the greek gods to christianity from a purely historical/scientific point of view should be mandatory in all school. Tell the children how religions evolve over time and how festivals from former religions are incorporated into the new ones etc. Tell them different theories of the origin of religion and the inner workings of organized religions. Tell them all the facts about religions today, traditions etc and how religions have shaped our society.
Many people who aren't religious know very little about religion and many people who are religious know very little about other religions and only know what their priest and friends tell them about their own. I think this is important knowledge just like history since religion is a big part of our world. A course like that would both help educate people and help suppress fundamentalism and extremism within religion.
On August 17 2009 20:10 benjammin wrote: and i suppose you think it's not disparaging to disregard other world religions in mandating this law? to me this just smells like jesus freaks trying to sneak the good book into public schools
Nothing is being mandated. The law is ALLOWING the teaching given certain stipulations.
I recall when prayer in school was banned.
the law is REQUIRING the teaching
No it isn't.
The law says: ELECTIVE COURSES ON THE BIBLE'S HEBREW SCRIPTURES (OLD TESTAMENT) AND NEW TESTAMENT AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
These courses are ELECTIVES, not requirements of the students, and is secular in its teaching.
it is requiring the schools to offer the courses, i didn't mean that the students were required to take them, school administrators are powerless if they feel uncomfortable about this policy
can you provide a source where individual displays of prayer are banned in public schools? teacher-led public prayer is (and should be) banned
This was when I was a kid that prayer was banned when I was in middle-school in the late 80's. I was also in school where teacher-led prayer was allowed prior to the banning of all prayer, including personal prayer.
The statute requires public schools to make this elective available, but it is a secular teaching, not a religious one.
On August 17 2009 20:10 benjammin wrote: and i suppose you think it's not disparaging to disregard other world religions in mandating this law? to me this just smells like jesus freaks trying to sneak the good book into public schools
Nothing is being mandated. The law is ALLOWING the teaching given certain stipulations.
I recall when prayer in school was banned.
the law is REQUIRING the teaching
No it isn't.
The law says: ELECTIVE COURSES ON THE BIBLE'S HEBREW SCRIPTURES (OLD TESTAMENT) AND NEW TESTAMENT AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
These courses are ELECTIVES, not requirements of the students, and is secular in its teaching.
it is requiring the schools to offer the courses, i didn't mean that the students were required to take them, school administrators are powerless if they feel uncomfortable about this policy
can you provide a source where individual displays of prayer are banned in public schools? teacher-led public prayer is (and should be) banned
This was when I was a kid that prayer was banned when I was in middle-school in the late 80's. I was also in school where teacher-led prayer was allowed prior to the banning of all prayer, including personal prayer.
The statute requires public schools to make this elective available, but it is a secular teaching, not a religious one.
As you might have already noticed on Mr. Barton’s graph, America’s moral decline rapidly accelerated following one event – the U.S. Supreme Court’s removal of prayer from our nation’s schools.
come on now, provide a real source, the 1962 supreme court ruling bans teacher-led prayer in schools, nothing else
As long as we are on the topic of "Church and State".
In 1947, in the case Everson v Board of Education, Associate Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, writing for a 5-4 majority, asserted that "no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion." He added, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
Black had been Franklin Roosevelts first appointee to the SCOTUS. He was a senator from Alabama--and a relibable New Deal proponent in the Senate and on the Court. He had also been a member of the KKK in the 1920s and was hostile toward the Catholic Church. According to Black's son, "The KKK and Daddy, so far as I could tell, had one thing in common. He suspected the Catholic Church. He used to read all of the Paul Blanshard's books exposing the power abuse in the Catholic Church. He thought the Pope and Bishops had too much power and property. He resented the fact that rental property owned by the Church was not taxed; he felt they got most of their revenue from the poor and did not return enought of it."
Whatever Black's motivations, he orchestrated a wretched betrayal of America's founding and succeeded in rewriting the First Amendment to say what the Framers would never have countenanced.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist argued in 1985, in the case Wallace v Jaffree, "The First Amendment Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build a 'wall of seperation' that was constitutionalized in Everson."
Actually, the Founders did not require nondiscriminatory aid to religion, for it existed at the time of the founding and the Consititutions ratification. They rejected the establishment of a national religion, leaving the states free to make their own decisions. And by the time Everson was decided, the few states that had established churches had long past abolished them. Still, the Everson fiat applied to all levels of government because the Court was not concerned with the establishment of a theocracy but rather with establishing a secular polity.
A theocracy is not established if certain public schools allow their students to pray at the beginning of the day, or participate in Christmas or Easter assemblies; or if certain school districts transport parochial students to their religious schools as part of the districts bus route; or certain communities choose to construct a manger scene on the grounds of their town hall or display the Ten Commandments above their courthouse steps. The individual is not required to change his religious affiliation or even accept God's existence. He is not required to worship against his beliefs or even worship at all. Some might be uncomfortable or offended by these events, but individuals are uncomfortable all the time over all kinds of government activities.
While all religions may not have similar access to these public places, they are largely free to conduct themselves as they wish, uninhibited by the community, as long as they do not engage in criminal practices.
The American courts sit today as supreme secular councils, which, like Islam's supreme religious councils, dictate all manner of approved behavior respecting religion. Whereas the supreme religious councils enforce Islamic law, the supreme secular councils have seized for themselves the mission of segregating God and religion from public life and have immersed themselves in religious matters. Neither of the councils tolerates conflicting or diverse viewpoints, insisting that their rulings are the final word for all society.
In essence, one SCOTUS ruling eclipsed the intent of the First Amendment and our Founding. Can it not be said of the three co-equal branches that if one branch has such unyielding power then they are not co-equal, but unequal?
On August 17 2009 20:10 benjammin wrote: and i suppose you think it's not disparaging to disregard other world religions in mandating this law? to me this just smells like jesus freaks trying to sneak the good book into public schools
Nothing is being mandated. The law is ALLOWING the teaching given certain stipulations.
I recall when prayer in school was banned.
the law is REQUIRING the teaching
No it isn't.
The law says: ELECTIVE COURSES ON THE BIBLE'S HEBREW SCRIPTURES (OLD TESTAMENT) AND NEW TESTAMENT AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
These courses are ELECTIVES, not requirements of the students, and is secular in its teaching.
it is requiring the schools to offer the courses, i didn't mean that the students were required to take them, school administrators are powerless if they feel uncomfortable about this policy
can you provide a source where individual displays of prayer are banned in public schools? teacher-led public prayer is (and should be) banned
This was when I was a kid that prayer was banned when I was in middle-school in the late 80's. I was also in school where teacher-led prayer was allowed prior to the banning of all prayer, including personal prayer.
The statute requires public schools to make this elective available, but it is a secular teaching, not a religious one.
As you might have already noticed on Mr. Barton’s graph, America’s moral decline rapidly accelerated following one event – the U.S. Supreme Court’s removal of prayer from our nation’s schools.
come on now, provide a real source, the 1962 supreme court ruling bans teacher-led prayer in schools, nothing else
I was there, I'm sorry that isn't enough of a "real source" for you. It was related to the "prayer around the flagpole" that happened at about that time. I imagine you'll have to look at microfiche of newspapers at the time since the Internet wasn't around at the time. It'd be in the late 80's during the school year. I was in Texas at the time, so it'd be a good start for you.
what? thats like a totaly different subject, i mean if your going down that lane you wanna shift to the ammount of money the us puts into israel instead
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
and before you misinterpret 'free exercise thereof', read more about supreme court history
also, you grossly smear hugo black there, but see: kwark's sig, i hope people have stopped placing any value or belief in anything that you post
On August 17 2009 20:10 benjammin wrote: and i suppose you think it's not disparaging to disregard other world religions in mandating this law? to me this just smells like jesus freaks trying to sneak the good book into public schools
Nothing is being mandated. The law is ALLOWING the teaching given certain stipulations.
I recall when prayer in school was banned.
the law is REQUIRING the teaching
No it isn't.
The law says: ELECTIVE COURSES ON THE BIBLE'S HEBREW SCRIPTURES (OLD TESTAMENT) AND NEW TESTAMENT AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
These courses are ELECTIVES, not requirements of the students, and is secular in its teaching.
it is requiring the schools to offer the courses, i didn't mean that the students were required to take them, school administrators are powerless if they feel uncomfortable about this policy
can you provide a source where individual displays of prayer are banned in public schools? teacher-led public prayer is (and should be) banned
This was when I was a kid that prayer was banned when I was in middle-school in the late 80's. I was also in school where teacher-led prayer was allowed prior to the banning of all prayer, including personal prayer.
The statute requires public schools to make this elective available, but it is a secular teaching, not a religious one.
As you might have already noticed on Mr. Barton’s graph, America’s moral decline rapidly accelerated following one event – the U.S. Supreme Court’s removal of prayer from our nation’s schools.
come on now, provide a real source, the 1962 supreme court ruling bans teacher-led prayer in schools, nothing else
I was there, I'm sorry that isn't enough of a "real source" for you. It was related to the "prayer around the flagpole" that happened at about that time. I imagine you'll have to look at microfiche of newspapers at the time since the Internet wasn't around at the time. It'd be in the late 80's during the school year. I was in Texas at the time, so it'd be a good start for you.
why's the burden of proof on me for something you said that's incorrect?
On August 17 2009 20:10 benjammin wrote: and i suppose you think it's not disparaging to disregard other world religions in mandating this law? to me this just smells like jesus freaks trying to sneak the good book into public schools
Nothing is being mandated. The law is ALLOWING the teaching given certain stipulations.
I recall when prayer in school was banned.
the law is REQUIRING the teaching
No it isn't.
The law says: ELECTIVE COURSES ON THE BIBLE'S HEBREW SCRIPTURES (OLD TESTAMENT) AND NEW TESTAMENT AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
These courses are ELECTIVES, not requirements of the students, and is secular in its teaching.
it is requiring the schools to offer the courses, i didn't mean that the students were required to take them, school administrators are powerless if they feel uncomfortable about this policy
can you provide a source where individual displays of prayer are banned in public schools? teacher-led public prayer is (and should be) banned
This was when I was a kid that prayer was banned when I was in middle-school in the late 80's. I was also in school where teacher-led prayer was allowed prior to the banning of all prayer, including personal prayer.
The statute requires public schools to make this elective available, but it is a secular teaching, not a religious one.
As you might have already noticed on Mr. Barton’s graph, America’s moral decline rapidly accelerated following one event – the U.S. Supreme Court’s removal of prayer from our nation’s schools.
come on now, provide a real source, the 1962 supreme court ruling bans teacher-led prayer in schools, nothing else
I was there, I'm sorry that isn't enough of a "real source" for you. It was related to the "prayer around the flagpole" that happened at about that time. I imagine you'll have to look at microfiche of newspapers at the time since the Internet wasn't around at the time. It'd be in the late 80's during the school year. I was in Texas at the time, so it'd be a good start for you.
why's the burden of proof on me for something you said that's incorrect?
It's not incorrect, for one. I was there -- I know what happened during my life. Just because you weren't there, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Secondly, I can't exactly post microfiche for you, can I? And I don't think you live in Portland for us to go together to the library to look for the information.
There's no 'grey area' about it. No religion should be taught in public schools. This completely goes against separation of church and state and freedom of religion. There is nothing good about this.
On August 17 2009 21:16 stafu wrote: There's no 'grey area' about it. No religion should be taught in public schools. This completely goes against separation of church and state and freedom of religion. There is nothing good about this.
You don't understand separation of church and state.
On August 17 2009 20:10 benjammin wrote: and i suppose you think it's not disparaging to disregard other world religions in mandating this law? to me this just smells like jesus freaks trying to sneak the good book into public schools
Nothing is being mandated. The law is ALLOWING the teaching given certain stipulations.
I recall when prayer in school was banned.
the law is REQUIRING the teaching
No it isn't.
The law says: ELECTIVE COURSES ON THE BIBLE'S HEBREW SCRIPTURES (OLD TESTAMENT) AND NEW TESTAMENT AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
These courses are ELECTIVES, not requirements of the students, and is secular in its teaching.
it is requiring the schools to offer the courses, i didn't mean that the students were required to take them, school administrators are powerless if they feel uncomfortable about this policy
can you provide a source where individual displays of prayer are banned in public schools? teacher-led public prayer is (and should be) banned
This was when I was a kid that prayer was banned when I was in middle-school in the late 80's. I was also in school where teacher-led prayer was allowed prior to the banning of all prayer, including personal prayer.
The statute requires public schools to make this elective available, but it is a secular teaching, not a religious one.
As you might have already noticed on Mr. Barton’s graph, America’s moral decline rapidly accelerated following one event – the U.S. Supreme Court’s removal of prayer from our nation’s schools.
come on now, provide a real source, the 1962 supreme court ruling bans teacher-led prayer in schools, nothing else
I was there, I'm sorry that isn't enough of a "real source" for you. It was related to the "prayer around the flagpole" that happened at about that time. I imagine you'll have to look at microfiche of newspapers at the time since the Internet wasn't around at the time. It'd be in the late 80's during the school year. I was in Texas at the time, so it'd be a good start for you.
why's the burden of proof on me for something you said that's incorrect?
It's not incorrect, for one. I was there -- I know what happened during my life. Just because you weren't there, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Secondly, I can't exactly post microfiche for you, can I? And I don't think you live in Portland for us to go together to the library to look for the information.
prayer is only prohibited in public schools if it is organized, they aren't roaming the lunchrooms looking to pick off kids with their hands folded and drag them in front of a magistrate; if the interpretation in your school was that any form of public display that could be constituted as prayer was banned, that was wrong
Nothing is being mandated. The law is ALLOWING the teaching given certain stipulations.
I recall when prayer in school was banned.
the law is REQUIRING the teaching
No it isn't.
The law says: ELECTIVE COURSES ON THE BIBLE'S HEBREW SCRIPTURES (OLD TESTAMENT) AND NEW TESTAMENT AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
These courses are ELECTIVES, not requirements of the students, and is secular in its teaching.
it is requiring the schools to offer the courses, i didn't mean that the students were required to take them, school administrators are powerless if they feel uncomfortable about this policy
can you provide a source where individual displays of prayer are banned in public schools? teacher-led public prayer is (and should be) banned
This was when I was a kid that prayer was banned when I was in middle-school in the late 80's. I was also in school where teacher-led prayer was allowed prior to the banning of all prayer, including personal prayer.
The statute requires public schools to make this elective available, but it is a secular teaching, not a religious one.
As you might have already noticed on Mr. Barton’s graph, America’s moral decline rapidly accelerated following one event – the U.S. Supreme Court’s removal of prayer from our nation’s schools.
come on now, provide a real source, the 1962 supreme court ruling bans teacher-led prayer in schools, nothing else
I was there, I'm sorry that isn't enough of a "real source" for you. It was related to the "prayer around the flagpole" that happened at about that time. I imagine you'll have to look at microfiche of newspapers at the time since the Internet wasn't around at the time. It'd be in the late 80's during the school year. I was in Texas at the time, so it'd be a good start for you.
why's the burden of proof on me for something you said that's incorrect?
It's not incorrect, for one. I was there -- I know what happened during my life. Just because you weren't there, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Secondly, I can't exactly post microfiche for you, can I? And I don't think you live in Portland for us to go together to the library to look for the information.
prayer is only prohibited in public schools if it is organized, they aren't roaming the lunchrooms looking to pick off kids with their hands folded and drag them in front of a magistrate; if the interpretation in your school was that any form of public display that could be constituted as prayer was banned, that was wrong
Look, I doubt you were even born at the time so you don't know what happened. And yes, if they caught you praying before eating lunch, you got dragged to the principle's office and suspended for, I think, three days. The whole ordeal happened over the span of a few months, and it's one of those things that if you weren't there, you'd think it never happened.
Look, I remember Jimmy Carter being president. I grew up with Reagan and the Cold War and being worried about a global nuclear war. I was nearly an adult when the first World Trade Center bombing occurred. I watched Desert Storm in my Junior High classroom. I watched the Challenger disaster live on T.V. I was in high school when the Internet came out. These are things that, even if you remember some of them, is a faint pittance in your mind. I know what happened, you weren't there, you didn't experience it for yourself, and you shouldn't question someone who was there. I don't think you'd question a Vietnam survivor about what he said happened when he was in Vietnam.
Nexus, it's futile to argue on this. They don't understand that allowing this to be taught isn't a violation of Church and State because for one, it is neither forcing nor coercing anyone into a set of beliefs that they do not follow. Seperation of Church and State means that the State does not endorse a State religion; such as Britain and Church of England.
The Secularists hold mantle and promote their beliefs in lieu of allowing the prospect and ability for other viewpoints. Neither forced, but allowing differing viewpoints on subject matter is a good thing. In any event this is why I said at the onset as long as Secularists bias, views, courses, etc. are in the schools so shall be religious. However, I believe the best benefit is that neither secularist nor religious matters are brought into school. It is my belief that, that subject matter is better suited for your family and home life.
Anyways, it's pretty futile because they believe that any mention of religion goes against "Church and State" which is false as evidenced by all the scripture on national buildings, monuments, and in our Founding Declarations.
Even, I an agnostic can attest to the aforementioned having no agenda of promotion involved. Facts are there.
The law says: ELECTIVE COURSES ON THE BIBLE'S HEBREW SCRIPTURES (OLD TESTAMENT) AND NEW TESTAMENT AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
These courses are ELECTIVES, not requirements of the students, and is secular in its teaching.
it is requiring the schools to offer the courses, i didn't mean that the students were required to take them, school administrators are powerless if they feel uncomfortable about this policy
can you provide a source where individual displays of prayer are banned in public schools? teacher-led public prayer is (and should be) banned
This was when I was a kid that prayer was banned when I was in middle-school in the late 80's. I was also in school where teacher-led prayer was allowed prior to the banning of all prayer, including personal prayer.
The statute requires public schools to make this elective available, but it is a secular teaching, not a religious one.
As you might have already noticed on Mr. Barton’s graph, America’s moral decline rapidly accelerated following one event – the U.S. Supreme Court’s removal of prayer from our nation’s schools.
come on now, provide a real source, the 1962 supreme court ruling bans teacher-led prayer in schools, nothing else
I was there, I'm sorry that isn't enough of a "real source" for you. It was related to the "prayer around the flagpole" that happened at about that time. I imagine you'll have to look at microfiche of newspapers at the time since the Internet wasn't around at the time. It'd be in the late 80's during the school year. I was in Texas at the time, so it'd be a good start for you.
why's the burden of proof on me for something you said that's incorrect?
It's not incorrect, for one. I was there -- I know what happened during my life. Just because you weren't there, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Secondly, I can't exactly post microfiche for you, can I? And I don't think you live in Portland for us to go together to the library to look for the information.
prayer is only prohibited in public schools if it is organized, they aren't roaming the lunchrooms looking to pick off kids with their hands folded and drag them in front of a magistrate; if the interpretation in your school was that any form of public display that could be constituted as prayer was banned, that was wrong
Look, I doubt you were even born at the time so you don't know what happened. And yes, if they caught you praying before eating lunch, you got dragged to the principle's office and suspended for, I think, three days. The whole ordeal happened over the span of a few months, and it's one of those things that if you weren't there, you'd think it never happened.
Look, I remember Jimmy Carter being president. I grew up with Reagan and the Cold War and being worried about a global nuclear war. I was nearly an adult when the first World Trade Center bombing occurred. I watched Desert Storm in my Junior High classroom. I watched the Challenger disaster live on T.V. I was in high school when the Internet came out. These are things that, even if you remember some of them, is a faint pittance in your mind. I know what happened, you weren't there, you didn't experience it for yourself, and you shouldn't question someone who was there. I don't think you'd question a Vietnam survivor about what he said happened when he was in Vietnam.
i would if the things he were saying were not true, and if that's what was happening at your school (which i have a hard time believing but whatever), it was not in accordance with any supreme court decisions about prayer in schools. i'd say it might have been a local thing, but if you were in texas that's even harder to believe. if that was really the case, blame incompetent school administrators
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
and before you misinterpret 'free exercise thereof', read more about supreme court history
also, you grossly smear hugo black there, but see: kwark's sig, i hope people have stopped placing any value or belief in anything that you post
"Make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
This means that congress shall make no law establishing a State Religion. It does not mean that everything related to religion shall not be uttered or receive aid by the State. Look at all national monuments, statues, and our Founding Declarations which all involve God. They included that in the First Amendment to prevent a Theocracy.
The law says: ELECTIVE COURSES ON THE BIBLE'S HEBREW SCRIPTURES (OLD TESTAMENT) AND NEW TESTAMENT AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
These courses are ELECTIVES, not requirements of the students, and is secular in its teaching.
it is requiring the schools to offer the courses, i didn't mean that the students were required to take them, school administrators are powerless if they feel uncomfortable about this policy
can you provide a source where individual displays of prayer are banned in public schools? teacher-led public prayer is (and should be) banned
This was when I was a kid that prayer was banned when I was in middle-school in the late 80's. I was also in school where teacher-led prayer was allowed prior to the banning of all prayer, including personal prayer.
The statute requires public schools to make this elective available, but it is a secular teaching, not a religious one.
As you might have already noticed on Mr. Barton’s graph, America’s moral decline rapidly accelerated following one event – the U.S. Supreme Court’s removal of prayer from our nation’s schools.
come on now, provide a real source, the 1962 supreme court ruling bans teacher-led prayer in schools, nothing else
I was there, I'm sorry that isn't enough of a "real source" for you. It was related to the "prayer around the flagpole" that happened at about that time. I imagine you'll have to look at microfiche of newspapers at the time since the Internet wasn't around at the time. It'd be in the late 80's during the school year. I was in Texas at the time, so it'd be a good start for you.
why's the burden of proof on me for something you said that's incorrect?
It's not incorrect, for one. I was there -- I know what happened during my life. Just because you weren't there, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Secondly, I can't exactly post microfiche for you, can I? And I don't think you live in Portland for us to go together to the library to look for the information.
prayer is only prohibited in public schools if it is organized, they aren't roaming the lunchrooms looking to pick off kids with their hands folded and drag them in front of a magistrate; if the interpretation in your school was that any form of public display that could be constituted as prayer was banned, that was wrong
Look, I doubt you were even born at the time so you don't know what happened. And yes, if they caught you praying before eating lunch, you got dragged to the principle's office and suspended for, I think, three days. The whole ordeal happened over the span of a few months, and it's one of those things that if you weren't there, you'd think it never happened.
Look, I remember Jimmy Carter being president. I grew up with Reagan and the Cold War and being worried about a global nuclear war. I was nearly an adult when the first World Trade Center bombing occurred. I watched Desert Storm in my Junior High classroom. I watched the Challenger disaster live on T.V. I was in high school when the Internet came out. These are things that, even if you remember some of them, is a faint pittance in your mind. I know what happened, you weren't there, you didn't experience it for yourself, and you shouldn't question someone who was there. I don't think you'd question a Vietnam survivor about what he said happened when he was in Vietnam.
i would if the things he were saying were not true, and if that's what was happening at your school (which i have a hard time believing but whatever), it was not in accordance with any supreme court decisions about prayer in schools. i'd say it might have been a local thing, but if you were in texas that's even harder to believe. if that was really the case, blame incompetent school administrators
But you'd be assuming what the vet said was not true just like you're assuming what I'm saying is not true. You weren't there, and you're being cocky despite your lack of knowledge of the situation as it happened. But Aegraen is right, this is futile because you think you know it all.
On August 17 2009 21:35 Aegraen wrote: Nexus, it's futile to argue on this. They don't understand that allowing this to be taught isn't a violation of Church and State because for one, it is neither forcing nor coercing anyone into a set of beliefs that they do not follow. Seperation of Church and State means that the State does not endorse a State religion; such as Britain and Church of England.
The Secularists hold mantle and promote their beliefs in lieu of allowing the prospect and ability for other viewpoints. Neither forced, but allowing differing viewpoints on subject matter is a good thing. In any event this is why I said at the onset as long as Secularists bias, views, courses, etc. are in the schools so shall be religious. However, I believe the best benefit is that neither secularist nor religious matters are brought into school. It is my belief that, that subject matter is better suited for your family and home life.
Anyways, it's pretty futile because they believe that any mention of religion goes against "Church and State" which is false as evidenced by all the scripture on national buildings, monuments, and in our Founding Declarations.
Even, I an agnostic can attest to the aforementioned having no agenda of promotion involved. Facts are there.
look, if it's a purely non-religious teaching of the bible that does not aim to spread any of its dogma, i'd buy that, as public universities offer the same types of courses, but to have a course like that in a public high school filled with more impressionable youth instead of generally skeptical college students is a recipe for blurring the lines between secular and dogmatic, not to mention texas might not instill the greatest deal of confidence in people's mind when it comes to this type of matter
In fact, Benjammin, I bet you don't know what was so bad about Communism, do you? I bet you think it would have been just fine to let Communism spread.
The law says: ELECTIVE COURSES ON THE BIBLE'S HEBREW SCRIPTURES (OLD TESTAMENT) AND NEW TESTAMENT AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
These courses are ELECTIVES, not requirements of the students, and is secular in its teaching.
it is requiring the schools to offer the courses, i didn't mean that the students were required to take them, school administrators are powerless if they feel uncomfortable about this policy
can you provide a source where individual displays of prayer are banned in public schools? teacher-led public prayer is (and should be) banned
This was when I was a kid that prayer was banned when I was in middle-school in the late 80's. I was also in school where teacher-led prayer was allowed prior to the banning of all prayer, including personal prayer.
The statute requires public schools to make this elective available, but it is a secular teaching, not a religious one.
As you might have already noticed on Mr. Barton’s graph, America’s moral decline rapidly accelerated following one event – the U.S. Supreme Court’s removal of prayer from our nation’s schools.
come on now, provide a real source, the 1962 supreme court ruling bans teacher-led prayer in schools, nothing else
I was there, I'm sorry that isn't enough of a "real source" for you. It was related to the "prayer around the flagpole" that happened at about that time. I imagine you'll have to look at microfiche of newspapers at the time since the Internet wasn't around at the time. It'd be in the late 80's during the school year. I was in Texas at the time, so it'd be a good start for you.
why's the burden of proof on me for something you said that's incorrect?
It's not incorrect, for one. I was there -- I know what happened during my life. Just because you weren't there, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Secondly, I can't exactly post microfiche for you, can I? And I don't think you live in Portland for us to go together to the library to look for the information.
prayer is only prohibited in public schools if it is organized, they aren't roaming the lunchrooms looking to pick off kids with their hands folded and drag them in front of a magistrate; if the interpretation in your school was that any form of public display that could be constituted as prayer was banned, that was wrong
Look, I doubt you were even born at the time so you don't know what happened. And yes, if they caught you praying before eating lunch, you got dragged to the principle's office and suspended for, I think, three days. The whole ordeal happened over the span of a few months, and it's one of those things that if you weren't there, you'd think it never happened.
Look, I remember Jimmy Carter being president. I grew up with Reagan and the Cold War and being worried about a global nuclear war. I was nearly an adult when the first World Trade Center bombing occurred. I watched Desert Storm in my Junior High classroom. I watched the Challenger disaster live on T.V. I was in high school when the Internet came out. These are things that, even if you remember some of them, is a faint pittance in your mind. I know what happened, you weren't there, you didn't experience it for yourself, and you shouldn't question someone who was there. I don't think you'd question a Vietnam survivor about what he said happened when he was in Vietnam.
i would if the things he were saying were not true, and if that's what was happening at your school (which i have a hard time believing but whatever), it was not in accordance with any supreme court decisions about prayer in schools. i'd say it might have been a local thing, but if you were in texas that's even harder to believe. if that was really the case, blame incompetent school administrators
it is requiring the schools to offer the courses, i didn't mean that the students were required to take them, school administrators are powerless if they feel uncomfortable about this policy
can you provide a source where individual displays of prayer are banned in public schools? teacher-led public prayer is (and should be) banned
This was when I was a kid that prayer was banned when I was in middle-school in the late 80's. I was also in school where teacher-led prayer was allowed prior to the banning of all prayer, including personal prayer.
The statute requires public schools to make this elective available, but it is a secular teaching, not a religious one.
As you might have already noticed on Mr. Barton’s graph, America’s moral decline rapidly accelerated following one event – the U.S. Supreme Court’s removal of prayer from our nation’s schools.
come on now, provide a real source, the 1962 supreme court ruling bans teacher-led prayer in schools, nothing else
I was there, I'm sorry that isn't enough of a "real source" for you. It was related to the "prayer around the flagpole" that happened at about that time. I imagine you'll have to look at microfiche of newspapers at the time since the Internet wasn't around at the time. It'd be in the late 80's during the school year. I was in Texas at the time, so it'd be a good start for you.
why's the burden of proof on me for something you said that's incorrect?
It's not incorrect, for one. I was there -- I know what happened during my life. Just because you weren't there, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Secondly, I can't exactly post microfiche for you, can I? And I don't think you live in Portland for us to go together to the library to look for the information.
prayer is only prohibited in public schools if it is organized, they aren't roaming the lunchrooms looking to pick off kids with their hands folded and drag them in front of a magistrate; if the interpretation in your school was that any form of public display that could be constituted as prayer was banned, that was wrong
Look, I doubt you were even born at the time so you don't know what happened. And yes, if they caught you praying before eating lunch, you got dragged to the principle's office and suspended for, I think, three days. The whole ordeal happened over the span of a few months, and it's one of those things that if you weren't there, you'd think it never happened.
Look, I remember Jimmy Carter being president. I grew up with Reagan and the Cold War and being worried about a global nuclear war. I was nearly an adult when the first World Trade Center bombing occurred. I watched Desert Storm in my Junior High classroom. I watched the Challenger disaster live on T.V. I was in high school when the Internet came out. These are things that, even if you remember some of them, is a faint pittance in your mind. I know what happened, you weren't there, you didn't experience it for yourself, and you shouldn't question someone who was there. I don't think you'd question a Vietnam survivor about what he said happened when he was in Vietnam.
i would if the things he were saying were not true, and if that's what was happening at your school (which i have a hard time believing but whatever), it was not in accordance with any supreme court decisions about prayer in schools. i'd say it might have been a local thing, but if you were in texas that's even harder to believe. if that was really the case, blame incompetent school administrators
This was when I was a kid that prayer was banned when I was in middle-school in the late 80's. I was also in school where teacher-led prayer was allowed prior to the banning of all prayer, including personal prayer.
The statute requires public schools to make this elective available, but it is a secular teaching, not a religious one.
As you might have already noticed on Mr. Barton’s graph, America’s moral decline rapidly accelerated following one event – the U.S. Supreme Court’s removal of prayer from our nation’s schools.
come on now, provide a real source, the 1962 supreme court ruling bans teacher-led prayer in schools, nothing else
I was there, I'm sorry that isn't enough of a "real source" for you. It was related to the "prayer around the flagpole" that happened at about that time. I imagine you'll have to look at microfiche of newspapers at the time since the Internet wasn't around at the time. It'd be in the late 80's during the school year. I was in Texas at the time, so it'd be a good start for you.
why's the burden of proof on me for something you said that's incorrect?
It's not incorrect, for one. I was there -- I know what happened during my life. Just because you weren't there, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Secondly, I can't exactly post microfiche for you, can I? And I don't think you live in Portland for us to go together to the library to look for the information.
prayer is only prohibited in public schools if it is organized, they aren't roaming the lunchrooms looking to pick off kids with their hands folded and drag them in front of a magistrate; if the interpretation in your school was that any form of public display that could be constituted as prayer was banned, that was wrong
Look, I doubt you were even born at the time so you don't know what happened. And yes, if they caught you praying before eating lunch, you got dragged to the principle's office and suspended for, I think, three days. The whole ordeal happened over the span of a few months, and it's one of those things that if you weren't there, you'd think it never happened.
Look, I remember Jimmy Carter being president. I grew up with Reagan and the Cold War and being worried about a global nuclear war. I was nearly an adult when the first World Trade Center bombing occurred. I watched Desert Storm in my Junior High classroom. I watched the Challenger disaster live on T.V. I was in high school when the Internet came out. These are things that, even if you remember some of them, is a faint pittance in your mind. I know what happened, you weren't there, you didn't experience it for yourself, and you shouldn't question someone who was there. I don't think you'd question a Vietnam survivor about what he said happened when he was in Vietnam.
i would if the things he were saying were not true, and if that's what was happening at your school (which i have a hard time believing but whatever), it was not in accordance with any supreme court decisions about prayer in schools. i'd say it might have been a local thing, but if you were in texas that's even harder to believe. if that was really the case, blame incompetent school administrators
come on now, provide a real source, the 1962 supreme court ruling bans teacher-led prayer in schools, nothing else
I was there, I'm sorry that isn't enough of a "real source" for you. It was related to the "prayer around the flagpole" that happened at about that time. I imagine you'll have to look at microfiche of newspapers at the time since the Internet wasn't around at the time. It'd be in the late 80's during the school year. I was in Texas at the time, so it'd be a good start for you.
why's the burden of proof on me for something you said that's incorrect?
It's not incorrect, for one. I was there -- I know what happened during my life. Just because you weren't there, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Secondly, I can't exactly post microfiche for you, can I? And I don't think you live in Portland for us to go together to the library to look for the information.
prayer is only prohibited in public schools if it is organized, they aren't roaming the lunchrooms looking to pick off kids with their hands folded and drag them in front of a magistrate; if the interpretation in your school was that any form of public display that could be constituted as prayer was banned, that was wrong
Look, I doubt you were even born at the time so you don't know what happened. And yes, if they caught you praying before eating lunch, you got dragged to the principle's office and suspended for, I think, three days. The whole ordeal happened over the span of a few months, and it's one of those things that if you weren't there, you'd think it never happened.
Look, I remember Jimmy Carter being president. I grew up with Reagan and the Cold War and being worried about a global nuclear war. I was nearly an adult when the first World Trade Center bombing occurred. I watched Desert Storm in my Junior High classroom. I watched the Challenger disaster live on T.V. I was in high school when the Internet came out. These are things that, even if you remember some of them, is a faint pittance in your mind. I know what happened, you weren't there, you didn't experience it for yourself, and you shouldn't question someone who was there. I don't think you'd question a Vietnam survivor about what he said happened when he was in Vietnam.
i would if the things he were saying were not true, and if that's what was happening at your school (which i have a hard time believing but whatever), it was not in accordance with any supreme court decisions about prayer in schools. i'd say it might have been a local thing, but if you were in texas that's even harder to believe. if that was really the case, blame incompetent school administrators
This was when I was a kid that prayer was banned when I was in middle-school in the late 80's. I was also in school where teacher-led prayer was allowed prior to the banning of all prayer, including personal prayer.
The statute requires public schools to make this elective available, but it is a secular teaching, not a religious one.
As you might have already noticed on Mr. Barton’s graph, America’s moral decline rapidly accelerated following one event – the U.S. Supreme Court’s removal of prayer from our nation’s schools.
come on now, provide a real source, the 1962 supreme court ruling bans teacher-led prayer in schools, nothing else
I was there, I'm sorry that isn't enough of a "real source" for you. It was related to the "prayer around the flagpole" that happened at about that time. I imagine you'll have to look at microfiche of newspapers at the time since the Internet wasn't around at the time. It'd be in the late 80's during the school year. I was in Texas at the time, so it'd be a good start for you.
why's the burden of proof on me for something you said that's incorrect?
It's not incorrect, for one. I was there -- I know what happened during my life. Just because you weren't there, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Secondly, I can't exactly post microfiche for you, can I? And I don't think you live in Portland for us to go together to the library to look for the information.
prayer is only prohibited in public schools if it is organized, they aren't roaming the lunchrooms looking to pick off kids with their hands folded and drag them in front of a magistrate; if the interpretation in your school was that any form of public display that could be constituted as prayer was banned, that was wrong
Look, I doubt you were even born at the time so you don't know what happened. And yes, if they caught you praying before eating lunch, you got dragged to the principle's office and suspended for, I think, three days. The whole ordeal happened over the span of a few months, and it's one of those things that if you weren't there, you'd think it never happened.
Look, I remember Jimmy Carter being president. I grew up with Reagan and the Cold War and being worried about a global nuclear war. I was nearly an adult when the first World Trade Center bombing occurred. I watched Desert Storm in my Junior High classroom. I watched the Challenger disaster live on T.V. I was in high school when the Internet came out. These are things that, even if you remember some of them, is a faint pittance in your mind. I know what happened, you weren't there, you didn't experience it for yourself, and you shouldn't question someone who was there. I don't think you'd question a Vietnam survivor about what he said happened when he was in Vietnam.
i would if the things he were saying were not true, and if that's what was happening at your school (which i have a hard time believing but whatever), it was not in accordance with any supreme court decisions about prayer in schools. i'd say it might have been a local thing, but if you were in texas that's even harder to believe. if that was really the case, blame incompetent school administrators
how is that relevant? also, i agree with the firing there, even if the teacher's intentions were pure
I'm inclined to point out that borders on Fascism. You will allow secularist/atheist views in the school, but not religious? If that's not indoctrination I don't know what is; nor is having religion in schools a breach of the First Amendment. The First Amendment explicitly precludes the adoption of a STATE RELIGION. It does nothing to mention that there shall be no mention of religion in any place where government funds are used. If that was the case then there would be no scripture on any of national monuments, buildings, and no President would make mention of religion, but that isn't the truth now is it?
I was there, I'm sorry that isn't enough of a "real source" for you. It was related to the "prayer around the flagpole" that happened at about that time. I imagine you'll have to look at microfiche of newspapers at the time since the Internet wasn't around at the time. It'd be in the late 80's during the school year. I was in Texas at the time, so it'd be a good start for you.
why's the burden of proof on me for something you said that's incorrect?
It's not incorrect, for one. I was there -- I know what happened during my life. Just because you weren't there, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Secondly, I can't exactly post microfiche for you, can I? And I don't think you live in Portland for us to go together to the library to look for the information.
prayer is only prohibited in public schools if it is organized, they aren't roaming the lunchrooms looking to pick off kids with their hands folded and drag them in front of a magistrate; if the interpretation in your school was that any form of public display that could be constituted as prayer was banned, that was wrong
Look, I doubt you were even born at the time so you don't know what happened. And yes, if they caught you praying before eating lunch, you got dragged to the principle's office and suspended for, I think, three days. The whole ordeal happened over the span of a few months, and it's one of those things that if you weren't there, you'd think it never happened.
Look, I remember Jimmy Carter being president. I grew up with Reagan and the Cold War and being worried about a global nuclear war. I was nearly an adult when the first World Trade Center bombing occurred. I watched Desert Storm in my Junior High classroom. I watched the Challenger disaster live on T.V. I was in high school when the Internet came out. These are things that, even if you remember some of them, is a faint pittance in your mind. I know what happened, you weren't there, you didn't experience it for yourself, and you shouldn't question someone who was there. I don't think you'd question a Vietnam survivor about what he said happened when he was in Vietnam.
i would if the things he were saying were not true, and if that's what was happening at your school (which i have a hard time believing but whatever), it was not in accordance with any supreme court decisions about prayer in schools. i'd say it might have been a local thing, but if you were in texas that's even harder to believe. if that was really the case, blame incompetent school administrators
why should my tax money support the teaching of a religion that i don't believe in? i believe in grammar and science! religion is a private matter, using public funds to support the teaching of it is creating a de facto state religion
check every supreme court case dealing with separation of church and state (you can start with mccollum v. board of education), that's been the interpretation of the constitution for years and years, take your grievances up with that, not me
On August 17 2009 21:58 benjammin wrote: why should my tax money support the teaching of a religion that i don't believe in? i believe in grammar and science! religion is a private matter, using public funds to support the teaching of it is creating a de facto state religion
check every supreme court case dealing with separation of church and state (you can start with mccollum v. board of education), that's been the interpretation of the constitution for years and years, take your grievances up with that, not me
You don't own money, so it is not "your" tax money.
And Wikipedia articles and the Internet are not the foremost research tools and often times are not even allowed in scholarly writings as references.
come on now, provide a real source, the 1962 supreme court ruling bans teacher-led prayer in schools, nothing else
I was there, I'm sorry that isn't enough of a "real source" for you. It was related to the "prayer around the flagpole" that happened at about that time. I imagine you'll have to look at microfiche of newspapers at the time since the Internet wasn't around at the time. It'd be in the late 80's during the school year. I was in Texas at the time, so it'd be a good start for you.
why's the burden of proof on me for something you said that's incorrect?
It's not incorrect, for one. I was there -- I know what happened during my life. Just because you weren't there, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Secondly, I can't exactly post microfiche for you, can I? And I don't think you live in Portland for us to go together to the library to look for the information.
prayer is only prohibited in public schools if it is organized, they aren't roaming the lunchrooms looking to pick off kids with their hands folded and drag them in front of a magistrate; if the interpretation in your school was that any form of public display that could be constituted as prayer was banned, that was wrong
Look, I doubt you were even born at the time so you don't know what happened. And yes, if they caught you praying before eating lunch, you got dragged to the principle's office and suspended for, I think, three days. The whole ordeal happened over the span of a few months, and it's one of those things that if you weren't there, you'd think it never happened.
Look, I remember Jimmy Carter being president. I grew up with Reagan and the Cold War and being worried about a global nuclear war. I was nearly an adult when the first World Trade Center bombing occurred. I watched Desert Storm in my Junior High classroom. I watched the Challenger disaster live on T.V. I was in high school when the Internet came out. These are things that, even if you remember some of them, is a faint pittance in your mind. I know what happened, you weren't there, you didn't experience it for yourself, and you shouldn't question someone who was there. I don't think you'd question a Vietnam survivor about what he said happened when he was in Vietnam.
i would if the things he were saying were not true, and if that's what was happening at your school (which i have a hard time believing but whatever), it was not in accordance with any supreme court decisions about prayer in schools. i'd say it might have been a local thing, but if you were in texas that's even harder to believe. if that was really the case, blame incompetent school administrators
how is that relevant? also, i agree with the firing there, even if the teacher's intentions were pure
I'm inclined to point out that borders on Fascism. You will allow secularist/atheist views in the school, but not religious? If that's not indoctrination I don't know what is; nor is having religion in schools a breach of the First Amendment. The First Amendment explicitly precludes the adoption of a STATE RELIGION. It does nothing to mention that there shall be no mention of religion in any place where government funds are used. If that was the case then there would be no scripture on any of national monuments, buildings, and no President would make mention of religion, but that isn't the truth now is it?
presidents can of course make mention of religion, don't be insane. to quote JFK:
Considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' at all? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension.
On August 17 2009 21:58 benjammin wrote: why should my tax money support the teaching of a religion that i don't believe in? i believe in grammar and science! religion is a private matter, using public funds to support the teaching of it is creating a de facto state religion
The same reason your tax money goes to support quite a few other things you don't believe in. Teaching something doesn't make it a 'de facto' anything. You can teach grammar all day long, some people will still refuse to follow convention (even those who say they believe in 'grammar and science!).
Do you understand what it means to teach the Bible as literature? Or what role German theology has had on teaching the Bible as literature?
On August 17 2009 21:58 benjammin wrote: why should my tax money support the teaching of a religion that i don't believe in? i believe in grammar and science! religion is a private matter, using public funds to support the teaching of it is creating a de facto state religion
check every supreme court case dealing with separation of church and state (you can start with mccollum v. board of education), that's been the interpretation of the constitution for years and years, take your grievances up with that, not me
You don't own money, so it is not "your" tax money.
are you really questioning the constitutionality of using public funds to teach religion classes in a public school?
And Wikipedia articles and the Internet are not the foremost research tools and often times are not even allowed in scholarly writings as references.
On August 17 2009 21:58 benjammin wrote: why should my tax money support the teaching of a religion that i don't believe in? i believe in grammar and science! religion is a private matter, using public funds to support the teaching of it is creating a de facto state religion
check every supreme court case dealing with separation of church and state (you can start with mccollum v. board of education), that's been the interpretation of the constitution for years and years, take your grievances up with that, not me
Read William Rehnquist. Secondly, I fucking hate the SCOTUS. The Government is supposed to have three CO-EQUAL BRANCHES. The SCOTUS is not co-equal. By controlling the SCOTUS you can effectively mandate and constitutionalize your ideology. That was not the intent of the Founders and it has become this perverse notion that one judge, or a set of 5 people can dictate to the nation and rewrite the Constitution. That was not the intent. Activism be fucking damned. Why should I abide by the judgements of these judges if suceeding generations may not be bound to the present set of guidelines?
I'm going to have to bookmark this. If I ever see you promote a Government program I'm going to bring this up over and over.
Why should my tax money support a government program I don't believe in? Why should my tax money support anything I don't believe in? If this was the prevailing thought then there would be no Government programs. HURRAY! I wish this was the prevailing thought, sadly it is not. You may not like it, but there is no constitutional amendments stating that if you don't agree with a government program that it shouldn't be instituted.
In any event, I see you have resorted to that arguement upon hearing the factual basis of my arguement. Can you still explain that if the First Amendment meant explicitly what you think it means then why is there scripture on capital buildings, national monuments, national songs and anthems, Declaration of Independence, Presidential Addresses / speeches / inaugurations, why must we place our hand on the BIBLE in a COURT OF LAW?
The First Amendment only EXPLICITLY forbade the establishment of a STATE RELIGION. Unless you can show me the Church of US, or that the US has enacted a law that only allows Christianity in America, then this did not violate the First Amendment and William Rehnquist was pretty clear, even though I think no persons, or judges shall have that much power.
On August 17 2009 21:58 benjammin wrote: why should my tax money support the teaching of a religion that i don't believe in? i believe in grammar and science! religion is a private matter, using public funds to support the teaching of it is creating a de facto state religion
The same reason your tax money goes to support quite a few other things you don't believe in. Teaching something doesn't make it a 'de facto' anything. You can teach grammar all day long, some people will still refuse to follow convention (even those who say they believe in 'grammar and science!).
Do you understand what it means to teach the Bible as literature? Or what role German theology has had on teaching the Bible as literature?
i was referring specifically to aegrean asking if i am opposed to religious views being taught in public schools, not the greater issue at hand here
On August 17 2009 21:58 benjammin wrote: why should my tax money support the teaching of a religion that i don't believe in? i believe in grammar and science! religion is a private matter, using public funds to support the teaching of it is creating a de facto state religion
check every supreme court case dealing with separation of church and state (you can start with mccollum v. board of education), that's been the interpretation of the constitution for years and years, take your grievances up with that, not me
You don't own money, so it is not "your" tax money.
are you really questioning the constitutionality of using public funds to teach religion classes in a public school?
And Wikipedia articles and the Internet are not the foremost research tools and often times are not even allowed in scholarly writings as references.
funny, i thought this was the internet!
I'm telling you that the money you're talking about isn't yours. But, yes, there is no constitutional question of teaching any religion in school as long as it is taught in a scholarly (versus a religious) way.
Yes, this is the internet, but this is a discussion, not research. But you're doing your research as we're talking, and I doubt you have a stack of law books you're researching in.
On August 17 2009 22:11 benjammin wrote: you don't have to swear in with your hand on anything, actually, and many oaths remove 'so help you god' from the oath
But wait, if any mention of religion in the public forum was against the First Amendment then why is this even allowed in the first place? Oh right...because it isn't against the First Amendment.
On August 17 2009 21:58 benjammin wrote: why should my tax money support the teaching of a religion that i don't believe in? i believe in grammar and science! religion is a private matter, using public funds to support the teaching of it is creating a de facto state religion
check every supreme court case dealing with separation of church and state (you can start with mccollum v. board of education), that's been the interpretation of the constitution for years and years, take your grievances up with that, not me
You don't own money, so it is not "your" tax money.
are you really questioning the constitutionality of using public funds to teach religion classes in a public school?
And Wikipedia articles and the Internet are not the foremost research tools and often times are not even allowed in scholarly writings as references.
funny, i thought this was the internet!
I'm telling you that the money you're talking about isn't yours. But, yes, there is no constitutional question of teaching any religion in school as long as it is taught in a scholarly (versus a religious) way.
Yes, this is the internet, but this is a discussion, not research. But you're doing your research as we're talking, and I doubt you have a stack of law books you're researching in.
Tax money is yours. In fact, it doesn't belong to the Government. We didn't even have an income tax until 1914 under Wilson (That Fascist I might add). Your labor and the fruit of your labor is yours and no one elses. Money does not belong to the Government either. There is no central US bank and it was specifically made that way. The FED is an abomination that should be immediately dis-established. Fractional Reserve banking is theft and fraud on a grand scale. Manipulation of Inflation is the epitome of such theft.
that's lincoln's bible i believe, and is the choice of the president-elect to use it, afaik there's no law requiring a bible to be present, he just wants to appeal to all the jesus freaks out there who think he's a muslim anyway
On August 17 2009 21:58 benjammin wrote: why should my tax money support the teaching of a religion that i don't believe in? i believe in grammar and science! religion is a private matter, using public funds to support the teaching of it is creating a de facto state religion
check every supreme court case dealing with separation of church and state (you can start with mccollum v. board of education), that's been the interpretation of the constitution for years and years, take your grievances up with that, not me
You don't own money, so it is not "your" tax money.
are you really questioning the constitutionality of using public funds to teach religion classes in a public school?
And Wikipedia articles and the Internet are not the foremost research tools and often times are not even allowed in scholarly writings as references.
funny, i thought this was the internet!
I'm telling you that the money you're talking about isn't yours. But, yes, there is no constitutional question of teaching any religion in school as long as it is taught in a scholarly (versus a religious) way.
Yes, this is the internet, but this is a discussion, not research. But you're doing your research as we're talking, and I doubt you have a stack of law books you're researching in.
Tax money is yours. In fact, it doesn't belong to the Government. We didn't even have an income tax until 1914 under Wilson (That Fascist I might add). Your labor and the fruit of your labor is yours and no one elses. Money does not belong to the Government either. There is no central US bank and it was specifically made that way. The FED is an abomination that should be immediately dis-established. Fractional Reserve banking is theft and fraud on a grand scale. Manipulation of Inflation is the epitome of such theft.
Well, that is a view, but the money does belong to the United States because it represents our GDP which is the country's, not the individual.
On August 17 2009 22:16 benjammin wrote: that's lincoln's bible i believe, and is the choice of the president-elect to use it, afaik there's no law requiring a bible to be present, he just wants to appeal to all the jesus freaks out there who think he's a muslim anyway
All president's put their left hand on the Bible, so, no, it's not just Obama.
The course has nothing to do with prayer in school (and if the teacher introduces it in the class, they should be fired) so I see nothing wrong with it. The Bible has a very important historical role so it should be taught, but the class should probably be taught as a Western religious course. Religious displays are allowed on public property, but they must include multiple religions without one deliberately overshadowing the others, so if you were to apply it to this, you should probably include the Koran, Torah and multiple versions of the Bible (and point out the historical context of the King James bible.)
Quite frankly, after learning about the history of these texts, it's difficult to believe in any of them.
Also, lol @ Aegraen's ridiculous rants about evolution/Supreme Court/why "originalists" like himself are the best. You live in a make believe world. The law has to be interpreted and you do not know what the founders intended (and there were many of them, who all intended different things.) These are philosophical truths. Take some fucking epistemology.
On August 17 2009 21:58 benjammin wrote: why should my tax money support the teaching of a religion that i don't believe in? i believe in grammar and science! religion is a private matter, using public funds to support the teaching of it is creating a de facto state religion
The same reason your tax money goes to support quite a few other things you don't believe in. Teaching something doesn't make it a 'de facto' anything. You can teach grammar all day long, some people will still refuse to follow convention (even those who say they believe in 'grammar and science!).
Do you understand what it means to teach the Bible as literature? Or what role German theology has had on teaching the Bible as literature?
i was referring specifically to aegrean asking if i am opposed to religious views being taught in public schools, not the greater issue at hand here
Do you understand what it means to teach the Bible as literature?
On August 17 2009 22:18 benjammin wrote: i never said it was just obama, i said that there's no law requiring it--i imagine the PR nightmare if he didn't use one would be immense, sadly
Still, the point is that there isn't a steal wall between religion and the government.
On August 17 2009 21:58 benjammin wrote: why should my tax money support the teaching of a religion that i don't believe in? i believe in grammar and science! religion is a private matter, using public funds to support the teaching of it is creating a de facto state religion
The same reason your tax money goes to support quite a few other things you don't believe in. Teaching something doesn't make it a 'de facto' anything. You can teach grammar all day long, some people will still refuse to follow convention (even those who say they believe in 'grammar and science!).
Do you understand what it means to teach the Bible as literature? Or what role German theology has had on teaching the Bible as literature?
i was referring specifically to aegrean asking if i am opposed to religious views being taught in public schools, not the greater issue at hand here
Do you understand what it means to teach the Bible as literature?
EDIT: removing my own troll-bait
yes, i do, i took a course that studied the bible in college (look at me, i took a course that studied the bible! weeeee!)
literary: this ver sucks balls, theres no story/plot or anything to qualify it as a real book. religious: still sucks, my grandma made me read it and it made no sense... -__-
On August 17 2009 22:13 benjammin wrote: can you not see the difference between any possible mention of religion in a public forum and the teaching of it in a school?
Do you not understand you are invalidating your arguement? Logic circles run amok! You quote the First Amendment, and then imply that "respecting an establishment of religion" means the promotion of a religion in the public sphere (That is; anywhere tax money is used, or where Government is involved) and thus is against the First Amendment. I rebutted this and showed you that, that isn't the case with facts where Religion is used in the public sphere and used since inception of the US.
You then come back and say, it's essentially ok to mention religion in a public forum, and in politics; which is Government, but that it isn't ok to mention religion, teach religion, or otherwise talk about or even use prayer in school? In what part of the First Amendment does it allow Government officials to use Religion, talk about Religion, etc. but forbade teachers in doing so?
On August 17 2009 22:18 benjammin wrote: i never said it was just obama, i said that there's no law requiring it--i imagine the PR nightmare if he didn't use one would be immense, sadly
Still, the point is that there isn't a steal wall between religion and the government.
i think you are misinterpreting government here as 'religion's ability to shape political discourse' from my interpretation of government being 'supporting specific religions through public funds'
i have no problems with presidents (or anyone, for that matter) being religious, i just don't want any government funding supporting religious education in public schools
On August 17 2009 22:13 benjammin wrote: can you not see the difference between any possible mention of religion in a public forum and the teaching of it in a school?
Do you not understand you are invalidating your arguement? Logic circles run amok! You quote the First Amendment, and then imply that "respecting an establishment of religion" means the promotion of a religion in the public sphere (That is; anywhere tax money is used, or where Government is involved) and thus is against the First Amendment. I rebutted this and showed you that, that isn't the case with facts where Religion is used in the public sphere and used since inception of the US.
You then come back and say, it's essentially ok to mention religion in a public forum, and in politics; which is Government, but that it isn't ok to mention religion, teach religion, or otherwise talk about or even use prayer in school? In what part of the First Amendment does it allow Government officials to use Religion, talk about Religion, etc. but forbade teachers in doing so?
On August 17 2009 21:58 benjammin wrote: why should my tax money support the teaching of a religion that i don't believe in? i believe in grammar and science! religion is a private matter, using public funds to support the teaching of it is creating a de facto state religion
check every supreme court case dealing with separation of church and state (you can start with mccollum v. board of education), that's been the interpretation of the constitution for years and years, take your grievances up with that, not me
You don't own money, so it is not "your" tax money.
are you really questioning the constitutionality of using public funds to teach religion classes in a public school?
And Wikipedia articles and the Internet are not the foremost research tools and often times are not even allowed in scholarly writings as references.
funny, i thought this was the internet!
I'm telling you that the money you're talking about isn't yours. But, yes, there is no constitutional question of teaching any religion in school as long as it is taught in a scholarly (versus a religious) way.
Yes, this is the internet, but this is a discussion, not research. But you're doing your research as we're talking, and I doubt you have a stack of law books you're researching in.
Tax money is yours. In fact, it doesn't belong to the Government. We didn't even have an income tax until 1914 under Wilson (That Fascist I might add). Your labor and the fruit of your labor is yours and no one elses. Money does not belong to the Government either. There is no central US bank and it was specifically made that way. The FED is an abomination that should be immediately dis-established. Fractional Reserve banking is theft and fraud on a grand scale. Manipulation of Inflation is the epitome of such theft.
Well, that is a view, but the money does belong to the United States because it represents our GDP which is the country's, not the individual.
Actually no, it doesn't belong to the US. The Government merely made our currency legal tender. In order to print money you have to take debt on US Gov. bonds. If the Government owned the money and it belonged to them they could legally create a slave state. This is not the case.
On August 17 2009 22:18 benjammin wrote: i never said it was just obama, i said that there's no law requiring it--i imagine the PR nightmare if he didn't use one would be immense, sadly
Still, the point is that there isn't a steal wall between religion and the government.
i think you are misinterpreting government here as 'religion's ability to shape political discourse' from my interpretation of government being 'supporting specific religions through public funds'
i have no problems with presidents (or anyone, for that matter) being religious, i just don't want any government funding supporting religious education in public schools
is that too much to ask?
As someone had said, you can't seem to tell the difference in teaching the Bible as a historical literary work rather than a divinely inspired religious text.
On August 17 2009 22:18 benjammin wrote: i never said it was just obama, i said that there's no law requiring it--i imagine the PR nightmare if he didn't use one would be immense, sadly
Still, the point is that there isn't a steal wall between religion and the government.
i think you are misinterpreting government here as 'religion's ability to shape political discourse' from my interpretation of government being 'supporting specific religions through public funds'
i have no problems with presidents (or anyone, for that matter) being religious, i just don't want any government funding supporting religious education in public schools
is that too much to ask?
As someone had said, you can't seem to tell the difference in teaching the Bible as a historical literary work rather than a divinely inspired religious text.
oh dear lord, how many times do i have to explain that I CAN, but that i DO NOT TRUST TEXAS
Well, it depends on what is taught with the Bible. I mean, since they said Social Studies, I believe that to be a legitimate use for incorporating the Bible. After all, there has been a lot of different social effects caused by that book, and it has motivated historical events as well. Of course, I still believe it is religiously biased toward Christianity unless they teach about the effects of the Qu'ran, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc as well. =/
On August 17 2009 21:58 benjammin wrote: why should my tax money support the teaching of a religion that i don't believe in? i believe in grammar and science! religion is a private matter, using public funds to support the teaching of it is creating a de facto state religion
check every supreme court case dealing with separation of church and state (you can start with mccollum v. board of education), that's been the interpretation of the constitution for years and years, take your grievances up with that, not me
You don't own money, so it is not "your" tax money.
are you really questioning the constitutionality of using public funds to teach religion classes in a public school?
And Wikipedia articles and the Internet are not the foremost research tools and often times are not even allowed in scholarly writings as references.
funny, i thought this was the internet!
I'm telling you that the money you're talking about isn't yours. But, yes, there is no constitutional question of teaching any religion in school as long as it is taught in a scholarly (versus a religious) way.
Yes, this is the internet, but this is a discussion, not research. But you're doing your research as we're talking, and I doubt you have a stack of law books you're researching in.
Tax money is yours. In fact, it doesn't belong to the Government. We didn't even have an income tax until 1914 under Wilson (That Fascist I might add). Your labor and the fruit of your labor is yours and no one elses. Money does not belong to the Government either. There is no central US bank and it was specifically made that way. The FED is an abomination that should be immediately dis-established. Fractional Reserve banking is theft and fraud on a grand scale. Manipulation of Inflation is the epitome of such theft.
Well, that is a view, but the money does belong to the United States because it represents our GDP which is the country's, not the individual.
Actually no, it doesn't belong to the US. The Government merely made our currency legal tender. In order to print money you have to take debt on US Gov. bonds. If the Government owned the money and it belonged to them they could legally create a slave state. This is not the case.
It is illegal to deface currency because it is government property.
I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
On August 17 2009 22:18 benjammin wrote: i never said it was just obama, i said that there's no law requiring it--i imagine the PR nightmare if he didn't use one would be immense, sadly
Still, the point is that there isn't a steal wall between religion and the government.
i think you are misinterpreting government here as 'religion's ability to shape political discourse' from my interpretation of government being 'supporting specific religions through public funds'
i have no problems with presidents (or anyone, for that matter) being religious, i just don't want any government funding supporting religious education in public schools
is that too much to ask?
As someone had said, you can't seem to tell the difference in teaching the Bible as a historical literary work rather than a divinely inspired religious text.
Even if it is only read and studied in school for its literary merits or for its historical significance its still biased to just pick one religion. Even if you only want to teach a class called "The history of Western religion" you would still have to include all the major religions and trace them back to their roots if you want to give a clear picture. Only including the bible in the curriculum screams hidden agenda.
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
You can. Just move out of the US and go to Austria. It's a great place to stay.
On August 17 2009 22:18 benjammin wrote: i never said it was just obama, i said that there's no law requiring it--i imagine the PR nightmare if he didn't use one would be immense, sadly
Still, the point is that there isn't a steal wall between religion and the government.
i think you are misinterpreting government here as 'religion's ability to shape political discourse' from my interpretation of government being 'supporting specific religions through public funds'
i have no problems with presidents (or anyone, for that matter) being religious, i just don't want any government funding supporting religious education in public schools
is that too much to ask?
As someone had said, you can't seem to tell the difference in teaching the Bible as a historical literary work rather than a divinely inspired religious text.
oh dear lord, how many times do i have to explain that I CAN, but that i DO NOT TRUST TEXAS
So you do not believe the law itself in unconstitutional, it is fine, but that you don't trust Texas. Well, now that it's in the realm of opinion there's nothing to argue.
anyway, i am going to recap because i think there is confusion on the main topic at hand from more general discussions on separation of church and state. on the topic at hand:
1) i am skeptical of the motives of the school board here
2) there is probably enough for a lawsuit if the only religious text being taught in a foundational religious texts course is the bible
On August 17 2009 22:18 benjammin wrote: i never said it was just obama, i said that there's no law requiring it--i imagine the PR nightmare if he didn't use one would be immense, sadly
Still, the point is that there isn't a steal wall between religion and the government.
i think you are misinterpreting government here as 'religion's ability to shape political discourse' from my interpretation of government being 'supporting specific religions through public funds'
i have no problems with presidents (or anyone, for that matter) being religious, i just don't want any government funding supporting religious education in public schools
is that too much to ask?
As someone had said, you can't seem to tell the difference in teaching the Bible as a historical literary work rather than a divinely inspired religious text.
Even if it is only read and studied in school for its literary merits or for its historical significance its still biased to just pick one religion. Even if you only want to teach a class called "The history of Western religion" you would still have to include all the major religions and trace them back to their roots if you want to give a clear picture. Only including the bible in the curriculum screams hidden agenda.
Bias is not against the Constitution. I argue law, but not opinions.
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
You can. Just move out of the US and go to Austria. It's a great place to stay.
Lmao. Why do you think all the Austrian School of Economics academics moved to the US?
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I should get some of my friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
It is quite a stretch. :p
Seriously though, having several of you repeating the same arguments wouldn't make them any stronger. You're making no headway because they're not good arguments.
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
You can. Just move out of the US and go to Austria. It's a great place to stay.
Lmao. Why do you think all the Austrian School of Economics academics moved to the US?
Not that great. *cough* But, Arnie is from there which immediately gives it 10 points.
There is no country in which stoicly defends the free-market from Government hands and intervention. The Free-Market is the bulwark to Tyranny
Lol, because Austria is part of that socialistic hell called Europe? xD Jk. :p But Vienna is still a nice place. Lots of good music and food, lol. And no, there aren't any countries that keep government and economics free from each other, although I'd love to see one and actually study the true effects of laissez-faire capitalism instead of speculating to its effects all the time. =/
On August 17 2009 22:34 NExUS1g wrote:
Bias is not against the Constitution. I argue law, but not opinions.
If you argued law, you'd know about the lemon test, which *arguably* prohibits this law due to it *possibly* violating all three aspects. Of course, I lol at the third aspect of the lemon test because "excessive government entanglement with religion" is so subjective, haha.
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I should get some of my friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
It is quite a stretch. :p
Seriously though, having several of you repeating the same arguments wouldn't make them any stronger. You're making no headway because they're not good arguments.
I guess you didn't read Murry Rothbard about Government intervention did you?
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I should get some of my friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
It is quite a stretch. :p
Seriously though, having several of you repeating the same arguments wouldn't make them any stronger. You're making no headway because they're not good arguments.
I guess you didn't read Murry Rothbard about Government intervention did you?
Actually I did. It's not nearly as convincing if you don't already agree with all the basic assumptions behind and it the conclusions it reaches. Odd that.
Bias is not against the Constitution. I argue law, but not opinions.
If you argued law, you'd know about the lemon test, which *arguably* prohibits this law due to it *possibly* violating all three aspects. Of course, I lol at the third aspect of the lemon test because "excessive government entanglement with religion" is so subjective, haha.
It's secular. It does not advance or inhibit religion any more than teaching Babylonian history does. Entanglement... like you said, subjective.
Bias is not against the Constitution. I argue law, but not opinions.
If you argued law, you'd know about the lemon test, which *arguably* prohibits this law due to it *possibly* violating all three aspects. Of course, I lol at the third aspect of the lemon test because "excessive government entanglement with religion" is so subjective, haha.
It's secular. It does not advance or inhibit religion any more than teaching Babylonian history does. Entanglement... like you said, subjective.[/QUOTE]
Well, that's where it's arguable. See, we can argue that the law itself is dealing with history and the like, so it's secular. However, we can also argue that it only deals with Christianity in which it wouldn't be secular as it would be specifically religious. Also, we can see that while the primary objective of the law is not to promote Christinianity, we can also see that it does advance the religion a bit toward the students. And as always, an entanglement case can be made. =/
Bias is not against the Constitution. I argue law, but not opinions.
If you argued law, you'd know about the lemon test, which *arguably* prohibits this law due to it *possibly* violating all three aspects. Of course, I lol at the third aspect of the lemon test because "excessive government entanglement with religion" is so subjective, haha.
It's secular. It does not advance or inhibit religion any more than teaching Babylonian history does. Entanglement... like you said, subjective.
Well, that's where it's arguable. See, we can argue that the law itself is dealing with history and the like, so it's secular. However, we can also argue that it only deals with Christianity in which it wouldn't be secular as it would be specifically religious. Also, we can see that while the primary objective of the law is not to promote Christinianity, we can also see that it does advance the religion a bit toward the students. And as always, an entanglement case can be made. =/
I can't believe I read this entire thread instead of doing my MATLAB assignment. I must say (going back to a point which was brought up on pages 1-3 or something) that there is nothing more ridiculous than religious people calling evolution "a theory". Or mostly, when they try to use this to justify their own beliefs in creationism or whatever. PLEASE realize that this argument only holds if your opinion is that everything that is not an infallible, perfectly provable truth should be regarded as theories and everyone can believe whatever they want about it. These theories include, religion, evolution, the theory of the moon being a cheese and many others. Most rational people usually ranks theories from bad to good, where usually evolution happens to be quite a good one, along with the standard model etc, while creationism and "moon is a cheese" are pretty bad. Also this thread needs a little more http://xkcd.com/386/.
Bias is not against the Constitution. I argue law, but not opinions.
If you argued law, you'd know about the lemon test, which *arguably* prohibits this law due to it *possibly* violating all three aspects. Of course, I lol at the third aspect of the lemon test because "excessive government entanglement with religion" is so subjective, haha.
It's secular. It does not advance or inhibit religion any more than teaching Babylonian history does. Entanglement... like you said, subjective.
Well, that's where it's arguable. See, we can argue that the law itself is dealing with history and the like, so it's secular. However, we can also argue that it only deals with Christianity in which it wouldn't be secular as it would be specifically religious. Also, we can see that while the primary objective of the law is not to promote Christinianity, we can also see that it does advance the religion a bit toward the students. And as always, an entanglement case can be made. =/
So we should teach Social Studies bereft of the mention of religion unless it mentions every single religion and sect in existence? Society the world round is based on religion and is talked about quite a bit in textbooks. Christianity is by and large the primary religion of the entire world. To not directly focus on the studies of it gimps our children's education and view of the world.
Bias is not against the Constitution. I argue law, but not opinions.
If you argued law, you'd know about the lemon test, which *arguably* prohibits this law due to it *possibly* violating all three aspects. Of course, I lol at the third aspect of the lemon test because "excessive government entanglement with religion" is so subjective, haha.
It's secular. It does not advance or inhibit religion any more than teaching Babylonian history does. Entanglement... like you said, subjective.
Well, that's where it's arguable. See, we can argue that the law itself is dealing with history and the like, so it's secular. However, we can also argue that it only deals with Christianity in which it wouldn't be secular as it would be specifically religious. Also, we can see that while the primary objective of the law is not to promote Christinianity, we can also see that it does advance the religion a bit toward the students. And as always, an entanglement case can be made. =/
So we should teach Social Studies bereft of the mention of religion unless it mentions every single religion and sect in existence? Society the world round is based on religion and is talked about quite a bit in textbooks. Christianity is by and large the primary religion of the entire world. To not directly focus on the studies of it gimps our children's education and view of the world.
What? That's not what I said. If we were to teach about religion, we could at least be less biased about it. Christianity is one religion out of many major ones. To include it and only it would of course be dealing with one specific religion. I didn't say we had to teach every other one, but we should at least teach the major ones such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism along with them because all 5 have profound impacts upon the world. Only teaching Christianity gimps our children's education and view of the world much more so because we would be omitting the effects of religion upon places such as Asia. This, however, is aside the point completely, as my point was that teaching only about Christianity is arguably non-secular due to it being specifically religious and arguably advancing Christianity.
Bias is not against the Constitution. I argue law, but not opinions.
If you argued law, you'd know about the lemon test, which *arguably* prohibits this law due to it *possibly* violating all three aspects. Of course, I lol at the third aspect of the lemon test because "excessive government entanglement with religion" is so subjective, haha.
It's secular. It does not advance or inhibit religion any more than teaching Babylonian history does. Entanglement... like you said, subjective.
Well, that's where it's arguable. See, we can argue that the law itself is dealing with history and the like, so it's secular. However, we can also argue that it only deals with Christianity in which it wouldn't be secular as it would be specifically religious. Also, we can see that while the primary objective of the law is not to promote Christinianity, we can also see that it does advance the religion a bit toward the students. And as always, an entanglement case can be made. =/
So we should teach Social Studies bereft of the mention of religion unless it mentions every single religion and sect in existence? Society the world round is based on religion and is talked about quite a bit in textbooks. Christianity is by and large the primary religion of the entire world. To not directly focus on the studies of it gimps our children's education and view of the world.
What? That's not what I said. If we were to teach about religion, we could at least be less biased about it. Christianity is one religion out of many major ones. To include it and only it would of course be dealing with one specific religion. I didn't say we had to teach every other one, but we should at least teach the major ones such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism along with them because all 5 have profound impacts upon the world. Only teaching Christianity gimps our children's education and view of the world much more so because we would be omitting the effects of religion upon places such as Asia. This, however, is aside the point completely, as my point was that teaching only about Christianity is arguably non-secular due to it being specifically religious and arguably advancing Christianity.
I didn't say that's what you said, I'm showing you how social studies parallels having a scholarly Biblical study -- that they are essentially the same.
Christianity is one religion of many, but it is the one religion that most people in the world follow. I think about 1/3 of the world's population in fact.
I said the other religions are covered in textbooks, but that Christianity is the most important of these religions from a global, historical standpoint.
I don't think that a historical text that has yet to be proven wrong in its factual accounts is hardly worthy of banning. I learned about the Greek and Roman pantheons in school because it is a part of history. Did anyone question that? No. And why didn't they? Because it's NOT Christianity.
What's wrong with teaching the Bible? It's one of the most important and influential works of Western (and world) literature. You can't understand much of Western lit or intellectual history without familiarity with what's in the Bible.
On August 17 2009 23:37 HnR)hT wrote: What's wrong with teaching the Bible? It's one of the most important and influential works of Western (and world) literature. You can't understand much of Western lit or intellectual history without familiarity with what's in the Bible.
I didn't say that's what you said, I'm showing you how social studies parallels having a scholarly Biblical study -- that they are essentially the same.
Mkay.
Christianity is one religion of many, but it is the one religion that most people in the world follow. I think about 1/3 of the world's population in fact.
Yup.
I said the other religions are covered in textbooks, but that Christianity is the most important of these religions from a global, historical standpoint.
Arguable. I'd say teaching about the historical contexts of Judaism and Islam are more important because of the history behind them and the conflicts they cause even in modern day.
I don't think that a historical text that has yet to be proven wrong in its factual accounts is hardly worthy of banning.
It's been proven wrong in certain parts such as the Jewish slaves in Egypt or the creation in 7 days, but that's another argument. The thing is though, if we were to teach everything that hasn't been proven wrong, we might as well teach about aliens and the likes building the pyramids, the Great wall of China, and so on. There are a lot of things that haven't been proven wrong yet, but it doesn't mean we should teach them.
I learned about the Greek and Roman pantheons in school because it is a part of history. Did anyone question that? No. And why didn't they? Because it's NOT Christianity.
You do bring up a very good point here. You might be right in the implication that Christianity receives a lot of controversy in the states, and a lot of bias against it. I believe that's the cause from so many cases of these religious events happening due to Christianity so we are more focused about that religion being promoted in school. =/
Of course, throughout all this, we still haven't established that the law is: Secular Does not advance Christianity Does not cause excessive government entanglement.
I didn't say that's what you said, I'm showing you how social studies parallels having a scholarly Biblical study -- that they are essentially the same.
Christianity is one religion of many, but it is the one religion that most people in the world follow. I think about 1/3 of the world's population in fact.
I said the other religions are covered in textbooks, but that Christianity is the most important of these religions from a global, historical standpoint.
Arguable. I'd say teaching about the historical contexts of Judaism and Islam are more important because of the history behind them and the conflicts they cause even in modern day.
I don't think that a historical text that has yet to be proven wrong in its factual accounts is hardly worthy of banning.
It's been proven wrong in certain parts such as the Jewish slaves in Egypt or the creation in 7 days, but that's another argument. The thing is though, if we were to teach everything that hasn't been proven wrong, we might as well teach about aliens and the likes building the pyramids, the Great wall of China, and so on. There are a lot of things that haven't been proven wrong yet, but it doesn't mean we should teach them.
I learned about the Greek and Roman pantheons in school because it is a part of history. Did anyone question that? No. And why didn't they? Because it's NOT Christianity.
You do bring up a very good point here. You might be right in the implication that Christianity receives a lot of controversy in the states, and a lot of bias against it. I believe that's the cause from so many cases of these religious events happening due to Christianity so we are more focused about that religion being promoted in school. =/
Of course, throughout all this, we still haven't established that the law is: Secular Does not advance Christianity Does not cause excessive government entanglement.
Dude, why not teach about SG-1? Apophis is the shit.
Bias is not against the Constitution. I argue law, but not opinions.
If you argued law, you'd know about the lemon test, which *arguably* prohibits this law due to it *possibly* violating all three aspects. Of course, I lol at the third aspect of the lemon test because "excessive government entanglement with religion" is so subjective, haha.
It's secular. It does not advance or inhibit religion any more than teaching Babylonian history does. Entanglement... like you said, subjective.
Well, that's where it's arguable. See, we can argue that the law itself is dealing with history and the like, so it's secular. However, we can also argue that it only deals with Christianity in which it wouldn't be secular as it would be specifically religious. Also, we can see that while the primary objective of the law is not to promote Christinianity, we can also see that it does advance the religion a bit toward the students. And as always, an entanglement case can be made. =/
So we should teach Social Studies bereft of the mention of religion unless it mentions every single religion and sect in existence? Society the world round is based on religion and is talked about quite a bit in textbooks. Christianity is by and large the primary religion of the entire world. To not directly focus on the studies of it gimps our children's education and view of the world.
What? That's not what I said. If we were to teach about religion, we could at least be less biased about it. Christianity is one religion out of many major ones. To include it and only it would of course be dealing with one specific religion. I didn't say we had to teach every other one, but we should at least teach the major ones such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism along with them because all 5 have profound impacts upon the world. Only teaching Christianity gimps our children's education and view of the world much more so because we would be omitting the effects of religion upon places such as Asia. This, however, is aside the point completely, as my point was that teaching only about Christianity is arguably non-secular due to it being specifically religious and arguably advancing Christianity.
There is nothing wrong with studying other cultures, but it's senseless if you don't learn about your own first. As for Islam, it's essentially a plagiarism of Judaism (with Muhammad instead of Moses, Hijra instead of the Exodus, Mecca instead of Jersualem, Kaaba instead of the Holy of Holies), distorted by a misunderstanding of early rabbinic commentaries and diluted by pagan Arab superstition...
Oh, and the Arab-Israeli conflict has nothing to do with the specific contents of Judaism. If Jewish beliefs were instantly replaced by Buddhist beliefs tomorrow, it would be exactly the same.
I didn't say that's what you said, I'm showing you how social studies parallels having a scholarly Biblical study -- that they are essentially the same.
Christianity is one religion of many, but it is the one religion that most people in the world follow. I think about 1/3 of the world's population in fact.
I said the other religions are covered in textbooks, but that Christianity is the most important of these religions from a global, historical standpoint.
Arguable. I'd say teaching about the historical contexts of Judaism and Islam are more important because of the history behind them and the conflicts they cause even in modern day.
I don't think that a historical text that has yet to be proven wrong in its factual accounts is hardly worthy of banning.
It's been proven wrong in certain parts such as the Jewish slaves in Egypt or the creation in 7 days, but that's another argument. The thing is though, if we were to teach everything that hasn't been proven wrong, we might as well teach about aliens and the likes building the pyramids, the Great wall of China, and so on. There are a lot of things that haven't been proven wrong yet, but it doesn't mean we should teach them.
I learned about the Greek and Roman pantheons in school because it is a part of history. Did anyone question that? No. And why didn't they? Because it's NOT Christianity.
You do bring up a very good point here. You might be right in the implication that Christianity receives a lot of controversy in the states, and a lot of bias against it. I believe that's the cause from so many cases of these religious events happening due to Christianity so we are more focused about that religion being promoted in school. =/
Of course, throughout all this, we still haven't established that the law is: Secular Does not advance Christianity Does not cause excessive government entanglement.
You state that the Isrealites having been in slavery in Egypt has been proven false? There is no evidence one way or another.
If we cannot allow a law to exist that allows schools, at their discretion, to provide an elective course around the Bible, then we might as well remove all other mention of religions in the entire texts of books on history and social studies.
The fact that we need such a law to ALLOW it is preposterous.
Edit: Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible. Islam is an Arbahamic religion.
Again, how is Judaism birthed directly from the Bible? Your answer to that question is that It is, because the first books of the Bible were written in Hebrew? How does that make sense?
On August 18 2009 00:32 Mindcrime wrote: Again, how is Judaism birthed directly from the Bible? Your answer to that question is that It is, because the first books of the Bible were written in Hebrew? How does that make sense?
The Jews (Judaism) follow the Hebrew scriptures in the Bible. Their "Bible" is the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures). If you still don't get it, please just do a Google search.
All Jews (excluding conversions) would be able to trace their lineage to Abraham, they still reside in the same land, they still speak and write the same language. The Bible's Old Testament is their religion and history.
On August 18 2009 00:32 Mindcrime wrote: Again, how is Judaism birthed directly from the Bible? Your answer to that question is that It is, because the first books of the Bible were written in Hebrew? How does that make sense?
The Jews (Judaism) follow the Hebrew scriptures in the Bible. Their "Bible" is the Old Testament. If you still don't get it, please just do a Google search.
Yeah, Jews use the Tanakh (in tandem with Rabbinic writings and oral tradition). But was Judaism birthed by the Tanakh?
On August 18 2009 00:32 Mindcrime wrote: Again, how is Judaism birthed directly from the Bible? Your answer to that question is that It is, because the first books of the Bible were written in Hebrew? How does that make sense?
The Jews (Judaism) follow the Hebrew scriptures in the Bible. Their "Bible" is the Old Testament. If you still don't get it, please just do a Google search.
Yeah, Jews use the Tanakh (in tandem with Rabbinic writings and oral tradition). But was Judaism birthed by the Tanakh?
Are you seriously going back and forth with me over semantics? Go away.
Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever named "Judaism" in English.
On August 18 2009 01:08 DrainX wrote: Shouldn't it be
"The Bible is birthed directly from Judaism"
rather than
"Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible."?
Semantics
Any contention on the truth of one over the other is definitely not semantics. It's logic. x is y from z is a wholly different statement logically than z is y from x.
On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote: Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English.
Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism.
On August 18 2009 01:08 DrainX wrote: Shouldn't it be
"The Bible is birthed directly from Judaism"
rather than
"Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible."?
Semantics
Any contention on the truth of one over the other is definitely not semantics. It's logic. x is y from z is a wholly different statement logically than z is y from x.
Judaism came after the Bible was written and so the Bible birthed Judaism though its roots go back to pre-Biblical times. It's semantics.
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
Your views are nothing like Friedman or Hayek at all. Your views come straight from Beck, and he's never read either. Both of their world views had a place for government, and even taxing. Yours doesn't. Linking those two schools together is a bit of a joke as well since this is a purely political discussion and you've just cited two economics schools that are not as close as you think, and are completely distinct from politics.
Politically, I don't think you're as similar to either as you seem to think. You say you've read CoL and others, but not one iota of your posts shows it unless you actually disagree with him.
On August 18 2009 01:08 DrainX wrote: Shouldn't it be
"The Bible is birthed directly from Judaism"
rather than
"Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible."?
Semantics
Any contention on the truth of one over the other is definitely not semantics. It's logic. x is y from z is a wholly different statement logically than z is y from x.
Judaism came after the Bible was written and so the Bible birthed Judaism though its roots go back to pre-Biblical times. It's semantics.
I'm sorry, my statement was overreaching and wrong. The difference between the two assertions is logical, but semantics can produce contention over their truth values. I agree that your contention with Mindcrime in this thread is based in semantics.
Anyways, unfortunate thread derail. I actually wouldn't have minded studying about the Bible's consequences on Western culture in High School, as I was often found bemused at the Biblical references that were legion in Western literature. Really most Biblical references in Western literature reinforce universal themes, so comprehending them can be useful to fully appreciating someone's work.
I personally find it inconvenient and presumptuous of authors to intertwine religious themes with universal ones, but such is reality and it isn't my business to spurn their methods of expression.
EDIT: To actually express my position on the law... I think it's fine. My college is a public institution and it offers education on religions and their ramifications with no qualms. I believe argument is better placed over more material issues such as Health Care, Finance, Energy, etc.
On August 17 2009 19:47 NExUS1g wrote: I think that children are Christian because they grow up in a Christian household. Children are still Christian even though it's currently not taught in schools because their parents get them up on Sunday morning and take them to Church.
well, i grew up in a christian houshold, and i can tell you that that DOES NOT make you a christian.
i am a christian, and i was exposed to it because of my parents, but that isn't the same thing. definatly a choice i made. i'll not go into religious detail unless someone forces me.
i know many people who convert to christianity, and many people who are raised christian and go away from it. this law is simply about raising awarness about the religious minority in the us. are you all really scared that kids are gonna start following a religion because their TEACHERS tell them too? since when has that ever happened?
On August 17 2009 19:47 NExUS1g wrote: I think that children are Christian because they grow up in a Christian household. Children are still Christian even though it's currently not taught in schools because their parents get them up on Sunday morning and take them to Church.
well, i grew up in a christian houshold, and i can tell you that that DOES NOT make you a christian.
i am a christian, and i was exposed to it because of my parents, but that isn't the same thing. definatly a choice i made. i'll not go into religious detail unless someone forces me.
i know many people who convert to christianity, and many people who are raised christian and go away from it. this law is simply about raising awarness about the religious minority in the us. are you all really scared that kids are gonna start following a religion because their TEACHERS tell them too? since when has that ever happened?
You're taking this out of context, unfortunately. This is as opposed to children becoming Christian because they're being taught the Bible in school.
Their teachers aren't telling them to follow a religion in this allowance. The Bible is being covered in a secular, historic fashion and in no way religious.
Do you think Christianity is a religious minority in the U.S.?
yeah. i recon there are more people who are not christian than are, hence the religious people are in the minority, (not saying it is a minority religion)
as to the rest.... i'm confused what the objection is about, i thought everyones problem with this law, was that somehow people were being indoctrinated into christianity....
i was replying to your post about only christian children learning about christianity.. ah well, i'm lost now
On August 18 2009 02:30 kerpal wrote: yeah. i recon there are more people who are not christian than are, hence the religious people are in the minority, (not saying it is a minority religion)
as to the rest.... i'm confused what the objection is about, i thought everyones problem with this law, was that somehow people were being indoctrinated into christianity....
i was replying to your post about only christian children learning about christianity.. ah well, i'm lost now
Well, Christianity is the dominant religion by far in North America (U.S., Canada and Mexico).
The objection is that some think this is a breech of the U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court's rulings on separation of church and state.
On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote: Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English.
Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism.
Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young.
While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews.
On August 18 2009 01:08 DrainX wrote: Shouldn't it be
"The Bible is birthed directly from Judaism"
rather than
"Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible."?
Semantics
Any contention on the truth of one over the other is definitely not semantics. It's logic. x is y from z is a wholly different statement logically than z is y from x.
Judaism came after the Bible was written and so the Bible birthed Judaism though its roots go back to pre-Biblical times. It's semantics.
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
Your views are nothing like Friedman or Hayek at all. Your views come straight from Beck, and he's never read either.
Care to explain? My views on the free-market, Laissez-Faire, and Anarcho-Capitalism quite fall in line with the likes of Mises, Hayek, Friedman (more so in the later period of his life), Rothbard, and other various Economists in the Schools of Thought. I acknowledge that Government plays a role in society, however that is as limited as can be; especially Federally. In that sense, I am more in-line with the Anti-Federalists. In the marketplace the only role Government serves is to ensure fair practices and to make sure contracts, which are voluntary in a free-market are upheld. No intervention into the markets whatsoever should be ordained. This viewpoint is directly in-line with the teachings of Austrian School.
The two most influential persons in my life and my political philosophy are Thomas Jefferson and Ludwig von Mises. I listen to Beck for political commentary on contemporary issues; not as a guiding beacon on how to approach philosophy and politics. I would actually like to hear you explain how I am not a proponent of what I say I am. Of course, you don't believe that because what I say comes straight out of their contemporary pieces and I cite as such. You are merely trying to marginalize my views by associating me with a political commentator in which on these boards is seen as "loony", instead of accurately describing me with such intellectual giants and men of stature as Ludwig von Mises and Thomas Jefferson. Such a ruse.
I should one of these days go through the guiding books of the opposite side of the spectrum and highlight the drastic differences on these boards; that being Communist Manifesto (Which is the guiding book for both Socialism and Communism), the various Market Socialist Economists, and Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
There really are a limited number of philosophers and Economists who support greater Government involvement. Most are in the opposite spectrum; reduced and limited Government. Montisqiue, Cicero, Burke, Locke, Paine, Tocqueville, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Friedman, Rand, Smith, and Bastiat.
On the opposite side you have Marx, Machiavelli, Keynes, Krugman, Russell, etc.
Then there are some who are in the middle and propose systems on both ends of the spectrum like Roussaeu.
On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote: Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English.
Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism.
Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young.
While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews.
On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote: Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English.
Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism.
Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young.
While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews.
On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote: Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English.
Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism.
Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young.
While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews.
Why is it wrong to refer to the "children of Israel" in Egypt as Israelites?
On August 18 2009 01:08 DrainX wrote: Shouldn't it be
"The Bible is birthed directly from Judaism"
rather than
"Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible."?
Semantics
Any contention on the truth of one over the other is definitely not semantics. It's logic. x is y from z is a wholly different statement logically than z is y from x.
Judaism came after the Bible was written and so the Bible birthed Judaism though its roots go back to pre-Biblical times. It's semantics.
So Judaism only sprang up during/after the Exile?
really?
Modern Judaism, yes. Judaism was being written from about 1,500 B.C.E. all the way up to about 500 B.C.E. so Judaism in its current state did not exist before then. It was quite a ways into the Hebrew scriptures before the tribe of Judah was dominant and the terms Judaism and Jew were born.
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
Your views are nothing like Friedman or Hayek at all. Your views come straight from Beck, and he's never read either. Both of their world views had a place for government, and even taxing. Yours doesn't. Linking those two schools together is a bit of a joke as well since this is a purely political discussion and you've just cited two economics schools that are not as close as you think, and are completely distinct from politics.
Politically, I don't think you're as similar to either as you seem to think. You say you've read CoL and others, but not one iota of your posts shows it unless you actually disagree with him.
First off, I've said quite a few times on this board that I am in favor of abolishing the 16th, but not creating a state that has no taxation at all. Contrary to Rothbard, I believe that a standing federal military is a construct of Government as such in the Constitution. However, I am opposed to every proposed taxation on income. I am however in favor of a Flat tax or consumer tax. No more than ~8-10%.
I also have a place for Government and have said it time and time again what their role in the market should be. Ensuring fair practices and upholding contractual obligations; voluntary contracts which are the guiding force of the free-market. That is it. No infusion of funds. No regulatory bodies.
I think you don't understand my positions whatsoever. In all my posts I am consistent; repeating these same principles which are directly inline with Hayek, Mises, and the rest. While not agreeing with everything they say; forming basis for some of my other viewpoints I am directly influenced by them. You can also see in my contemporary political philosophy that it is also directly influenced by limited Government proponents such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.
In any case, those are a general overview of my positions. Government; necessary evil. Limit as much as possible. Free-Market bulwark to Tyranny and Government intervention interferes and distorts market creating a bastardization of the idea of the market in the first place. Freedom, Liberty, Rule of law paramount. What again is not in line with the philosophies that my suppositions propose?
On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote: Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English.
Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism.
Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young.
While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews.
The name of Israel is over 3,000 years old.
That is beside the point.
It's not beside the point. You said, "Again, the word 'Israelite' is relatively young."
I guess near pre-historic times is relatively young to you? As compared to what; the Earth? It existed before Moses put pen to paper. Before the Veda was written. Before Buddha saw the four sights.
On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote: Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English.
Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism.
Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young.
While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews.
Why is it wrong to refer to the "children of Israel" in Egypt as Israelites?
As I recall it, the two are differentiated because the Hebrews were a largely nomadic people whereas the Israelites had become a settled people after the acceptance of the Mosaic covenant and conquest of Canaan. As for why the two groups are differentiated in academia... I would wager that it was simply a matter of convenience.
On August 18 2009 03:03 daz wrote: i wonder if they're going to teach them the parts in the bible where god encourages people to slaughter children, rape women and beat slaves
Slaughter children? Sure I remember that. Beat slaves? I think I remember that. Rape women? Not sure about that one. Where's it at?
I'm sorry. A whole curse on bible. That's an overkill at least. Why not incorporate it into literature class? A month on studying it should be much more than enough.
Actually in Poland, in highschool one starts literature class with analyzing parts of bible. Bible contains many parts and not all of them explicitly "teach". There are famous poems in it as well. Also there are vast differences between different parts of bible (New Testamnet vs Old Testament). Studying bible critically allows one to see how church is using only parts that fits its teaching (the foundation of catholic religion is New Testament and only parts of Old Testament are used for teaching as the others do not fit that well into teaching of the New Testament).
So I have nothing against studying bible or any other influential religious text in the literature class. But why start a whole new course on it? This kind of reminds me dreaded "bible studies" in Britain...
On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote: Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English.
Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism.
Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young.
While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews.
The name of Israel is over 3,000 years old.
That is beside the point.
It's not beside the point. You said, "Again, the word 'Israelite' is relatively young."
I guess near pre-historic times is relatively young to you? As compared to what; the Earth? It existed before Moses put pen to paper. Before the Veda was written. Before Buddha saw the four sights.
Israel and Israelite are two different words.
And the vast, vast majority of scholars of the Bible reject the tradition that Moses wrote the Torah.
On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote: Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English.
Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism.
Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young.
While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews.
Why is it wrong to refer to the "children of Israel" in Egypt as Israelites?
As I recall it, the two are differentiated because the Hebrews were a largely nomadic people whereas the Israelites had become a settled people after the acceptance of the Mosaic covenant and conquest of Canaan. As for why the two groups are differentiated in academia... I would wager that it was simply a matter of convenience.
Hebrews are descendants from Eber, Israelites are descended from Israel (Jacob). All Israelites are Hebrews, but not all Hebrews are Israelites. That's the difference between the two.
On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote: Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English.
Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism.
Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young.
While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews.
The name of Israel is over 3,000 years old.
That is beside the point.
It's not beside the point. You said, "Again, the word 'Israelite' is relatively young."
I guess near pre-historic times is relatively young to you? As compared to what; the Earth? It existed before Moses put pen to paper. Before the Veda was written. Before Buddha saw the four sights.
Israel and Israelite are two different words.
And the vast, vast majority of scholars of the Bible reject the tradition that Moses wrote the Torah.
Israel is a person and a country, Israelites are those descended from the person Israel.
I think you just threw in that last part to flaunt knowledge or something because I didn't say anything about what Moses did or did not write.
On August 18 2009 03:11 Lebesgue wrote: I'm sorry. A whole curse on bible. That's an overkill at least. Why not incorporate it into literature class? A month on studying it should be much more than enough.
Actually in Poland, in highschool one starts literature class with analyzing parts of bible. Bible contains many parts and not all of them explicitly "teach". There are famous poems in it as well. Also there are vast differences between different parts of bible (New Testamnet vs Old Testament). Studying bible critically allows one to see how church is using only parts that fits its teaching (the foundation of catholic religion is New Testament and only parts of Old Testament are used for teaching as the others do not fit that well into teaching of the New Testament).
So I have nothing against studying bible or any other influential religious text in the literature class. But why start a whole new course on it? This kind of reminds me dreaded "bible studies" in Britain...
The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Even between the New and Old Testaments. In fact, Jesus was accurately prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus set the Pharisees straight on the principles of the Bible and cleared up confusion.
On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote: Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English.
Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism.
Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young.
While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews.
Why is it wrong to refer to the "children of Israel" in Egypt as Israelites?
As I recall it, the two are differentiated because the Hebrews were a largely nomadic people whereas the Israelites had become a settled people after the acceptance of the Mosaic covenant and conquest of Canaan. As for why the two groups are differentiated in academia... I would wager that it was simply a matter of convenience.
Hebrews are descendants from Eber, Israelites are descended from Israel (Jacob). All Israelites are Hebrews, but not all Hebrews are Israelites. That's the difference between the two.
Oh so now you accept that there is a difference?
That is correct, but I don't believe that is the distinction used by critics in historical analysis of the Bible.
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
Your views are nothing like Friedman or Hayek at all. Your views come straight from Beck, and he's never read either. Both of their world views had a place for government, and even taxing. Yours doesn't. Linking those two schools together is a bit of a joke as well since this is a purely political discussion and you've just cited two economics schools that are not as close as you think, and are completely distinct from politics.
Politically, I don't think you're as similar to either as you seem to think. You say you've read CoL and others, but not one iota of your posts shows it unless you actually disagree with him.
First off, I've said quite a few times on this board that I am in favor of abolishing the 16th, but not creating a state that has no taxation at all. Contrary to Rothbard, I believe that a standing federal military is a construct of Government as such in the Constitution. However, I am opposed to every proposed taxation on income. I am however in favor of a Flat tax or consumer tax. No more than ~8-10%.
I also have a place for Government and have said it time and time again what their role in the market should be. Ensuring fair practices and upholding contractual obligations; voluntary contracts which are the guiding force of the free-market. That is it. No infusion of funds. No regulatory bodies.
I think you don't understand my positions whatsoever. In all my posts I am consistent; repeating these same principles which are directly inline with Hayek, Mises, and the rest. While not agreeing with everything they say; forming basis for some of my other viewpoints I am directly influenced by them. You can also see in my contemporary political philosophy that it is also directly influenced by limited Government proponents such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.
In any case, those are a general overview of my positions. Government; necessary evil. Limit as much as possible. Free-Market bulwark to Tyranny and Government intervention interferes and distorts market creating a bastardization of the idea of the market in the first place. Freedom, Liberty, Rule of law paramount. What again is not in line with the philosophies that my suppositions propose?
You know that current economic crises is blamed on insufficient regulations in financial markets and erosion of old regulatory laws. That's at least the current view of most economists including Robert Lucas... So well, if there is one role for government it is exactly to regulate the markets when there is a possibility of market failure (incomplete information, moral hazard, adverse selection).
Also I remember that you wrote somewhere that you are for abolishing FED. I am not aware of any economist who would support this claim. Central Banking is one of few developments of economics that actually works...
On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote: Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English.
Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism.
Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young.
While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews.
The name of Israel is over 3,000 years old.
That is beside the point.
It's not beside the point. You said, "Again, the word 'Israelite' is relatively young."
I guess near pre-historic times is relatively young to you? As compared to what; the Earth? It existed before Moses put pen to paper. Before the Veda was written. Before Buddha saw the four sights.
Israel and Israelite are two different words.
And the vast, vast majority of scholars of the Bible reject the tradition that Moses wrote the Torah.
Israel is a person and a country, Israelites are those descended from the person Israel.
According, originally, to the KJV Bible.
I think you just threw in that last part to flaunt knowledge or something because I didn't say anything about what Moses did or did not write.
What is Moses credited with writing other than the Torah?
On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote: Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English.
Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism.
Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young.
While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews.
Why is it wrong to refer to the "children of Israel" in Egypt as Israelites?
As I recall it, the two are differentiated because the Hebrews were a largely nomadic people whereas the Israelites had become a settled people after the acceptance of the Mosaic covenant and conquest of Canaan. As for why the two groups are differentiated in academia... I would wager that it was simply a matter of convenience.
Hebrews are descendants from Eber, Israelites are descended from Israel (Jacob). All Israelites are Hebrews, but not all Hebrews are Israelites. That's the difference between the two.
Oh so now you accept that there is a difference?
That is correct, but I don't believe that is the distinction used by critics in historical analysis of the Bible.
OMG. . . Of course the distinction is used because they came about at different times and led to different family lines.
And there is no difference between the two in context of the argument earlier because all Israelites are Hebrew.
On August 18 2009 03:11 Lebesgue wrote: I'm sorry. A whole curse on bible. That's an overkill at least. Why not incorporate it into literature class? A month on studying it should be much more than enough.
Actually in Poland, in highschool one starts literature class with analyzing parts of bible. Bible contains many parts and not all of them explicitly "teach". There are famous poems in it as well. Also there are vast differences between different parts of bible (New Testamnet vs Old Testament). Studying bible critically allows one to see how church is using only parts that fits its teaching (the foundation of catholic religion is New Testament and only parts of Old Testament are used for teaching as the others do not fit that well into teaching of the New Testament).
So I have nothing against studying bible or any other influential religious text in the literature class. But why start a whole new course on it? This kind of reminds me dreaded "bible studies" in Britain...
The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Even between the New and Old Testaments. In fact, Jesus was accurately prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus set the Pharisees straight on the principles of the Bible and cleared up confusion.
Deuteronomy doesn't contradict parts of the New Testament? Also, which version are you working from because the fact that things align in some texts after they were revised in the middle ages should be a surprise to no one. It should be studied for what it is: a highly influential man made piece of fiction, revised over a very long time span by many different people with political interests. Same goes for the other holy books.
On August 18 2009 03:03 daz wrote: i wonder if they're going to teach them the parts in the bible where god encourages people to slaughter children, rape women and beat slaves
Slaughter children? Sure I remember that. Beat slaves? I think I remember that. Rape women? Not sure about that one. Where's it at?
On August 18 2009 03:11 Lebesgue wrote: I'm sorry. A whole curse on bible. That's an overkill at least. Why not incorporate it into literature class? A month on studying it should be much more than enough.
Actually in Poland, in highschool one starts literature class with analyzing parts of bible. Bible contains many parts and not all of them explicitly "teach". There are famous poems in it as well. Also there are vast differences between different parts of bible (New Testamnet vs Old Testament). Studying bible critically allows one to see how church is using only parts that fits its teaching (the foundation of catholic religion is New Testament and only parts of Old Testament are used for teaching as the others do not fit that well into teaching of the New Testament).
So I have nothing against studying bible or any other influential religious text in the literature class. But why start a whole new course on it? This kind of reminds me dreaded "bible studies" in Britain...
The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Even between the New and Old Testaments. In fact, Jesus was accurately prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus set the Pharisees straight on the principles of the Bible and cleared up confusion.
On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote: Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English.
Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism.
Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young.
While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews.
The name of Israel is over 3,000 years old.
That is beside the point.
It's not beside the point. You said, "Again, the word 'Israelite' is relatively young."
I guess near pre-historic times is relatively young to you? As compared to what; the Earth? It existed before Moses put pen to paper. Before the Veda was written. Before Buddha saw the four sights.
Israel and Israelite are two different words.
And the vast, vast majority of scholars of the Bible reject the tradition that Moses wrote the Torah.
Israel is a person and a country, Israelites are those descended from the person Israel.
The guise that this is just to teach the way the bible has affected history and its cultural significance is absurd to me. You can't get away from religion if you're talking about history, but no one needs to actually read the stupid teachings. They just need to know how the people of the time interpreted them and what actions they performed were a result of them. Studying the actual bible in a high school curriculum is just a waste of time.
Yes, the fact that it is just one religion's holy book makes it awful. If you're gonna have religious studies, cover as many influential religions as you can. Not to be fair to all religions (you'll never cover them all), but to actually be able to compare and contrast and analyse. Studying just the scripture of one religion gives you such a narrow and incomplete understanding that you might as well not have studied it in the first place.
That said, religious studies in any form, even secular understanding should be an elective because it's a bullshit worthless course. Seriously, I can't think of a course that would feel more like a waste of time. Well, "careers" half credit course was pretty bad. The only kids that know what they're going to do with their life after taking that course are the kids that already knew because their parents push them (ie: doctors, engineers)... Everyone else is just confused as before they took the dumb multiple choice quiz that told them what colour their personality is, and a list of exciting careers like 'tree surgeon' and 'hot air balloon operator' they might enjoy. So yeah, maybe that's worse than religious studies... but not by much.
They just want to keep the kiddies under the influence of good ol' Christianity, suppress natural doubt.
I think it'd be really cool if schools made a requirement that students had to take a course on a non-big-3 monotheistic religion. Like Paganism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and so on. It'd give kids a little perspective. They can read/hear all about Jesus when their parents drag them to church, or when strangers try to convert them.
EDIT: I deleted a large chunk of text containing the absurdity of certain patterns/beliefs within the Bible. But you've heard 'em all before.
On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote: Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English.
Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism.
Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young.
While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews.
The name of Israel is over 3,000 years old.
That is beside the point.
It's not beside the point. You said, "Again, the word 'Israelite' is relatively young."
I guess near pre-historic times is relatively young to you? As compared to what; the Earth? It existed before Moses put pen to paper. Before the Veda was written. Before Buddha saw the four sights.
Israel and Israelite are two different words.
And the vast, vast majority of scholars of the Bible reject the tradition that Moses wrote the Torah.
Israel is a person and a country, Israelites are those descended from the person Israel.
According, originally, to the KJV Bible.
I think you just threw in that last part to flaunt knowledge or something because I didn't say anything about what Moses did or did not write.
What is Moses credited with writing other than the Torah?
The KJV of the Bible is not the first time the name Israel showed up. Israel is an ancient Hebrew word (technically a phrase when translated).
I did not say anything about what Moses did or did not write. My god, you can't be this stupid...
Again, Israel and Israelite are two different words.
You said that Moses put pen to paper, so you apparently believe he wrote something. Given that the Torah is the only thing he is credited with writing, why is it not a logical assumption that you were talking about the Torah?
On August 18 2009 03:11 Lebesgue wrote: I'm sorry. A whole curse on bible. That's an overkill at least. Why not incorporate it into literature class? A month on studying it should be much more than enough.
Actually in Poland, in highschool one starts literature class with analyzing parts of bible. Bible contains many parts and not all of them explicitly "teach". There are famous poems in it as well. Also there are vast differences between different parts of bible (New Testamnet vs Old Testament). Studying bible critically allows one to see how church is using only parts that fits its teaching (the foundation of catholic religion is New Testament and only parts of Old Testament are used for teaching as the others do not fit that well into teaching of the New Testament).
So I have nothing against studying bible or any other influential religious text in the literature class. But why start a whole new course on it? This kind of reminds me dreaded "bible studies" in Britain...
The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Even between the New and Old Testaments. In fact, Jesus was accurately prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus set the Pharisees straight on the principles of the Bible and cleared up confusion.
How many birds of each kind were on the ark?
hint: check Genesis 6:20 and then Genesis 7:3
"two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
"As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them."
On August 18 2009 03:37 MountainDewJunkie wrote: They just want to keep the kiddies under the influence of good ol' Christianity, suppress natural doubt.
I think it'd be really cool if schools made a requirement that students had to take a course on a non-big-3 monotheistic religion. Like Paganism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and so on. It'd give kids a little perspective. They can read/hear all about Jesus when their parents drag them to church, or when strangers try to convert them.
EDIT: I deleted a large chunk of text containing the absurdity of certain patterns/beliefs within the Bible. But you've heard 'em all before.
Too pad "paganism" isn't really a religion. Pagan is just a word to denote non-christian, then someone took off with it to sell books in new age shops.
Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism.
Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young.
While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews.
The name of Israel is over 3,000 years old.
That is beside the point.
It's not beside the point. You said, "Again, the word 'Israelite' is relatively young."
I guess near pre-historic times is relatively young to you? As compared to what; the Earth? It existed before Moses put pen to paper. Before the Veda was written. Before Buddha saw the four sights.
Israel and Israelite are two different words.
And the vast, vast majority of scholars of the Bible reject the tradition that Moses wrote the Torah.
Israel is a person and a country, Israelites are those descended from the person Israel.
According, originally, to the KJV Bible.
I think you just threw in that last part to flaunt knowledge or something because I didn't say anything about what Moses did or did not write.
What is Moses credited with writing other than the Torah?
The KJV of the Bible is not the first time the name Israel showed up. Israel is an ancient Hebrew word (technically a phrase when translated).
I did not say anything about what Moses did or did not write. My god, you can't be this stupid...
Again, Israel and Israelite are two different words.
You said that Moses put pen to paper, so you apparently believe he wrote something. Given that the Torah is the only thing he is credited with writing, why is it not a logical assumption that you were talking about the Torah?
I still never said what Moses did or did not write. It is guessed that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch (I can't believe you dragged me into saying even that). Drop it.
Holy crap, you are not really arguing that adding "ite" to Israel makes it a new word are you? Are you serious? Did you get dropped on your head as a child? It is a form of the word Israel.
On August 18 2009 03:11 Lebesgue wrote: I'm sorry. A whole curse on bible. That's an overkill at least. Why not incorporate it into literature class? A month on studying it should be much more than enough.
Actually in Poland, in highschool one starts literature class with analyzing parts of bible. Bible contains many parts and not all of them explicitly "teach". There are famous poems in it as well. Also there are vast differences between different parts of bible (New Testamnet vs Old Testament). Studying bible critically allows one to see how church is using only parts that fits its teaching (the foundation of catholic religion is New Testament and only parts of Old Testament are used for teaching as the others do not fit that well into teaching of the New Testament).
So I have nothing against studying bible or any other influential religious text in the literature class. But why start a whole new course on it? This kind of reminds me dreaded "bible studies" in Britain...
The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Even between the New and Old Testaments. In fact, Jesus was accurately prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus set the Pharisees straight on the principles of the Bible and cleared up confusion.
How many birds of each kind were on the ark?
hint: check Genesis 6:20 and then Genesis 7:3
"two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
"As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them."
2 to keep alive, 5 to eat.
Genesis 7:3 (NIV): and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
Note that it says "seven... to keep their various kinds alive". It does not say "to both keep them alive and to serve as food for you". You're reading into the text what is not there.
On August 18 2009 03:11 Lebesgue wrote: I'm sorry. A whole curse on bible. That's an overkill at least. Why not incorporate it into literature class? A month on studying it should be much more than enough.
Actually in Poland, in highschool one starts literature class with analyzing parts of bible. Bible contains many parts and not all of them explicitly "teach". There are famous poems in it as well. Also there are vast differences between different parts of bible (New Testamnet vs Old Testament). Studying bible critically allows one to see how church is using only parts that fits its teaching (the foundation of catholic religion is New Testament and only parts of Old Testament are used for teaching as the others do not fit that well into teaching of the New Testament).
So I have nothing against studying bible or any other influential religious text in the literature class. But why start a whole new course on it? This kind of reminds me dreaded "bible studies" in Britain...
The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Even between the New and Old Testaments. In fact, Jesus was accurately prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus set the Pharisees straight on the principles of the Bible and cleared up confusion.
How many birds of each kind were on the ark?
hint: check Genesis 6:20 and then Genesis 7:3
"two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
"As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them."
2 to keep alive, 5 to eat.
Genesis 7:3 (NIV): and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
Note that it says seven... to keep their various kinds alive. It does not say "to both keep them alive and to serve as food for you. You're reading into the text what is not there.
If they brought two of each and ate even one of each, how many birds would there be? If they brought 7 of each, 2 to keep alive, 5 to eat, it ensures that it would keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Keep in mind that it's not just the food for his family, but also the animals. Unless they both don't eat meat for a month and a half. I feel sorry for the hawks. I don't think they eat grain. Some reasoning should tell you that some animals MUST be eaten.
While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews.
The name of Israel is over 3,000 years old.
That is beside the point.
It's not beside the point. You said, "Again, the word 'Israelite' is relatively young."
I guess near pre-historic times is relatively young to you? As compared to what; the Earth? It existed before Moses put pen to paper. Before the Veda was written. Before Buddha saw the four sights.
Israel and Israelite are two different words.
And the vast, vast majority of scholars of the Bible reject the tradition that Moses wrote the Torah.
Israel is a person and a country, Israelites are those descended from the person Israel.
According, originally, to the KJV Bible.
I think you just threw in that last part to flaunt knowledge or something because I didn't say anything about what Moses did or did not write.
What is Moses credited with writing other than the Torah?
The KJV of the Bible is not the first time the name Israel showed up. Israel is an ancient Hebrew word (technically a phrase when translated).
I did not say anything about what Moses did or did not write. My god, you can't be this stupid...
Again, Israel and Israelite are two different words.
You said that Moses put pen to paper, so you apparently believe he wrote something. Given that the Torah is the only thing he is credited with writing, why is it not a logical assumption that you were talking about the Torah?
I still never said what Moses did or did not write. It is guessed that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch (I can't believe you dragged me into saying even that). Drop it.
Holy crap, you are not really arguing that adding "ite" to Israel makes it a new word are you? Are you serious? Did you get dropped on your head as a child? It is a form of the word Israel.
Yeah, um, adding a prefix or suffix to a word generally creates a new word.
It's not beside the point. You said, "Again, the word 'Israelite' is relatively young."
I guess near pre-historic times is relatively young to you? As compared to what; the Earth? It existed before Moses put pen to paper. Before the Veda was written. Before Buddha saw the four sights.
Israel and Israelite are two different words.
And the vast, vast majority of scholars of the Bible reject the tradition that Moses wrote the Torah.
Israel is a person and a country, Israelites are those descended from the person Israel.
According, originally, to the KJV Bible.
I think you just threw in that last part to flaunt knowledge or something because I didn't say anything about what Moses did or did not write.
What is Moses credited with writing other than the Torah?
The KJV of the Bible is not the first time the name Israel showed up. Israel is an ancient Hebrew word (technically a phrase when translated).
I did not say anything about what Moses did or did not write. My god, you can't be this stupid...
Again, Israel and Israelite are two different words.
You said that Moses put pen to paper, so you apparently believe he wrote something. Given that the Torah is the only thing he is credited with writing, why is it not a logical assumption that you were talking about the Torah?
I still never said what Moses did or did not write. It is guessed that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch (I can't believe you dragged me into saying even that). Drop it.
Holy crap, you are not really arguing that adding "ite" to Israel makes it a new word are you? Are you serious? Did you get dropped on your head as a child? It is a form of the word Israel.
Yeah, um, adding a prefix or suffix to a word generally creates a new word.
Again, you're arguing semantics. Israelite = a descendant of Israel. You're really getting on my nerves with this crap.
On August 18 2009 03:11 Lebesgue wrote: I'm sorry. A whole curse on bible. That's an overkill at least. Why not incorporate it into literature class? A month on studying it should be much more than enough.
Actually in Poland, in highschool one starts literature class with analyzing parts of bible. Bible contains many parts and not all of them explicitly "teach". There are famous poems in it as well. Also there are vast differences between different parts of bible (New Testamnet vs Old Testament). Studying bible critically allows one to see how church is using only parts that fits its teaching (the foundation of catholic religion is New Testament and only parts of Old Testament are used for teaching as the others do not fit that well into teaching of the New Testament).
So I have nothing against studying bible or any other influential religious text in the literature class. But why start a whole new course on it? This kind of reminds me dreaded "bible studies" in Britain...
The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Even between the New and Old Testaments. In fact, Jesus was accurately prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus set the Pharisees straight on the principles of the Bible and cleared up confusion.
How many birds of each kind were on the ark?
hint: check Genesis 6:20 and then Genesis 7:3
"two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
"As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them."
2 to keep alive, 5 to eat.
Genesis 7:3 (NIV): and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
Note that it says seven... to keep their various kinds alive. It does not say "to both keep them alive and to serve as food for you. You're reading into the text what is not there.
If they brought two of each and ate even one of each, how many birds would there be? If they brought 7 of each, 2 to keep alive, 5 to eat, it ensures that it would keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Keep in mind that it's not just the food for his family, but also the animals. Unless they both don't eat meat for a month and a half. I feel sorry for the hawks. I don't think they eat grain. Some reasoning should tell you that some animals MUST be eaten.
What reason tells me is that Genesis is the work of, at the very least, two different authors that tell their own versions of the same stories and contradict each other several times.
On August 18 2009 03:11 Lebesgue wrote: I'm sorry. A whole curse on bible. That's an overkill at least. Why not incorporate it into literature class? A month on studying it should be much more than enough.
Actually in Poland, in highschool one starts literature class with analyzing parts of bible. Bible contains many parts and not all of them explicitly "teach". There are famous poems in it as well. Also there are vast differences between different parts of bible (New Testamnet vs Old Testament). Studying bible critically allows one to see how church is using only parts that fits its teaching (the foundation of catholic religion is New Testament and only parts of Old Testament are used for teaching as the others do not fit that well into teaching of the New Testament).
So I have nothing against studying bible or any other influential religious text in the literature class. But why start a whole new course on it? This kind of reminds me dreaded "bible studies" in Britain...
The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Even between the New and Old Testaments. In fact, Jesus was accurately prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus set the Pharisees straight on the principles of the Bible and cleared up confusion.
How many birds of each kind were on the ark?
hint: check Genesis 6:20 and then Genesis 7:3
"two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
"As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them."
2 to keep alive, 5 to eat.
Genesis 7:3 (NIV): and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
Note that it says seven... to keep their various kinds alive. It does not say "to both keep them alive and to serve as food for you. You're reading into the text what is not there.
If they brought two of each and ate even one of each, how many birds would there be? If they brought 7 of each, 2 to keep alive, 5 to eat, it ensures that it would keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Keep in mind that it's not just the food for his family, but also the animals. Unless they both don't eat meat for a month and a half. I feel sorry for the hawks. I don't think they eat grain. Some reasoning should tell you that some animals MUST be eaten.
What reason tells me is that Genesis is the work of, at the very least, two different authors that tell their own versions of the same stories and contradict each other several times.
You should have your cerebral cortex looked at then because your reasoning ability is slightly diminished if you think that a hawk is fine living on grain for a month and a half and so they won't need extra animals for meat to eat.
On August 18 2009 04:45 Mindcrime wrote: Did I say anything about the physiological needs of hawks?
No, I did. You said that I read too much into it that the additional animals would be needed for eating. My proof is that many animals need to eat and only eat meat so they would NEED additional animals for food, if not for themselves, for the animals.
No, I said that you read to much into it when you tried to say that a portion of the 7 of each clean animal/bird were designated for food when their only stated purpose is the propagation of their respective kinds.
On August 18 2009 04:50 Mindcrime wrote: No, I said that you read to much into it when you tried to say that a portion of the 7 of each clean animal/bird were designated for food when their only stated purpose is the propagation of their respective kinds.
So, the other animals who are solely meat-eaters don't need to eat for a month and a half?
You state that the Isrealites having been in slavery in Egypt has been proven false? There is no evidence one way or another.
Whatever. You're burden of proof to prove that there were, not mine. =/ I can't disprove everything. Heck, I can't even disprove that there weren't aliens in Egypt. You're making the claim there were Jewish slaves in Egypt. Prove it.
If we cannot allow a law to exist that allows schools, at their discretion, to provide an elective course around the Bible, then we might as well remove all other mention of religions in the entire texts of books on history and social studies.
We can. Just tell me how it passes the lemon test, and how making it only require the Bible to be added to the curriculum is secular and does not advance Christianity in any way.
The fact that we need such a law to ALLOW it is preposterous.
Great opinion.
Edit: Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible.
I'ma stop after seeing this........ Lol. GJ losing credibility.
on August 18 2009, Aegraen wrote
Dude, why not teach about SG-1? Apophis is the shit.
You state that the Isrealites having been in slavery in Egypt has been proven false? There is no evidence one way or another.
Whatever. You're burden of proof to prove that there were, not mine. =/ I can't disprove everything. Heck, I can't even disprove that there weren't aliens in Egypt. You're making the claim there were Jewish slaves in Egypt. Prove it.
If we cannot allow a law to exist that allows schools, at their discretion, to provide an elective course around the Bible, then we might as well remove all other mention of religions in the entire texts of books on history and social studies.
We can. Just tell me how it passes the lemon test, and how making it only require the Bible to be added to the curriculum is secular and does not advance Christianity in any way.
Dude, why not teach about SG-1? Apophis is the shit.
I like your ideas. ^_^
We've been over the Judaism thing, and it has been consensus (2 to 1) that this is a semantic argument.
I told you how it passes the Lemon test, you're just not happy with the answers.
I don't have to prove anything because I said that we don't know. You said it was outright false, you have to provide the proof for your definitive statement. In fact, I think I have more proof than you that it is true even though I admit to the fact that we don't know. I have the Bible and also an Ancient Egyptian tablet that, in it, mentions the Israelites and their defeat by the Egyptians to back me up. What do you have backing you up that says it's false?
On August 18 2009 04:50 Mindcrime wrote: No, I said that you read to much into it when you tried to say that a portion of the 7 of each clean animal/bird were designated for food when their only stated purpose is the propagation of their respective kinds.
So, the other animals who are solely meat-eaters don't need to eat for a month and a half?
Providing food is beyond the means of an omnipotent god?
On August 18 2009 04:50 Mindcrime wrote: No, I said that you read to much into it when you tried to say that a portion of the 7 of each clean animal/bird were designated for food when their only stated purpose is the propagation of their respective kinds.
So, the other animals who are solely meat-eaters don't need to eat for a month and a half?
Providing food is beyond the means of an omnipotent god?
He provided manna to the Israelites in the wilderness, so no. But man's supposed to work for his food, remember?
You're losing this whole argument in a sad, sad way.
On August 18 2009 04:50 Mindcrime wrote: No, I said that you read to much into it when you tried to say that a portion of the 7 of each clean animal/bird were designated for food when their only stated purpose is the propagation of their respective kinds.
So, the other animals who are solely meat-eaters don't need to eat for a month and a half?
Providing food is beyond the means of an omnipotent god?
He provided manna to the Israelites in the wilderness, so no. But man's supposed to work for his food, remember?
On August 18 2009 04:50 Mindcrime wrote: No, I said that you read to much into it when you tried to say that a portion of the 7 of each clean animal/bird were designated for food when their only stated purpose is the propagation of their respective kinds.
So, the other animals who are solely meat-eaters don't need to eat for a month and a half?
Providing food is beyond the means of an omnipotent god?
He provided manna to the Israelites in the wilderness, so no. But man's supposed to work for his food, remember?
except when he isn't, apparently
The manna provided to the Israelites was because of their wandering nature and it was deemed by God they would wander in the wilderness for 40 years so he provided them a means to nourish themselves since they could not plant and harvest.
On August 18 2009 05:04 Mindcrime wrote: so... except when he isn't
Oh... my... god...
It was by God's will that man had to work for his own food (you probably know where it says that even). God decided to make food for the Israelites. He told Noah to gather more animals for food. Deal with it.
On August 18 2009 05:07 NExUS1g wrote: He told Noah to gather more animals for food.
That's an inference, but a reasonable one.
But the seven of every clean animal and bird... their only stated purpose was the propagation of their various kinds.
Again, would they be able to propagate if they were eaten? Was there a requirement to have meat on board for some of the animals? Do you think the tigers ate the wood of the ship? What do you think they ate?
On August 18 2009 05:07 NExUS1g wrote: He told Noah to gather more animals for food.
That's an inference, but a reasonable one.
But the seven of every clean animal and bird... their only stated purpose was the propagation of their various kinds.
Again, would they be able to propagate if they were eaten? Was there a requirement to have meat on board for some of the animals? Do you think the tigers ate the wood of the ship? What do you think they ate?
Presumably, they ate the food that Noah stored for himself and the animals... which the seven of every clean animal and bird are not said to be included in.
On August 18 2009 05:07 NExUS1g wrote: He told Noah to gather more animals for food.
That's an inference, but a reasonable one.
But the seven of every clean animal and bird... their only stated purpose was the propagation of their various kinds.
Again, would they be able to propagate if they were eaten? Was there a requirement to have meat on board for some of the animals? Do you think the tigers ate the wood of the ship? What do you think they ate?
Presumably, they ate the food that Noah stored for himself and the animals... which the seven of every clean animal and bird are not said to be included in.
Uh-huh, that's why he was only told to bring 7 of each of the clean (edible by the law) animals and only 2 of the non-edible, right?
I know you're not incapable of reasoning. You can't be. I mean I imagine you get through life using reasoning, so why has it taken leave of you here?
On August 18 2009 05:07 NExUS1g wrote: He told Noah to gather more animals for food.
That's an inference, but a reasonable one.
But the seven of every clean animal and bird... their only stated purpose was the propagation of their various kinds.
Again, would they be able to propagate if they were eaten? Was there a requirement to have meat on board for some of the animals? Do you think the tigers ate the wood of the ship? What do you think they ate?
Presumably, they ate the food that Noah stored for himself and the animals... which the seven of every clean animal and bird are not said to be included in.
Uh-huh, that's why he was only told to bring 7 of each of the clean (edible by the law) animals and only 2 of the non-edible, right?
I know you're not incapable of reasoning. You can't be. I mean I imagine you get through life using reasoning, so why has it taken leave of you here?
I don't know about you, but I would rather build up a bigger base of edible animals to start over with than inedible ones.
On August 18 2009 05:07 NExUS1g wrote: He told Noah to gather more animals for food.
That's an inference, but a reasonable one.
But the seven of every clean animal and bird... their only stated purpose was the propagation of their various kinds.
Again, would they be able to propagate if they were eaten? Was there a requirement to have meat on board for some of the animals? Do you think the tigers ate the wood of the ship? What do you think they ate?
Presumably, they ate the food that Noah stored for himself and the animals... which the seven of every clean animal and bird are not said to be included in.
Uh-huh, that's why he was only told to bring 7 of each of the clean (edible by the law) animals and only 2 of the non-edible, right?
I know you're not incapable of reasoning. You can't be. I mean I imagine you get through life using reasoning, so why has it taken leave of you here?
I don't know about you, but I would rather build up a bigger base of edible animals to start over with than inedible ones.
So the tigers won't need to eat some of the animals?
On August 18 2009 05:25 Mindcrime wrote: why waste clean animals on a tiger
Because there's only two of each of the unclean and if the tigers ate one there's goes that species. Why is it I have to spell everything out for you? Are you replying without thinking for yourself first?
On August 18 2009 05:25 Mindcrime wrote: why waste clean animals on a tiger
Because there's only two of each of the unclean and if the tigers ate one there's goes that species. Why is it I have to spell everything out for you? Are you replying without thinking for yourself first?
Who said the tiger had to eat one of the living unclean animals meant to propagate their species?
maybe some of the food Noah stored is salt-cured meat
On August 18 2009 05:25 Mindcrime wrote: why waste clean animals on a tiger
Because there's only two of each of the unclean and if the tigers ate one there's goes that species. Why is it I have to spell everything out for you? Are you replying without thinking for yourself first?
Who said the tiger had to eat one of the living unclean animals meant to propagate their species?
maybe some of the food Noah stored is salt-cured meat
I don't know what sort of food the author(s) of Genesis thought he stored, but they didn't designate the clean animals as being part of that food.... so there we are.
On August 18 2009 05:32 Mindcrime wrote: I don't know what sort of food the author(s) of Genesis thought he stored, but they didn't designate the clean animals as being part of that food.... so there we are.
On August 18 2009 03:03 daz wrote: i wonder if they're going to teach them the parts in the bible where god encourages people to slaughter children, rape women and beat slaves
Slaughter children? Sure I remember that. Beat slaves? I think I remember that. Rape women? Not sure about that one. Where's it at?
zechariah 14:1-2
2 samuel 12:11-12
i think theres a few more as well
Those are prophecies (declarative statements) not commands (imperative statements)
ie
I believe that The Nazis killed millions of Jews in the Holocaust
Was that second line an Anti-Semetic statement? no it was a Statement of Fact, a declarative, it Happened Change it to
Hitler said The Nazis should Kill millions of Jews in the Holocaust
The second line there is an imperative command, according Hitler, the Nazis Should do this.
Now a God as he is described in the bible can make future declarative statments... (it should be noted in both of those examples it is the women of Israel/the king that will be raped because of the disaster that is coming on them for disobedience) it is not a command or even permission for israel to do the same.
On August 18 2009 03:03 daz wrote: i wonder if they're going to teach them the parts in the bible where god encourages people to slaughter children, rape women and beat slaves
Slaughter children? Sure I remember that. Beat slaves? I think I remember that. Rape women? Not sure about that one. Where's it at?
zechariah 14:1-2
2 samuel 12:11-12
i think theres a few more as well
Those are prophecies (declarative statements) not commands (imperative statements)
ie
I believe that The Nazis killed millions of Jews in the Holocaust
Was that second line an Anti-Semetic statement? no it was a Statement of Fact, a declarative, it Happened Change it to
Hitler said The Nazis should Kill millions of Jews in the Holocaust
The second line there is an imperative command, according Hitler, the Nazis Should do this.
Now a God as he is described in the bible can make future declarative statments... (it should be noted in both of those examples it is the women of Israel/the king that will be raped because of the disaster that is coming on them for disobedience) it is not a command or even permission for israel to do the same.
Nice. Glad it's you and not me that stepped in that one though.
On August 18 2009 05:39 Mindcrime wrote: more insults plz
There's just no point in going on if you continue to refuse to think for yourself. If this is due to incapability, you should get an MRI of your brain to see what's going on up there. If it's by choice, you should just pull your head out of your ass.
On August 18 2009 05:39 Mindcrime wrote: more insults plz
There's just no point in going on if you continue to refuse to think for yourself. If this is due to incapability, you should get an MRI of your brain to see what's going on up there. If it's by choice, you should just pull your head out of your ass.
Either way, I'm done.
You're reading the text and seeing something that is not there. Stop it.
On August 18 2009 05:39 NExUS1g wrote: Nice. Glad it's you and not me that stepped in that one though.
It would definitely be an important thing to let people realize that there are a number of things God does that he tells us not to do. For the basic reason that we are not equal to him (in the way that we are not equal to a pieces of paper). A number of people Christian or not have this idea of the christian santa claus god, that is good because he does what we want.
Hence, I do agree that a course on the Bible would be very good for the average person, especially in a society where many talk about this nonbiblical "god of the bible". (whether they believe he exists or not)
if you have no knowledge of the bible whatsoever you wont understand the inspiration behind lots of western art and architecture. it would also be hard to understand the influence it had on literature and the biblical metaphors and references used will go over your head. i have no problem with studying the bible in school from a purely intellectual point of view as long as it is an elective and taught as mythology not history. also the course would have to acknowledge that it was man-made for me to be ok with it.
I'm sure the students and teachers who don't care for it have the option to ignore it. Just like not everyone has to cross their heart and do the flag salute every morning.
This makes us Texans look dumber than people already believe us to be. I hope they don't teach any of that shit at my school, I'd just bring out the science books and rape their crude logic.
On August 18 2009 06:24 CharlieMurphy wrote: I'm sure the students and teachers who don't care for it have the option to ignore it. Just like not everyone has to cross their heart and do the flag salute every morning.
apparently you don't know what required curriculum means
A curriculum most commonly refers to the set of courses offered by an institution. Most institutions do not demand that students take all the classes offered (the entire curriculum) in order to graduate. A mandate that a course be within a curriculum is not a mandate that students of the institution take that course.
On August 18 2009 06:24 CharlieMurphy wrote: I'm sure the students and teachers who don't care for it have the option to ignore it. Just like not everyone has to cross their heart and do the flag salute every morning.
apparently you don't know what required curriculum means
If you read the law, you'll find it is not a required course, nor is it required that schools offer it. It is an elective course that schools may choose to implement if they would like.
This has already been discussed. Please read the prior posts. There's even a link to the law.
On August 18 2009 06:24 CharlieMurphy wrote: I'm sure the students and teachers who don't care for it have the option to ignore it. Just like not everyone has to cross their heart and do the flag salute every morning.
apparently you don't know what required curriculum means
If you read the law, you'll find it is not a required course, nor is it required that schools offer it. It is an elective course that schools may choose to implement if they would like.
This has already been discussed. Please read the prior posts. There's even a link to the law.
I read the original post, which stated
Cliffnotes: Texas is requiring all public schools to incorporate the bible into their curriculum.
so... was the original poster wrong? If so, that isn't really my fault.
On August 18 2009 06:24 CharlieMurphy wrote: I'm sure the students and teachers who don't care for it have the option to ignore it. Just like not everyone has to cross their heart and do the flag salute every morning.
apparently you don't know what required curriculum means
If you read the law, you'll find it is not a required course, nor is it required that schools offer it. It is an elective course that schools may choose to implement if they would like.
This has already been discussed. Please read the prior posts. There's even a link to the law.
ok, i went through the pages until i found the link to the law, just to read it. it says
(a) Each school district that offers kindergarten through grade 12 shall offer, as a required curriculum: (1) a foundation curriculum that includes: (A) English language arts; (B) mathematics; (C) science; and (D) social studies, consisting of Texas, United States, and world history, government, and geography; and (2) an enrichment curriculum that includes: (A) to the extent possible, languages other than English; (B) health, with emphasis on the importance of proper nutrition and exercise; (C) physical education; (D) fine arts; (E) economics, with emphasis on the free enterprise system and its benefits; (F) career and technology education; [and] (G) technology applications; and (H) religious literature, including the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament, and its impact on history and literature.
so in what way can schools "choose to ignore it", if it's required curriculum?
Or is the law saying that schools can require it if they wish to? In which case, that's even worse!
On August 18 2009 06:24 CharlieMurphy wrote: I'm sure the students and teachers who don't care for it have the option to ignore it. Just like not everyone has to cross their heart and do the flag salute every morning.
apparently you don't know what required curriculum means
If you read the law, you'll find it is not a required course, nor is it required that schools offer it. It is an elective course that schools may choose to implement if they would like.
This has already been discussed. Please read the prior posts. There's even a link to the law.
ok, i went through the pages until i found the link to the law, just to read it. it says
(a) Each school district that offers kindergarten through grade 12 shall offer, as a required curriculum: (1) a foundation curriculum that includes: (A) English language arts; (B) mathematics; (C) science; and (D) social studies, consisting of Texas, United States, and world history, government, and geography; and (2) an enrichment curriculum that includes: (A) to the extent possible, languages other than English; (B) health, with emphasis on the importance of proper nutrition and exercise; (C) physical education; (D) fine arts; (E) economics, with emphasis on the free enterprise system and its benefits; (F) career and technology education; [and] (G) technology applications; and (H) religious literature, including the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament, and its impact on history and literature.
so in what way can schools "choose to ignore it", if it's required curriculum?
Or is the law saying that schools can require it if they wish to? In which case, that's even worse!
I think I'm mistaken in that a school has the option to not participate.
(a) A school district may offer to students in grade nine or above:
(1) an elective course on the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and its impact and an elective course on the New Testament and its impact; or
(2) an elective course that combines the courses described by Subdivision (1).
When I read, "A school district may offer..." I thought of a choice to offer or not, instead of a choice to offer one or the other.
On August 18 2009 06:24 CharlieMurphy wrote: I'm sure the students and teachers who don't care for it have the option to ignore it. Just like not everyone has to cross their heart and do the flag salute every morning.
apparently you don't know what required curriculum means
If you read the law, you'll find it is not a required course, nor is it required that schools offer it. It is an elective course that schools may choose to implement if they would like.
This has already been discussed. Please read the prior posts. There's even a link to the law.
Cliffnotes: Texas is requiring all public schools to incorporate the bible into their curriculum.
so... was the original poster wrong? If so, that isn't really my fault.
On August 18 2009 06:36 EchOne wrote: A curriculum most commonly refers to the set of courses offered by an institution. Most institutions do not demand that students take all the classes offered (the entire curriculum) in order to graduate. A mandate that a course be within a curriculum is not a mandate that students of the institution take that course.
ok. that makes sense. but it certainly does not mean that teachers can "choose to ignore it". if it's required, then someone has to teach it. Also... the law really doesn't make it sound like that.
"schools shall offer as required curriculum" doesn't sound the same as "schools are required to offer as curriculum". At least to me. Not to say I am not interpreting it wrong.
On August 18 2009 06:24 CharlieMurphy wrote: I'm sure the students and teachers who don't care for it have the option to ignore it. Just like not everyone has to cross their heart and do the flag salute every morning.
apparently you don't know what required curriculum means
If you read the law, you'll find it is not a required course, nor is it required that schools offer it. It is an elective course that schools may choose to implement if they would like.
This has already been discussed. Please read the prior posts. There's even a link to the law.
ok, i went through the pages until i found the link to the law, just to read it. it says
(a) Each school district that offers kindergarten through grade 12 shall offer, as a required curriculum: (1) a foundation curriculum that includes: (A) English language arts; (B) mathematics; (C) science; and (D) social studies, consisting of Texas, United States, and world history, government, and geography; and (2) an enrichment curriculum that includes: (A) to the extent possible, languages other than English; (B) health, with emphasis on the importance of proper nutrition and exercise; (C) physical education; (D) fine arts; (E) economics, with emphasis on the free enterprise system and its benefits; (F) career and technology education; [and] (G) technology applications; and (H) religious literature, including the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament, and its impact on history and literature.
so in what way can schools "choose to ignore it", if it's required curriculum?
Or is the law saying that schools can require it if they wish to? In which case, that's even worse!
I think I'm mistaken in that a school has the option to not participate.
(a) A school district may offer to students in grade nine or above:
(1) an elective course on the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and its impact and an elective course on the New Testament and its impact; or
(2) an elective course that combines the courses described by Subdivision (1).
When I read, "A school district may offer..." I thought of a choice to offer or not, instead of a choice to offer one or the other.
Fair enough... I am really not sure what the law is saying either. It's so fucking stupid that they can't just word it in a way that is straightforward. But that's probably intentional.
On August 18 2009 06:26 Megalisk wrote: This makes us Texans look dumber than people already believe us to be. I hope they don't teach any of that shit at my school, I'd just bring out the science books and rape their crude logic.
this also on top of recently when they changed something about "strengths and weaknesses" in the science classroom in regards to evolution, also i think they wanted to add more about christianity or religion in the history classroom, i get more worried for my niece and nephew, doesn't help having creationist on the board of education. glad i graduated a long time ago.
On August 18 2009 06:24 CharlieMurphy wrote: I'm sure the students and teachers who don't care for it have the option to ignore it. Just like not everyone has to cross their heart and do the flag salute every morning.
apparently you don't know what required curriculum means
i think he means "ignore" as in you sit in class and just don't listen to what the teacher says.
This is why I hate Texas and most of the south with a passion. And yes, I live in Texas.
It's amazing how bigoted people here are, and it's not limited to race and sex. You can be the wrong KIND of Christian and be ostracized in school. There is a family a few doors down from me that quite seriously will not let their children play with mine because we don't go to church (they don't even know that we're ATHEISTS, but if they did I'm sure we'd be driven out of town by an angry mob). I live in a city of 13,500 people and it has 27 churches in an area of 9.2 square miles.
Last year, I had to make a complaint to the superintendent of the school district because my daughter (2nd grade) had a teacher who forced her class to say a blessing before leaving the class room for lunch. She was openly rude to students who didn't participate. This wasn't just reported by my daughter, a parent working at the school as part of PTA witnessed it.
So in response to people commenting about context: let me assure you, they will say it's historical, but it will largely not be. Most of these kids are indoctrinated just like their parents with religion, and belief is a source of pride. Why select the bible specifically for historical influence? The Bible is a document of unverifiable origin and known to be full of unverifiable information - much of which isn't even fit for modern tabloids (burning bush that talks? talking snake?). This is purely done for religious purposes - there's no justifiable reason to study just the Bible and it's "impact" on history and literature and exclude thousands of other works of philosophy, literature and history - or even to simply give it preference. And we can all agree, I'm sure, that the historical analysis will not include a balanced look at 20 centuries worth of atrocities, genocide, and prejudice derived from that wretched book.
Keep your religion out of my schools, I'll keep functioning brain cells out of your churches -_-
You think that a burning bush that talks isn't fit for the tabloids? I think lighting G.W. on fire would make front page.
But kidding aside, you have a poor opinion and lack of open-mindedness and tolerance toward religion. And I've lived lots of places including backwoods Texas and there are idiots everywhere, it's not just limited to Texas.
On August 18 2009 10:51 NExUS1g wrote: You think that a burning bush that talks isn't fit for the tabloids? I think lighting G.W. on fire would make front page.
But kidding aside, you have a poor opinion and lack of open-mindedness and tolerance toward religion. And I've lived lots of places including backwoods Texas and there are idiots everywhere, it's not just limited to Texas.
There are certainly idiots everywhere, but they're especially numerous here
I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to your assessment of my perspective, but you're making several assumptions. I've said nothing to indicate a lack of open mindedness or tolerance, beyond that I have zero tolerance or open-mindedness for religious education in public schools. I'm not sure you know what open mindedness actually is.
I do have a poor opinion of religion. I don't feel articulating the reasons behind my opinion is worth the time, as I (and any other non-religious person who has tried) know from experience that debating religion with a religious person is a lost cause - religion requires a complete and utter lack of open mindedness as the cost of entry - you have to abandon free thought at the door and believe without question the doctrine of the religion. But I've said too much already, as I don't really want to go into it with you
I'll leave it at this: teaching the Bible in any context in public school is unacceptable. Period.
Wow Louder it's like we live in the same state or something!
Oh we do... yea it pretty much sucks here. Most of the "younger" generation IE 19-23~ aren't so bad but the general populace above this age are huge sources of headaches. Exceptions to every rule and all that... apparently my Parents and Louder are in that little thing.
I also laugh every time someone thinks that Texas could succeed and be stable.
I studied selections from the Bible as part of my AP English class. We didn't study it as a religious text. Gimme a break guys, not a big deal.
Also, if you knew anything about the context of Jefferson's "wall of separation" letter, you would understand that his views towards the issue were a lot more liberal than those of religion-phobes today.
Negative experiences with religion and silly behavior from religious people should not be extrapolated to judge everyones' diverse religious experiences. I respect the opinions and choices of atheists and religious people alike. That doesn't mean I accuse people I don't agree with of lacking intelligence.
Alltho no matter who's right or wrong, i think the % of this failing is higher than 50% to put it like that, now this may be a unreliable source and i dont live in the us so i wouldnt personally know but however when you get something like this out of a governor pluss a hardcore creationist at the board of education :
"You know, they're telling us which cars to buy and which light bulbs to use now. But they ought not be telling us whether we can go to Baptist, Methodist, whichever one... But it is quite different and, I would say, extreme, to say that our laws should not be inspired and informed by the views of the faithful. Freedom of religion is not to be confused with freedom from religion.
and continuing :
"Under Rick Perry's rule, Texas educators have become virtually indistinguishable from Sunday School teachers. In pursuing his goal to keep students ignorant of earth sciences and vital health issues (like AIDS prevention), Perry just tapped another of his Creationist/Diversity Denier cronies to head the Texas Board of Education. Rackjite dissects the governor's latest appointment, a fundie automaton named Gail Lowe: She rejects the science of Global Warming and Climate Change, she will not tolerate gay friendly books in public school libraries and of course she not only believes that the Earth is 6000 years old and men live in gigantic fishes at the bottom of the sea, but wants to teach that to children in Texas Public Schools... This (appointment) keeps the board unchanged with 7 to 9 of the 15 votes being evangelical fundamentalist Creationists deciding what Texas children read and learn. (At this very moment our Texas teachers are being trained by "religious scholars" on how to best implement a state law signed by Perry that mandates the study of Scripture in high school classroms.)
This was only dug up trought most recent sites and i woulndt be sure how reliable it is but i guess it casts some light on whos running this, it doesn't really seem very "secular" to me
On August 18 2009 10:51 NExUS1g wrote: You think that a burning bush that talks isn't fit for the tabloids? I think lighting G.W. on fire would make front page.
But kidding aside, you have a poor opinion and lack of open-mindedness and tolerance toward religion. And I've lived lots of places including backwoods Texas and there are idiots everywhere, it's not just limited to Texas.
There are certainly idiots everywhere, but they're especially numerous here
I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to your assessment of my perspective, but you're making several assumptions. I've said nothing to indicate a lack of open mindedness or tolerance, beyond that I have zero tolerance or open-mindedness for religious education in public schools. I'm not sure you know what open mindedness actually is.
I do have a poor opinion of religion. I don't feel articulating the reasons behind my opinion is worth the time, as I (and any other non-religious person who has tried) know from experience that debating religion with a religious person is a lost cause - religion requires a complete and utter lack of open mindedness as the cost of entry - you have to abandon free thought at the door and believe without question the doctrine of the religion. But I've said too much already, as I don't really want to go into it with you
I'll leave it at this: teaching the Bible in any context in public school is unacceptable. Period.
Greek and Roman mythology is taught in school. Why is it you don't complain about those?
Also, I'm agnostic, so you can't put me in the box labeled "religious".
On August 18 2009 12:31 0neder wrote: I studied selections from the Bible as part of my AP English class. We didn't study it as a religious text. Gimme a break guys, not a big deal.
Also, if you knew anything about the context of Jefferson's "wall of separation" letter, you would understand that his views towards the issue were a lot more liberal than those of religion-phobes today.
Negative experiences with religion and silly behavior from religious people should not be extrapolated to judge everyones' diverse religious experiences. I respect the opinions and choices of atheists and religious people alike. That doesn't mean I accuse people I don't agree with of lacking intelligence.
theres a difference between studying sections as a part of a class such as AP Lit to understand allusions and a class on the bible itself.
make it an afterschool activity or a bible club or something.
Greek and Roman mythology is taught in school. Why is it you don't complain about those?
Also, I'm agnostic, so you can't put me in the box labeled "religious".
Dude, they're not labeled religion, they're labeled mythologi, a ruined definition and translates in most people heads as "lies" or "not true" by default..
edit: oh and infact let me drop a tiny bomb, since a myth basically is a set of stories a culture tells itself, about itself (and often revealing a higher truth) i would say it's more apropriate to say christian mythology if your gonna set it up against the others who have missed the "ppl still worship it" name; religion
On August 18 2009 10:51 NExUS1g wrote: You think that a burning bush that talks isn't fit for the tabloids? I think lighting G.W. on fire would make front page.
But kidding aside, you have a poor opinion and lack of open-mindedness and tolerance toward religion. And I've lived lots of places including backwoods Texas and there are idiots everywhere, it's not just limited to Texas.
There are certainly idiots everywhere, but they're especially numerous here
I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to your assessment of my perspective, but you're making several assumptions. I've said nothing to indicate a lack of open mindedness or tolerance, beyond that I have zero tolerance or open-mindedness for religious education in public schools. I'm not sure you know what open mindedness actually is.
I do have a poor opinion of religion. I don't feel articulating the reasons behind my opinion is worth the time, as I (and any other non-religious person who has tried) know from experience that debating religion with a religious person is a lost cause - religion requires a complete and utter lack of open mindedness as the cost of entry - you have to abandon free thought at the door and believe without question the doctrine of the religion. But I've said too much already, as I don't really want to go into it with you
I'll leave it at this: teaching the Bible in any context in public school is unacceptable. Period.
Greek and Roman mythology is taught in school. Why is it you don't complain about those?
Also, I'm agnostic, so you can't put me in the box labeled "religious".
For starters, I don't think they are required curriculum.
And then there is the fact that greek and roman mythology are not a big part of today's religions.
And finally, the fact that those are a study of beliefs rather than study of a text.
It would be easy to study christian beliefs without studying the actual bible.
All mythology should be taught in school in historical context AS MYTHOLOGY Though. Let people realize for themselves that tons of people have believed tons of shit throughout history so the odds of you and the talking snake having it correct are pretty slim.
How can something be true on one side of the mountain and not on the other?
Also id love for a class to be called mythology and have the required text in a public school. The religous nuts would be pissed the fuck off.
The mythology class I took in College was great. Was nice having the old testament in there and probably ruffle a few peoples feathers.
I'm going to start every post now with, "I'm agnostic" so people stop confusing my standpoint with being religious.
You don't study religious texts to learn the Pantheons? Bulfinch's Mythology? Did you read The Diary of Anne Frank? Some people believe the holocaust never existed, so should that be taught as mythology?
The only reason that this is raising an issue is because it's... omg... CHRISTIANITY! Oh the humanity! It's like you mention any other religion, and people are shrugging. You mention Christianity and they grab their pitchforks and torches.
It's a knee-jerk reaction to hearing anything with the word "christ" in it.
I'm tired of people complaining about BS that doesn't even really matter. So they teach the Bible secularly in school. So they have an elective religious Bible study. You care, why? You shouldn't. It's elective. The fact that they have to have a law that ALLOWS it despite other religions being taught in school, is just ridiculous and shows the state we're in, in this union.
You don't study religious texts to learn the Pantheons? Bulfinch's Mythology? Did you read The Diary of Anne Frank? Some people believe the holocaust never existed, so should that be taught as mythology?
wooow wow wow wow, dude read up the definition of myth again
On August 18 2009 03:03 daz wrote: i wonder if they're going to teach them the parts in the bible where god encourages people to slaughter children, rape women and beat slaves
Slaughter children? Sure I remember that. Beat slaves? I think I remember that. Rape women? Not sure about that one. Where's it at?
zechariah 14:1-2
2 samuel 12:11-12
i think theres a few more as well
Those are prophecies (declarative statements) not commands (imperative statements)
ie
I believe that The Nazis killed millions of Jews in the Holocaust
Was that second line an Anti-Semetic statement? no it was a Statement of Fact, a declarative, it Happened Change it to
Hitler said The Nazis should Kill millions of Jews in the Holocaust
The second line there is an imperative command, according Hitler, the Nazis Should do this.
Now a God as he is described in the bible can make future declarative statments... (it should be noted in both of those examples it is the women of Israel/the king that will be raped because of the disaster that is coming on them for disobedience) it is not a command or even permission for israel to do the same.
zecchariah 14:1:2
1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. 2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
It's true that here God is making a future declarative statement. He is declaring that in the future he will gather these people for the purpose of taking that city, robbing the houses and raping their women. As to the reasoning behind it, who cares? Is there any situation where you think rape is acceptable?
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
Your views are nothing like Friedman or Hayek at all. Your views come straight from Beck, and he's never read either. Both of their world views had a place for government, and even taxing. Yours doesn't. Linking those two schools together is a bit of a joke as well since this is a purely political discussion and you've just cited two economics schools that are not as close as you think, and are completely distinct from politics.
Politically, I don't think you're as similar to either as you seem to think. You say you've read CoL and others, but not one iota of your posts shows it unless you actually disagree with him.
First off, I've said quite a few times on this board that I am in favor of abolishing the 16th, but not creating a state that has no taxation at all. Contrary to Rothbard, I believe that a standing federal military is a construct of Government as such in the Constitution. However, I am opposed to every proposed taxation on income. I am however in favor of a Flat tax or consumer tax. No more than ~8-10%.
I also have a place for Government and have said it time and time again what their role in the market should be. Ensuring fair practices and upholding contractual obligations; voluntary contracts which are the guiding force of the free-market. That is it. No infusion of funds. No regulatory bodies.
I think you don't understand my positions whatsoever. In all my posts I am consistent; repeating these same principles which are directly inline with Hayek, Mises, and the rest. While not agreeing with everything they say; forming basis for some of my other viewpoints I am directly influenced by them. You can also see in my contemporary political philosophy that it is also directly influenced by limited Government proponents such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.
In any case, those are a general overview of my positions. Government; necessary evil. Limit as much as possible. Free-Market bulwark to Tyranny and Government intervention interferes and distorts market creating a bastardization of the idea of the market in the first place. Freedom, Liberty, Rule of law paramount. What again is not in line with the philosophies that my suppositions propose?
You know that current economic crises is blamed on insufficient regulations in financial markets and erosion of old regulatory laws. That's at least the current view of most economists including Robert Lucas... So well, if there is one role for government it is exactly to regulate the markets when there is a possibility of market failure (incomplete information, moral hazard, adverse selection).
Also I remember that you wrote somewhere that you are for abolishing FED. I am not aware of any economist who would support this claim. Central Banking is one of few developments of economics that actually works...
You do know Milton Friedman called for the abolishment of the FED? There have been many papers on the fraud and theft of Fractional Reserve Banking and manipulation of Inflation. There have also been many papers on how Inflation creates inequality in income disparity and putting that in the hands of a body like the FED is basically shoving the fox in the hen house.
On August 18 2009 10:51 NExUS1g wrote: You think that a burning bush that talks isn't fit for the tabloids? I think lighting G.W. on fire would make front page.
But kidding aside, you have a poor opinion and lack of open-mindedness and tolerance toward religion. And I've lived lots of places including backwoods Texas and there are idiots everywhere, it's not just limited to Texas.
There are certainly idiots everywhere, but they're especially numerous here
I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to your assessment of my perspective, but you're making several assumptions. I've said nothing to indicate a lack of open mindedness or tolerance, beyond that I have zero tolerance or open-mindedness for religious education in public schools. I'm not sure you know what open mindedness actually is.
I do have a poor opinion of religion. I don't feel articulating the reasons behind my opinion is worth the time, as I (and any other non-religious person who has tried) know from experience that debating religion with a religious person is a lost cause - religion requires a complete and utter lack of open mindedness as the cost of entry - you have to abandon free thought at the door and believe without question the doctrine of the religion. But I've said too much already, as I don't really want to go into it with you
I'll leave it at this: teaching the Bible in any context in public school is unacceptable. Period.
Why are people equating all religious people with closed mindedness? Why because they believe in something that is not rational? Give me a break. Plenty of people believe in God and loath the established religions, because they all man run and have their own agendas and are closed to any change or opposition.
On August 18 2009 12:35 blomsterjohn wrote: Alltho no matter who's right or wrong, i think the % of this failing is higher than 50% to put it like that, now this may be a unreliable source and i dont live in the us so i wouldnt personally know but however when you get something like this out of a governor pluss a hardcore creationist at the board of education :
"You know, they're telling us which cars to buy and which light bulbs to use now. But they ought not be telling us whether we can go to Baptist, Methodist, whichever one... But it is quite different and, I would say, extreme, to say that our laws should not be inspired and informed by the views of the faithful. Freedom of religion is not to be confused with freedom from religion.
and continuing :
"Under Rick Perry's rule, Texas educators have become virtually indistinguishable from Sunday School teachers. In pursuing his goal to keep students ignorant of earth sciences and vital health issues (like AIDS prevention), Perry just tapped another of his Creationist/Diversity Denier cronies to head the Texas Board of Education. Rackjite dissects the governor's latest appointment, a fundie automaton named Gail Lowe: She rejects the science of Global Warming and Climate Change, she will not tolerate gay friendly books in public school libraries and of course she not only believes that the Earth is 6000 years old and men live in gigantic fishes at the bottom of the sea, but wants to teach that to children in Texas Public Schools... This (appointment) keeps the board unchanged with 7 to 9 of the 15 votes being evangelical fundamentalist Creationists deciding what Texas children read and learn. (At this very moment our Texas teachers are being trained by "religious scholars" on how to best implement a state law signed by Perry that mandates the study of Scripture in high school classroms.)
This was only dug up trought most recent sites and i woulndt be sure how reliable it is but i guess it casts some light on whos running this, it doesn't really seem very "secular" to me
You do know that Natural Law, which is a construct out of Religion; that is, we derive our inalieable rights from a Creator, is the basis for this countrys founding? I would argue that Deism was the main religious foundation for the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
I like how you lump Global Warming into creationism. I guess if you don't believe in the psuedo sciences used to come about the conclusions of Global Warming you are a creationist fundamentalist, or at least associated with them? Give me a break. There is more science out there that debunks GW than is in favor of it.
In any case, as long as Atheist and Secularist views are in abundance in schools, so shall be religious. If it was me, neither would be inundated in the school system and the Education would be as unbiased as could be, but good luck trying to keep teacher bias of schools as you can plainly see in the College system today in which it's about 90% Lib/Statist/Demo to 10% Cons/Libertarian/Repub.
So, in lieu of the aforementioned you might as well give children both sides. Also, it's quite hilarious to think High School students are incapable of reasoning. Give them both sides, let them make up their own minds. I also believe that as long as you are doing this, you should be giving the kids/parents as much choice as possible to let them decide which school they want to go to; expanding voucher programs and generally privatizing more of the Education system which is massively failing our children. Thanks NEA.
On August 18 2009 13:47 Slaughter wrote: Why are people equating all religious people with closed mindedness? Why because they believe in something that is not rational? Give me a break. Plenty of people believe in God and loath the established religions, because they all man run and have their own agendas and are closed to any change or opposition.
I'm not sure many religious people know this, but Jesus was against any established religion. He was a pauper.
One thing I've always been curious of; why in the Ancient world was God so intervening or at least more prevalent in the physical realm, but in the past 2000 years he has disappeared. This more than anything is the reason I'm agnostic. I'm sure more people would be believers if suddenly New York or London had a Soddom and Gomorrah moment. Surely, Vegas is quite a bit more "sinful" wouldn't you say?
Isn't it ironic that the freedom that allows Christians to worship is the same freedom that they are now stepping on? Seriously, some of these christians are borderline retarded.
I like how you lump Global Warming into creationism. I guess if you don't believe in the psuedo sciences used to come about the conclusions of Global Warming you are a creationist fundamentalist, or at least associated with them? Give me a break. There is more science out there that debunks GW than is in favor of it.
This, my friends, is the best Aegraen quote to date.
I like how you lump Global Warming into creationism. I guess if you don't believe in the psuedo sciences used to come about the conclusions of Global Warming you are a creationist fundamentalist, or at least associated with them? Give me a break. There is more science out there that debunks GW than is in favor of it.
This, my friends, is the best Aegraen quote to date.
It's really not. It's nowhere near as good as "the reason I was completely factually wrong about the subject I was arguing is because I don't understand the subject. However I think...."
You do know that Natural Law, which is a construct out of Religion; that is, we derive our inalieable rights from a Creator, is the basis for this countrys founding? I would argue that Deism was the main religious foundation for the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Whaaat, ok i have no doubt you would argue till you go potatos but i still wouldnt agree with you, and even if i did or if it was a fact that still doesn't justify it happening in 2009 in any way more. Thats...disturbing
I like how you lump Global Warming into creationism. I guess if you don't believe in the psuedo sciences used to come about the conclusions of Global Warming you are a creationist fundamentalist, or at least associated with them? Give me a break. There is more science out there that debunks GW than is in favor of it.
Actually i didnt mean to have GW as a point, it was simply apart of the article/blog relevant to the subject so, however if you'r one of those who say "GW ISNT ANYTHING< ITS ONLY UP 0,5C" (dont qutoe on me on numbers, source is home schooled evangalican in jesus camp) thats quite disturbing aswell.
as long as Atheist and Secularist views are in abundance in schools
huh?
Never been for a bias education where did you get that from, as said earlier; it's the practise of this new law that seems quite suspicious, not the idea.(tho i would swap it to world religion, or religious history starting with the godess mother)
On August 17 2009 16:38 Lz wrote: if schools can teach ppl about things as stupid as evolution then they can surely teach people about the Bible from a historical point of view.. you know the stuff our country was buildt on..
Evolution is an integral part of biology, if biology is to be taught then evolution has to be taught along with it. The bible pertains to creationism which is not another subject on it's own. Also the founders of America paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity, and believed above all, in a secular Government. It's absolutely pathetic that i, a non-American should be informing you about this. Please hang your head in shame good sir.
On August 18 2009 12:35 blomsterjohn wrote: Alltho no matter who's right or wrong, i think the % of this failing is higher than 50% to put it like that, now this may be a unreliable source and i dont live in the us so i wouldnt personally know but however when you get something like this out of a governor pluss a hardcore creationist at the board of education :
"You know, they're telling us which cars to buy and which light bulbs to use now. But they ought not be telling us whether we can go to Baptist, Methodist, whichever one... But it is quite different and, I would say, extreme, to say that our laws should not be inspired and informed by the views of the faithful. Freedom of religion is not to be confused with freedom from religion.
and continuing :
"Under Rick Perry's rule, Texas educators have become virtually indistinguishable from Sunday School teachers. In pursuing his goal to keep students ignorant of earth sciences and vital health issues (like AIDS prevention), Perry just tapped another of his Creationist/Diversity Denier cronies to head the Texas Board of Education. Rackjite dissects the governor's latest appointment, a fundie automaton named Gail Lowe: She rejects the science of Global Warming and Climate Change, she will not tolerate gay friendly books in public school libraries and of course she not only believes that the Earth is 6000 years old and men live in gigantic fishes at the bottom of the sea, but wants to teach that to children in Texas Public Schools... This (appointment) keeps the board unchanged with 7 to 9 of the 15 votes being evangelical fundamentalist Creationists deciding what Texas children read and learn. (At this very moment our Texas teachers are being trained by "religious scholars" on how to best implement a state law signed by Perry that mandates the study of Scripture in high school classroms.)
This was only dug up trought most recent sites and i woulndt be sure how reliable it is but i guess it casts some light on whos running this, it doesn't really seem very "secular" to me
You do know that Natural Law, which is a construct out of Religion; that is, we derive our inalieable rights from a Creator, is the basis for this countrys founding? I would argue that Deism was the main religious foundation for the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
I like how you lump Global Warming into creationism. I guess if you don't believe in the psuedo sciences used to come about the conclusions of Global Warming you are a creationist fundamentalist, or at least associated with them? Give me a break. There is more science out there that debunks GW than is in favor of it.
In any case, as long as Atheist and Secularist views are in abundance in schools, so shall be religious. If it was me, neither would be inundated in the school system and the Education would be as unbiased as could be, but good luck trying to keep teacher bias of schools as you can plainly see in the College system today in which it's about 90% Lib/Statist/Demo to 10% Cons/Libertarian/Repub.
So, in lieu of the aforementioned you might as well give children both sides. Also, it's quite hilarious to think High School students are incapable of reasoning. Give them both sides, let them make up their own minds. I also believe that as long as you are doing this, you should be giving the kids/parents as much choice as possible to let them decide which school they want to go to; expanding voucher programs and generally privatizing more of the Education system which is massively failing our children. Thanks NEA.
The Declaration Of Independance has no bearing on current law (or minamal) because that is not what governs the US, the constitution does. It says the state shall make no law pertaining to the establisment of a religion in the first amendment. A course on the bible is an establishment of Christianity unless it falls into very specific bounds.
Ya there is more science out there debunking evolution too. (/sarcasm)
Two things it is secular viewpoints that are abuddent in schools not atheistic ones, unless you claim every sentence not involving god is atheistic, which while valid is not something to complain about. A real atheistic veiwpoint would go along the lines of "God does not exist and here's why...." You can get that stuff as close to schools as you can get any other religious propaganda. AKA No where near it (hopefully), for reasons also in the first amendment.
The final paragraph has the flaw of assuming all opions are equally valid and there is time to hear both sides. Neither of those are true.
You don't study religious texts to learn the Pantheons? Bulfinch's Mythology? Did you read The Diary of Anne Frank? Some people believe the holocaust never existed, so should that be taught as mythology?
wooow wow wow wow, dude read up the definition of myth again
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
So what in this definition goes against what I was saying?
On August 18 2009 12:35 blomsterjohn wrote: Alltho no matter who's right or wrong, i think the % of this failing is higher than 50% to put it like that, now this may be a unreliable source and i dont live in the us so i wouldnt personally know but however when you get something like this out of a governor pluss a hardcore creationist at the board of education :
"You know, they're telling us which cars to buy and which light bulbs to use now. But they ought not be telling us whether we can go to Baptist, Methodist, whichever one... But it is quite different and, I would say, extreme, to say that our laws should not be inspired and informed by the views of the faithful. Freedom of religion is not to be confused with freedom from religion.
and continuing :
"Under Rick Perry's rule, Texas educators have become virtually indistinguishable from Sunday School teachers. In pursuing his goal to keep students ignorant of earth sciences and vital health issues (like AIDS prevention), Perry just tapped another of his Creationist/Diversity Denier cronies to head the Texas Board of Education. Rackjite dissects the governor's latest appointment, a fundie automaton named Gail Lowe: She rejects the science of Global Warming and Climate Change, she will not tolerate gay friendly books in public school libraries and of course she not only believes that the Earth is 6000 years old and men live in gigantic fishes at the bottom of the sea, but wants to teach that to children in Texas Public Schools... This (appointment) keeps the board unchanged with 7 to 9 of the 15 votes being evangelical fundamentalist Creationists deciding what Texas children read and learn. (At this very moment our Texas teachers are being trained by "religious scholars" on how to best implement a state law signed by Perry that mandates the study of Scripture in high school classroms.)
This was only dug up trought most recent sites and i woulndt be sure how reliable it is but i guess it casts some light on whos running this, it doesn't really seem very "secular" to me
You do know that Natural Law, which is a construct out of Religion; that is, we derive our inalieable rights from a Creator, is the basis for this countrys founding? I would argue that Deism was the main religious foundation for the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
I like how you lump Global Warming into creationism. I guess if you don't believe in the psuedo sciences used to come about the conclusions of Global Warming you are a creationist fundamentalist, or at least associated with them? Give me a break. There is more science out there that debunks GW than is in favor of it.
In any case, as long as Atheist and Secularist views are in abundance in schools, so shall be religious. If it was me, neither would be inundated in the school system and the Education would be as unbiased as could be, but good luck trying to keep teacher bias of schools as you can plainly see in the College system today in which it's about 90% Lib/Statist/Demo to 10% Cons/Libertarian/Repub.
So, in lieu of the aforementioned you might as well give children both sides. Also, it's quite hilarious to think High School students are incapable of reasoning. Give them both sides, let them make up their own minds. I also believe that as long as you are doing this, you should be giving the kids/parents as much choice as possible to let them decide which school they want to go to; expanding voucher programs and generally privatizing more of the Education system which is massively failing our children. Thanks NEA.
The Declaration Of Independance has no bearing on current law (or minamal) because that is not what governs the US, the constitution does. It says the state shall make no law pertaining to the establisment of a religion in the first amendment. A course on the bible is an establishment of Christianity unless it falls into very specific bounds.
Ya there is more science out there debunking evolution too. (/sarcasm)
Two things it is secular viewpoints that are abuddent in schools not atheistic ones, unless you claim every sentence not involving god is atheistic, which while valid is not something to complain about. A real atheistic veiwpoint would go along the lines of "God does not exist and here's why...." You can get that stuff as close to schools as you can get any other religious propaganda. AKA No where near it (hopefully), for reasons also in the first amendment.
The final paragraph has the flaw of assuming all opions are equally valid and there is time to hear both sides. Neither of those are true.
No actually the First Amendment says: "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Can you please show me where Congress passed a law establishing religion?
On August 18 2009 12:35 blomsterjohn wrote: Alltho no matter who's right or wrong, i think the % of this failing is higher than 50% to put it like that, now this may be a unreliable source and i dont live in the us so i wouldnt personally know but however when you get something like this out of a governor pluss a hardcore creationist at the board of education :
"You know, they're telling us which cars to buy and which light bulbs to use now. But they ought not be telling us whether we can go to Baptist, Methodist, whichever one... But it is quite different and, I would say, extreme, to say that our laws should not be inspired and informed by the views of the faithful. Freedom of religion is not to be confused with freedom from religion.
and continuing :
"Under Rick Perry's rule, Texas educators have become virtually indistinguishable from Sunday School teachers. In pursuing his goal to keep students ignorant of earth sciences and vital health issues (like AIDS prevention), Perry just tapped another of his Creationist/Diversity Denier cronies to head the Texas Board of Education. Rackjite dissects the governor's latest appointment, a fundie automaton named Gail Lowe: She rejects the science of Global Warming and Climate Change, she will not tolerate gay friendly books in public school libraries and of course she not only believes that the Earth is 6000 years old and men live in gigantic fishes at the bottom of the sea, but wants to teach that to children in Texas Public Schools... This (appointment) keeps the board unchanged with 7 to 9 of the 15 votes being evangelical fundamentalist Creationists deciding what Texas children read and learn. (At this very moment our Texas teachers are being trained by "religious scholars" on how to best implement a state law signed by Perry that mandates the study of Scripture in high school classroms.)
This was only dug up trought most recent sites and i woulndt be sure how reliable it is but i guess it casts some light on whos running this, it doesn't really seem very "secular" to me
You do know that Natural Law, which is a construct out of Religion; that is, we derive our inalieable rights from a Creator, is the basis for this countrys founding? I would argue that Deism was the main religious foundation for the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
I like how you lump Global Warming into creationism. I guess if you don't believe in the psuedo sciences used to come about the conclusions of Global Warming you are a creationist fundamentalist, or at least associated with them? Give me a break. There is more science out there that debunks GW than is in favor of it.
In any case, as long as Atheist and Secularist views are in abundance in schools, so shall be religious. If it was me, neither would be inundated in the school system and the Education would be as unbiased as could be, but good luck trying to keep teacher bias of schools as you can plainly see in the College system today in which it's about 90% Lib/Statist/Demo to 10% Cons/Libertarian/Repub.
So, in lieu of the aforementioned you might as well give children both sides. Also, it's quite hilarious to think High School students are incapable of reasoning. Give them both sides, let them make up their own minds. I also believe that as long as you are doing this, you should be giving the kids/parents as much choice as possible to let them decide which school they want to go to; expanding voucher programs and generally privatizing more of the Education system which is massively failing our children. Thanks NEA.
The Declaration Of Independance has no bearing on current law (or minamal) because that is not what governs the US, the constitution does. It says the state shall make no law pertaining to the establisment of a religion in the first amendment. A course on the bible is an establishment of Christianity unless it falls into very specific bounds.
Ya there is more science out there debunking evolution too. (/sarcasm)
Two things it is secular viewpoints that are abuddent in schools not atheistic ones, unless you claim every sentence not involving god is atheistic, which while valid is not something to complain about. A real atheistic veiwpoint would go along the lines of "God does not exist and here's why...." You can get that stuff as close to schools as you can get any other religious propaganda. AKA No where near it (hopefully), for reasons also in the first amendment.
The final paragraph has the flaw of assuming all opions are equally valid and there is time to hear both sides. Neither of those are true.
You're misinterpreting "establishment of religion". It is read, "Congress can't make a law to prevent or inhibit a religion from being established."
On August 17 2009 18:02 CalvinStorm wrote: Think that's bad? My city has a mandatory course teaching about gay people.
what exactly do they teach?
edit: just so i won't be completely off topic, i believe that the original idea put forth is an excellent one, and that it would benefit an ignorant country like the US ( no offense but ignorance is abundant when it comes to religion, in any country but the US takes the cake from my experience ) But this will be poorly executed by bias teachers, principal, parents, and everyone in between, because let's face it, that's America. It's disappointing but their educational system is too corrupt.
whoa, whoa, whoa, don't paint all of the US with the texas brush
fair enough, by the US i meant anything west of virginia east of nevada and north of florida.
-_-
that last post was in jest, surely you agree that when it comes to religion Americans tend to be a bit over bearing and ignorant. I know i lived in the states most of my life.
Aegraen I am not bashing Christianity, I am simply stating that the US is a biased country when it comes to religion, and to answer your question, i will bash any religious fanatic regardless of the book they carry.
On August 17 2009 18:02 CalvinStorm wrote: Think that's bad? My city has a mandatory course teaching about gay people.
what exactly do they teach?
My school made us watch a movie with gay people having explicit sex so we would be "sensitive".
Now, it was medical school and not high school, so I guess its better.....maybe?
you're kidding... please tell me I am missing the sarcasm
actually I am not kidding. It was during our "Reproduction and Human Sexuality" block. They used to use a more hardcore video (the block chairperson told us) with a lot of oral/anal and apparently really old people (like 80's) having sex, but they got way too many complaints and some kid threw up in class so now its just gay sex.
I never did see how being required to watch gay sex would make us more sensitive.
On August 17 2009 19:13 Foucault wrote: wtf @ watching gay people having sex. Doesn't sound very professional, and what on earth does that have to do with being a doctor??
Exactly. But the head of the block is a very "activist" lady and I'm pretty sure that "becoming better doctors" was not the only goal whether it was conscious or subconscious.
On August 17 2009 18:02 CalvinStorm wrote: Think that's bad? My city has a mandatory course teaching about gay people.
what exactly do they teach?
edit: just so i won't be completely off topic, i believe that the original idea put forth is an excellent one, and that it would benefit an ignorant country like the US ( no offense but ignorance is abundant when it comes to religion, in any country but the US takes the cake from my experience ) But this will be poorly executed by bias teachers, principal, parents, and everyone in between, because let's face it, that's America. It's disappointing but their educational system is too corrupt.
whoa, whoa, whoa, don't paint all of the US with the texas brush
fair enough, by the US i meant anything west of virginia east of nevada and north of florida.
-_-
that last post was in jest, surely you agree that when it comes to religion Americans tend to be a bit over bearing and ignorant. I know i lived in the states most of my life.
Aegraen I am not bashing Christianity, I am simply stating that the US is a biased country when it comes to religion, and to answer your question, i will bash any religious fanatic regardless of the book they carry.
On August 17 2009 18:40 Savio wrote:
On August 17 2009 18:04 Etherone wrote:
On August 17 2009 18:02 CalvinStorm wrote: Think that's bad? My city has a mandatory course teaching about gay people.
what exactly do they teach?
My school made us watch a movie with gay people having explicit sex so we would be "sensitive".
Now, it was medical school and not high school, so I guess its better.....maybe?
you're kidding... please tell me I am missing the sarcasm
actually I am not kidding. It was during our "Reproduction and Human Sexuality" block. They used to use a more hardcore video (the block chairperson told us) with a lot of oral/anal and apparently really old people (like 80's) having sex, but they got way too many complaints and some kid threw up in class so now its just gay sex.
I never did see how being required to watch gay sex would make us more sensitive.
On August 17 2009 19:13 Foucault wrote: wtf @ watching gay people having sex. Doesn't sound very professional, and what on earth does that have to do with being a doctor??
Exactly. But the head of the block is a very "activist" lady and I'm pretty sure that "becoming better doctors" was not the only goal whether it was conscious or subconscious.
so wait, you are saying that information presented to you with the claim of making you a better, more sensitive doctor may have had underhanded intentions of (hell, i don't know) turning you gay? is that what you're saying?
On August 18 2009 10:51 NExUS1g wrote: You think that a burning bush that talks isn't fit for the tabloids? I think lighting G.W. on fire would make front page.
But kidding aside, you have a poor opinion and lack of open-mindedness and tolerance toward religion. And I've lived lots of places including backwoods Texas and there are idiots everywhere, it's not just limited to Texas.
There are certainly idiots everywhere, but they're especially numerous here
I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to your assessment of my perspective, but you're making several assumptions. I've said nothing to indicate a lack of open mindedness or tolerance, beyond that I have zero tolerance or open-mindedness for religious education in public schools. I'm not sure you know what open mindedness actually is.
I do have a poor opinion of religion. I don't feel articulating the reasons behind my opinion is worth the time, as I (and any other non-religious person who has tried) know from experience that debating religion with a religious person is a lost cause - religion requires a complete and utter lack of open mindedness as the cost of entry - you have to abandon free thought at the door and believe without question the doctrine of the religion. But I've said too much already, as I don't really want to go into it with you
I'll leave it at this: teaching the Bible in any context in public school is unacceptable. Period.
Greek and Roman mythology is taught in school. Why is it you don't complain about those?
Also, I'm agnostic, so you can't put me in the box labeled "religious".
For starters, I don't think they are required curriculum.
And then there is the fact that greek and roman mythology are not a big part of today's religions.
And finally, the fact that those are a study of beliefs rather than study of a text.
It would be easy to study christian beliefs without studying the actual bible.
This new law allowing a class about the Bible is an elective and not required for students to take.
It doesn't matter how major a religion it is in the modern world, the Greek and Roman pantheon and its mythology are still religions.
And when we study Greek/Roman mythology we read stories of Hercules, Zeus, Hera, Hades, etc. If we study the history of Christianity, we'll read stories about God, Jesus, Jacob, the prophets, etc. There's absolutely no difference other than the one caused by the stigma in peoples' heads.
The only argument I hear to any of this is, "but... it's Christianity! That's different!" Doesn't work, sorry.
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
Your views are nothing like Friedman or Hayek at all. Your views come straight from Beck, and he's never read either. Both of their world views had a place for government, and even taxing. Yours doesn't. Linking those two schools together is a bit of a joke as well since this is a purely political discussion and you've just cited two economics schools that are not as close as you think, and are completely distinct from politics.
Politically, I don't think you're as similar to either as you seem to think. You say you've read CoL and others, but not one iota of your posts shows it unless you actually disagree with him.
First off, I've said quite a few times on this board that I am in favor of abolishing the 16th, but not creating a state that has no taxation at all. Contrary to Rothbard, I believe that a standing federal military is a construct of Government as such in the Constitution. However, I am opposed to every proposed taxation on income. I am however in favor of a Flat tax or consumer tax. No more than ~8-10%.
I also have a place for Government and have said it time and time again what their role in the market should be. Ensuring fair practices and upholding contractual obligations; voluntary contracts which are the guiding force of the free-market. That is it. No infusion of funds. No regulatory bodies.
I think you don't understand my positions whatsoever. In all my posts I am consistent; repeating these same principles which are directly inline with Hayek, Mises, and the rest. While not agreeing with everything they say; forming basis for some of my other viewpoints I am directly influenced by them. You can also see in my contemporary political philosophy that it is also directly influenced by limited Government proponents such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.
In any case, those are a general overview of my positions. Government; necessary evil. Limit as much as possible. Free-Market bulwark to Tyranny and Government intervention interferes and distorts market creating a bastardization of the idea of the market in the first place. Freedom, Liberty, Rule of law paramount. What again is not in line with the philosophies that my suppositions propose?
You know that current economic crises is blamed on insufficient regulations in financial markets and erosion of old regulatory laws. That's at least the current view of most economists including Robert Lucas... So well, if there is one role for government it is exactly to regulate the markets when there is a possibility of market failure (incomplete information, moral hazard, adverse selection).
Also I remember that you wrote somewhere that you are for abolishing FED. I am not aware of any economist who would support this claim. Central Banking is one of few developments of economics that actually works...
You do know Milton Friedman called for the abolishment of the FED? There have been many papers on the fraud and theft of Fractional Reserve Banking and manipulation of Inflation. There have also been many papers on how Inflation creates inequality in income disparity and putting that in the hands of a body like the FED is basically shoving the fox in the hen house.
Really? I would actually like to read those articles. Can you recommend one that was published in a peer-review economic journal?
On the other hand there is strong evidence that higher inflation reduced both growth and level of GDP. It is not a coincident most of developed countries keep it low (check out papers on that topic by Robert Barro). More interesting finding is that if the inflation is already low cutting it down even more is more beneficial then when cutting it when it is high (Andres & Hernando).
Also inflation is basically a tax on money holding. How then you can support it if you do not support government intervention in the economy?
On August 18 2009 06:24 CharlieMurphy wrote: I'm sure the students and teachers who don't care for it have the option to ignore it. Just like not everyone has to cross their heart and do the flag salute every morning.
apparently you don't know what required curriculum means
i think he means "ignore" as in you sit in class and just don't listen to what the teacher says.
yes, and then if anyone gets a bad grade or a teacher gets reprimanded they can sue and take it all the way to the supreme court.
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
Your views are nothing like Friedman or Hayek at all. Your views come straight from Beck, and he's never read either. Both of their world views had a place for government, and even taxing. Yours doesn't. Linking those two schools together is a bit of a joke as well since this is a purely political discussion and you've just cited two economics schools that are not as close as you think, and are completely distinct from politics.
Politically, I don't think you're as similar to either as you seem to think. You say you've read CoL and others, but not one iota of your posts shows it unless you actually disagree with him.
First off, I've said quite a few times on this board that I am in favor of abolishing the 16th, but not creating a state that has no taxation at all. Contrary to Rothbard, I believe that a standing federal military is a construct of Government as such in the Constitution. However, I am opposed to every proposed taxation on income. I am however in favor of a Flat tax or consumer tax. No more than ~8-10%.
I also have a place for Government and have said it time and time again what their role in the market should be. Ensuring fair practices and upholding contractual obligations; voluntary contracts which are the guiding force of the free-market. That is it. No infusion of funds. No regulatory bodies.
I think you don't understand my positions whatsoever. In all my posts I am consistent; repeating these same principles which are directly inline with Hayek, Mises, and the rest. While not agreeing with everything they say; forming basis for some of my other viewpoints I am directly influenced by them. You can also see in my contemporary political philosophy that it is also directly influenced by limited Government proponents such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.
In any case, those are a general overview of my positions. Government; necessary evil. Limit as much as possible. Free-Market bulwark to Tyranny and Government intervention interferes and distorts market creating a bastardization of the idea of the market in the first place. Freedom, Liberty, Rule of law paramount. What again is not in line with the philosophies that my suppositions propose?
You know that current economic crises is blamed on insufficient regulations in financial markets and erosion of old regulatory laws. That's at least the current view of most economists including Robert Lucas... So well, if there is one role for government it is exactly to regulate the markets when there is a possibility of market failure (incomplete information, moral hazard, adverse selection).
Also I remember that you wrote somewhere that you are for abolishing FED. I am not aware of any economist who would support this claim. Central Banking is one of few developments of economics that actually works...
You do know Milton Friedman called for the abolishment of the FED? There have been many papers on the fraud and theft of Fractional Reserve Banking and manipulation of Inflation. There have also been many papers on how Inflation creates inequality in income disparity and putting that in the hands of a body like the FED is basically shoving the fox in the hen house.
Really? I would actually like to read those articles. Can you recommend one that was published in a peer-review economic journal?
On the other hand there is strong evidence that higher inflation reduced both growth and level of GDP. It is not a coincident most of developed countries keep it low (check out papers on that topic by Robert Barro). More interesting finding is that if the inflation is already low cutting it down even more is more beneficial then when cutting it when it is high (Andres & Hernando).
Also inflation is basically a tax on money holding. How then you can support it if you do not support government intervention in the economy?
On August 17 2009 18:02 CalvinStorm wrote: Think that's bad? My city has a mandatory course teaching about gay people.
what exactly do they teach?
edit: just so i won't be completely off topic, i believe that the original idea put forth is an excellent one, and that it would benefit an ignorant country like the US ( no offense but ignorance is abundant when it comes to religion, in any country but the US takes the cake from my experience ) But this will be poorly executed by bias teachers, principal, parents, and everyone in between, because let's face it, that's America. It's disappointing but their educational system is too corrupt.
whoa, whoa, whoa, don't paint all of the US with the texas brush
fair enough, by the US i meant anything west of virginia east of nevada and north of florida.
-_-
that last post was in jest, surely you agree that when it comes to religion Americans tend to be a bit over bearing and ignorant. I know i lived in the states most of my life.
Aegraen I am not bashing Christianity, I am simply stating that the US is a biased country when it comes to religion, and to answer your question, i will bash any religious fanatic regardless of the book they carry.
On August 17 2009 18:40 Savio wrote:
On August 17 2009 18:04 Etherone wrote:
On August 17 2009 18:02 CalvinStorm wrote: Think that's bad? My city has a mandatory course teaching about gay people.
what exactly do they teach?
My school made us watch a movie with gay people having explicit sex so we would be "sensitive".
Now, it was medical school and not high school, so I guess its better.....maybe?
you're kidding... please tell me I am missing the sarcasm
actually I am not kidding. It was during our "Reproduction and Human Sexuality" block. They used to use a more hardcore video (the block chairperson told us) with a lot of oral/anal and apparently really old people (like 80's) having sex, but they got way too many complaints and some kid threw up in class so now its just gay sex.
I never did see how being required to watch gay sex would make us more sensitive.
On August 17 2009 19:13 Foucault wrote: wtf @ watching gay people having sex. Doesn't sound very professional, and what on earth does that have to do with being a doctor??
Exactly. But the head of the block is a very "activist" lady and I'm pretty sure that "becoming better doctors" was not the only goal whether it was conscious or subconscious.
that's preposterous, wtf is she thinking, who is the retard that aloud this level .. fuck it.
ugh this world is fucked up, so many ignorant overbearing selfish individuals who hold positions of power, it sickens me.
@ aegrean it'll be pages and pages, before you get to an actual discussion, people tend to deliberately miss points and argue semantics indefinitely, even though some will be informed by your contributions you're pretty much wasting your time. I applaud you're diligence though.
On August 17 2009 16:38 Lz wrote: if schools can teach ppl about things as stupid as evolution then they can surely teach people about the Bible from a historical point of view.. you know the stuff our country was buildt on..
Evolution is an integral part of biology, if biology is to be taught then evolution has to be taught along with it. The bible pertains to creationism which is not another subject on it's own. Also the founders of America paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity, and believed above all, in a secular Government. It's absolutely pathetic that i, a non-American should be informing you about this. Please hang your head in shame good sir.
Yeah Lz, stick to playing starcraft <__<
As ignorant as Lz's comment is, he does portray a large majority of conservative, stupid/uneducatedMccain supporters and is why Texas would have the support to pass such a ridiculous ruling in the first place.
On August 17 2009 16:38 Lz wrote: if schools can teach ppl about things as stupid as evolution then they can surely teach people about the Bible from a historical point of view.. you know the stuff our country was buildt on..
Evolution is an integral part of biology, if biology is to be taught then evolution has to be taught along with it. The bible pertains to creationism which is not another subject on it's own. Also the founders of America paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity, and believed above all, in a secular Government. It's absolutely pathetic that i, a non-American should be informing you about this. Please hang your head in shame good sir.
Yeah Lz, stick to playing starcraft <__<
As ignorant as Lz's comment is, he does portray a large majority of conservative, stupid/uneducatedMccain supporters and is why Texas would have the support to pass such a ridiculous ruling in the first place.
Conservatives do not support McCain. McCain is as liberal as most Democrats. Who do you think preposed a massive new Government mortgage entitlement program?
People are getting Republican = Conservative confused. In fact, most Conservatives aren't Republicans. The Republican party has left Conservatism. These people are Independents and moving generally towards Libertarianism since they do share quite a lot of common perception especially within Economic and Government sector (barring of course some differences).
If you want good Conservative minds you have to look at people like DeMint, etc. Personally, I wish more people become educated about Libertarianism if they did (Along with Austrian Economics; Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, etc.), we wouldn't be in this giant one party mosh. There really is little difference between GOP and Democrats. One merely moves at a pace that is substantially faster than the other, but they are both on the same path. Those who actually argue for legitimate real change for the positive; Ron Paul, Bobb Barr, and the like are cast as "loony" "kooks", don't know what they are talking about, etc. by the power hungry elites in Washington.
Folks, get educated about the history of America, it's free-market industrialization 1865-1900 days, our founding, and the Progressive Era 1900-1940 and its effect both on reversing the notion of our founding; limited Government with free-market principles without Government interference, and it's iron grip on creating more power for itself.
Both the GOP and Democrats are in the business of growing Government. If Government limits itself and becomes "smaller" they both believe that they will lose political power. Of course, this is true as the power paradigm shifts from political bodies, heads of state, and other various bureaucrats to the individual, the community, and generally what is ultimately in the best interest of everyone.
I'm quite tired of the Statists clamoring for more power, more government control, more this, more that, put my paws into this sector, and that sector, and then they rationalize it by creating this false dichotomy that without the Government the world would be in shambles, greedy businessman would steal everything, etc. when it is actually the opposite. One has to look no further than the late 1800s to tell why this is false.
There is no need for the FED, Clayton or Sherman Acts, and other various Government intrusions into the marketplace and peoples lives.
Listen intently, analyze, and learn the facts. Urge everyone to at least intellectually listen to this:
Jesus. Aegraen rips through these threads like a wolf in a chicken cage. Honestly, he argues semantics to justify his arguments in like every thread I've read. + Show Spoiler +
p.s. What is it with you and Austrian Economics.
Put simply, this has already been ruled as unconstitutional by Justice Hugo Black:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
Now, lets assume that there will be some person who decides to be a little bitch and say "but its 'voluntary', so that means the state isn't supporting it". This little bitch obviously would not understand the meaning of 'preference', as if he did, he would realize that (even if you COULD aid all religions, which you can't), then you would have to offer ALL possible religions as voluntary options (or else it also comes under several discrimination laws ).
Now all of that up there is if you want to argue semantics. The reality is this cannot even happen in state schools anyway, because then that would be considered financial aid,+ Show Spoiler +
as even if it is done without state funding, if it is on school property then it is still financial aid, since they don't pay rent
which (if you've been paying attention) is also not allowed.
Naturally, if you choose not to believe this Judge, then you can check out the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for yourselves
On August 18 2009 17:07 Tyraz wrote: Jesus. Aegraen rips through these threads like a wolf in a chicken cage. Honestly, he argues semantics to justify his arguments in like every thread I've read. + Show Spoiler +
p.s. What is it with you and Austrian Economics.
Put simply, this has already been ruled as unconstitutional by Justice Hugo Black:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
Now, lets assume that there will be some person who decides to be a little bitch and say "but its 'voluntary', so that means the state isn't supporting it". This little bitch obviously would not understand the meaning of 'preference', as if he did, he would realize that (even if you COULD aid all religions, which you can't), then you would have to offer ALL possible religions as voluntary options (or else it also comes under several discrimination laws ).
Now all of that up there is if you want to argue semantics. The reality is this cannot even happen in state schools anyway, because then that would be considered financial aid,+ Show Spoiler +
as even if it is done without state funding, if it is on school property then it is still financial aid, since they don't pay rent
which (if you've been paying attention) is also not allowed.
Naturally, if you choose not to believe this Judge, then you can check out the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for yourselves
Sure....What makes one justices word more valid than another? This is the inherent problem with the SCOTUS. Constitutionalizing your ideology. This was never the intent of the Judicial Branch. James Madison himself the father of the Constitution argued the case against Activism; that is the changing of language over time even though the same words, to have different meanings in each generation. If this is the case the whole Constitution itself is invalidated because it then becomes a political tool for the current expediency of political whims. There is all ready the tools within the Constitution itself to effect change that being a Constitutional Convention, or the Amendment process. The SCOTUS was never intended to rewrite the Constitution because of the Three Co-Equal branches functioning as Montisqiue adopted and the Founders agreed upon and ratified as such. That is why there is an Amendment process, otherwise you have this false duplicity where the branches are not equal and where the SCOTUS itself invalidates the need for the Amendment process. In any event, as Chieft Justice William Rehnquist put it according to the First Amendment and the clause in particular:
[All court opinions except for Justice Rehnquist's dissent have been omitted.]
* * * * *
Justice REHNQUIST, dissenting.
Thirty-eight years ago this Court, in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16, 67 S.Ct. 504, 512, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947), summarized its exegesis of Establishment Clause doctrine thus:
"In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, [98 U.S. 145, 164, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1879)]."
This language from Reynolds, a case involving the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Establishment Clause, quoted from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association the phrase "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." 8 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 113 (H. Washington ed. 1861).(1)
It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.
Jefferson's fellow Virginian, James Madison, with whom he was joined in the battle for the enactment of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty of 1786, did play as large a part as anyone in the drafting of the Bill of Rights. He had two advantages over Jefferson in this regard: he was present in the United States, and he was a leading Member of the First Congress. But when we turn to the record of the proceedings in the First Congress leading up to the adoption of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, including Madison's significant contributions thereto, we see a far different picture of its purpose than the highly simplified "wall of separation between church and State."
During the debates in the Thirteen Colonies over ratification of the Constitution, one of the arguments frequently used by opponents of ratification was that without a Bill of Rights guaranteeing individual liberty the new general Government carried with it a potential for tyranny. The typical response to this argument on the part of those who favored ratification was that the general Government established by the Constitution had only delegated powers, and that these delegated powers were so limited that the Government would have no occasion to violate individual liberties. This response satisfied some, but not others, and of the 11 Colonies which ratified the Constitution by early 1789, 5 proposed one or another amendments guaranteeing individual liberty. Three--New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia--included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom. See 3 J. Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution 659 (1891); 1 id., at 328. Rhode Island and North Carolina flatly refused to ratify the Constitution in the absence of amendments in the nature of a Bill of Rights. 1 id., at 334; 4 id., at 244. Virginia and North Carolina proposed identical guarantees of religious freedom:
"[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and . . . no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others." 3 id., at 659; 4 id., at 244.(2)
On June 8, 1789, James Madison rose in the House of Representatives and "reminded the House that this was the day that he had heretofore named for bringing forward amendments to the Constitution." 1 Annals of Cong. 424. Madison's subsequent remarks in urging the House to adopt his drafts of the proposed amendments were less those of a dedicated advocate of the wisdom of such measures than those of a prudent statesman seeking the enactment of measures sought by a number of his fellow citizens which could surely do no harm and might do a great deal of good. He said, inter alia:
"It appears to me that this House is bound by every motive of prudence, not to let the first session pass over without proposing to the State Legislatures, some things to be incorporated into the Constitution, that will render it as acceptable to the whole people of the United States, as it has been found acceptable to a majority of them. I wish, among other reasons why something should be done, that those who had been friendly to the adoption of this Constitution may have the opportunity of proving to those who were opposed to it that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a Republican Government, as those who charged them with wishing the adoption of this Constitution in order to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or despotism. It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community, any apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled. And if there are amendments desired of such a nature as will not injure the Constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow-citizens, the friends of the Federal Government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished." Id., at 431-432.
The language Madison proposed for what ultimately became the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment was this:
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed." Id., at 434.
On the same day that Madison proposed them, the amendments which formed the basis for the Bill of Rights were referred by the House to a Committee of the Whole, and after several weeks' delay were then referred to a Select Committee consisting of Madison and 10 others. The Committee revised Madison's proposal regarding the establishment of religion to read:
"[N]o religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed." Id., at 729.
The Committee's proposed revisions were debated in the House on August 15, 1789. The entire debate on the Religion Clauses is contained in two full columns of the "Annals," and does not seem particularly illuminating. See id., at 729-731. Representative Peter Sylvester of New York expressed his dislike for the revised version, because it might have a tendency "to abolish religion altogether." Representative John Vining suggested that the two parts of the sentence be transposed; Representative Elbridge Gerry thought the language should be changed to read "that no religious doctrine shall be established by law." Id., at 729. Roger Sherman of Connecticut had the traditional reason for opposing provisions of a Bill of Rights--that Congress had no delegated authority to "make religious establishments"--and therefore he opposed the adoption of the amendment. Representative Daniel Carroll of Maryland thought it desirable to adopt the words proposed, saying "[h]e would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the community."
Madison then spoke, and said that "he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience." Id., at 730. He said that some of the state conventions had thought that Congress might rely on the Necessary and Proper Clause to infringe the rights of conscience or to establish a national religion, and "to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit." Ibid.
Representative Benjamin Huntington then expressed the view that the Committee's language might "be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it." Huntington, from Connecticut, was concerned that in the New England States, where state-established religions were the rule rather than the exception, the federal courts might not be able to entertain claims based upon an obligation under the bylaws of a religious organization to contribute to the support of a minister or the building of a place of worship. He hoped that "the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and a free exercise of the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all." Id., at 730-731.
Madison responded that the insertion of the word "national" before the word "religion" in the Committee version should satisfy the minds of those who had criticized the language. "He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. He thought that if the word 'national' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent." Id., at 731. Representative Samuel Livermore expressed himself as dissatisfied with Madison's proposed amendment, and thought it would be better if the Committee language were altered to read that "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience." Ibid.
Representative Gerry spoke in opposition to the use of the word "national" because of strong feelings expressed during the ratification debates that a federal government, not a national government, was created by the Constitution. Madison thereby withdrew his proposal but insisted that his reference to a "national religion" only referred to a national establishment and did not mean that the Government was a national one. The question was taken on Representative Livermore's motion, which passed by a vote of 31 for and 20 against. Ibid.
The following week, without any apparent debate, the House voted to alter the language of the Religion Clauses to read "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." Id., at 766. The floor debates in the Senate were secret, and therefore not reported in the Annals. The Senate on September 3, 1789, considered several different forms of the Religion Amendment, and reported this language back to the House:
"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion." C. Antieau, A. Downey, & E. Roberts, Freedom From Federal Establishment 130 (1964).
The House refused to accept the Senate's changes in the Bill of Rights and asked for a conference; the version which emerged from the conference was that which ultimately found its way into the Constitution as a part of the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The House and the Senate both accepted this language on successive days, and the Amendment was proposed in this form.
On the basis of the record of these proceedings in the House of Representatives, James Madison was undoubtedly the most important architect among the Members of the House of the Amendments which became the Bill of Rights, but it was James Madison speaking as an advocate of sensible legislative compromise, not as an advocate of incorporating the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty into the United States Constitution. During the ratification debate in the Virginia Convention, Madison had actually opposed the idea of any Bill of Rights. His sponsorship of the Amendments in the House was obviously not that of a zealous believer in the necessity of the Religion Clauses, but of one who felt it might do some good, could do no harm, and would satisfy those who had ratified the Constitution on the condition that Congress propose a Bill of Rights.(3) His original language "nor shall any national religion be established" obviously does not conform to the "wall of separation" between church and State idea which latter-day commentators have ascribed to him. His explanation on the floor of the meaning of his language--"that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law" is of the same ilk. When he replied to Huntington in the debate over the proposal which came from the Select Committee of the House, he urged that the language "no religion shall be established by law" should be amended by inserting the word "national" in front of the word "religion."
It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion. Thus the Court's opinion in Everson--while correct in bracketing Madison and Jefferson together in their exertions in their home State leading to the enactment of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty--is totally incorrect in suggesting that Madison carried these views onto the floor of the United States House of Representatives when he proposed the language which would ultimately become the Bill of Rights.
The repetition of this error in the Court's opinion in Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 68 S.Ct. 461, 92 L.Ed. 649 (1948), and, inter alia, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 8 L.Ed.2d 601 (1962), does not make it any sounder historically. Finally, in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 214, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 1567, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963), the Court made the truly remarkable statement that "the views of Madison and Jefferson, preceded by Roger Williams, came to be incorporated not only in the Federal Constitution but likewise in those of most of our States" (footnote omitted). On the basis of what evidence we have, this statement is demonstrably incorrect as a matter of history.(4) And its repetition in varying forms in succeeding opinions of the Court can give it no more authority than it possesses as a matter of fact; stare decisis may bind courts as to matters of law, but it cannot bind them as to matters of history.
None of the other Members of Congress who spoke during the August 15th debate expressed the slightest indication that they thought the language before them from the Select Committee, or the evil to be aimed at, would require that the Government be absolutely neutral as between religion and irreligion. The evil to be aimed at, so far as those who spoke who concerned, appears to have been the establishment of a national church, and perhaps the preference of one religious sect over another; but it was definitely not concerned about whether the Government might aid all religions evenhandedly. If one were to follow the advice of Justice BRENNAN, concurring in Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 236, 83 S.Ct., at 1578, 10 L.Ed.2d 844, and construe the Amendment in the light of what particular "practices . . . challenged threaten those consequences which the Framers deeply feared; whether, in short, they tend to promote that type of interdependence between religion and state which the First Amendment was designed to prevent," one would have to say that the First Amendment Establishment Clause should be read no more broadly than to prevent the establishment of a national religion or the governmental preference of one religious sect over another.
The actions of the First Congress, which reenacted the Northwest Ordinance for the governance of the Northwest Territory in 1789, confirm the view that Congress did not mean that the Government should be neutral between religion and irreligion. The House of Representatives took up the Northwest Ordinance on the same day as Madison introduced his proposed amendments which became the Bill of Rights; while at that time the Federal Government was of course not bound by draft amendments to the Constitution which had not yet been proposed by Congress, say nothing of ratified by the States, it seems highly unlikely that the House of Representatives would simultaneously consider proposed amendments to the Constitution and enact an important piece of territorial legislation which conflicted with the intent of those proposals. The Northwest Ordinance, 1 Stat. 50, reenacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and provided that "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Id., at 52, n. (a). Land grants for schools in the Northwest Territory were not limited to public schools. It was not until 1845 that Congress limited land grants in the new States and Territories to nonsectarian schools. 5 Stat. 788; C. Antieau, A. Downey, & E. Roberts, Freedom From Federal Establishment 163 (1964).
On the day after the House of Representatives voted to adopt the form of the First Amendment Religion Clauses which was ultimately proposed and ratified, Representative Elias Boudinot proposed a resolution asking President George Washington to issue a Thanksgiving Day Proclamation. Boudinot said he "could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice, in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings he had poured down upon them." 1 Annals of Cong. 914 (1789). Representative Aedanas Burke objected to the resolution because he did not like "this mimicking of European customs"; Representative Thomas Tucker objected that whether or not the people had reason to be satisfied with the Constitution was something that the States knew better than the Congress, and in any event "it is a religious matter, and, as such, is proscribed to us." Id., at 915. Representative Sherman supported the resolution "not only as a laudable one in itself, but as warranted by a number of precedents in Holy Writ: for instance, the solemn thanksgivings and rejoicings which took place in the time of Solomon, after the building of the temple, was a case in point. This example, he thought, worthy of Christian imitation on the present occasion. . . ." Ibid.
Boudinot's resolution was carried in the affirmative on September 25, 1789. Boudinot and Sherman, who favored the Thanksgiving Proclamation, voted in favor of the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Constitution, including the Religion Clauses; Tucker, who opposed the Thanksgiving Proclamation, voted against the adoption of the amendments which became the Bill of Rights.
Within two weeks of this action by the House, George Washington responded to the Joint Resolution which by now had been changed to include the language that the President "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness." 1 J. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, p. 64 (1897). The Presidential Proclamation was couched in these words:
"Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
"And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best." Ibid.
George Washington, John Adams, and James Madison all issued Thanksgiving Proclamations; Thomas Jefferson did not, saying:
"Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the Constitution has deposited it." 11 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 429 (A. Lipscomb ed. 1904).
As the United States moved from the 18th into the 19th century, Congress appropriated time and again public moneys in support of sectarian Indian education carried on by religious organizations. Typical of these was Jefferson's treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which provided annual cash support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest and church.(5) It was not until 1897, when aid to sectarian education for Indians had reached $500,000 annually, that Congress decided thereafter to cease appropriating money for education in sectarian schools. See Act of June 7, 1897, 30 Stat. 62, 79; cf. Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U.S. 50, 77-79, 28 S.Ct. 690, 694-696, 52 L.Ed. 954 (1908); J. O'Neill, Religion and Education Under the Constitution 118-119 (1949). See generally R. Cord, Separation of Church and State 61-82 (1982). This history shows the fallacy of the notion found in Everson that "no tax in any amount" may be levied for religious activities in any form. 330 U.S., at 15-16, 67 S.Ct., at 511-512.
Joseph Story, a Member of this Court from 1811 to 1845, and during much of that time a professor at the Harvard Law School, published by far the most comprehensive treatise on the United States Constitution that had then appeared. Volume 2 of Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 630-632 (5th ed. 1891) discussed the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment this way:
"Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration [First Amendment], the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.
. . . . .
"The real object of the [First] [A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. . . ." (Footnotes omitted.)
Thomas Cooley's eminence as a legal authority rivaled that of Story. Cooley stated in his treatise entitled Constitutional Limitations that aid to a particular religious sect was prohibited by the United States Constitution, but he went on to say:
"But while thus careful to establish, protect, and defend religious freedom and equality, the American constitutions contain no provisions which prohibit the authorities from such solemn recognition of a superintending Providence in public transactions and exercises as the general religious sentiment of mankind inspires, and as seems meet and proper in finite and dependent beings. Whatever may be the shades of religious belief, all must acknowledge the fitness of recognizing in important human affairs the superintending care and control of the Great Governor of the Universe, and of acknowledging with thanksgiving his boundless favors, or bowing in contrition when visited with the penalties of his broken laws. No principle of constitutional law is violated when thanksgiving or fast days are appointed; when chaplains are designated for the army and navy; when legislative sessions are opened with prayer or the reading of the Scriptures, or when religious teaching is encouraged by a general exemption of the houses of religious worship from taxation for the support of State government. Undoubtedly the spirit of the Constitution will require, in all these cases, that care be taken to avoid discrimination in favor of or against any one religious denomination or sect; but the power to do any of these things does not become unconstitutional simply because of its susceptibility to abuse. . . ." Id., at * 470--* 471.
Cooley added that
"[t]his public recognition of religious worship, however, is not based entirely, perhaps not even mainly, upon a sense of what is due to the Supreme Being himself as the author of all good and of all law; but the same reasons of state policy which induce the government to aid institutions of charity and seminaries of instruction will incline it also to foster religious worship and religious institutions, as conservators of the public morals and valuable, if not indispensable, assistants to the preservation of the public order." Id., at *470.
It would seem from this evidence that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment had acquired a well-accepted meaning: it forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations. Indeed, the first American dictionary defined the word "establishment" as "the act of establishing, founding, ratifying or ordaining," such as in "[t]he episcopal form of religion, so called, in England." 1 N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1st ed. 1828). The Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the "wall of separation" that was constitutionalized in Everson.
Notwithstanding the absence of a historical basis for this theory of rigid separation, the wall idea might well have served as a useful albeit misguided analytical concept, had it led this Court to unified and principled results in Establishment Clause cases. The opposite, unfortunately, has been true; in the 38 years since Everson our Establishment Clause cases have been neither principled nor unified. Our recent opinions, many of them hopelessly divided pluralities,(6) have with embarrassing candor conceded that the "wall of separation" is merely a "blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier," which "is not wholly accurate" and can only be "dimly perceived." Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2112, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971); Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 677-678, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 2095-2096, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229, 236, 97 S.Ct. 2593, 2599, 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 1359, 79 L.Ed.2d 745 (1984).
Whether due to its lack of historical support or its practical unworkability, the Everson "wall" has proved all but useless as a guide to sound constitutional adjudication. It illustrates only too well the wisdom of Benjamin Cardozo's observation that "[m]etaphors in law are to be narrowly watched, for starting as devices to liberate thought, they end often by enslaving it." Berkey v. Third Avenue R. Co., 244 N.Y. 84, 94, 155 N.E. 58, 61 (1926).
But the greatest injury of the "wall" notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, is well adapted to adjudicating factual disputes on the basis of testimony presented in court, but no amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.
The Court has more recently attempted to add some mortar to Everson's wall through the three-part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra, 403 U.S., at 614-615, 91 S.Ct., at 2112, which served at first to offer a more useful test for purposes of the Establishment Clause than did the "wall" metaphor. Generally stated, the Lemon test proscribes state action that has a sectarian purpose or effect, or causes an impermissible governmental entanglement with religion.
Lemon cited Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243, 88 S.Ct. 1923, 1926, 20 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1968), as the source of the "purpose" and "effect" prongs of the three-part test. The Allen opinion explains, however, how it inherited the purpose and effect elements from Schempp and Everson, both of which contain the historical errors described above. See Allen, supra, at 243, 88 S.Ct., at 1926. Thus the purpose and effect prongs have the same historical deficiencies as the wall concept itself: they are in no way based on either the language or intent of the drafters.
The secular purpose prong has proven mercurial in application because it has never been fully defined, and we have never fully stated how the test is to operate. If the purpose prong is intended to void those aids to sectarian institutions accompanied by a stated legislative purpose to aid religion, the prong will condemn nothing so long as the legislature utters a secular purpose and says nothing about aiding religion. Thus the constitutionality of a statute may depend upon what the legislators put into the legislative history and, more importantly, what they leave out. The purpose prong means little if it only requires the legislature to express any secular purpose and omit all sectarian references, because legislators might do just that. Faced with a valid legislative secular purpose, we could not properly ignore that purpose without a factual basis for doing so. Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 262-263, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 1692-1693, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982) (WHITE, J., dissenting).
However, if the purpose prong is aimed to void all statutes enacted with the intent to aid sectarian institutions, whether stated or not, then most statutes providing any aid, such as textbooks or bus rides for sectarian school children, will fail because one of the purposes behind every statute, whether stated or not, is to aid the target of its largesse. In other words, if the purpose prong requires an absence of any intent to aid sectarian institutions, whether or not expressed, few state laws in this area could pass the test, and we would be required to void some state aids to religion which we have already upheld. E.g., Allen, supra.
The entanglement prong of the Lemon test came from Walz v. Tax Comm'n, 397 U.S. 664, 674, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 1414, 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1970). Walz involved a constitutional challenge to New York's time-honored practice of providing state property tax exemptions to church property used in worship. The Walz opinion refused to "undermine the ultimate constitutional objective [of the Establishment Clause] as illuminated by history," id., at 671, 90 S.Ct., at 1412, and upheld the tax exemption. The Court examined the historical relationship between the State and church when church property was in issue, and determined that the challenged tax exemption did not so entangle New York with the church as to cause an intrusion or interference with religion. Interferences with religion should arguably be dealt with under the Free Exercise Clause, but the entanglement inquiry in Walz was consistent with that case's broad survey of the relationship between state taxation and religious property.
We have not always followed Walz's reflective inquiry into entanglement, however. E.g., Wolman, supra, 433 U.S., at 254, 97 S.Ct., at 2608. One of the difficulties with the entanglement prong is that, when divorced from the logic of Walz, it creates an "insoluable paradox" in school aid cases: we have required aid to parochial schools to be closely watched lest it be put to sectarian use, yet this close supervision itself will create an entanglement. Roemer v. Maryland Bd. of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736, 768-769, 96 S.Ct. 2337, 2355-2356, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976) (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment). For example, in Wolman, supra, the Court in part struck the State's nondiscriminatory provision of buses for parochial school field trips, because the state supervision of sectarian officials in charge of field trips would be too onerous. This type of self-defeating result is certainly not required to ensure that States do not establish religions.
The entanglement test as applied in cases like Wolman also ignores the myriad state administrative regulations properly placed upon sectarian institutions such as curriculum, attendance, and certification requirements for sectarian schools, or fire and safety regulations for churches. Avoiding entanglement between church and State may be an important consideration in a case like Walz, but if the entanglement prong were applied to all state and church relations in the automatic manner in which it has been applied to school aid cases, the State could hardly require anything of church-related institutions as a condition for receipt of financial assistance.
These difficulties arise because the Lemon test has no more grounding in the history of the First Amendment than does the wall theory upon which it rests. The three-part test represents a determined effort to craft a workable rule from a historically faulty doctrine; but the rule can only be as sound as the doctrine it attempts to service. The three-part test has simply not provided adequate standards for deciding Establishment Clause cases, as this Court has slowly come to realize. Even worse, the Lemon test has caused this Court to fracture into unworkable plurality opinions, see n. 6, supra, depending upon how each of the three factors applies to a certain state action. The results from our school services cases show the difficulty we have encountered in making the Lemon test yield principled results.
For example, a State may lend to parochial school children geography textbooks(7)that contain maps of the United States, but the State may not lend maps of the United States for use in geography class.(8) A State may lend textbooks on American colonial history, but it may not lend a film on George Washington, or a film projector to show it in history class. A State may lend classroom workbooks, but may not lend workbooks in which the parochial school children write, thus rendering them nonreusable.(9) A State may pay for bus transportation to religious schools(10)but may not pay for bus transportation from the parochial school to the public zoo or natural history museum for a field trip.(11) A State may pay for diagnostic services conducted in the parochial school but therapeutic services must be given in a different building; speech and hearing "services" conducted by the State inside the sectarian school are forbidden, Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349, 367, 371, 95 S.Ct. 1753, 1764, 1766, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1975), but the State may conduct speech and hearing diagnostic testing inside the sectarian school. Wolman, 433 U.S., at 241, 97 S.Ct., at 2602. Exceptional parochial school students may receive counseling, but it must take place outside of the parochial school,(12)such as in a trailer parked down the street. Id., at 245, 97 S.Ct., at 2604. A State may give cash to a parochial school to pay for the administration of state-written tests and state-ordered reporting services,(13)but it may not provide funds for teacher-prepared tests on secular subjects.(14) Religious instruction may not be given in public school,(15)but the public school may release students during the day for religion classes elsewhere, and may enforce attendance at those classes with its truancy laws.(16)
These results violate the historically sound principle "that the Establishment Clause does not forbid governments . . . to [provide] general welfare under which benefits are distributed to private individuals, even though many of those individuals may elect to use those benefits in ways that 'aid' religious instruction or worship." Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 799, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 2989, 37 L.Ed.2d 948 (1973) (BURGER, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). It is not surprising in the light of this record that our most recent opinions have expressed doubt on the usefulness of the Lemon test.
Although the test initially provided helpful assistance, e.g., Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971), we soon began describing the test as only a "guideline," Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra, and lately we have described it as "no more than [a] useful signpos[t]." Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388, 394, 103 S.Ct. 3062, 3066, 77 L.Ed.2d 721 (1983), citing Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 741, 93 S.Ct. 2868, 2873, 37 L.Ed.2d 923 (1973); Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 103 S.Ct. 505, 74 L.Ed.2d 297 (1982). We have noted that the Lemon test is "not easily applied," Meek, supra, 421 U.S., at 358, 95 S.Ct., at 1759, and as Justice WHITE noted in Committee for Public Education v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 100 S.Ct. 840, 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980), under the Lemon test we have "sacrifice[d] clarity and predictability for flexibility." 444 U.S., at 662, 100 S.Ct., at 851. In Lynch we reiterated that the Lemon test has never been binding on the Court, and we cited two cases where we had declined to apply it. 465 U.S., at 679, 104 S.Ct., at 1362, citing Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 103 S.Ct. 3330, 77 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983); Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982).
If a constitutional theory has no basis in the history of the amendment it seeks to interpret, is difficult to apply and yields unprincipled results, I see little use in it. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, has produced only consistent unpredictability, and today's effort is just a continuation of "the sisyphean task of trying to patch together the 'blurred, indistinct and variable barrier' described in Lemon v. Kurtzman." Regan, supra, 444 U.S., at 671, 100 S.Ct., at 855 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). We have done much straining since 1947, but still we admit that we can only "dimly perceive" the Everson wall. Tilton, supra. Our perception has been clouded not by the Constitution but by the mists of an unnecessary metaphor.
The true meaning of the Establishment Clause can only be seen in its history. See Walz, 397 U.S., at 671-673, 90 S.Ct., at 1412-1413; see also Lynch, supra, at 673-678, 104 S.Ct., at 1359-1362. As drafters of our Bill of Rights, the Framers inscribed the principles that control today. Any deviation from their intentions frustrates the permanence of that Charter and will only lead to the type of unprincipled decision-making that has plagued our Establishment Clause cases since Everson.
The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.
The Court strikes down the Alabama statute because the State wished to "characterize prayer as a favored practice." Ante, at 2492. It would come as much of a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights as it will to a large number of thoughtful Americans today to learn that the Constitution, as construed by the majority, prohibits the Alabama Legislature from "endorsing" prayer. George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of "public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God." History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.
The State surely has a secular interest in regulating the manner in which public schools are conducted. Nothing in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, properly understood, prohibits any such generalized "endorsement" of prayer. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. __________________
1. Reynolds is the only authority cited as direct precedent for the "wall of separation theory." 330 U.S., at 16, 67 S.Ct., at 512. Reynolds is truly inapt; it dealt with a Mormon's Free Exercise Clause challenge to a federal polygamy law.
2. The New York and Rhode Island proposals were quite similar. They stated that no particular "religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others." 1 Elliot's Debates, at 328; id., at 334.
3. In a letter he sent to Jefferson in France, Madison stated that he did not see much importance in a Bill of Rights but he planned to support it because it was "anxiously desired by others . . . [and] it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice." 5 Writings of James Madison, 271 (G. Hunt ed. 1904).
4. State establishments were prevalent throughout the late 18th and early 19th centuries. See Mass. Const. of 1780, Part 1, Art. III; N. H. Const. of 1784, Art. VI; Md. Declaration of Rights of 1776, Art. XXXIII; R. I. Charter of 1633 (superseded 1842).
5. The treaty stated in part:
"And whereas, the greater part of said Tribe have been baptized and received into the Catholic church, to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion . . . [a]nd . . . three hundred dollars, to assist the said Tribe in the erection of a church." 7 Stat. 79.
From 1789 to 1823 the United States Congress had provided a trust endowment of up to 12,000 acres of land "for the Society of the United Brethren, for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen." See, e.g., ch. 46, 1 Stat. 490. The Act creating this endowment was renewed periodically and the renewals were signed into law by Washington, Adams, and Jefferson.
Congressional grants for the aid of religion were not limited to Indians. In 1787 Congress provided land to the Ohio Company, including acreage for the support of religion. This grant was reauthorized in 1792. See 1 Stat. 257. In 1833 Congress authorized the State of Ohio to sell the land set aside for religion and use the proceeds "for the support of religion . . . and for no other use or purpose whatsoever. . . ." 4 Stat. 618-619.
6. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 677, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 2095, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349, 95 S.Ct. 1753, 44 L.Ed.2d 217 (1975) (partial); Roemer v. Maryland Bd. of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736, 96 S.Ct. 2337, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229, 97 S.Ct. 2593, 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977).
Many of our other Establishment Clause cases have been decided by bare 5-4 majorities. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 100 S.Ct. 840, 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980); Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982); Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388, 103 S.Ct. 3062, 77 L.Ed.2d 721 (1983); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1984); cf. Levitt v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty, 413 U.S. 472, 93 S.Ct. 2814, 37 L.Ed.2d 736 (1973).
7. Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 88 S.Ct. 1923, 20 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1968).
8. Meek, 421 U.S., at 362-366, 95 S.Ct., at 1761-1763. A science book is permissible, a science kit is not. See Wolman, 433 U.S., at 249, 97 S.Ct., at 2606.
9. See Meek, supra, at 354-355, nn. 3, 4, 362-366, 95 S.Ct., at 1761-1763.
10. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947).
11. Wolman, supra, 433 U.S., at 252-255, 97 S.Ct., at 2608-2609.
12. Wolman, supra, at 241-248, 97 S.Ct., at 2602-2605; Meek, supra, at 352, n. 2, 367-373, 95 S.Ct., at 1756, n. 2, 1764-1767.
13. Regan, 444 U.S., at 648, 657-659, 100 S.Ct., at 844, 848-849.
14. Levitt, 413 U.S., at 479-482, 93 S.Ct., at 2818-2820.
15. Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 68 S.Ct. 461, 92 L.Ed. 649 (1948).
16. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 72 S.Ct. 679, 96 L.Ed. 954 (1952).
On August 18 2009 16:58 BroOd wrote: Aegraen could you summarize your political views without ANY references?
I've done so on numerous occasions. If you want to know my political ideology all you have to do is go through my posts. I think its quite obvious where I stand and I've made it abundantly clear, so I'm not really sure the point behind your post. You are surely capable of understanding my positions without me having to go bullet by bullet and guide your hand, correct?
I'm quite tired of the Statists clamoring for more power, more government control, more this, more that, put my paws into this sector, and that sector, and then they rationalize it by creating this false dichotomy that without the Government the world would be in shambles, greedy businessman would steal everything, etc. when it is actually the opposite.
Just look at how great Somalia is doing without a government. It's a libertarian paradise! I suggest you go there now.
On August 18 2009 16:58 BroOd wrote: Aegraen could you summarize your political views without ANY references?
I've done so on numerous occasions. If you want to know my political ideology all you have to do is go through my posts. I think its quite obvious where I stand and I've made it abundantly clear, so I'm not really sure the point behind your post. You are surely capable of understanding my positions without me having to go bullet by bullet and guide your hand, correct?
Perhaps you could link me to such posts. I'm looking for those born of your own ideology, and not that of your heroes.
On August 18 2009 17:07 Tyraz wrote: Jesus. Aegraen rips through these threads like a wolf in a chicken cage. Honestly, he argues semantics to justify his arguments in like every thread I've read. + Show Spoiler +
p.s. What is it with you and Austrian Economics.
Put simply, this has already been ruled as unconstitutional by Justice Hugo Black:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
Now, lets assume that there will be some person who decides to be a little bitch and say "but its 'voluntary', so that means the state isn't supporting it". This little bitch obviously would not understand the meaning of 'preference', as if he did, he would realize that (even if you COULD aid all religions, which you can't), then you would have to offer ALL possible religions as voluntary options (or else it also comes under several discrimination laws ).
Now all of that up there is if you want to argue semantics. The reality is this cannot even happen in state schools anyway, because then that would be considered financial aid,+ Show Spoiler +
as even if it is done without state funding, if it is on school property then it is still financial aid, since they don't pay rent
which (if you've been paying attention) is also not allowed.
Naturally, if you choose not to believe this Judge, then you can check out the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for yourselves
Sure....What makes one justices word more valid than another? This is the inherent problem with the SCOTUS. Constitutionalizing your ideology. This was never the intent of the Judicial Branch. James Madison himself the father of the Constitution argued the case against Activism; that is the changing of language over time even though the same words, to have different meanings in each generation. If this is the case the whole Constitution itself is invalidated because it then becomes a political tool for the current expediency of political whims. There is all ready the tools within the Constitution itself to effect change that being a Constitutional Convention, or the Amendment process. The SCOTUS was never intended to rewrite the Constitution because of the Three Co-Equal branches functioning as Montisqiue adopted and the Founders agreed upon and ratified as such. That is why there is an Amendment process, otherwise you have this false duplicity where the branches are not equal and where the SCOTUS itself invalidates the need for the Amendment process. In any event, as Chieft Justice William Rehnquist put it according to the First Amendment and the clause in particular:
[All court opinions except for Justice Rehnquist's dissent have been omitted.]
* * * * *
Justice REHNQUIST, dissenting.
Thirty-eight years ago this Court, in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16, 67 S.Ct. 504, 512, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947), summarized its exegesis of Establishment Clause doctrine thus:
"In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, [98 U.S. 145, 164, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1879)]."
This language from Reynolds, a case involving the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Establishment Clause, quoted from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association the phrase "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." 8 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 113 (H. Washington ed. 1861).(1)
It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.
Jefferson's fellow Virginian, James Madison, with whom he was joined in the battle for the enactment of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty of 1786, did play as large a part as anyone in the drafting of the Bill of Rights. He had two advantages over Jefferson in this regard: he was present in the United States, and he was a leading Member of the First Congress. But when we turn to the record of the proceedings in the First Congress leading up to the adoption of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, including Madison's significant contributions thereto, we see a far different picture of its purpose than the highly simplified "wall of separation between church and State."
During the debates in the Thirteen Colonies over ratification of the Constitution, one of the arguments frequently used by opponents of ratification was that without a Bill of Rights guaranteeing individual liberty the new general Government carried with it a potential for tyranny. The typical response to this argument on the part of those who favored ratification was that the general Government established by the Constitution had only delegated powers, and that these delegated powers were so limited that the Government would have no occasion to violate individual liberties. This response satisfied some, but not others, and of the 11 Colonies which ratified the Constitution by early 1789, 5 proposed one or another amendments guaranteeing individual liberty. Three--New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia--included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom. See 3 J. Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution 659 (1891); 1 id., at 328. Rhode Island and North Carolina flatly refused to ratify the Constitution in the absence of amendments in the nature of a Bill of Rights. 1 id., at 334; 4 id., at 244. Virginia and North Carolina proposed identical guarantees of religious freedom:
"[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and . . . no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others." 3 id., at 659; 4 id., at 244.(2)
On June 8, 1789, James Madison rose in the House of Representatives and "reminded the House that this was the day that he had heretofore named for bringing forward amendments to the Constitution." 1 Annals of Cong. 424. Madison's subsequent remarks in urging the House to adopt his drafts of the proposed amendments were less those of a dedicated advocate of the wisdom of such measures than those of a prudent statesman seeking the enactment of measures sought by a number of his fellow citizens which could surely do no harm and might do a great deal of good. He said, inter alia:
"It appears to me that this House is bound by every motive of prudence, not to let the first session pass over without proposing to the State Legislatures, some things to be incorporated into the Constitution, that will render it as acceptable to the whole people of the United States, as it has been found acceptable to a majority of them. I wish, among other reasons why something should be done, that those who had been friendly to the adoption of this Constitution may have the opportunity of proving to those who were opposed to it that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a Republican Government, as those who charged them with wishing the adoption of this Constitution in order to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or despotism. It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community, any apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled. And if there are amendments desired of such a nature as will not injure the Constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow-citizens, the friends of the Federal Government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished." Id., at 431-432.
The language Madison proposed for what ultimately became the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment was this:
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed." Id., at 434.
On the same day that Madison proposed them, the amendments which formed the basis for the Bill of Rights were referred by the House to a Committee of the Whole, and after several weeks' delay were then referred to a Select Committee consisting of Madison and 10 others. The Committee revised Madison's proposal regarding the establishment of religion to read:
"[N]o religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed." Id., at 729.
The Committee's proposed revisions were debated in the House on August 15, 1789. The entire debate on the Religion Clauses is contained in two full columns of the "Annals," and does not seem particularly illuminating. See id., at 729-731. Representative Peter Sylvester of New York expressed his dislike for the revised version, because it might have a tendency "to abolish religion altogether." Representative John Vining suggested that the two parts of the sentence be transposed; Representative Elbridge Gerry thought the language should be changed to read "that no religious doctrine shall be established by law." Id., at 729. Roger Sherman of Connecticut had the traditional reason for opposing provisions of a Bill of Rights--that Congress had no delegated authority to "make religious establishments"--and therefore he opposed the adoption of the amendment. Representative Daniel Carroll of Maryland thought it desirable to adopt the words proposed, saying "[h]e would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the community."
Madison then spoke, and said that "he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience." Id., at 730. He said that some of the state conventions had thought that Congress might rely on the Necessary and Proper Clause to infringe the rights of conscience or to establish a national religion, and "to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit." Ibid.
Representative Benjamin Huntington then expressed the view that the Committee's language might "be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it." Huntington, from Connecticut, was concerned that in the New England States, where state-established religions were the rule rather than the exception, the federal courts might not be able to entertain claims based upon an obligation under the bylaws of a religious organization to contribute to the support of a minister or the building of a place of worship. He hoped that "the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and a free exercise of the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all." Id., at 730-731.
Madison responded that the insertion of the word "national" before the word "religion" in the Committee version should satisfy the minds of those who had criticized the language. "He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. He thought that if the word 'national' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent." Id., at 731. Representative Samuel Livermore expressed himself as dissatisfied with Madison's proposed amendment, and thought it would be better if the Committee language were altered to read that "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience." Ibid.
Representative Gerry spoke in opposition to the use of the word "national" because of strong feelings expressed during the ratification debates that a federal government, not a national government, was created by the Constitution. Madison thereby withdrew his proposal but insisted that his reference to a "national religion" only referred to a national establishment and did not mean that the Government was a national one. The question was taken on Representative Livermore's motion, which passed by a vote of 31 for and 20 against. Ibid.
The following week, without any apparent debate, the House voted to alter the language of the Religion Clauses to read "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." Id., at 766. The floor debates in the Senate were secret, and therefore not reported in the Annals. The Senate on September 3, 1789, considered several different forms of the Religion Amendment, and reported this language back to the House:
"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion." C. Antieau, A. Downey, & E. Roberts, Freedom From Federal Establishment 130 (1964).
The House refused to accept the Senate's changes in the Bill of Rights and asked for a conference; the version which emerged from the conference was that which ultimately found its way into the Constitution as a part of the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The House and the Senate both accepted this language on successive days, and the Amendment was proposed in this form.
On the basis of the record of these proceedings in the House of Representatives, James Madison was undoubtedly the most important architect among the Members of the House of the Amendments which became the Bill of Rights, but it was James Madison speaking as an advocate of sensible legislative compromise, not as an advocate of incorporating the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty into the United States Constitution. During the ratification debate in the Virginia Convention, Madison had actually opposed the idea of any Bill of Rights. His sponsorship of the Amendments in the House was obviously not that of a zealous believer in the necessity of the Religion Clauses, but of one who felt it might do some good, could do no harm, and would satisfy those who had ratified the Constitution on the condition that Congress propose a Bill of Rights.(3) His original language "nor shall any national religion be established" obviously does not conform to the "wall of separation" between church and State idea which latter-day commentators have ascribed to him. His explanation on the floor of the meaning of his language--"that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law" is of the same ilk. When he replied to Huntington in the debate over the proposal which came from the Select Committee of the House, he urged that the language "no religion shall be established by law" should be amended by inserting the word "national" in front of the word "religion."
It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion. Thus the Court's opinion in Everson--while correct in bracketing Madison and Jefferson together in their exertions in their home State leading to the enactment of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty--is totally incorrect in suggesting that Madison carried these views onto the floor of the United States House of Representatives when he proposed the language which would ultimately become the Bill of Rights.
The repetition of this error in the Court's opinion in Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 68 S.Ct. 461, 92 L.Ed. 649 (1948), and, inter alia, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 8 L.Ed.2d 601 (1962), does not make it any sounder historically. Finally, in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 214, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 1567, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963), the Court made the truly remarkable statement that "the views of Madison and Jefferson, preceded by Roger Williams, came to be incorporated not only in the Federal Constitution but likewise in those of most of our States" (footnote omitted). On the basis of what evidence we have, this statement is demonstrably incorrect as a matter of history.(4) And its repetition in varying forms in succeeding opinions of the Court can give it no more authority than it possesses as a matter of fact; stare decisis may bind courts as to matters of law, but it cannot bind them as to matters of history.
None of the other Members of Congress who spoke during the August 15th debate expressed the slightest indication that they thought the language before them from the Select Committee, or the evil to be aimed at, would require that the Government be absolutely neutral as between religion and irreligion. The evil to be aimed at, so far as those who spoke who concerned, appears to have been the establishment of a national church, and perhaps the preference of one religious sect over another; but it was definitely not concerned about whether the Government might aid all religions evenhandedly. If one were to follow the advice of Justice BRENNAN, concurring in Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 236, 83 S.Ct., at 1578, 10 L.Ed.2d 844, and construe the Amendment in the light of what particular "practices . . . challenged threaten those consequences which the Framers deeply feared; whether, in short, they tend to promote that type of interdependence between religion and state which the First Amendment was designed to prevent," one would have to say that the First Amendment Establishment Clause should be read no more broadly than to prevent the establishment of a national religion or the governmental preference of one religious sect over another.
The actions of the First Congress, which reenacted the Northwest Ordinance for the governance of the Northwest Territory in 1789, confirm the view that Congress did not mean that the Government should be neutral between religion and irreligion. The House of Representatives took up the Northwest Ordinance on the same day as Madison introduced his proposed amendments which became the Bill of Rights; while at that time the Federal Government was of course not bound by draft amendments to the Constitution which had not yet been proposed by Congress, say nothing of ratified by the States, it seems highly unlikely that the House of Representatives would simultaneously consider proposed amendments to the Constitution and enact an important piece of territorial legislation which conflicted with the intent of those proposals. The Northwest Ordinance, 1 Stat. 50, reenacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and provided that "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Id., at 52, n. (a). Land grants for schools in the Northwest Territory were not limited to public schools. It was not until 1845 that Congress limited land grants in the new States and Territories to nonsectarian schools. 5 Stat. 788; C. Antieau, A. Downey, & E. Roberts, Freedom From Federal Establishment 163 (1964).
On the day after the House of Representatives voted to adopt the form of the First Amendment Religion Clauses which was ultimately proposed and ratified, Representative Elias Boudinot proposed a resolution asking President George Washington to issue a Thanksgiving Day Proclamation. Boudinot said he "could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice, in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings he had poured down upon them." 1 Annals of Cong. 914 (1789). Representative Aedanas Burke objected to the resolution because he did not like "this mimicking of European customs"; Representative Thomas Tucker objected that whether or not the people had reason to be satisfied with the Constitution was something that the States knew better than the Congress, and in any event "it is a religious matter, and, as such, is proscribed to us." Id., at 915. Representative Sherman supported the resolution "not only as a laudable one in itself, but as warranted by a number of precedents in Holy Writ: for instance, the solemn thanksgivings and rejoicings which took place in the time of Solomon, after the building of the temple, was a case in point. This example, he thought, worthy of Christian imitation on the present occasion. . . ." Ibid.
Boudinot's resolution was carried in the affirmative on September 25, 1789. Boudinot and Sherman, who favored the Thanksgiving Proclamation, voted in favor of the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Constitution, including the Religion Clauses; Tucker, who opposed the Thanksgiving Proclamation, voted against the adoption of the amendments which became the Bill of Rights.
Within two weeks of this action by the House, George Washington responded to the Joint Resolution which by now had been changed to include the language that the President "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness." 1 J. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, p. 64 (1897). The Presidential Proclamation was couched in these words:
"Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
"And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best." Ibid.
George Washington, John Adams, and James Madison all issued Thanksgiving Proclamations; Thomas Jefferson did not, saying:
"Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the Constitution has deposited it." 11 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 429 (A. Lipscomb ed. 1904).
As the United States moved from the 18th into the 19th century, Congress appropriated time and again public moneys in support of sectarian Indian education carried on by religious organizations. Typical of these was Jefferson's treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which provided annual cash support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest and church.(5) It was not until 1897, when aid to sectarian education for Indians had reached $500,000 annually, that Congress decided thereafter to cease appropriating money for education in sectarian schools. See Act of June 7, 1897, 30 Stat. 62, 79; cf. Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U.S. 50, 77-79, 28 S.Ct. 690, 694-696, 52 L.Ed. 954 (1908); J. O'Neill, Religion and Education Under the Constitution 118-119 (1949). See generally R. Cord, Separation of Church and State 61-82 (1982). This history shows the fallacy of the notion found in Everson that "no tax in any amount" may be levied for religious activities in any form. 330 U.S., at 15-16, 67 S.Ct., at 511-512.
Joseph Story, a Member of this Court from 1811 to 1845, and during much of that time a professor at the Harvard Law School, published by far the most comprehensive treatise on the United States Constitution that had then appeared. Volume 2 of Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 630-632 (5th ed. 1891) discussed the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment this way:
"Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration [First Amendment], the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.
. . . . .
"The real object of the [First] [A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. . . ." (Footnotes omitted.)
Thomas Cooley's eminence as a legal authority rivaled that of Story. Cooley stated in his treatise entitled Constitutional Limitations that aid to a particular religious sect was prohibited by the United States Constitution, but he went on to say:
"But while thus careful to establish, protect, and defend religious freedom and equality, the American constitutions contain no provisions which prohibit the authorities from such solemn recognition of a superintending Providence in public transactions and exercises as the general religious sentiment of mankind inspires, and as seems meet and proper in finite and dependent beings. Whatever may be the shades of religious belief, all must acknowledge the fitness of recognizing in important human affairs the superintending care and control of the Great Governor of the Universe, and of acknowledging with thanksgiving his boundless favors, or bowing in contrition when visited with the penalties of his broken laws. No principle of constitutional law is violated when thanksgiving or fast days are appointed; when chaplains are designated for the army and navy; when legislative sessions are opened with prayer or the reading of the Scriptures, or when religious teaching is encouraged by a general exemption of the houses of religious worship from taxation for the support of State government. Undoubtedly the spirit of the Constitution will require, in all these cases, that care be taken to avoid discrimination in favor of or against any one religious denomination or sect; but the power to do any of these things does not become unconstitutional simply because of its susceptibility to abuse. . . ." Id., at * 470--* 471.
Cooley added that
"[t]his public recognition of religious worship, however, is not based entirely, perhaps not even mainly, upon a sense of what is due to the Supreme Being himself as the author of all good and of all law; but the same reasons of state policy which induce the government to aid institutions of charity and seminaries of instruction will incline it also to foster religious worship and religious institutions, as conservators of the public morals and valuable, if not indispensable, assistants to the preservation of the public order." Id., at *470.
It would seem from this evidence that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment had acquired a well-accepted meaning: it forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations. Indeed, the first American dictionary defined the word "establishment" as "the act of establishing, founding, ratifying or ordaining," such as in "[t]he episcopal form of religion, so called, in England." 1 N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1st ed. 1828). The Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the "wall of separation" that was constitutionalized in Everson.
Notwithstanding the absence of a historical basis for this theory of rigid separation, the wall idea might well have served as a useful albeit misguided analytical concept, had it led this Court to unified and principled results in Establishment Clause cases. The opposite, unfortunately, has been true; in the 38 years since Everson our Establishment Clause cases have been neither principled nor unified. Our recent opinions, many of them hopelessly divided pluralities,(6) have with embarrassing candor conceded that the "wall of separation" is merely a "blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier," which "is not wholly accurate" and can only be "dimly perceived." Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2112, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971); Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 677-678, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 2095-2096, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229, 236, 97 S.Ct. 2593, 2599, 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 1359, 79 L.Ed.2d 745 (1984).
Whether due to its lack of historical support or its practical unworkability, the Everson "wall" has proved all but useless as a guide to sound constitutional adjudication. It illustrates only too well the wisdom of Benjamin Cardozo's observation that "[m]etaphors in law are to be narrowly watched, for starting as devices to liberate thought, they end often by enslaving it." Berkey v. Third Avenue R. Co., 244 N.Y. 84, 94, 155 N.E. 58, 61 (1926).
But the greatest injury of the "wall" notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, is well adapted to adjudicating factual disputes on the basis of testimony presented in court, but no amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.
The Court has more recently attempted to add some mortar to Everson's wall through the three-part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra, 403 U.S., at 614-615, 91 S.Ct., at 2112, which served at first to offer a more useful test for purposes of the Establishment Clause than did the "wall" metaphor. Generally stated, the Lemon test proscribes state action that has a sectarian purpose or effect, or causes an impermissible governmental entanglement with religion.
Lemon cited Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243, 88 S.Ct. 1923, 1926, 20 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1968), as the source of the "purpose" and "effect" prongs of the three-part test. The Allen opinion explains, however, how it inherited the purpose and effect elements from Schempp and Everson, both of which contain the historical errors described above. See Allen, supra, at 243, 88 S.Ct., at 1926. Thus the purpose and effect prongs have the same historical deficiencies as the wall concept itself: they are in no way based on either the language or intent of the drafters.
The secular purpose prong has proven mercurial in application because it has never been fully defined, and we have never fully stated how the test is to operate. If the purpose prong is intended to void those aids to sectarian institutions accompanied by a stated legislative purpose to aid religion, the prong will condemn nothing so long as the legislature utters a secular purpose and says nothing about aiding religion. Thus the constitutionality of a statute may depend upon what the legislators put into the legislative history and, more importantly, what they leave out. The purpose prong means little if it only requires the legislature to express any secular purpose and omit all sectarian references, because legislators might do just that. Faced with a valid legislative secular purpose, we could not properly ignore that purpose without a factual basis for doing so. Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 262-263, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 1692-1693, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982) (WHITE, J., dissenting).
However, if the purpose prong is aimed to void all statutes enacted with the intent to aid sectarian institutions, whether stated or not, then most statutes providing any aid, such as textbooks or bus rides for sectarian school children, will fail because one of the purposes behind every statute, whether stated or not, is to aid the target of its largesse. In other words, if the purpose prong requires an absence of any intent to aid sectarian institutions, whether or not expressed, few state laws in this area could pass the test, and we would be required to void some state aids to religion which we have already upheld. E.g., Allen, supra.
The entanglement prong of the Lemon test came from Walz v. Tax Comm'n, 397 U.S. 664, 674, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 1414, 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1970). Walz involved a constitutional challenge to New York's time-honored practice of providing state property tax exemptions to church property used in worship. The Walz opinion refused to "undermine the ultimate constitutional objective [of the Establishment Clause] as illuminated by history," id., at 671, 90 S.Ct., at 1412, and upheld the tax exemption. The Court examined the historical relationship between the State and church when church property was in issue, and determined that the challenged tax exemption did not so entangle New York with the church as to cause an intrusion or interference with religion. Interferences with religion should arguably be dealt with under the Free Exercise Clause, but the entanglement inquiry in Walz was consistent with that case's broad survey of the relationship between state taxation and religious property.
We have not always followed Walz's reflective inquiry into entanglement, however. E.g., Wolman, supra, 433 U.S., at 254, 97 S.Ct., at 2608. One of the difficulties with the entanglement prong is that, when divorced from the logic of Walz, it creates an "insoluable paradox" in school aid cases: we have required aid to parochial schools to be closely watched lest it be put to sectarian use, yet this close supervision itself will create an entanglement. Roemer v. Maryland Bd. of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736, 768-769, 96 S.Ct. 2337, 2355-2356, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976) (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment). For example, in Wolman, supra, the Court in part struck the State's nondiscriminatory provision of buses for parochial school field trips, because the state supervision of sectarian officials in charge of field trips would be too onerous. This type of self-defeating result is certainly not required to ensure that States do not establish religions.
The entanglement test as applied in cases like Wolman also ignores the myriad state administrative regulations properly placed upon sectarian institutions such as curriculum, attendance, and certification requirements for sectarian schools, or fire and safety regulations for churches. Avoiding entanglement between church and State may be an important consideration in a case like Walz, but if the entanglement prong were applied to all state and church relations in the automatic manner in which it has been applied to school aid cases, the State could hardly require anything of church-related institutions as a condition for receipt of financial assistance.
These difficulties arise because the Lemon test has no more grounding in the history of the First Amendment than does the wall theory upon which it rests. The three-part test represents a determined effort to craft a workable rule from a historically faulty doctrine; but the rule can only be as sound as the doctrine it attempts to service. The three-part test has simply not provided adequate standards for deciding Establishment Clause cases, as this Court has slowly come to realize. Even worse, the Lemon test has caused this Court to fracture into unworkable plurality opinions, see n. 6, supra, depending upon how each of the three factors applies to a certain state action. The results from our school services cases show the difficulty we have encountered in making the Lemon test yield principled results.
For example, a State may lend to parochial school children geography textbooks(7)that contain maps of the United States, but the State may not lend maps of the United States for use in geography class.(8) A State may lend textbooks on American colonial history, but it may not lend a film on George Washington, or a film projector to show it in history class. A State may lend classroom workbooks, but may not lend workbooks in which the parochial school children write, thus rendering them nonreusable.(9) A State may pay for bus transportation to religious schools(10)but may not pay for bus transportation from the parochial school to the public zoo or natural history museum for a field trip.(11) A State may pay for diagnostic services conducted in the parochial school but therapeutic services must be given in a different building; speech and hearing "services" conducted by the State inside the sectarian school are forbidden, Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349, 367, 371, 95 S.Ct. 1753, 1764, 1766, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1975), but the State may conduct speech and hearing diagnostic testing inside the sectarian school. Wolman, 433 U.S., at 241, 97 S.Ct., at 2602. Exceptional parochial school students may receive counseling, but it must take place outside of the parochial school,(12)such as in a trailer parked down the street. Id., at 245, 97 S.Ct., at 2604. A State may give cash to a parochial school to pay for the administration of state-written tests and state-ordered reporting services,(13)but it may not provide funds for teacher-prepared tests on secular subjects.(14) Religious instruction may not be given in public school,(15)but the public school may release students during the day for religion classes elsewhere, and may enforce attendance at those classes with its truancy laws.(16)
These results violate the historically sound principle "that the Establishment Clause does not forbid governments . . . to [provide] general welfare under which benefits are distributed to private individuals, even though many of those individuals may elect to use those benefits in ways that 'aid' religious instruction or worship." Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 799, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 2989, 37 L.Ed.2d 948 (1973) (BURGER, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). It is not surprising in the light of this record that our most recent opinions have expressed doubt on the usefulness of the Lemon test.
Although the test initially provided helpful assistance, e.g., Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971), we soon began describing the test as only a "guideline," Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra, and lately we have described it as "no more than [a] useful signpos[t]." Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388, 394, 103 S.Ct. 3062, 3066, 77 L.Ed.2d 721 (1983), citing Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 741, 93 S.Ct. 2868, 2873, 37 L.Ed.2d 923 (1973); Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 103 S.Ct. 505, 74 L.Ed.2d 297 (1982). We have noted that the Lemon test is "not easily applied," Meek, supra, 421 U.S., at 358, 95 S.Ct., at 1759, and as Justice WHITE noted in Committee for Public Education v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 100 S.Ct. 840, 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980), under the Lemon test we have "sacrifice[d] clarity and predictability for flexibility." 444 U.S., at 662, 100 S.Ct., at 851. In Lynch we reiterated that the Lemon test has never been binding on the Court, and we cited two cases where we had declined to apply it. 465 U.S., at 679, 104 S.Ct., at 1362, citing Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 103 S.Ct. 3330, 77 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983); Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982).
If a constitutional theory has no basis in the history of the amendment it seeks to interpret, is difficult to apply and yields unprincipled results, I see little use in it. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, has produced only consistent unpredictability, and today's effort is just a continuation of "the sisyphean task of trying to patch together the 'blurred, indistinct and variable barrier' described in Lemon v. Kurtzman." Regan, supra, 444 U.S., at 671, 100 S.Ct., at 855 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). We have done much straining since 1947, but still we admit that we can only "dimly perceive" the Everson wall. Tilton, supra. Our perception has been clouded not by the Constitution but by the mists of an unnecessary metaphor.
The true meaning of the Establishment Clause can only be seen in its history. See Walz, 397 U.S., at 671-673, 90 S.Ct., at 1412-1413; see also Lynch, supra, at 673-678, 104 S.Ct., at 1359-1362. As drafters of our Bill of Rights, the Framers inscribed the principles that control today. Any deviation from their intentions frustrates the permanence of that Charter and will only lead to the type of unprincipled decision-making that has plagued our Establishment Clause cases since Everson.
The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.
The Court strikes down the Alabama statute because the State wished to "characterize prayer as a favored practice." Ante, at 2492. It would come as much of a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights as it will to a large number of thoughtful Americans today to learn that the Constitution, as construed by the majority, prohibits the Alabama Legislature from "endorsing" prayer. George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of "public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God." History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.
The State surely has a secular interest in regulating the manner in which public schools are conducted. Nothing in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, properly understood, prohibits any such generalized "endorsement" of prayer. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. __________________
1. Reynolds is the only authority cited as direct precedent for the "wall of separation theory." 330 U.S., at 16, 67 S.Ct., at 512. Reynolds is truly inapt; it dealt with a Mormon's Free Exercise Clause challenge to a federal polygamy law.
2. The New York and Rhode Island proposals were quite similar. They stated that no particular "religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others." 1 Elliot's Debates, at 328; id., at 334.
3. In a letter he sent to Jefferson in France, Madison stated that he did not see much importance in a Bill of Rights but he planned to support it because it was "anxiously desired by others . . . [and] it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice." 5 Writings of James Madison, 271 (G. Hunt ed. 1904).
4. State establishments were prevalent throughout the late 18th and early 19th centuries. See Mass. Const. of 1780, Part 1, Art. III; N. H. Const. of 1784, Art. VI; Md. Declaration of Rights of 1776, Art. XXXIII; R. I. Charter of 1633 (superseded 1842).
5. The treaty stated in part:
"And whereas, the greater part of said Tribe have been baptized and received into the Catholic church, to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion . . . [a]nd . . . three hundred dollars, to assist the said Tribe in the erection of a church." 7 Stat. 79.
From 1789 to 1823 the United States Congress had provided a trust endowment of up to 12,000 acres of land "for the Society of the United Brethren, for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen." See, e.g., ch. 46, 1 Stat. 490. The Act creating this endowment was renewed periodically and the renewals were signed into law by Washington, Adams, and Jefferson.
Congressional grants for the aid of religion were not limited to Indians. In 1787 Congress provided land to the Ohio Company, including acreage for the support of religion. This grant was reauthorized in 1792. See 1 Stat. 257. In 1833 Congress authorized the State of Ohio to sell the land set aside for religion and use the proceeds "for the support of religion . . . and for no other use or purpose whatsoever. . . ." 4 Stat. 618-619.
6. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 677, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 2095, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349, 95 S.Ct. 1753, 44 L.Ed.2d 217 (1975) (partial); Roemer v. Maryland Bd. of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736, 96 S.Ct. 2337, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229, 97 S.Ct. 2593, 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977).
Many of our other Establishment Clause cases have been decided by bare 5-4 majorities. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 100 S.Ct. 840, 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980); Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982); Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388, 103 S.Ct. 3062, 77 L.Ed.2d 721 (1983); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1984); cf. Levitt v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty, 413 U.S. 472, 93 S.Ct. 2814, 37 L.Ed.2d 736 (1973).
7. Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 88 S.Ct. 1923, 20 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1968).
8. Meek, 421 U.S., at 362-366, 95 S.Ct., at 1761-1763. A science book is permissible, a science kit is not. See Wolman, 433 U.S., at 249, 97 S.Ct., at 2606.
9. See Meek, supra, at 354-355, nn. 3, 4, 362-366, 95 S.Ct., at 1761-1763.
10. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947).
11. Wolman, supra, 433 U.S., at 252-255, 97 S.Ct., at 2608-2609.
12. Wolman, supra, at 241-248, 97 S.Ct., at 2602-2605; Meek, supra, at 352, n. 2, 367-373, 95 S.Ct., at 1756, n. 2, 1764-1767.
13. Regan, 444 U.S., at 648, 657-659, 100 S.Ct., at 844, 848-849.
14. Levitt, 413 U.S., at 479-482, 93 S.Ct., at 2818-2820.
15. Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 68 S.Ct. 461, 92 L.Ed. 649 (1948).
16. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 72 S.Ct. 679, 96 L.Ed. 954 (1952).
Dude. You can argue all you like, but it's in the FIRST amendment! This isn't some amendment that came way way after the Bill of Rights. It was adopted in 1971. Your arguments here are moot, since each are subtle variations, and most conflict with freedom of speech. This is about the state, and don't try and twist it any other way. This is not some volunteer operation. This is a state school. So your conflicting freedom of speech rules here have no grounds. The Free Exercise Clause, along with the Establishment Clause can be interpreted in no other way other than with respect to State and Religion.
Now, because i KNOW your about to say 'but that talks about Congress and thats Federal law, i will direct you to Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Law of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Usually referred to as the supremacy clause, loosely translated it declares that federal law takes precedence over all form of state law.
Remember: this is about the state. Not freedom of expression or freedom of speech.
I'm quite tired of the Statists clamoring for more power, more government control, more this, more that, put my paws into this sector, and that sector, and then they rationalize it by creating this false dichotomy that without the Government the world would be in shambles, greedy businessman would steal everything, etc. when it is actually the opposite.
Just look at how great Somalia is doing without a government. It's a libertarian paradise! I suggest you go there now.
You do know I'm talking in Economic terms, correct? There is a role for Government, however it is extremely limited, and diminished. It's your choice whether or not you actually want to read about and understand history and its implications. No one can force you.
On August 18 2009 17:07 Tyraz wrote: Jesus. Aegraen rips through these threads like a wolf in a chicken cage. Honestly, he argues semantics to justify his arguments in like every thread I've read. + Show Spoiler +
p.s. What is it with you and Austrian Economics.
Put simply, this has already been ruled as unconstitutional by Justice Hugo Black:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
Now, lets assume that there will be some person who decides to be a little bitch and say "but its 'voluntary', so that means the state isn't supporting it". This little bitch obviously would not understand the meaning of 'preference', as if he did, he would realize that (even if you COULD aid all religions, which you can't), then you would have to offer ALL possible religions as voluntary options (or else it also comes under several discrimination laws ).
Now all of that up there is if you want to argue semantics. The reality is this cannot even happen in state schools anyway, because then that would be considered financial aid,+ Show Spoiler +
as even if it is done without state funding, if it is on school property then it is still financial aid, since they don't pay rent
which (if you've been paying attention) is also not allowed.
Naturally, if you choose not to believe this Judge, then you can check out the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for yourselves
Sure....What makes one justices word more valid than another? This is the inherent problem with the SCOTUS. Constitutionalizing your ideology. This was never the intent of the Judicial Branch. James Madison himself the father of the Constitution argued the case against Activism; that is the changing of language over time even though the same words, to have different meanings in each generation. If this is the case the whole Constitution itself is invalidated because it then becomes a political tool for the current expediency of political whims. There is all ready the tools within the Constitution itself to effect change that being a Constitutional Convention, or the Amendment process. The SCOTUS was never intended to rewrite the Constitution because of the Three Co-Equal branches functioning as Montisqiue adopted and the Founders agreed upon and ratified as such. That is why there is an Amendment process, otherwise you have this false duplicity where the branches are not equal and where the SCOTUS itself invalidates the need for the Amendment process. In any event, as Chieft Justice William Rehnquist put it according to the First Amendment and the clause in particular:
[All court opinions except for Justice Rehnquist's dissent have been omitted.]
* * * * *
Justice REHNQUIST, dissenting.
Thirty-eight years ago this Court, in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16, 67 S.Ct. 504, 512, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947), summarized its exegesis of Establishment Clause doctrine thus:
"In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, [98 U.S. 145, 164, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1879)]."
This language from Reynolds, a case involving the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Establishment Clause, quoted from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association the phrase "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." 8 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 113 (H. Washington ed. 1861).(1)
It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.
Jefferson's fellow Virginian, James Madison, with whom he was joined in the battle for the enactment of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty of 1786, did play as large a part as anyone in the drafting of the Bill of Rights. He had two advantages over Jefferson in this regard: he was present in the United States, and he was a leading Member of the First Congress. But when we turn to the record of the proceedings in the First Congress leading up to the adoption of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, including Madison's significant contributions thereto, we see a far different picture of its purpose than the highly simplified "wall of separation between church and State."
During the debates in the Thirteen Colonies over ratification of the Constitution, one of the arguments frequently used by opponents of ratification was that without a Bill of Rights guaranteeing individual liberty the new general Government carried with it a potential for tyranny. The typical response to this argument on the part of those who favored ratification was that the general Government established by the Constitution had only delegated powers, and that these delegated powers were so limited that the Government would have no occasion to violate individual liberties. This response satisfied some, but not others, and of the 11 Colonies which ratified the Constitution by early 1789, 5 proposed one or another amendments guaranteeing individual liberty. Three--New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia--included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom. See 3 J. Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution 659 (1891); 1 id., at 328. Rhode Island and North Carolina flatly refused to ratify the Constitution in the absence of amendments in the nature of a Bill of Rights. 1 id., at 334; 4 id., at 244. Virginia and North Carolina proposed identical guarantees of religious freedom:
"[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and . . . no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others." 3 id., at 659; 4 id., at 244.(2)
On June 8, 1789, James Madison rose in the House of Representatives and "reminded the House that this was the day that he had heretofore named for bringing forward amendments to the Constitution." 1 Annals of Cong. 424. Madison's subsequent remarks in urging the House to adopt his drafts of the proposed amendments were less those of a dedicated advocate of the wisdom of such measures than those of a prudent statesman seeking the enactment of measures sought by a number of his fellow citizens which could surely do no harm and might do a great deal of good. He said, inter alia:
"It appears to me that this House is bound by every motive of prudence, not to let the first session pass over without proposing to the State Legislatures, some things to be incorporated into the Constitution, that will render it as acceptable to the whole people of the United States, as it has been found acceptable to a majority of them. I wish, among other reasons why something should be done, that those who had been friendly to the adoption of this Constitution may have the opportunity of proving to those who were opposed to it that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a Republican Government, as those who charged them with wishing the adoption of this Constitution in order to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or despotism. It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community, any apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled. And if there are amendments desired of such a nature as will not injure the Constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow-citizens, the friends of the Federal Government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished." Id., at 431-432.
The language Madison proposed for what ultimately became the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment was this:
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed." Id., at 434.
On the same day that Madison proposed them, the amendments which formed the basis for the Bill of Rights were referred by the House to a Committee of the Whole, and after several weeks' delay were then referred to a Select Committee consisting of Madison and 10 others. The Committee revised Madison's proposal regarding the establishment of religion to read:
"[N]o religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed." Id., at 729.
The Committee's proposed revisions were debated in the House on August 15, 1789. The entire debate on the Religion Clauses is contained in two full columns of the "Annals," and does not seem particularly illuminating. See id., at 729-731. Representative Peter Sylvester of New York expressed his dislike for the revised version, because it might have a tendency "to abolish religion altogether." Representative John Vining suggested that the two parts of the sentence be transposed; Representative Elbridge Gerry thought the language should be changed to read "that no religious doctrine shall be established by law." Id., at 729. Roger Sherman of Connecticut had the traditional reason for opposing provisions of a Bill of Rights--that Congress had no delegated authority to "make religious establishments"--and therefore he opposed the adoption of the amendment. Representative Daniel Carroll of Maryland thought it desirable to adopt the words proposed, saying "[h]e would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the community."
Madison then spoke, and said that "he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience." Id., at 730. He said that some of the state conventions had thought that Congress might rely on the Necessary and Proper Clause to infringe the rights of conscience or to establish a national religion, and "to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit." Ibid.
Representative Benjamin Huntington then expressed the view that the Committee's language might "be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it." Huntington, from Connecticut, was concerned that in the New England States, where state-established religions were the rule rather than the exception, the federal courts might not be able to entertain claims based upon an obligation under the bylaws of a religious organization to contribute to the support of a minister or the building of a place of worship. He hoped that "the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and a free exercise of the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all." Id., at 730-731.
Madison responded that the insertion of the word "national" before the word "religion" in the Committee version should satisfy the minds of those who had criticized the language. "He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. He thought that if the word 'national' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent." Id., at 731. Representative Samuel Livermore expressed himself as dissatisfied with Madison's proposed amendment, and thought it would be better if the Committee language were altered to read that "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience." Ibid.
Representative Gerry spoke in opposition to the use of the word "national" because of strong feelings expressed during the ratification debates that a federal government, not a national government, was created by the Constitution. Madison thereby withdrew his proposal but insisted that his reference to a "national religion" only referred to a national establishment and did not mean that the Government was a national one. The question was taken on Representative Livermore's motion, which passed by a vote of 31 for and 20 against. Ibid.
The following week, without any apparent debate, the House voted to alter the language of the Religion Clauses to read "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." Id., at 766. The floor debates in the Senate were secret, and therefore not reported in the Annals. The Senate on September 3, 1789, considered several different forms of the Religion Amendment, and reported this language back to the House:
"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion." C. Antieau, A. Downey, & E. Roberts, Freedom From Federal Establishment 130 (1964).
The House refused to accept the Senate's changes in the Bill of Rights and asked for a conference; the version which emerged from the conference was that which ultimately found its way into the Constitution as a part of the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The House and the Senate both accepted this language on successive days, and the Amendment was proposed in this form.
On the basis of the record of these proceedings in the House of Representatives, James Madison was undoubtedly the most important architect among the Members of the House of the Amendments which became the Bill of Rights, but it was James Madison speaking as an advocate of sensible legislative compromise, not as an advocate of incorporating the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty into the United States Constitution. During the ratification debate in the Virginia Convention, Madison had actually opposed the idea of any Bill of Rights. His sponsorship of the Amendments in the House was obviously not that of a zealous believer in the necessity of the Religion Clauses, but of one who felt it might do some good, could do no harm, and would satisfy those who had ratified the Constitution on the condition that Congress propose a Bill of Rights.(3) His original language "nor shall any national religion be established" obviously does not conform to the "wall of separation" between church and State idea which latter-day commentators have ascribed to him. His explanation on the floor of the meaning of his language--"that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law" is of the same ilk. When he replied to Huntington in the debate over the proposal which came from the Select Committee of the House, he urged that the language "no religion shall be established by law" should be amended by inserting the word "national" in front of the word "religion."
It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion. Thus the Court's opinion in Everson--while correct in bracketing Madison and Jefferson together in their exertions in their home State leading to the enactment of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty--is totally incorrect in suggesting that Madison carried these views onto the floor of the United States House of Representatives when he proposed the language which would ultimately become the Bill of Rights.
The repetition of this error in the Court's opinion in Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 68 S.Ct. 461, 92 L.Ed. 649 (1948), and, inter alia, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 8 L.Ed.2d 601 (1962), does not make it any sounder historically. Finally, in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 214, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 1567, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963), the Court made the truly remarkable statement that "the views of Madison and Jefferson, preceded by Roger Williams, came to be incorporated not only in the Federal Constitution but likewise in those of most of our States" (footnote omitted). On the basis of what evidence we have, this statement is demonstrably incorrect as a matter of history.(4) And its repetition in varying forms in succeeding opinions of the Court can give it no more authority than it possesses as a matter of fact; stare decisis may bind courts as to matters of law, but it cannot bind them as to matters of history.
None of the other Members of Congress who spoke during the August 15th debate expressed the slightest indication that they thought the language before them from the Select Committee, or the evil to be aimed at, would require that the Government be absolutely neutral as between religion and irreligion. The evil to be aimed at, so far as those who spoke who concerned, appears to have been the establishment of a national church, and perhaps the preference of one religious sect over another; but it was definitely not concerned about whether the Government might aid all religions evenhandedly. If one were to follow the advice of Justice BRENNAN, concurring in Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 236, 83 S.Ct., at 1578, 10 L.Ed.2d 844, and construe the Amendment in the light of what particular "practices . . . challenged threaten those consequences which the Framers deeply feared; whether, in short, they tend to promote that type of interdependence between religion and state which the First Amendment was designed to prevent," one would have to say that the First Amendment Establishment Clause should be read no more broadly than to prevent the establishment of a national religion or the governmental preference of one religious sect over another.
The actions of the First Congress, which reenacted the Northwest Ordinance for the governance of the Northwest Territory in 1789, confirm the view that Congress did not mean that the Government should be neutral between religion and irreligion. The House of Representatives took up the Northwest Ordinance on the same day as Madison introduced his proposed amendments which became the Bill of Rights; while at that time the Federal Government was of course not bound by draft amendments to the Constitution which had not yet been proposed by Congress, say nothing of ratified by the States, it seems highly unlikely that the House of Representatives would simultaneously consider proposed amendments to the Constitution and enact an important piece of territorial legislation which conflicted with the intent of those proposals. The Northwest Ordinance, 1 Stat. 50, reenacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and provided that "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Id., at 52, n. (a). Land grants for schools in the Northwest Territory were not limited to public schools. It was not until 1845 that Congress limited land grants in the new States and Territories to nonsectarian schools. 5 Stat. 788; C. Antieau, A. Downey, & E. Roberts, Freedom From Federal Establishment 163 (1964).
On the day after the House of Representatives voted to adopt the form of the First Amendment Religion Clauses which was ultimately proposed and ratified, Representative Elias Boudinot proposed a resolution asking President George Washington to issue a Thanksgiving Day Proclamation. Boudinot said he "could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice, in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings he had poured down upon them." 1 Annals of Cong. 914 (1789). Representative Aedanas Burke objected to the resolution because he did not like "this mimicking of European customs"; Representative Thomas Tucker objected that whether or not the people had reason to be satisfied with the Constitution was something that the States knew better than the Congress, and in any event "it is a religious matter, and, as such, is proscribed to us." Id., at 915. Representative Sherman supported the resolution "not only as a laudable one in itself, but as warranted by a number of precedents in Holy Writ: for instance, the solemn thanksgivings and rejoicings which took place in the time of Solomon, after the building of the temple, was a case in point. This example, he thought, worthy of Christian imitation on the present occasion. . . ." Ibid.
Boudinot's resolution was carried in the affirmative on September 25, 1789. Boudinot and Sherman, who favored the Thanksgiving Proclamation, voted in favor of the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Constitution, including the Religion Clauses; Tucker, who opposed the Thanksgiving Proclamation, voted against the adoption of the amendments which became the Bill of Rights.
Within two weeks of this action by the House, George Washington responded to the Joint Resolution which by now had been changed to include the language that the President "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness." 1 J. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, p. 64 (1897). The Presidential Proclamation was couched in these words:
"Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
"And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best." Ibid.
George Washington, John Adams, and James Madison all issued Thanksgiving Proclamations; Thomas Jefferson did not, saying:
"Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the Constitution has deposited it." 11 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 429 (A. Lipscomb ed. 1904).
As the United States moved from the 18th into the 19th century, Congress appropriated time and again public moneys in support of sectarian Indian education carried on by religious organizations. Typical of these was Jefferson's treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which provided annual cash support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest and church.(5) It was not until 1897, when aid to sectarian education for Indians had reached $500,000 annually, that Congress decided thereafter to cease appropriating money for education in sectarian schools. See Act of June 7, 1897, 30 Stat. 62, 79; cf. Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U.S. 50, 77-79, 28 S.Ct. 690, 694-696, 52 L.Ed. 954 (1908); J. O'Neill, Religion and Education Under the Constitution 118-119 (1949). See generally R. Cord, Separation of Church and State 61-82 (1982). This history shows the fallacy of the notion found in Everson that "no tax in any amount" may be levied for religious activities in any form. 330 U.S., at 15-16, 67 S.Ct., at 511-512.
Joseph Story, a Member of this Court from 1811 to 1845, and during much of that time a professor at the Harvard Law School, published by far the most comprehensive treatise on the United States Constitution that had then appeared. Volume 2 of Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 630-632 (5th ed. 1891) discussed the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment this way:
"Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration [First Amendment], the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.
. . . . .
"The real object of the [First] [A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. . . ." (Footnotes omitted.)
Thomas Cooley's eminence as a legal authority rivaled that of Story. Cooley stated in his treatise entitled Constitutional Limitations that aid to a particular religious sect was prohibited by the United States Constitution, but he went on to say:
"But while thus careful to establish, protect, and defend religious freedom and equality, the American constitutions contain no provisions which prohibit the authorities from such solemn recognition of a superintending Providence in public transactions and exercises as the general religious sentiment of mankind inspires, and as seems meet and proper in finite and dependent beings. Whatever may be the shades of religious belief, all must acknowledge the fitness of recognizing in important human affairs the superintending care and control of the Great Governor of the Universe, and of acknowledging with thanksgiving his boundless favors, or bowing in contrition when visited with the penalties of his broken laws. No principle of constitutional law is violated when thanksgiving or fast days are appointed; when chaplains are designated for the army and navy; when legislative sessions are opened with prayer or the reading of the Scriptures, or when religious teaching is encouraged by a general exemption of the houses of religious worship from taxation for the support of State government. Undoubtedly the spirit of the Constitution will require, in all these cases, that care be taken to avoid discrimination in favor of or against any one religious denomination or sect; but the power to do any of these things does not become unconstitutional simply because of its susceptibility to abuse. . . ." Id., at * 470--* 471.
Cooley added that
"[t]his public recognition of religious worship, however, is not based entirely, perhaps not even mainly, upon a sense of what is due to the Supreme Being himself as the author of all good and of all law; but the same reasons of state policy which induce the government to aid institutions of charity and seminaries of instruction will incline it also to foster religious worship and religious institutions, as conservators of the public morals and valuable, if not indispensable, assistants to the preservation of the public order." Id., at *470.
It would seem from this evidence that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment had acquired a well-accepted meaning: it forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations. Indeed, the first American dictionary defined the word "establishment" as "the act of establishing, founding, ratifying or ordaining," such as in "[t]he episcopal form of religion, so called, in England." 1 N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1st ed. 1828). The Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the "wall of separation" that was constitutionalized in Everson.
Notwithstanding the absence of a historical basis for this theory of rigid separation, the wall idea might well have served as a useful albeit misguided analytical concept, had it led this Court to unified and principled results in Establishment Clause cases. The opposite, unfortunately, has been true; in the 38 years since Everson our Establishment Clause cases have been neither principled nor unified. Our recent opinions, many of them hopelessly divided pluralities,(6) have with embarrassing candor conceded that the "wall of separation" is merely a "blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier," which "is not wholly accurate" and can only be "dimly perceived." Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2112, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971); Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 677-678, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 2095-2096, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229, 236, 97 S.Ct. 2593, 2599, 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 1359, 79 L.Ed.2d 745 (1984).
Whether due to its lack of historical support or its practical unworkability, the Everson "wall" has proved all but useless as a guide to sound constitutional adjudication. It illustrates only too well the wisdom of Benjamin Cardozo's observation that "[m]etaphors in law are to be narrowly watched, for starting as devices to liberate thought, they end often by enslaving it." Berkey v. Third Avenue R. Co., 244 N.Y. 84, 94, 155 N.E. 58, 61 (1926).
But the greatest injury of the "wall" notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, is well adapted to adjudicating factual disputes on the basis of testimony presented in court, but no amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.
The Court has more recently attempted to add some mortar to Everson's wall through the three-part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra, 403 U.S., at 614-615, 91 S.Ct., at 2112, which served at first to offer a more useful test for purposes of the Establishment Clause than did the "wall" metaphor. Generally stated, the Lemon test proscribes state action that has a sectarian purpose or effect, or causes an impermissible governmental entanglement with religion.
Lemon cited Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243, 88 S.Ct. 1923, 1926, 20 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1968), as the source of the "purpose" and "effect" prongs of the three-part test. The Allen opinion explains, however, how it inherited the purpose and effect elements from Schempp and Everson, both of which contain the historical errors described above. See Allen, supra, at 243, 88 S.Ct., at 1926. Thus the purpose and effect prongs have the same historical deficiencies as the wall concept itself: they are in no way based on either the language or intent of the drafters.
The secular purpose prong has proven mercurial in application because it has never been fully defined, and we have never fully stated how the test is to operate. If the purpose prong is intended to void those aids to sectarian institutions accompanied by a stated legislative purpose to aid religion, the prong will condemn nothing so long as the legislature utters a secular purpose and says nothing about aiding religion. Thus the constitutionality of a statute may depend upon what the legislators put into the legislative history and, more importantly, what they leave out. The purpose prong means little if it only requires the legislature to express any secular purpose and omit all sectarian references, because legislators might do just that. Faced with a valid legislative secular purpose, we could not properly ignore that purpose without a factual basis for doing so. Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 262-263, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 1692-1693, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982) (WHITE, J., dissenting).
However, if the purpose prong is aimed to void all statutes enacted with the intent to aid sectarian institutions, whether stated or not, then most statutes providing any aid, such as textbooks or bus rides for sectarian school children, will fail because one of the purposes behind every statute, whether stated or not, is to aid the target of its largesse. In other words, if the purpose prong requires an absence of any intent to aid sectarian institutions, whether or not expressed, few state laws in this area could pass the test, and we would be required to void some state aids to religion which we have already upheld. E.g., Allen, supra.
The entanglement prong of the Lemon test came from Walz v. Tax Comm'n, 397 U.S. 664, 674, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 1414, 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1970). Walz involved a constitutional challenge to New York's time-honored practice of providing state property tax exemptions to church property used in worship. The Walz opinion refused to "undermine the ultimate constitutional objective [of the Establishment Clause] as illuminated by history," id., at 671, 90 S.Ct., at 1412, and upheld the tax exemption. The Court examined the historical relationship between the State and church when church property was in issue, and determined that the challenged tax exemption did not so entangle New York with the church as to cause an intrusion or interference with religion. Interferences with religion should arguably be dealt with under the Free Exercise Clause, but the entanglement inquiry in Walz was consistent with that case's broad survey of the relationship between state taxation and religious property.
We have not always followed Walz's reflective inquiry into entanglement, however. E.g., Wolman, supra, 433 U.S., at 254, 97 S.Ct., at 2608. One of the difficulties with the entanglement prong is that, when divorced from the logic of Walz, it creates an "insoluable paradox" in school aid cases: we have required aid to parochial schools to be closely watched lest it be put to sectarian use, yet this close supervision itself will create an entanglement. Roemer v. Maryland Bd. of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736, 768-769, 96 S.Ct. 2337, 2355-2356, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976) (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment). For example, in Wolman, supra, the Court in part struck the State's nondiscriminatory provision of buses for parochial school field trips, because the state supervision of sectarian officials in charge of field trips would be too onerous. This type of self-defeating result is certainly not required to ensure that States do not establish religions.
The entanglement test as applied in cases like Wolman also ignores the myriad state administrative regulations properly placed upon sectarian institutions such as curriculum, attendance, and certification requirements for sectarian schools, or fire and safety regulations for churches. Avoiding entanglement between church and State may be an important consideration in a case like Walz, but if the entanglement prong were applied to all state and church relations in the automatic manner in which it has been applied to school aid cases, the State could hardly require anything of church-related institutions as a condition for receipt of financial assistance.
These difficulties arise because the Lemon test has no more grounding in the history of the First Amendment than does the wall theory upon which it rests. The three-part test represents a determined effort to craft a workable rule from a historically faulty doctrine; but the rule can only be as sound as the doctrine it attempts to service. The three-part test has simply not provided adequate standards for deciding Establishment Clause cases, as this Court has slowly come to realize. Even worse, the Lemon test has caused this Court to fracture into unworkable plurality opinions, see n. 6, supra, depending upon how each of the three factors applies to a certain state action. The results from our school services cases show the difficulty we have encountered in making the Lemon test yield principled results.
For example, a State may lend to parochial school children geography textbooks(7)that contain maps of the United States, but the State may not lend maps of the United States for use in geography class.(8) A State may lend textbooks on American colonial history, but it may not lend a film on George Washington, or a film projector to show it in history class. A State may lend classroom workbooks, but may not lend workbooks in which the parochial school children write, thus rendering them nonreusable.(9) A State may pay for bus transportation to religious schools(10)but may not pay for bus transportation from the parochial school to the public zoo or natural history museum for a field trip.(11) A State may pay for diagnostic services conducted in the parochial school but therapeutic services must be given in a different building; speech and hearing "services" conducted by the State inside the sectarian school are forbidden, Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349, 367, 371, 95 S.Ct. 1753, 1764, 1766, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1975), but the State may conduct speech and hearing diagnostic testing inside the sectarian school. Wolman, 433 U.S., at 241, 97 S.Ct., at 2602. Exceptional parochial school students may receive counseling, but it must take place outside of the parochial school,(12)such as in a trailer parked down the street. Id., at 245, 97 S.Ct., at 2604. A State may give cash to a parochial school to pay for the administration of state-written tests and state-ordered reporting services,(13)but it may not provide funds for teacher-prepared tests on secular subjects.(14) Religious instruction may not be given in public school,(15)but the public school may release students during the day for religion classes elsewhere, and may enforce attendance at those classes with its truancy laws.(16)
These results violate the historically sound principle "that the Establishment Clause does not forbid governments . . . to [provide] general welfare under which benefits are distributed to private individuals, even though many of those individuals may elect to use those benefits in ways that 'aid' religious instruction or worship." Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 799, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 2989, 37 L.Ed.2d 948 (1973) (BURGER, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). It is not surprising in the light of this record that our most recent opinions have expressed doubt on the usefulness of the Lemon test.
Although the test initially provided helpful assistance, e.g., Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971), we soon began describing the test as only a "guideline," Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra, and lately we have described it as "no more than [a] useful signpos[t]." Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388, 394, 103 S.Ct. 3062, 3066, 77 L.Ed.2d 721 (1983), citing Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 741, 93 S.Ct. 2868, 2873, 37 L.Ed.2d 923 (1973); Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 103 S.Ct. 505, 74 L.Ed.2d 297 (1982). We have noted that the Lemon test is "not easily applied," Meek, supra, 421 U.S., at 358, 95 S.Ct., at 1759, and as Justice WHITE noted in Committee for Public Education v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 100 S.Ct. 840, 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980), under the Lemon test we have "sacrifice[d] clarity and predictability for flexibility." 444 U.S., at 662, 100 S.Ct., at 851. In Lynch we reiterated that the Lemon test has never been binding on the Court, and we cited two cases where we had declined to apply it. 465 U.S., at 679, 104 S.Ct., at 1362, citing Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 103 S.Ct. 3330, 77 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983); Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982).
If a constitutional theory has no basis in the history of the amendment it seeks to interpret, is difficult to apply and yields unprincipled results, I see little use in it. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, has produced only consistent unpredictability, and today's effort is just a continuation of "the sisyphean task of trying to patch together the 'blurred, indistinct and variable barrier' described in Lemon v. Kurtzman." Regan, supra, 444 U.S., at 671, 100 S.Ct., at 855 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). We have done much straining since 1947, but still we admit that we can only "dimly perceive" the Everson wall. Tilton, supra. Our perception has been clouded not by the Constitution but by the mists of an unnecessary metaphor.
The true meaning of the Establishment Clause can only be seen in its history. See Walz, 397 U.S., at 671-673, 90 S.Ct., at 1412-1413; see also Lynch, supra, at 673-678, 104 S.Ct., at 1359-1362. As drafters of our Bill of Rights, the Framers inscribed the principles that control today. Any deviation from their intentions frustrates the permanence of that Charter and will only lead to the type of unprincipled decision-making that has plagued our Establishment Clause cases since Everson.
The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.
The Court strikes down the Alabama statute because the State wished to "characterize prayer as a favored practice." Ante, at 2492. It would come as much of a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights as it will to a large number of thoughtful Americans today to learn that the Constitution, as construed by the majority, prohibits the Alabama Legislature from "endorsing" prayer. George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of "public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God." History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.
The State surely has a secular interest in regulating the manner in which public schools are conducted. Nothing in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, properly understood, prohibits any such generalized "endorsement" of prayer. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. __________________
1. Reynolds is the only authority cited as direct precedent for the "wall of separation theory." 330 U.S., at 16, 67 S.Ct., at 512. Reynolds is truly inapt; it dealt with a Mormon's Free Exercise Clause challenge to a federal polygamy law.
2. The New York and Rhode Island proposals were quite similar. They stated that no particular "religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others." 1 Elliot's Debates, at 328; id., at 334.
3. In a letter he sent to Jefferson in France, Madison stated that he did not see much importance in a Bill of Rights but he planned to support it because it was "anxiously desired by others . . . [and] it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice." 5 Writings of James Madison, 271 (G. Hunt ed. 1904).
4. State establishments were prevalent throughout the late 18th and early 19th centuries. See Mass. Const. of 1780, Part 1, Art. III; N. H. Const. of 1784, Art. VI; Md. Declaration of Rights of 1776, Art. XXXIII; R. I. Charter of 1633 (superseded 1842).
5. The treaty stated in part:
"And whereas, the greater part of said Tribe have been baptized and received into the Catholic church, to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion . . . [a]nd . . . three hundred dollars, to assist the said Tribe in the erection of a church." 7 Stat. 79.
From 1789 to 1823 the United States Congress had provided a trust endowment of up to 12,000 acres of land "for the Society of the United Brethren, for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen." See, e.g., ch. 46, 1 Stat. 490. The Act creating this endowment was renewed periodically and the renewals were signed into law by Washington, Adams, and Jefferson.
Congressional grants for the aid of religion were not limited to Indians. In 1787 Congress provided land to the Ohio Company, including acreage for the support of religion. This grant was reauthorized in 1792. See 1 Stat. 257. In 1833 Congress authorized the State of Ohio to sell the land set aside for religion and use the proceeds "for the support of religion . . . and for no other use or purpose whatsoever. . . ." 4 Stat. 618-619.
6. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 677, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 2095, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349, 95 S.Ct. 1753, 44 L.Ed.2d 217 (1975) (partial); Roemer v. Maryland Bd. of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736, 96 S.Ct. 2337, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229, 97 S.Ct. 2593, 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977).
Many of our other Establishment Clause cases have been decided by bare 5-4 majorities. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 100 S.Ct. 840, 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980); Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982); Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388, 103 S.Ct. 3062, 77 L.Ed.2d 721 (1983); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1984); cf. Levitt v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty, 413 U.S. 472, 93 S.Ct. 2814, 37 L.Ed.2d 736 (1973).
7. Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 88 S.Ct. 1923, 20 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1968).
8. Meek, 421 U.S., at 362-366, 95 S.Ct., at 1761-1763. A science book is permissible, a science kit is not. See Wolman, 433 U.S., at 249, 97 S.Ct., at 2606.
9. See Meek, supra, at 354-355, nn. 3, 4, 362-366, 95 S.Ct., at 1761-1763.
10. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947).
11. Wolman, supra, 433 U.S., at 252-255, 97 S.Ct., at 2608-2609.
12. Wolman, supra, at 241-248, 97 S.Ct., at 2602-2605; Meek, supra, at 352, n. 2, 367-373, 95 S.Ct., at 1756, n. 2, 1764-1767.
13. Regan, 444 U.S., at 648, 657-659, 100 S.Ct., at 844, 848-849.
14. Levitt, 413 U.S., at 479-482, 93 S.Ct., at 2818-2820.
15. Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 68 S.Ct. 461, 92 L.Ed. 649 (1948).
16. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 72 S.Ct. 679, 96 L.Ed. 954 (1952).
Dude. You can argue all you like, but it's in the FIRST amendment! This isn't some amendment that came way way after the Bill of Rights. It was adopted in 1971. Your arguments here are moot, since each are subtle variations, and most conflict with freedom of speech. This is about the state, and don't try and twist it any other way. This is not some volunteer operation. This is a state school. So your conflicting freedom of speech rules here have no grounds. The Free Exercise Clause, along with the Establishment Clause can be interpreted in no other way other than with respect to State and Religion.
Now, because i KNOW your about to say 'but that talks about Congress and thats Federal law, i will direct you to Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Law of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Usually referred to as the supremacy clause, loosely translated it declares that federal law takes precedence over all form of state law.
Remember: this is about the state. Not freedom of expression or freedom of speech.
History is not on your side. I guess you didn't read Rehnquists response? There were State religions (In the colonies) at the time of and after the Constitution was ratified for quite some time.
Read my post again, intently this time please.
First Amendment is there to expressly forbid any Theocracy or Federally mandated religion, such as what they left England for at the time; the Church of England. My arguement is not moot, I'm not even sure you understand my arguement.
Aegraen, again. Sorry mate, I'm just looking for some posts that espouse your own particular brand of politics. If you could point me in the right direction I'm sure it would help not only me but all your detractors.
On August 18 2009 17:07 Tyraz wrote: Jesus. Aegraen rips through these threads like a wolf in a chicken cage. Honestly, he argues semantics to justify his arguments in like every thread I've read. + Show Spoiler +
p.s. What is it with you and Austrian Economics.
Put simply, this has already been ruled as unconstitutional by Justice Hugo Black:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
Now, lets assume that there will be some person who decides to be a little bitch and say "but its 'voluntary', so that means the state isn't supporting it". This little bitch obviously would not understand the meaning of 'preference', as if he did, he would realize that (even if you COULD aid all religions, which you can't), then you would have to offer ALL possible religions as voluntary options (or else it also comes under several discrimination laws ).
Now all of that up there is if you want to argue semantics. The reality is this cannot even happen in state schools anyway, because then that would be considered financial aid,+ Show Spoiler +
as even if it is done without state funding, if it is on school property then it is still financial aid, since they don't pay rent
which (if you've been paying attention) is also not allowed.
Naturally, if you choose not to believe this Judge, then you can check out the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for yourselves
Sure....What makes one justices word more valid than another? This is the inherent problem with the SCOTUS. Constitutionalizing your ideology. This was never the intent of the Judicial Branch. James Madison himself the father of the Constitution argued the case against Activism; that is the changing of language over time even though the same words, to have different meanings in each generation. If this is the case the whole Constitution itself is invalidated because it then becomes a political tool for the current expediency of political whims. There is all ready the tools within the Constitution itself to effect change that being a Constitutional Convention, or the Amendment process. The SCOTUS was never intended to rewrite the Constitution because of the Three Co-Equal branches functioning as Montisqiue adopted and the Founders agreed upon and ratified as such. That is why there is an Amendment process, otherwise you have this false duplicity where the branches are not equal and where the SCOTUS itself invalidates the need for the Amendment process. In any event, as Chieft Justice William Rehnquist put it according to the First Amendment and the clause in particular:
[All court opinions except for Justice Rehnquist's dissent have been omitted.]
* * * * *
Justice REHNQUIST, dissenting.
Thirty-eight years ago this Court, in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16, 67 S.Ct. 504, 512, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947), summarized its exegesis of Establishment Clause doctrine thus:
"In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, [98 U.S. 145, 164, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1879)]."
This language from Reynolds, a case involving the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Establishment Clause, quoted from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association the phrase "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." 8 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 113 (H. Washington ed. 1861).(1)
It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.
Jefferson's fellow Virginian, James Madison, with whom he was joined in the battle for the enactment of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty of 1786, did play as large a part as anyone in the drafting of the Bill of Rights. He had two advantages over Jefferson in this regard: he was present in the United States, and he was a leading Member of the First Congress. But when we turn to the record of the proceedings in the First Congress leading up to the adoption of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, including Madison's significant contributions thereto, we see a far different picture of its purpose than the highly simplified "wall of separation between church and State."
During the debates in the Thirteen Colonies over ratification of the Constitution, one of the arguments frequently used by opponents of ratification was that without a Bill of Rights guaranteeing individual liberty the new general Government carried with it a potential for tyranny. The typical response to this argument on the part of those who favored ratification was that the general Government established by the Constitution had only delegated powers, and that these delegated powers were so limited that the Government would have no occasion to violate individual liberties. This response satisfied some, but not others, and of the 11 Colonies which ratified the Constitution by early 1789, 5 proposed one or another amendments guaranteeing individual liberty. Three--New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia--included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom. See 3 J. Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution 659 (1891); 1 id., at 328. Rhode Island and North Carolina flatly refused to ratify the Constitution in the absence of amendments in the nature of a Bill of Rights. 1 id., at 334; 4 id., at 244. Virginia and North Carolina proposed identical guarantees of religious freedom:
"[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and . . . no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others." 3 id., at 659; 4 id., at 244.(2)
On June 8, 1789, James Madison rose in the House of Representatives and "reminded the House that this was the day that he had heretofore named for bringing forward amendments to the Constitution." 1 Annals of Cong. 424. Madison's subsequent remarks in urging the House to adopt his drafts of the proposed amendments were less those of a dedicated advocate of the wisdom of such measures than those of a prudent statesman seeking the enactment of measures sought by a number of his fellow citizens which could surely do no harm and might do a great deal of good. He said, inter alia:
"It appears to me that this House is bound by every motive of prudence, not to let the first session pass over without proposing to the State Legislatures, some things to be incorporated into the Constitution, that will render it as acceptable to the whole people of the United States, as it has been found acceptable to a majority of them. I wish, among other reasons why something should be done, that those who had been friendly to the adoption of this Constitution may have the opportunity of proving to those who were opposed to it that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a Republican Government, as those who charged them with wishing the adoption of this Constitution in order to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or despotism. It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community, any apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled. And if there are amendments desired of such a nature as will not injure the Constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow-citizens, the friends of the Federal Government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished." Id., at 431-432.
The language Madison proposed for what ultimately became the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment was this:
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed." Id., at 434.
On the same day that Madison proposed them, the amendments which formed the basis for the Bill of Rights were referred by the House to a Committee of the Whole, and after several weeks' delay were then referred to a Select Committee consisting of Madison and 10 others. The Committee revised Madison's proposal regarding the establishment of religion to read:
"[N]o religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed." Id., at 729.
The Committee's proposed revisions were debated in the House on August 15, 1789. The entire debate on the Religion Clauses is contained in two full columns of the "Annals," and does not seem particularly illuminating. See id., at 729-731. Representative Peter Sylvester of New York expressed his dislike for the revised version, because it might have a tendency "to abolish religion altogether." Representative John Vining suggested that the two parts of the sentence be transposed; Representative Elbridge Gerry thought the language should be changed to read "that no religious doctrine shall be established by law." Id., at 729. Roger Sherman of Connecticut had the traditional reason for opposing provisions of a Bill of Rights--that Congress had no delegated authority to "make religious establishments"--and therefore he opposed the adoption of the amendment. Representative Daniel Carroll of Maryland thought it desirable to adopt the words proposed, saying "[h]e would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the community."
Madison then spoke, and said that "he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience." Id., at 730. He said that some of the state conventions had thought that Congress might rely on the Necessary and Proper Clause to infringe the rights of conscience or to establish a national religion, and "to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit." Ibid.
Representative Benjamin Huntington then expressed the view that the Committee's language might "be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it." Huntington, from Connecticut, was concerned that in the New England States, where state-established religions were the rule rather than the exception, the federal courts might not be able to entertain claims based upon an obligation under the bylaws of a religious organization to contribute to the support of a minister or the building of a place of worship. He hoped that "the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and a free exercise of the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all." Id., at 730-731.
Madison responded that the insertion of the word "national" before the word "religion" in the Committee version should satisfy the minds of those who had criticized the language. "He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. He thought that if the word 'national' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent." Id., at 731. Representative Samuel Livermore expressed himself as dissatisfied with Madison's proposed amendment, and thought it would be better if the Committee language were altered to read that "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience." Ibid.
Representative Gerry spoke in opposition to the use of the word "national" because of strong feelings expressed during the ratification debates that a federal government, not a national government, was created by the Constitution. Madison thereby withdrew his proposal but insisted that his reference to a "national religion" only referred to a national establishment and did not mean that the Government was a national one. The question was taken on Representative Livermore's motion, which passed by a vote of 31 for and 20 against. Ibid.
The following week, without any apparent debate, the House voted to alter the language of the Religion Clauses to read "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." Id., at 766. The floor debates in the Senate were secret, and therefore not reported in the Annals. The Senate on September 3, 1789, considered several different forms of the Religion Amendment, and reported this language back to the House:
"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion." C. Antieau, A. Downey, & E. Roberts, Freedom From Federal Establishment 130 (1964).
The House refused to accept the Senate's changes in the Bill of Rights and asked for a conference; the version which emerged from the conference was that which ultimately found its way into the Constitution as a part of the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The House and the Senate both accepted this language on successive days, and the Amendment was proposed in this form.
On the basis of the record of these proceedings in the House of Representatives, James Madison was undoubtedly the most important architect among the Members of the House of the Amendments which became the Bill of Rights, but it was James Madison speaking as an advocate of sensible legislative compromise, not as an advocate of incorporating the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty into the United States Constitution. During the ratification debate in the Virginia Convention, Madison had actually opposed the idea of any Bill of Rights. His sponsorship of the Amendments in the House was obviously not that of a zealous believer in the necessity of the Religion Clauses, but of one who felt it might do some good, could do no harm, and would satisfy those who had ratified the Constitution on the condition that Congress propose a Bill of Rights.(3) His original language "nor shall any national religion be established" obviously does not conform to the "wall of separation" between church and State idea which latter-day commentators have ascribed to him. His explanation on the floor of the meaning of his language--"that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law" is of the same ilk. When he replied to Huntington in the debate over the proposal which came from the Select Committee of the House, he urged that the language "no religion shall be established by law" should be amended by inserting the word "national" in front of the word "religion."
It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion. Thus the Court's opinion in Everson--while correct in bracketing Madison and Jefferson together in their exertions in their home State leading to the enactment of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty--is totally incorrect in suggesting that Madison carried these views onto the floor of the United States House of Representatives when he proposed the language which would ultimately become the Bill of Rights.
The repetition of this error in the Court's opinion in Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 68 S.Ct. 461, 92 L.Ed. 649 (1948), and, inter alia, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 8 L.Ed.2d 601 (1962), does not make it any sounder historically. Finally, in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 214, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 1567, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963), the Court made the truly remarkable statement that "the views of Madison and Jefferson, preceded by Roger Williams, came to be incorporated not only in the Federal Constitution but likewise in those of most of our States" (footnote omitted). On the basis of what evidence we have, this statement is demonstrably incorrect as a matter of history.(4) And its repetition in varying forms in succeeding opinions of the Court can give it no more authority than it possesses as a matter of fact; stare decisis may bind courts as to matters of law, but it cannot bind them as to matters of history.
None of the other Members of Congress who spoke during the August 15th debate expressed the slightest indication that they thought the language before them from the Select Committee, or the evil to be aimed at, would require that the Government be absolutely neutral as between religion and irreligion. The evil to be aimed at, so far as those who spoke who concerned, appears to have been the establishment of a national church, and perhaps the preference of one religious sect over another; but it was definitely not concerned about whether the Government might aid all religions evenhandedly. If one were to follow the advice of Justice BRENNAN, concurring in Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 236, 83 S.Ct., at 1578, 10 L.Ed.2d 844, and construe the Amendment in the light of what particular "practices . . . challenged threaten those consequences which the Framers deeply feared; whether, in short, they tend to promote that type of interdependence between religion and state which the First Amendment was designed to prevent," one would have to say that the First Amendment Establishment Clause should be read no more broadly than to prevent the establishment of a national religion or the governmental preference of one religious sect over another.
The actions of the First Congress, which reenacted the Northwest Ordinance for the governance of the Northwest Territory in 1789, confirm the view that Congress did not mean that the Government should be neutral between religion and irreligion. The House of Representatives took up the Northwest Ordinance on the same day as Madison introduced his proposed amendments which became the Bill of Rights; while at that time the Federal Government was of course not bound by draft amendments to the Constitution which had not yet been proposed by Congress, say nothing of ratified by the States, it seems highly unlikely that the House of Representatives would simultaneously consider proposed amendments to the Constitution and enact an important piece of territorial legislation which conflicted with the intent of those proposals. The Northwest Ordinance, 1 Stat. 50, reenacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and provided that "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Id., at 52, n. (a). Land grants for schools in the Northwest Territory were not limited to public schools. It was not until 1845 that Congress limited land grants in the new States and Territories to nonsectarian schools. 5 Stat. 788; C. Antieau, A. Downey, & E. Roberts, Freedom From Federal Establishment 163 (1964).
On the day after the House of Representatives voted to adopt the form of the First Amendment Religion Clauses which was ultimately proposed and ratified, Representative Elias Boudinot proposed a resolution asking President George Washington to issue a Thanksgiving Day Proclamation. Boudinot said he "could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice, in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings he had poured down upon them." 1 Annals of Cong. 914 (1789). Representative Aedanas Burke objected to the resolution because he did not like "this mimicking of European customs"; Representative Thomas Tucker objected that whether or not the people had reason to be satisfied with the Constitution was something that the States knew better than the Congress, and in any event "it is a religious matter, and, as such, is proscribed to us." Id., at 915. Representative Sherman supported the resolution "not only as a laudable one in itself, but as warranted by a number of precedents in Holy Writ: for instance, the solemn thanksgivings and rejoicings which took place in the time of Solomon, after the building of the temple, was a case in point. This example, he thought, worthy of Christian imitation on the present occasion. . . ." Ibid.
Boudinot's resolution was carried in the affirmative on September 25, 1789. Boudinot and Sherman, who favored the Thanksgiving Proclamation, voted in favor of the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Constitution, including the Religion Clauses; Tucker, who opposed the Thanksgiving Proclamation, voted against the adoption of the amendments which became the Bill of Rights.
Within two weeks of this action by the House, George Washington responded to the Joint Resolution which by now had been changed to include the language that the President "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness." 1 J. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, p. 64 (1897). The Presidential Proclamation was couched in these words:
"Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
"And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best." Ibid.
George Washington, John Adams, and James Madison all issued Thanksgiving Proclamations; Thomas Jefferson did not, saying:
"Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the Constitution has deposited it." 11 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 429 (A. Lipscomb ed. 1904).
As the United States moved from the 18th into the 19th century, Congress appropriated time and again public moneys in support of sectarian Indian education carried on by religious organizations. Typical of these was Jefferson's treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which provided annual cash support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest and church.(5) It was not until 1897, when aid to sectarian education for Indians had reached $500,000 annually, that Congress decided thereafter to cease appropriating money for education in sectarian schools. See Act of June 7, 1897, 30 Stat. 62, 79; cf. Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U.S. 50, 77-79, 28 S.Ct. 690, 694-696, 52 L.Ed. 954 (1908); J. O'Neill, Religion and Education Under the Constitution 118-119 (1949). See generally R. Cord, Separation of Church and State 61-82 (1982). This history shows the fallacy of the notion found in Everson that "no tax in any amount" may be levied for religious activities in any form. 330 U.S., at 15-16, 67 S.Ct., at 511-512.
Joseph Story, a Member of this Court from 1811 to 1845, and during much of that time a professor at the Harvard Law School, published by far the most comprehensive treatise on the United States Constitution that had then appeared. Volume 2 of Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 630-632 (5th ed. 1891) discussed the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment this way:
"Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration [First Amendment], the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.
. . . . .
"The real object of the [First] [A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. . . ." (Footnotes omitted.)
Thomas Cooley's eminence as a legal authority rivaled that of Story. Cooley stated in his treatise entitled Constitutional Limitations that aid to a particular religious sect was prohibited by the United States Constitution, but he went on to say:
"But while thus careful to establish, protect, and defend religious freedom and equality, the American constitutions contain no provisions which prohibit the authorities from such solemn recognition of a superintending Providence in public transactions and exercises as the general religious sentiment of mankind inspires, and as seems meet and proper in finite and dependent beings. Whatever may be the shades of religious belief, all must acknowledge the fitness of recognizing in important human affairs the superintending care and control of the Great Governor of the Universe, and of acknowledging with thanksgiving his boundless favors, or bowing in contrition when visited with the penalties of his broken laws. No principle of constitutional law is violated when thanksgiving or fast days are appointed; when chaplains are designated for the army and navy; when legislative sessions are opened with prayer or the reading of the Scriptures, or when religious teaching is encouraged by a general exemption of the houses of religious worship from taxation for the support of State government. Undoubtedly the spirit of the Constitution will require, in all these cases, that care be taken to avoid discrimination in favor of or against any one religious denomination or sect; but the power to do any of these things does not become unconstitutional simply because of its susceptibility to abuse. . . ." Id., at * 470--* 471.
Cooley added that
"[t]his public recognition of religious worship, however, is not based entirely, perhaps not even mainly, upon a sense of what is due to the Supreme Being himself as the author of all good and of all law; but the same reasons of state policy which induce the government to aid institutions of charity and seminaries of instruction will incline it also to foster religious worship and religious institutions, as conservators of the public morals and valuable, if not indispensable, assistants to the preservation of the public order." Id., at *470.
It would seem from this evidence that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment had acquired a well-accepted meaning: it forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations. Indeed, the first American dictionary defined the word "establishment" as "the act of establishing, founding, ratifying or ordaining," such as in "[t]he episcopal form of religion, so called, in England." 1 N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1st ed. 1828). The Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the "wall of separation" that was constitutionalized in Everson.
Notwithstanding the absence of a historical basis for this theory of rigid separation, the wall idea might well have served as a useful albeit misguided analytical concept, had it led this Court to unified and principled results in Establishment Clause cases. The opposite, unfortunately, has been true; in the 38 years since Everson our Establishment Clause cases have been neither principled nor unified. Our recent opinions, many of them hopelessly divided pluralities,(6) have with embarrassing candor conceded that the "wall of separation" is merely a "blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier," which "is not wholly accurate" and can only be "dimly perceived." Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2112, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971); Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 677-678, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 2095-2096, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229, 236, 97 S.Ct. 2593, 2599, 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 1359, 79 L.Ed.2d 745 (1984).
Whether due to its lack of historical support or its practical unworkability, the Everson "wall" has proved all but useless as a guide to sound constitutional adjudication. It illustrates only too well the wisdom of Benjamin Cardozo's observation that "[m]etaphors in law are to be narrowly watched, for starting as devices to liberate thought, they end often by enslaving it." Berkey v. Third Avenue R. Co., 244 N.Y. 84, 94, 155 N.E. 58, 61 (1926).
But the greatest injury of the "wall" notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, is well adapted to adjudicating factual disputes on the basis of testimony presented in court, but no amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.
The Court has more recently attempted to add some mortar to Everson's wall through the three-part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra, 403 U.S., at 614-615, 91 S.Ct., at 2112, which served at first to offer a more useful test for purposes of the Establishment Clause than did the "wall" metaphor. Generally stated, the Lemon test proscribes state action that has a sectarian purpose or effect, or causes an impermissible governmental entanglement with religion.
Lemon cited Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243, 88 S.Ct. 1923, 1926, 20 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1968), as the source of the "purpose" and "effect" prongs of the three-part test. The Allen opinion explains, however, how it inherited the purpose and effect elements from Schempp and Everson, both of which contain the historical errors described above. See Allen, supra, at 243, 88 S.Ct., at 1926. Thus the purpose and effect prongs have the same historical deficiencies as the wall concept itself: they are in no way based on either the language or intent of the drafters.
The secular purpose prong has proven mercurial in application because it has never been fully defined, and we have never fully stated how the test is to operate. If the purpose prong is intended to void those aids to sectarian institutions accompanied by a stated legislative purpose to aid religion, the prong will condemn nothing so long as the legislature utters a secular purpose and says nothing about aiding religion. Thus the constitutionality of a statute may depend upon what the legislators put into the legislative history and, more importantly, what they leave out. The purpose prong means little if it only requires the legislature to express any secular purpose and omit all sectarian references, because legislators might do just that. Faced with a valid legislative secular purpose, we could not properly ignore that purpose without a factual basis for doing so. Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 262-263, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 1692-1693, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982) (WHITE, J., dissenting).
However, if the purpose prong is aimed to void all statutes enacted with the intent to aid sectarian institutions, whether stated or not, then most statutes providing any aid, such as textbooks or bus rides for sectarian school children, will fail because one of the purposes behind every statute, whether stated or not, is to aid the target of its largesse. In other words, if the purpose prong requires an absence of any intent to aid sectarian institutions, whether or not expressed, few state laws in this area could pass the test, and we would be required to void some state aids to religion which we have already upheld. E.g., Allen, supra.
The entanglement prong of the Lemon test came from Walz v. Tax Comm'n, 397 U.S. 664, 674, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 1414, 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1970). Walz involved a constitutional challenge to New York's time-honored practice of providing state property tax exemptions to church property used in worship. The Walz opinion refused to "undermine the ultimate constitutional objective [of the Establishment Clause] as illuminated by history," id., at 671, 90 S.Ct., at 1412, and upheld the tax exemption. The Court examined the historical relationship between the State and church when church property was in issue, and determined that the challenged tax exemption did not so entangle New York with the church as to cause an intrusion or interference with religion. Interferences with religion should arguably be dealt with under the Free Exercise Clause, but the entanglement inquiry in Walz was consistent with that case's broad survey of the relationship between state taxation and religious property.
We have not always followed Walz's reflective inquiry into entanglement, however. E.g., Wolman, supra, 433 U.S., at 254, 97 S.Ct., at 2608. One of the difficulties with the entanglement prong is that, when divorced from the logic of Walz, it creates an "insoluable paradox" in school aid cases: we have required aid to parochial schools to be closely watched lest it be put to sectarian use, yet this close supervision itself will create an entanglement. Roemer v. Maryland Bd. of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736, 768-769, 96 S.Ct. 2337, 2355-2356, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976) (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment). For example, in Wolman, supra, the Court in part struck the State's nondiscriminatory provision of buses for parochial school field trips, because the state supervision of sectarian officials in charge of field trips would be too onerous. This type of self-defeating result is certainly not required to ensure that States do not establish religions.
The entanglement test as applied in cases like Wolman also ignores the myriad state administrative regulations properly placed upon sectarian institutions such as curriculum, attendance, and certification requirements for sectarian schools, or fire and safety regulations for churches. Avoiding entanglement between church and State may be an important consideration in a case like Walz, but if the entanglement prong were applied to all state and church relations in the automatic manner in which it has been applied to school aid cases, the State could hardly require anything of church-related institutions as a condition for receipt of financial assistance.
These difficulties arise because the Lemon test has no more grounding in the history of the First Amendment than does the wall theory upon which it rests. The three-part test represents a determined effort to craft a workable rule from a historically faulty doctrine; but the rule can only be as sound as the doctrine it attempts to service. The three-part test has simply not provided adequate standards for deciding Establishment Clause cases, as this Court has slowly come to realize. Even worse, the Lemon test has caused this Court to fracture into unworkable plurality opinions, see n. 6, supra, depending upon how each of the three factors applies to a certain state action. The results from our school services cases show the difficulty we have encountered in making the Lemon test yield principled results.
For example, a State may lend to parochial school children geography textbooks(7)that contain maps of the United States, but the State may not lend maps of the United States for use in geography class.(8) A State may lend textbooks on American colonial history, but it may not lend a film on George Washington, or a film projector to show it in history class. A State may lend classroom workbooks, but may not lend workbooks in which the parochial school children write, thus rendering them nonreusable.(9) A State may pay for bus transportation to religious schools(10)but may not pay for bus transportation from the parochial school to the public zoo or natural history museum for a field trip.(11) A State may pay for diagnostic services conducted in the parochial school but therapeutic services must be given in a different building; speech and hearing "services" conducted by the State inside the sectarian school are forbidden, Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349, 367, 371, 95 S.Ct. 1753, 1764, 1766, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1975), but the State may conduct speech and hearing diagnostic testing inside the sectarian school. Wolman, 433 U.S., at 241, 97 S.Ct., at 2602. Exceptional parochial school students may receive counseling, but it must take place outside of the parochial school,(12)such as in a trailer parked down the street. Id., at 245, 97 S.Ct., at 2604. A State may give cash to a parochial school to pay for the administration of state-written tests and state-ordered reporting services,(13)but it may not provide funds for teacher-prepared tests on secular subjects.(14) Religious instruction may not be given in public school,(15)but the public school may release students during the day for religion classes elsewhere, and may enforce attendance at those classes with its truancy laws.(16)
These results violate the historically sound principle "that the Establishment Clause does not forbid governments . . . to [provide] general welfare under which benefits are distributed to private individuals, even though many of those individuals may elect to use those benefits in ways that 'aid' religious instruction or worship." Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 799, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 2989, 37 L.Ed.2d 948 (1973) (BURGER, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). It is not surprising in the light of this record that our most recent opinions have expressed doubt on the usefulness of the Lemon test.
Although the test initially provided helpful assistance, e.g., Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971), we soon began describing the test as only a "guideline," Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra, and lately we have described it as "no more than [a] useful signpos[t]." Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388, 394, 103 S.Ct. 3062, 3066, 77 L.Ed.2d 721 (1983), citing Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 741, 93 S.Ct. 2868, 2873, 37 L.Ed.2d 923 (1973); Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 103 S.Ct. 505, 74 L.Ed.2d 297 (1982). We have noted that the Lemon test is "not easily applied," Meek, supra, 421 U.S., at 358, 95 S.Ct., at 1759, and as Justice WHITE noted in Committee for Public Education v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 100 S.Ct. 840, 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980), under the Lemon test we have "sacrifice[d] clarity and predictability for flexibility." 444 U.S., at 662, 100 S.Ct., at 851. In Lynch we reiterated that the Lemon test has never been binding on the Court, and we cited two cases where we had declined to apply it. 465 U.S., at 679, 104 S.Ct., at 1362, citing Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 103 S.Ct. 3330, 77 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983); Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982).
If a constitutional theory has no basis in the history of the amendment it seeks to interpret, is difficult to apply and yields unprincipled results, I see little use in it. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, has produced only consistent unpredictability, and today's effort is just a continuation of "the sisyphean task of trying to patch together the 'blurred, indistinct and variable barrier' described in Lemon v. Kurtzman." Regan, supra, 444 U.S., at 671, 100 S.Ct., at 855 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). We have done much straining since 1947, but still we admit that we can only "dimly perceive" the Everson wall. Tilton, supra. Our perception has been clouded not by the Constitution but by the mists of an unnecessary metaphor.
The true meaning of the Establishment Clause can only be seen in its history. See Walz, 397 U.S., at 671-673, 90 S.Ct., at 1412-1413; see also Lynch, supra, at 673-678, 104 S.Ct., at 1359-1362. As drafters of our Bill of Rights, the Framers inscribed the principles that control today. Any deviation from their intentions frustrates the permanence of that Charter and will only lead to the type of unprincipled decision-making that has plagued our Establishment Clause cases since Everson.
The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.
The Court strikes down the Alabama statute because the State wished to "characterize prayer as a favored practice." Ante, at 2492. It would come as much of a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights as it will to a large number of thoughtful Americans today to learn that the Constitution, as construed by the majority, prohibits the Alabama Legislature from "endorsing" prayer. George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of "public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God." History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.
The State surely has a secular interest in regulating the manner in which public schools are conducted. Nothing in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, properly understood, prohibits any such generalized "endorsement" of prayer. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. __________________
1. Reynolds is the only authority cited as direct precedent for the "wall of separation theory." 330 U.S., at 16, 67 S.Ct., at 512. Reynolds is truly inapt; it dealt with a Mormon's Free Exercise Clause challenge to a federal polygamy law.
2. The New York and Rhode Island proposals were quite similar. They stated that no particular "religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others." 1 Elliot's Debates, at 328; id., at 334.
3. In a letter he sent to Jefferson in France, Madison stated that he did not see much importance in a Bill of Rights but he planned to support it because it was "anxiously desired by others . . . [and] it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice." 5 Writings of James Madison, 271 (G. Hunt ed. 1904).
4. State establishments were prevalent throughout the late 18th and early 19th centuries. See Mass. Const. of 1780, Part 1, Art. III; N. H. Const. of 1784, Art. VI; Md. Declaration of Rights of 1776, Art. XXXIII; R. I. Charter of 1633 (superseded 1842).
5. The treaty stated in part:
"And whereas, the greater part of said Tribe have been baptized and received into the Catholic church, to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion . . . [a]nd . . . three hundred dollars, to assist the said Tribe in the erection of a church." 7 Stat. 79.
From 1789 to 1823 the United States Congress had provided a trust endowment of up to 12,000 acres of land "for the Society of the United Brethren, for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen." See, e.g., ch. 46, 1 Stat. 490. The Act creating this endowment was renewed periodically and the renewals were signed into law by Washington, Adams, and Jefferson.
Congressional grants for the aid of religion were not limited to Indians. In 1787 Congress provided land to the Ohio Company, including acreage for the support of religion. This grant was reauthorized in 1792. See 1 Stat. 257. In 1833 Congress authorized the State of Ohio to sell the land set aside for religion and use the proceeds "for the support of religion . . . and for no other use or purpose whatsoever. . . ." 4 Stat. 618-619.
6. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 677, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 2095, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349, 95 S.Ct. 1753, 44 L.Ed.2d 217 (1975) (partial); Roemer v. Maryland Bd. of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736, 96 S.Ct. 2337, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229, 97 S.Ct. 2593, 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977).
Many of our other Establishment Clause cases have been decided by bare 5-4 majorities. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 100 S.Ct. 840, 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980); Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982); Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388, 103 S.Ct. 3062, 77 L.Ed.2d 721 (1983); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1984); cf. Levitt v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty, 413 U.S. 472, 93 S.Ct. 2814, 37 L.Ed.2d 736 (1973).
7. Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 88 S.Ct. 1923, 20 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1968).
8. Meek, 421 U.S., at 362-366, 95 S.Ct., at 1761-1763. A science book is permissible, a science kit is not. See Wolman, 433 U.S., at 249, 97 S.Ct., at 2606.
9. See Meek, supra, at 354-355, nn. 3, 4, 362-366, 95 S.Ct., at 1761-1763.
10. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947).
11. Wolman, supra, 433 U.S., at 252-255, 97 S.Ct., at 2608-2609.
12. Wolman, supra, at 241-248, 97 S.Ct., at 2602-2605; Meek, supra, at 352, n. 2, 367-373, 95 S.Ct., at 1756, n. 2, 1764-1767.
13. Regan, 444 U.S., at 648, 657-659, 100 S.Ct., at 844, 848-849.
14. Levitt, 413 U.S., at 479-482, 93 S.Ct., at 2818-2820.
15. Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 68 S.Ct. 461, 92 L.Ed. 649 (1948).
16. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 72 S.Ct. 679, 96 L.Ed. 954 (1952).
Dude. You can argue all you like, but it's in the FIRST amendment! This isn't some amendment that came way way after the Bill of Rights. It was adopted in 1971. Your arguments here are moot, since each are subtle variations, and most conflict with freedom of speech. This is about the state, and don't try and twist it any other way. This is not some volunteer operation. This is a state school. So your conflicting freedom of speech rules here have no grounds. The Free Exercise Clause, along with the Establishment Clause can be interpreted in no other way other than with respect to State and Religion.
Now, because i KNOW your about to say 'but that talks about Congress and thats Federal law, i will direct you to Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Law of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Usually referred to as the supremacy clause, loosely translated it declares that federal law takes precedence over all form of state law.
Remember: this is about the state. Not freedom of expression or freedom of speech.
History is not on your side. I guess you didn't read Rehnquists response? There were State religions (In the colonies) at the time of and after the Constitution was ratified for quite some time.
Read my post again, intently this time please.
First Amendment is there to expressly forbid any Theocracy or Federally mandated religion, such as what they left England for at the time; the Church of England. My arguement is not moot, I'm not even sure you understand my arguement.
That is true. And they acted unconstitutionally (from the definition). Hence why they don't exists any more.
Further, I'm not sure you understand the implications of what your suggesting. If the state can have a religion, then the state can also control arms. Therefore violate the 2nd amendment too.
On August 18 2009 17:38 SWOLE wrote: Aegraen, tell us why we should bankrupt our country switching to the gold standard
Did you vote for Ron Paul with the other crazies?
Our country is all ready bankrupt, what do you think the FED is?
Actually, compared to earlier this year when the DOW was hitting 6000, we are doing pretty well. I guess if you are a conspiracy theorist we are bankrupt though. It's interesting to note that the only time in the last... ohhh... 15 years that we have had anything other than a deficit was when TAX N' SPEND BIG GUB'MENT LIEBERAL Bill Clinton was in office.
On August 18 2009 17:44 BroOd wrote: Aegraen, again. Sorry mate, I'm just looking for some posts that espouse your own particular brand of politics. If you could point me in the right direction I'm sure it would help not only me but all your detractors.
Do you not read my posts? Here I'll old your hand and give a brief overview:
Austrian Economics; Free-Markets above all, no Government intervention that meaning in favor of decentralized banking, no regulatory bodies, and Governments role only to ensure that voluntary transactions and contracts are legally uphelp and no foul play occurs. I extremely advocate free trade and competition.
Politically (Which isn't branched off from Economics as they go hand in hand; as Milton Friedman explained), Anti-Federalist. States have as much, or more power than a Federal Government. That power expressly limited. Role of Federal Government extremely reduced to specific enumerated powers such as; Standing Federal Military, Ensurance of fair trade practices, and Foreign policy. I'm extremely non-interventionist more akin to Robert Taft. That is, removing our troops out from foreign soils and trading with pretty much every country save for countries like North Korea. Not intervening in a countries personal affair such as the CIA constantly does, but to keep eyes wide open and intelligence tabs on their actions. Extremely pro-military advocating a strong military presence for a permanent state of Detente.
In essence I'm between Ayn Rand Libertarianism and Rothbard's Anarcho-Capitalism. I see the role and need for Government, but only in extremely limited sectors. More over, I'm a strong advocate of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. If you know what they stand for, you have a good idea what I do.
Anyone who has taken a 100 level economics course knows that shutting the government out of the economy does not work. Does "externality" ring a bell? Remember when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire? Hell, you can't even eat two cans of tuna a week without running risk of mercury poisoning, and you think the market should be deregulated?
On August 18 2009 17:44 BroOd wrote: Aegraen, again. Sorry mate, I'm just looking for some posts that espouse your own particular brand of politics. If you could point me in the right direction I'm sure it would help not only me but all your detractors.
Do you not read my posts? Here I'll old your hand and give a brief overview:
Austrian Economics; Free-Markets above all, no Government intervention that meaning in favor of decentralized banking, no regulatory bodies, and Governments role only to ensure that voluntary transactions and contracts are legally uphelp and no foul play occurs. I extremely advocate free trade and competition.
Politically (Which isn't branched off from Economics as they go hand in hand; as Milton Friedman explained), Anti-Federalist. States have as much, or more power than a Federal Government. That power expressly limited. Role of Federal Government extremely reduced to specific enumerated powers such as; Standing Federal Military, Ensurance of fair trade practices, and Foreign policy. I'm extremely non-interventionist more akin to Robert Taft. That is, removing our troops out from foreign soils and trading with pretty much every country save for countries like North Korea. Not intervening in a countries personal affair such as the CIA constantly does, but to keep eyes wide open and intelligence tabs on their actions. Extremely pro-military advocating a strong military presence for a permanent state of Detente.
In essence I'm between Ayn Rand Libertarianism and Rothbard's Anarcho-Capitalism. I see the role and need for Government, but only in extremely limited sectors. More over, I'm a strong advocate of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. If you know what they stand for, you have a good idea what I do.
Is that clear enough?
And where does freedom of expression come into your grand scheme? What about discrimination?
On August 18 2009 17:44 BroOd wrote: Aegraen, again. Sorry mate, I'm just looking for some posts that espouse your own particular brand of politics. If you could point me in the right direction I'm sure it would help not only me but all your detractors.
Do you not read my posts? Here I'll old your hand and give a brief overview:
Austrian Economics; Free-Markets above all, no Government intervention that meaning in favor of decentralized banking, no regulatory bodies, and Governments role only to ensure that voluntary transactions and contracts are legally uphelp and no foul play occurs. I extremely advocate free trade and competition.
Politically (Which isn't branched off from Economics as they go hand in hand; as Milton Friedman explained), Anti-Federalist. States have as much, or more power than a Federal Government. That power expressly limited. Role of Federal Government extremely reduced to specific enumerated powers such as; Standing Federal Military, Ensurance of fair trade practices, and Foreign policy. I'm extremely non-interventionist more akin to Robert Taft. That is, removing our troops out from foreign soils and trading with pretty much every country save for countries like North Korea. Not intervening in a countries personal affair such as the CIA constantly does, but to keep eyes wide open and intelligence tabs on their actions. Extremely pro-military advocating a strong military presence for a permanent state of Detente.
In essence I'm between Ayn Rand Libertarianism and Rothbard's Anarcho-Capitalism. I see the role and need for Government, but only in extremely limited sectors. More over, I'm a strong advocate of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. If you know what they stand for, you have a good idea what I do.
Is that clear enough?
What's clear is I asked you for a post without references and this is what I got.
On August 18 2009 17:07 Tyraz wrote: Jesus. Aegraen rips through these threads like a wolf in a chicken cage. Honestly, he argues semantics to justify his arguments in like every thread I've read. + Show Spoiler +
p.s. What is it with you and Austrian Economics.
Put simply, this has already been ruled as unconstitutional by Justice Hugo Black:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
Now, lets assume that there will be some person who decides to be a little bitch and say "but its 'voluntary', so that means the state isn't supporting it". This little bitch obviously would not understand the meaning of 'preference', as if he did, he would realize that (even if you COULD aid all religions, which you can't), then you would have to offer ALL possible religions as voluntary options (or else it also comes under several discrimination laws ).
Now all of that up there is if you want to argue semantics. The reality is this cannot even happen in state schools anyway, because then that would be considered financial aid,+ Show Spoiler +
as even if it is done without state funding, if it is on school property then it is still financial aid, since they don't pay rent
which (if you've been paying attention) is also not allowed.
Naturally, if you choose not to believe this Judge, then you can check out the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for yourselves
Sure....What makes one justices word more valid than another? This is the inherent problem with the SCOTUS. Constitutionalizing your ideology. This was never the intent of the Judicial Branch. James Madison himself the father of the Constitution argued the case against Activism; that is the changing of language over time even though the same words, to have different meanings in each generation. If this is the case the whole Constitution itself is invalidated because it then becomes a political tool for the current expediency of political whims. There is all ready the tools within the Constitution itself to effect change that being a Constitutional Convention, or the Amendment process. The SCOTUS was never intended to rewrite the Constitution because of the Three Co-Equal branches functioning as Montisqiue adopted and the Founders agreed upon and ratified as such. That is why there is an Amendment process, otherwise you have this false duplicity where the branches are not equal and where the SCOTUS itself invalidates the need for the Amendment process. In any event, as Chieft Justice William Rehnquist put it according to the First Amendment and the clause in particular:
[All court opinions except for Justice Rehnquist's dissent have been omitted.]
* * * * *
Justice REHNQUIST, dissenting.
Thirty-eight years ago this Court, in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16, 67 S.Ct. 504, 512, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947), summarized its exegesis of Establishment Clause doctrine thus:
"In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, [98 U.S. 145, 164, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1879)]."
This language from Reynolds, a case involving the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Establishment Clause, quoted from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association the phrase "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." 8 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 113 (H. Washington ed. 1861).(1)
It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.
Jefferson's fellow Virginian, James Madison, with whom he was joined in the battle for the enactment of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty of 1786, did play as large a part as anyone in the drafting of the Bill of Rights. He had two advantages over Jefferson in this regard: he was present in the United States, and he was a leading Member of the First Congress. But when we turn to the record of the proceedings in the First Congress leading up to the adoption of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, including Madison's significant contributions thereto, we see a far different picture of its purpose than the highly simplified "wall of separation between church and State."
During the debates in the Thirteen Colonies over ratification of the Constitution, one of the arguments frequently used by opponents of ratification was that without a Bill of Rights guaranteeing individual liberty the new general Government carried with it a potential for tyranny. The typical response to this argument on the part of those who favored ratification was that the general Government established by the Constitution had only delegated powers, and that these delegated powers were so limited that the Government would have no occasion to violate individual liberties. This response satisfied some, but not others, and of the 11 Colonies which ratified the Constitution by early 1789, 5 proposed one or another amendments guaranteeing individual liberty. Three--New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia--included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom. See 3 J. Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution 659 (1891); 1 id., at 328. Rhode Island and North Carolina flatly refused to ratify the Constitution in the absence of amendments in the nature of a Bill of Rights. 1 id., at 334; 4 id., at 244. Virginia and North Carolina proposed identical guarantees of religious freedom:
"[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and . . . no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others." 3 id., at 659; 4 id., at 244.(2)
On June 8, 1789, James Madison rose in the House of Representatives and "reminded the House that this was the day that he had heretofore named for bringing forward amendments to the Constitution." 1 Annals of Cong. 424. Madison's subsequent remarks in urging the House to adopt his drafts of the proposed amendments were less those of a dedicated advocate of the wisdom of such measures than those of a prudent statesman seeking the enactment of measures sought by a number of his fellow citizens which could surely do no harm and might do a great deal of good. He said, inter alia:
"It appears to me that this House is bound by every motive of prudence, not to let the first session pass over without proposing to the State Legislatures, some things to be incorporated into the Constitution, that will render it as acceptable to the whole people of the United States, as it has been found acceptable to a majority of them. I wish, among other reasons why something should be done, that those who had been friendly to the adoption of this Constitution may have the opportunity of proving to those who were opposed to it that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a Republican Government, as those who charged them with wishing the adoption of this Constitution in order to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or despotism. It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community, any apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled. And if there are amendments desired of such a nature as will not injure the Constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow-citizens, the friends of the Federal Government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished." Id., at 431-432.
The language Madison proposed for what ultimately became the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment was this:
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed." Id., at 434.
On the same day that Madison proposed them, the amendments which formed the basis for the Bill of Rights were referred by the House to a Committee of the Whole, and after several weeks' delay were then referred to a Select Committee consisting of Madison and 10 others. The Committee revised Madison's proposal regarding the establishment of religion to read:
"[N]o religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed." Id., at 729.
The Committee's proposed revisions were debated in the House on August 15, 1789. The entire debate on the Religion Clauses is contained in two full columns of the "Annals," and does not seem particularly illuminating. See id., at 729-731. Representative Peter Sylvester of New York expressed his dislike for the revised version, because it might have a tendency "to abolish religion altogether." Representative John Vining suggested that the two parts of the sentence be transposed; Representative Elbridge Gerry thought the language should be changed to read "that no religious doctrine shall be established by law." Id., at 729. Roger Sherman of Connecticut had the traditional reason for opposing provisions of a Bill of Rights--that Congress had no delegated authority to "make religious establishments"--and therefore he opposed the adoption of the amendment. Representative Daniel Carroll of Maryland thought it desirable to adopt the words proposed, saying "[h]e would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the community."
Madison then spoke, and said that "he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience." Id., at 730. He said that some of the state conventions had thought that Congress might rely on the Necessary and Proper Clause to infringe the rights of conscience or to establish a national religion, and "to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit." Ibid.
Representative Benjamin Huntington then expressed the view that the Committee's language might "be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it." Huntington, from Connecticut, was concerned that in the New England States, where state-established religions were the rule rather than the exception, the federal courts might not be able to entertain claims based upon an obligation under the bylaws of a religious organization to contribute to the support of a minister or the building of a place of worship. He hoped that "the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and a free exercise of the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all." Id., at 730-731.
Madison responded that the insertion of the word "national" before the word "religion" in the Committee version should satisfy the minds of those who had criticized the language. "He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. He thought that if the word 'national' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent." Id., at 731. Representative Samuel Livermore expressed himself as dissatisfied with Madison's proposed amendment, and thought it would be better if the Committee language were altered to read that "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience." Ibid.
Representative Gerry spoke in opposition to the use of the word "national" because of strong feelings expressed during the ratification debates that a federal government, not a national government, was created by the Constitution. Madison thereby withdrew his proposal but insisted that his reference to a "national religion" only referred to a national establishment and did not mean that the Government was a national one. The question was taken on Representative Livermore's motion, which passed by a vote of 31 for and 20 against. Ibid.
The following week, without any apparent debate, the House voted to alter the language of the Religion Clauses to read "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." Id., at 766. The floor debates in the Senate were secret, and therefore not reported in the Annals. The Senate on September 3, 1789, considered several different forms of the Religion Amendment, and reported this language back to the House:
"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion." C. Antieau, A. Downey, & E. Roberts, Freedom From Federal Establishment 130 (1964).
The House refused to accept the Senate's changes in the Bill of Rights and asked for a conference; the version which emerged from the conference was that which ultimately found its way into the Constitution as a part of the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The House and the Senate both accepted this language on successive days, and the Amendment was proposed in this form.
On the basis of the record of these proceedings in the House of Representatives, James Madison was undoubtedly the most important architect among the Members of the House of the Amendments which became the Bill of Rights, but it was James Madison speaking as an advocate of sensible legislative compromise, not as an advocate of incorporating the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty into the United States Constitution. During the ratification debate in the Virginia Convention, Madison had actually opposed the idea of any Bill of Rights. His sponsorship of the Amendments in the House was obviously not that of a zealous believer in the necessity of the Religion Clauses, but of one who felt it might do some good, could do no harm, and would satisfy those who had ratified the Constitution on the condition that Congress propose a Bill of Rights.(3) His original language "nor shall any national religion be established" obviously does not conform to the "wall of separation" between church and State idea which latter-day commentators have ascribed to him. His explanation on the floor of the meaning of his language--"that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law" is of the same ilk. When he replied to Huntington in the debate over the proposal which came from the Select Committee of the House, he urged that the language "no religion shall be established by law" should be amended by inserting the word "national" in front of the word "religion."
It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion. Thus the Court's opinion in Everson--while correct in bracketing Madison and Jefferson together in their exertions in their home State leading to the enactment of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty--is totally incorrect in suggesting that Madison carried these views onto the floor of the United States House of Representatives when he proposed the language which would ultimately become the Bill of Rights.
The repetition of this error in the Court's opinion in Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 68 S.Ct. 461, 92 L.Ed. 649 (1948), and, inter alia, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 8 L.Ed.2d 601 (1962), does not make it any sounder historically. Finally, in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 214, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 1567, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963), the Court made the truly remarkable statement that "the views of Madison and Jefferson, preceded by Roger Williams, came to be incorporated not only in the Federal Constitution but likewise in those of most of our States" (footnote omitted). On the basis of what evidence we have, this statement is demonstrably incorrect as a matter of history.(4) And its repetition in varying forms in succeeding opinions of the Court can give it no more authority than it possesses as a matter of fact; stare decisis may bind courts as to matters of law, but it cannot bind them as to matters of history.
None of the other Members of Congress who spoke during the August 15th debate expressed the slightest indication that they thought the language before them from the Select Committee, or the evil to be aimed at, would require that the Government be absolutely neutral as between religion and irreligion. The evil to be aimed at, so far as those who spoke who concerned, appears to have been the establishment of a national church, and perhaps the preference of one religious sect over another; but it was definitely not concerned about whether the Government might aid all religions evenhandedly. If one were to follow the advice of Justice BRENNAN, concurring in Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 236, 83 S.Ct., at 1578, 10 L.Ed.2d 844, and construe the Amendment in the light of what particular "practices . . . challenged threaten those consequences which the Framers deeply feared; whether, in short, they tend to promote that type of interdependence between religion and state which the First Amendment was designed to prevent," one would have to say that the First Amendment Establishment Clause should be read no more broadly than to prevent the establishment of a national religion or the governmental preference of one religious sect over another.
The actions of the First Congress, which reenacted the Northwest Ordinance for the governance of the Northwest Territory in 1789, confirm the view that Congress did not mean that the Government should be neutral between religion and irreligion. The House of Representatives took up the Northwest Ordinance on the same day as Madison introduced his proposed amendments which became the Bill of Rights; while at that time the Federal Government was of course not bound by draft amendments to the Constitution which had not yet been proposed by Congress, say nothing of ratified by the States, it seems highly unlikely that the House of Representatives would simultaneously consider proposed amendments to the Constitution and enact an important piece of territorial legislation which conflicted with the intent of those proposals. The Northwest Ordinance, 1 Stat. 50, reenacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and provided that "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Id., at 52, n. (a). Land grants for schools in the Northwest Territory were not limited to public schools. It was not until 1845 that Congress limited land grants in the new States and Territories to nonsectarian schools. 5 Stat. 788; C. Antieau, A. Downey, & E. Roberts, Freedom From Federal Establishment 163 (1964).
On the day after the House of Representatives voted to adopt the form of the First Amendment Religion Clauses which was ultimately proposed and ratified, Representative Elias Boudinot proposed a resolution asking President George Washington to issue a Thanksgiving Day Proclamation. Boudinot said he "could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice, in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings he had poured down upon them." 1 Annals of Cong. 914 (1789). Representative Aedanas Burke objected to the resolution because he did not like "this mimicking of European customs"; Representative Thomas Tucker objected that whether or not the people had reason to be satisfied with the Constitution was something that the States knew better than the Congress, and in any event "it is a religious matter, and, as such, is proscribed to us." Id., at 915. Representative Sherman supported the resolution "not only as a laudable one in itself, but as warranted by a number of precedents in Holy Writ: for instance, the solemn thanksgivings and rejoicings which took place in the time of Solomon, after the building of the temple, was a case in point. This example, he thought, worthy of Christian imitation on the present occasion. . . ." Ibid.
Boudinot's resolution was carried in the affirmative on September 25, 1789. Boudinot and Sherman, who favored the Thanksgiving Proclamation, voted in favor of the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Constitution, including the Religion Clauses; Tucker, who opposed the Thanksgiving Proclamation, voted against the adoption of the amendments which became the Bill of Rights.
Within two weeks of this action by the House, George Washington responded to the Joint Resolution which by now had been changed to include the language that the President "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness." 1 J. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, p. 64 (1897). The Presidential Proclamation was couched in these words:
"Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
"And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best." Ibid.
George Washington, John Adams, and James Madison all issued Thanksgiving Proclamations; Thomas Jefferson did not, saying:
"Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the Constitution has deposited it." 11 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 429 (A. Lipscomb ed. 1904).
As the United States moved from the 18th into the 19th century, Congress appropriated time and again public moneys in support of sectarian Indian education carried on by religious organizations. Typical of these was Jefferson's treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which provided annual cash support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest and church.(5) It was not until 1897, when aid to sectarian education for Indians had reached $500,000 annually, that Congress decided thereafter to cease appropriating money for education in sectarian schools. See Act of June 7, 1897, 30 Stat. 62, 79; cf. Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U.S. 50, 77-79, 28 S.Ct. 690, 694-696, 52 L.Ed. 954 (1908); J. O'Neill, Religion and Education Under the Constitution 118-119 (1949). See generally R. Cord, Separation of Church and State 61-82 (1982). This history shows the fallacy of the notion found in Everson that "no tax in any amount" may be levied for religious activities in any form. 330 U.S., at 15-16, 67 S.Ct., at 511-512.
Joseph Story, a Member of this Court from 1811 to 1845, and during much of that time a professor at the Harvard Law School, published by far the most comprehensive treatise on the United States Constitution that had then appeared. Volume 2 of Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 630-632 (5th ed. 1891) discussed the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment this way:
"Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration [First Amendment], the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.
. . . . .
"The real object of the [First] [A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. . . ." (Footnotes omitted.)
Thomas Cooley's eminence as a legal authority rivaled that of Story. Cooley stated in his treatise entitled Constitutional Limitations that aid to a particular religious sect was prohibited by the United States Constitution, but he went on to say:
"But while thus careful to establish, protect, and defend religious freedom and equality, the American constitutions contain no provisions which prohibit the authorities from such solemn recognition of a superintending Providence in public transactions and exercises as the general religious sentiment of mankind inspires, and as seems meet and proper in finite and dependent beings. Whatever may be the shades of religious belief, all must acknowledge the fitness of recognizing in important human affairs the superintending care and control of the Great Governor of the Universe, and of acknowledging with thanksgiving his boundless favors, or bowing in contrition when visited with the penalties of his broken laws. No principle of constitutional law is violated when thanksgiving or fast days are appointed; when chaplains are designated for the army and navy; when legislative sessions are opened with prayer or the reading of the Scriptures, or when religious teaching is encouraged by a general exemption of the houses of religious worship from taxation for the support of State government. Undoubtedly the spirit of the Constitution will require, in all these cases, that care be taken to avoid discrimination in favor of or against any one religious denomination or sect; but the power to do any of these things does not become unconstitutional simply because of its susceptibility to abuse. . . ." Id., at * 470--* 471.
Cooley added that
"[t]his public recognition of religious worship, however, is not based entirely, perhaps not even mainly, upon a sense of what is due to the Supreme Being himself as the author of all good and of all law; but the same reasons of state policy which induce the government to aid institutions of charity and seminaries of instruction will incline it also to foster religious worship and religious institutions, as conservators of the public morals and valuable, if not indispensable, assistants to the preservation of the public order." Id., at *470.
It would seem from this evidence that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment had acquired a well-accepted meaning: it forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations. Indeed, the first American dictionary defined the word "establishment" as "the act of establishing, founding, ratifying or ordaining," such as in "[t]he episcopal form of religion, so called, in England." 1 N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1st ed. 1828). The Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the "wall of separation" that was constitutionalized in Everson.
Notwithstanding the absence of a historical basis for this theory of rigid separation, the wall idea might well have served as a useful albeit misguided analytical concept, had it led this Court to unified and principled results in Establishment Clause cases. The opposite, unfortunately, has been true; in the 38 years since Everson our Establishment Clause cases have been neither principled nor unified. Our recent opinions, many of them hopelessly divided pluralities,(6) have with embarrassing candor conceded that the "wall of separation" is merely a "blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier," which "is not wholly accurate" and can only be "dimly perceived." Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2112, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971); Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 677-678, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 2095-2096, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229, 236, 97 S.Ct. 2593, 2599, 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 1359, 79 L.Ed.2d 745 (1984).
Whether due to its lack of historical support or its practical unworkability, the Everson "wall" has proved all but useless as a guide to sound constitutional adjudication. It illustrates only too well the wisdom of Benjamin Cardozo's observation that "[m]etaphors in law are to be narrowly watched, for starting as devices to liberate thought, they end often by enslaving it." Berkey v. Third Avenue R. Co., 244 N.Y. 84, 94, 155 N.E. 58, 61 (1926).
But the greatest injury of the "wall" notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, is well adapted to adjudicating factual disputes on the basis of testimony presented in court, but no amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.
The Court has more recently attempted to add some mortar to Everson's wall through the three-part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra, 403 U.S., at 614-615, 91 S.Ct., at 2112, which served at first to offer a more useful test for purposes of the Establishment Clause than did the "wall" metaphor. Generally stated, the Lemon test proscribes state action that has a sectarian purpose or effect, or causes an impermissible governmental entanglement with religion.
Lemon cited Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243, 88 S.Ct. 1923, 1926, 20 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1968), as the source of the "purpose" and "effect" prongs of the three-part test. The Allen opinion explains, however, how it inherited the purpose and effect elements from Schempp and Everson, both of which contain the historical errors described above. See Allen, supra, at 243, 88 S.Ct., at 1926. Thus the purpose and effect prongs have the same historical deficiencies as the wall concept itself: they are in no way based on either the language or intent of the drafters.
The secular purpose prong has proven mercurial in application because it has never been fully defined, and we have never fully stated how the test is to operate. If the purpose prong is intended to void those aids to sectarian institutions accompanied by a stated legislative purpose to aid religion, the prong will condemn nothing so long as the legislature utters a secular purpose and says nothing about aiding religion. Thus the constitutionality of a statute may depend upon what the legislators put into the legislative history and, more importantly, what they leave out. The purpose prong means little if it only requires the legislature to express any secular purpose and omit all sectarian references, because legislators might do just that. Faced with a valid legislative secular purpose, we could not properly ignore that purpose without a factual basis for doing so. Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 262-263, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 1692-1693, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982) (WHITE, J., dissenting).
However, if the purpose prong is aimed to void all statutes enacted with the intent to aid sectarian institutions, whether stated or not, then most statutes providing any aid, such as textbooks or bus rides for sectarian school children, will fail because one of the purposes behind every statute, whether stated or not, is to aid the target of its largesse. In other words, if the purpose prong requires an absence of any intent to aid sectarian institutions, whether or not expressed, few state laws in this area could pass the test, and we would be required to void some state aids to religion which we have already upheld. E.g., Allen, supra.
The entanglement prong of the Lemon test came from Walz v. Tax Comm'n, 397 U.S. 664, 674, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 1414, 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1970). Walz involved a constitutional challenge to New York's time-honored practice of providing state property tax exemptions to church property used in worship. The Walz opinion refused to "undermine the ultimate constitutional objective [of the Establishment Clause] as illuminated by history," id., at 671, 90 S.Ct., at 1412, and upheld the tax exemption. The Court examined the historical relationship between the State and church when church property was in issue, and determined that the challenged tax exemption did not so entangle New York with the church as to cause an intrusion or interference with religion. Interferences with religion should arguably be dealt with under the Free Exercise Clause, but the entanglement inquiry in Walz was consistent with that case's broad survey of the relationship between state taxation and religious property.
We have not always followed Walz's reflective inquiry into entanglement, however. E.g., Wolman, supra, 433 U.S., at 254, 97 S.Ct., at 2608. One of the difficulties with the entanglement prong is that, when divorced from the logic of Walz, it creates an "insoluable paradox" in school aid cases: we have required aid to parochial schools to be closely watched lest it be put to sectarian use, yet this close supervision itself will create an entanglement. Roemer v. Maryland Bd. of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736, 768-769, 96 S.Ct. 2337, 2355-2356, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976) (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment). For example, in Wolman, supra, the Court in part struck the State's nondiscriminatory provision of buses for parochial school field trips, because the state supervision of sectarian officials in charge of field trips would be too onerous. This type of self-defeating result is certainly not required to ensure that States do not establish religions.
The entanglement test as applied in cases like Wolman also ignores the myriad state administrative regulations properly placed upon sectarian institutions such as curriculum, attendance, and certification requirements for sectarian schools, or fire and safety regulations for churches. Avoiding entanglement between church and State may be an important consideration in a case like Walz, but if the entanglement prong were applied to all state and church relations in the automatic manner in which it has been applied to school aid cases, the State could hardly require anything of church-related institutions as a condition for receipt of financial assistance.
These difficulties arise because the Lemon test has no more grounding in the history of the First Amendment than does the wall theory upon which it rests. The three-part test represents a determined effort to craft a workable rule from a historically faulty doctrine; but the rule can only be as sound as the doctrine it attempts to service. The three-part test has simply not provided adequate standards for deciding Establishment Clause cases, as this Court has slowly come to realize. Even worse, the Lemon test has caused this Court to fracture into unworkable plurality opinions, see n. 6, supra, depending upon how each of the three factors applies to a certain state action. The results from our school services cases show the difficulty we have encountered in making the Lemon test yield principled results.
For example, a State may lend to parochial school children geography textbooks(7)that contain maps of the United States, but the State may not lend maps of the United States for use in geography class.(8) A State may lend textbooks on American colonial history, but it may not lend a film on George Washington, or a film projector to show it in history class. A State may lend classroom workbooks, but may not lend workbooks in which the parochial school children write, thus rendering them nonreusable.(9) A State may pay for bus transportation to religious schools(10)but may not pay for bus transportation from the parochial school to the public zoo or natural history museum for a field trip.(11) A State may pay for diagnostic services conducted in the parochial school but therapeutic services must be given in a different building; speech and hearing "services" conducted by the State inside the sectarian school are forbidden, Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349, 367, 371, 95 S.Ct. 1753, 1764, 1766, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1975), but the State may conduct speech and hearing diagnostic testing inside the sectarian school. Wolman, 433 U.S., at 241, 97 S.Ct., at 2602. Exceptional parochial school students may receive counseling, but it must take place outside of the parochial school,(12)such as in a trailer parked down the street. Id., at 245, 97 S.Ct., at 2604. A State may give cash to a parochial school to pay for the administration of state-written tests and state-ordered reporting services,(13)but it may not provide funds for teacher-prepared tests on secular subjects.(14) Religious instruction may not be given in public school,(15)but the public school may release students during the day for religion classes elsewhere, and may enforce attendance at those classes with its truancy laws.(16)
These results violate the historically sound principle "that the Establishment Clause does not forbid governments . . . to [provide] general welfare under which benefits are distributed to private individuals, even though many of those individuals may elect to use those benefits in ways that 'aid' religious instruction or worship." Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 799, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 2989, 37 L.Ed.2d 948 (1973) (BURGER, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). It is not surprising in the light of this record that our most recent opinions have expressed doubt on the usefulness of the Lemon test.
Although the test initially provided helpful assistance, e.g., Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971), we soon began describing the test as only a "guideline," Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra, and lately we have described it as "no more than [a] useful signpos[t]." Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388, 394, 103 S.Ct. 3062, 3066, 77 L.Ed.2d 721 (1983), citing Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 741, 93 S.Ct. 2868, 2873, 37 L.Ed.2d 923 (1973); Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 103 S.Ct. 505, 74 L.Ed.2d 297 (1982). We have noted that the Lemon test is "not easily applied," Meek, supra, 421 U.S., at 358, 95 S.Ct., at 1759, and as Justice WHITE noted in Committee for Public Education v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 100 S.Ct. 840, 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980), under the Lemon test we have "sacrifice[d] clarity and predictability for flexibility." 444 U.S., at 662, 100 S.Ct., at 851. In Lynch we reiterated that the Lemon test has never been binding on the Court, and we cited two cases where we had declined to apply it. 465 U.S., at 679, 104 S.Ct., at 1362, citing Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 103 S.Ct. 3330, 77 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983); Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982).
If a constitutional theory has no basis in the history of the amendment it seeks to interpret, is difficult to apply and yields unprincipled results, I see little use in it. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, has produced only consistent unpredictability, and today's effort is just a continuation of "the sisyphean task of trying to patch together the 'blurred, indistinct and variable barrier' described in Lemon v. Kurtzman." Regan, supra, 444 U.S., at 671, 100 S.Ct., at 855 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). We have done much straining since 1947, but still we admit that we can only "dimly perceive" the Everson wall. Tilton, supra. Our perception has been clouded not by the Constitution but by the mists of an unnecessary metaphor.
The true meaning of the Establishment Clause can only be seen in its history. See Walz, 397 U.S., at 671-673, 90 S.Ct., at 1412-1413; see also Lynch, supra, at 673-678, 104 S.Ct., at 1359-1362. As drafters of our Bill of Rights, the Framers inscribed the principles that control today. Any deviation from their intentions frustrates the permanence of that Charter and will only lead to the type of unprincipled decision-making that has plagued our Establishment Clause cases since Everson.
The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.
The Court strikes down the Alabama statute because the State wished to "characterize prayer as a favored practice." Ante, at 2492. It would come as much of a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights as it will to a large number of thoughtful Americans today to learn that the Constitution, as construed by the majority, prohibits the Alabama Legislature from "endorsing" prayer. George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of "public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God." History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.
The State surely has a secular interest in regulating the manner in which public schools are conducted. Nothing in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, properly understood, prohibits any such generalized "endorsement" of prayer. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. __________________
1. Reynolds is the only authority cited as direct precedent for the "wall of separation theory." 330 U.S., at 16, 67 S.Ct., at 512. Reynolds is truly inapt; it dealt with a Mormon's Free Exercise Clause challenge to a federal polygamy law.
2. The New York and Rhode Island proposals were quite similar. They stated that no particular "religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others." 1 Elliot's Debates, at 328; id., at 334.
3. In a letter he sent to Jefferson in France, Madison stated that he did not see much importance in a Bill of Rights but he planned to support it because it was "anxiously desired by others . . . [and] it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice." 5 Writings of James Madison, 271 (G. Hunt ed. 1904).
4. State establishments were prevalent throughout the late 18th and early 19th centuries. See Mass. Const. of 1780, Part 1, Art. III; N. H. Const. of 1784, Art. VI; Md. Declaration of Rights of 1776, Art. XXXIII; R. I. Charter of 1633 (superseded 1842).
5. The treaty stated in part:
"And whereas, the greater part of said Tribe have been baptized and received into the Catholic church, to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion . . . [a]nd . . . three hundred dollars, to assist the said Tribe in the erection of a church." 7 Stat. 79.
From 1789 to 1823 the United States Congress had provided a trust endowment of up to 12,000 acres of land "for the Society of the United Brethren, for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen." See, e.g., ch. 46, 1 Stat. 490. The Act creating this endowment was renewed periodically and the renewals were signed into law by Washington, Adams, and Jefferson.
Congressional grants for the aid of religion were not limited to Indians. In 1787 Congress provided land to the Ohio Company, including acreage for the support of religion. This grant was reauthorized in 1792. See 1 Stat. 257. In 1833 Congress authorized the State of Ohio to sell the land set aside for religion and use the proceeds "for the support of religion . . . and for no other use or purpose whatsoever. . . ." 4 Stat. 618-619.
6. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 677, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 2095, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349, 95 S.Ct. 1753, 44 L.Ed.2d 217 (1975) (partial); Roemer v. Maryland Bd. of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736, 96 S.Ct. 2337, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229, 97 S.Ct. 2593, 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977).
Many of our other Establishment Clause cases have been decided by bare 5-4 majorities. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 100 S.Ct. 840, 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980); Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982); Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388, 103 S.Ct. 3062, 77 L.Ed.2d 721 (1983); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1984); cf. Levitt v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty, 413 U.S. 472, 93 S.Ct. 2814, 37 L.Ed.2d 736 (1973).
7. Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 88 S.Ct. 1923, 20 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1968).
8. Meek, 421 U.S., at 362-366, 95 S.Ct., at 1761-1763. A science book is permissible, a science kit is not. See Wolman, 433 U.S., at 249, 97 S.Ct., at 2606.
9. See Meek, supra, at 354-355, nn. 3, 4, 362-366, 95 S.Ct., at 1761-1763.
10. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947).
11. Wolman, supra, 433 U.S., at 252-255, 97 S.Ct., at 2608-2609.
12. Wolman, supra, at 241-248, 97 S.Ct., at 2602-2605; Meek, supra, at 352, n. 2, 367-373, 95 S.Ct., at 1756, n. 2, 1764-1767.
13. Regan, 444 U.S., at 648, 657-659, 100 S.Ct., at 844, 848-849.
14. Levitt, 413 U.S., at 479-482, 93 S.Ct., at 2818-2820.
15. Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 68 S.Ct. 461, 92 L.Ed. 649 (1948).
16. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 72 S.Ct. 679, 96 L.Ed. 954 (1952).
Dude. You can argue all you like, but it's in the FIRST amendment! This isn't some amendment that came way way after the Bill of Rights. It was adopted in 1971. Your arguments here are moot, since each are subtle variations, and most conflict with freedom of speech. This is about the state, and don't try and twist it any other way. This is not some volunteer operation. This is a state school. So your conflicting freedom of speech rules here have no grounds. The Free Exercise Clause, along with the Establishment Clause can be interpreted in no other way other than with respect to State and Religion.
Now, because i KNOW your about to say 'but that talks about Congress and thats Federal law, i will direct you to Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Law of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Usually referred to as the supremacy clause, loosely translated it declares that federal law takes precedence over all form of state law.
Remember: this is about the state. Not freedom of expression or freedom of speech.
History is not on your side. I guess you didn't read Rehnquists response? There were State religions (In the colonies) at the time of and after the Constitution was ratified for quite some time.
Read my post again, intently this time please.
First Amendment is there to expressly forbid any Theocracy or Federally mandated religion, such as what they left England for at the time; the Church of England. My arguement is not moot, I'm not even sure you understand my arguement.
That is true. And they acted unconstitutionally (from the definition). Hence why they don't exists any more.
Further, I'm not sure you understand the implications of what your suggesting. If the state can have a religion, then the state can also control arms. Therefore violate the 2nd amendment too.
There is so much wrong with this post. They don't exist anymore not due to a Federal decree, or a SCOTUS ruling (Ugh, I abhorr the state the SCOTUS is in), but because it was no longer a feasible idea in the populace of those States. They voluntarily dissolved them.
And to the second point, holy fuck? What is your reasoning and logic? You jump from idea to idea that have no links in between. I understand what you are trying to do, but it is inconsistent with the actual intent and wording of the Constitution. I'll explain.
The First Amendment for a reason expressly says "Congress" for a reason. It did not say "State" like the Second Amendment does.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
What you are essentially trying to do is create Ex post facto via SCOTUS. If it was indeed unconstitutional on the State level, then for one it would not have been allowed upon ratification or afterwards. Injunctions would have been filed in each state and routed up to the SCOTUS.
One person cannot dileneate to the country a changing of the intent of the Constitution. That is exactly what the Founders left in Europe and created here in America to forbid. Read the Founders intent on this issue, that is what Rehnquist cites. Are you saying the Founders are wrong and Black is correct? What is this perverse notion of a Constitution if the meaning can be changed so easily?
On August 18 2009 17:56 SWOLE wrote: Anyone who has taken a 100 level economics course knows that shutting the government out of the economy does not work. Does "externality" ring a bell? Remember when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire? Hell, you can't even eat two cans of tuna a week without running risk of mercury poisoning, and you think the market should be deregulated?
Ok, let me inform multiple Economic Nobel Laureates and the most famous Economists in the history of mankind.
On August 18 2009 17:56 SWOLE wrote: Anyone who has taken a 100 level economics course knows that shutting the government out of the economy does not work. Does "externality" ring a bell? Remember when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire? Hell, you can't even eat two cans of tuna a week without running risk of mercury poisoning, and you think the market should be deregulated?
Ok, let me inform multiple Economic Nobel Laureates and the most famous Economists in the history of mankind.
On August 18 2009 17:56 SWOLE wrote: Anyone who has taken a 100 level economics course knows that shutting the government out of the economy does not work. Does "externality" ring a bell? Remember when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire? Hell, you can't even eat two cans of tuna a week without running risk of mercury poisoning, and you think the market should be deregulated?
Ok, let me inform multiple Economic Nobel Laureates and the most famous Economists in the history of mankind.
Hahaha, who, Ron Paul? Oh, sorry, DR. Ron Paul.
Hayek, Menger, Mises, Rothbard, Friedman, etc. I'm done with you anyways.
On August 18 2009 17:40 Tyraz wrote: Dude. You can argue all you like, but it's in the FIRST amendment! This isn't some amendment that came way way after the Bill of Rights. It was adopted in 1971. Your arguments here are moot, since each are subtle variations, and most conflict with freedom of speech. This is about the state, and don't try and twist it any other way. This is not some volunteer operation. This is a state school. So your conflicting freedom of speech rules here have no grounds. The Free Exercise Clause, along with the Establishment Clause can be interpreted in no other way other than with respect to State and Religion.
Now, because i KNOW your about to say 'but that talks about Congress and thats Federal law, i will direct you to Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Law of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Usually referred to as the supremacy clause, loosely translated it declares that federal law takes precedence over all form of state law.
Remember: this is about the state. Not freedom of expression or freedom of speech.
History is not on your side. I guess you didn't read Rehnquists response? There were State religions (In the colonies) at the time of and after the Constitution was ratified for quite some time.
Read my post again, intently this time please.
First Amendment is there to expressly forbid any Theocracy or Federally mandated religion, such as what they left England for at the time; the Church of England. My arguement is not moot, I'm not even sure you understand my arguement.
That is true. And they acted unconstitutionally (from the definition). Hence why they don't exists any more.
Further, I'm not sure you understand the implications of what your suggesting. If the state can have a religion, then the state can also control arms. Therefore violate the 2nd amendment too.
There is so much wrong with this post. They don't exist anymore not due to a Federal decree, or a SCOTUS ruling (Ugh, I abhorr the state the SCOTUS is in), but because it was no longer a feasible idea in the populace of those States. They voluntarily dissolved them.
And to the second point, holy fuck? What is your reasoning and logic? You jump from idea to idea that have no links in between. I understand what you are trying to do, but it is inconsistent with the actual intent and wording of the Constitution. I'll explain.
The First Amendment for a reason expressly says "Congress" for a reason. It did not say "State" like the Second Amendment does.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
What you are essentially trying to do is create Ex post facto via SCOTUS. If it was indeed unconstitutional on the State level, then for one it would not have been allowed upon ratification or afterwards. Injunctions would have been filed in each state and routed up to the SCOTUS.
One person cannot dileneate to the country a changing of the intent of the Constitution. That is exactly what the Founders left in Europe and created here in America to forbid. Read the Founders intent on this issue, that is what Rehnquist cites. Are you saying the Founders are wrong and Black is correct? What is this perverse notion of a Constitution if the meaning can be changed so easily?
That was my point. You keep disregarding and interpreting laws in your favor. The point is Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Law of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
That is, if there are any conflicting laws, then the Federal law (made by Congress) takes presidence. Now you can disagree with the power of the Fedeal Government, and can think the States should have more power, but the fact remains that this is the current law.
On August 18 2009 17:56 SWOLE wrote: Anyone who has taken a 100 level economics course knows that shutting the government out of the economy does not work. Does "externality" ring a bell? Remember when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire? Hell, you can't even eat two cans of tuna a week without running risk of mercury poisoning, and you think the market should be deregulated?
Ok, let me inform multiple Economic Nobel Laureates and the most famous Economists in the history of mankind.
Hahaha, who, Ron Paul? Oh, sorry, DR. Ron Paul.
Hayek, Menger, Mises, Rothbard, Friedman, etc. I'm done with you anyways.
That's funny, because I could have sworn that Keynesian economics is the foundation of modern economic theory in the first world. While RonPaulconomics dominates in countries like Somalia where they don't have to worry about dumb ol' government ruining their fun and spending money on useless things like police stations and running water. It's a good thing that you are done arguing with me because nobody really cares about your ridiculous conspiracy theories about how the economy should be run.
On August 18 2009 17:38 SWOLE wrote: Aegraen, tell us why we should bankrupt our country switching to the gold standard
Did you vote for Ron Paul with the other crazies?
Our country is all ready bankrupt, what do you think the FED is?
Actually, compared to earlier this year when the DOW was hitting 6000, we are doing pretty well. I guess if you are a conspiracy theorist we are bankrupt though. It's interesting to note that the only time in the last... ohhh... 15 years that we have had anything other than a deficit was when TAX N' SPEND BIG GUB'MENT LIEBERAL Bill Clinton was in office.
I'm sure you know this, but Congress is sole propietor when it comes to Budgets. Who was in charge of Congress through Clintons tenure? In any case, they didn't do enough to try and limit Government, at least they relaxed house rules to allow all sides freedom of speech and included in the amendments process something that Nancy Pelosi repelled.
Not only that, do you know what created the Great Depression? The run on banks? You do know that banks are essentially bankrupt. If 70% or more of the people went right now to take out their money that the banking system would collapse.
Not only that, do you know what created the Great Depression? The run on banks? You do know that banks are essentially bankrupt. If 70% or more of the people went right now to take out their money that the banking system would collapse.
It's interesting that you bring this up, because everything that happened with the great depression just goes to show what a crock of shit liberarianism is:
-Britain returning to the gold standard -Market failure -Laissez-faire government -Inequality of wealth
And it was only through massive government intervention on top of an extremely lucrative world war that we were able to pull out. We put systems in to place to prevent future crashes and guess what happened when many of these protections were removed during the Bush adminstration -- with republicans invoking typical ultra-capitalist libertarian anti-government sentiment? We had another fucking crash.
Not only that, do you know what created the Great Depression? The run on banks? You do know that banks are essentially bankrupt. If 70% or more of the people went right now to take out their money that the banking system would collapse.
It's interesting that you bring this up, because everything that happened with the great depression just goes to show what a crock of shit liberarianism is:
-Britain returning to the gold standard -Market failure -Laissez-faire government -Inequality of wealth
And it was only through massive government intervention on top of an extremely lucrative world war that we were able to pull out. We put systems in to place to prevent future crashes and guess what happened when many of these protections were removed during the Bush adminstration -- with republicans invoking typical ultra-capitalist libertarian anti-government sentiment? We had another fucking crash.
/sigh
You know nothing of monetary history, nor the history of the country nor Government activity prior to the Great Depression. The FED was established in 1914, prior to that Clayton and Sherman acts in the late 1800s. On top of that, the main national banks were pushing for a centralized banking system in the late 1800s early 1900s in order to adapt a government regulated and controlled monopoly on currency. There is a clear pattern throughout history of prices skyrocketed and increasing wherever Government intervenes. On the other hand there is a clear pattern where prices are reduced when the private sector is left alone.
Let me give you this example about the Statists proclaiming we need Government intervention in order to stop cartels and monopolies, and why this notion is fallacious and is actually backwards in actuality.
First off, a monopoly or cartel does not mean that the market has broken down. Ask yourselves, how do monopolies or cartels come into existence? You say to yourselves oh, they drive prices down so they destroy their competitors. Bingo. Now, ask yourselves how is this a bad thing? This doesn't mean that more people are losing their jobs because market shares stay the same. The company who is "destroying" other companies are themselves hiring due to the new demand they have taken on. So, now that prices are low and they have now assumed this monopoly you say they won't keep prices low forever, or for any extensive amount of time. Of course, they won't. This is how monopolies destroy themselves. Other investors, entrepreneurs etc look at the business and see oh look how much profit they are making we should get into the sector and create new businesses! YES! Exactly, with no Government barrier entry these people can create competing businesses which in turn force lower prices. Monopolies are self-defeating. There needs no involvement with Government. As soon as Government gets involved and picks winners and losers and creates barriers, prices rise, competition dies. The same goes with cartels. Agreements between companies to price fix. Well, each company is still autonomous; thus it is not a monopoly, as I have described all ready how monopolies are self-defeating in the long run. So, now your saying ah-ha! See told you Government needs to get involved! Actually no. There will always be a company seeking to increase market share, so if prices are fixed how do you think they do this? Well, the companies secretely go to clientelle and offer to sale them at a lower price therefore increasing market share and profit. In the end, the other companies find out (not too long after either), and get mad at the dissenting company and the whole thing breaks apart and prices reduce drastically due to competition now that the companies are even madder at each other. But, the way it works today is that Government has stepped in and made it illegal to secretely offer different prices. It is actually a law to make public your prices; all in the name of "public good and public service", what a ruse.
The orthodox view of Economics in todays world says Austrian economics is dead. Why do you think they want you to believe this when all evidence points to the contrary? Keynesian ideas promote growth of power and centralized authority. Of course the people in power are going to try and ram this down your throat misrepresenting the actualities of the situation. When you actually analyze all the blowback and externalities of Government involvement you start to see a clear precise pattern. This isn't to say that there should be no Government; on the contrary Government plays specific non-intervening roles in the market. They are referees as you will. Adjucating disputes, ensuring contracts upheld, etc.
So, there you have Government intervention and artificial price increases, a new centralized banking system run on Fractional Reserve banking and poor monetary policies that promote Inflation (Inflation actually helps one segment of people and hurts another; imagine if you will the first person to receive these new funds you have increased buying power while no one else has yet figured it out. So your buying power has increased. Now, on down the road when the money travels later in its lifespan Inflation increases the prices and others purchasing powers decrease such as those on limited fixed incomes, working class, etc.). Inflation is actually a Government manipulated tool to de-value the currency so as to pay down its debt, thereby destroying the wealth of the nation. Our founders warned us of a centralized banking system for this exact reason.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. - President Thomas Jefferson.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. - President Thomas Jefferson
I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power to borrow money. - Thomas Jefferson
From the testimony of Marriner Eccles, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, before the House Banking and Currency Committee, Sept. 30, 1941:
Congressman Patman: "Mr. Eccles, how did you get the money to buy those two billions of government securities?"
Eccles: "We created it."
Patman: "Out of what?"
Eccles: "Out of the right to issue credit money." (i.e.Out of the right to create it. Do you see the insanity of it all? You and I must work hard for every dollar of ?? that we earn, while the banksters have the legal right to create money!).
I had never thought the Federal Reserve Bank System would prove such a failure. The country is in a state of irretrievable bankruptcy. - Senator Carter Glass, June 7, 1938
The Federal Reserve (privately owned banks) are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. - Senator Louis T. McFadden (for 22 years Chairman of the U.S. Banking and currency Commission)
If two parties, instead of being a bank and an individual, were an individual and an individual, they could not inflate the circulating medium by a loan transaction, for the simple reason that the lender could not lend what he didn't have, as banks can do.....Only commercial banks and trust companies can lend money that they manufacture by lending it. - Professor Irving Fisher, Yale University, in his book "100% Money"
The bold effort the present bank had made to control government (Second National Bank of the U.S.), the distress it has wantonly produced...are but premonitions of the fate that awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it.
President Andrew Jackson
If all the bank loans were paid up, no one would have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of currency or coin in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks for our money. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent monetary system. When one gets a complete grasp upon the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible - but there it is. It (the banking problem) is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it is widely understood and the defects remedied very soon. - Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
Something to watch just to pique your interest, and get you to delve deeper into actual Economics and it's effects.
I'm not even sure how many people here understand how a Fiat money system works. The above poster I guess doesn't even know the US was pulled off the Gold standard in the 1920s before the Great Depression. He doesn't even understand that the FED is behind every boom and crash by its monetary policy of artificially de-valueing the dollar and it's interest rate manipulation. It's all fake and artificial!
But I'm just a kook and don't know what I'm talking about.....
On August 18 2009 05:07 NExUS1g wrote: He told Noah to gather more animals for food.
That's an inference, but a reasonable one.
But the seven of every clean animal and bird... their only stated purpose was the propagation of their various kinds.
Again, would they be able to propagate if they were eaten? Was there a requirement to have meat on board for some of the animals? Do you think the tigers ate the wood of the ship? What do you think they ate?
Presumably, they ate the food that Noah stored for himself and the animals... which the seven of every clean animal and bird are not said to be included in.
Uh-huh, that's why he was only told to bring 7 of each of the clean (edible by the law) animals and only 2 of the non-edible, right?
I know you're not incapable of reasoning. You can't be. I mean I imagine you get through life using reasoning, so why has it taken leave of you here?
I don't know about you, but I would rather build up a bigger base of edible animals to start over with than inedible ones.
So the tigers won't need to eat some of the animals?
A couple of corrections. Actually, the bible states that the animals did not eat eachother before the flood, neither did humans eat animals. After the flood, God allowed animals to eat other animals aswell as humans to eat animals. If you look closely on those verses after the flood ended. From biblical view, the animals came to Noa, God gathered the animals, not Noa or his sons.
On August 18 2009 03:11 Lebesgue wrote: I'm sorry. A whole curse on bible. That's an overkill at least. Why not incorporate it into literature class? A month on studying it should be much more than enough.
Actually in Poland, in highschool one starts literature class with analyzing parts of bible. Bible contains many parts and not all of them explicitly "teach". There are famous poems in it as well. Also there are vast differences between different parts of bible (New Testamnet vs Old Testament). Studying bible critically allows one to see how church is using only parts that fits its teaching (the foundation of catholic religion is New Testament and only parts of Old Testament are used for teaching as the others do not fit that well into teaching of the New Testament).
So I have nothing against studying bible or any other influential religious text in the literature class. But why start a whole new course on it? This kind of reminds me dreaded "bible studies" in Britain...
The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Even between the New and Old Testaments. In fact, Jesus was accurately prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus set the Pharisees straight on the principles of the Bible and cleared up confusion.
How many birds of each kind were on the ark?
hint: check Genesis 6:20 and then Genesis 7:3
"two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
"As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them."
2 to keep alive, 5 to eat.
Genesis 7:3 (NIV): and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
Note that it says seven... to keep their various kinds alive. It does not say "to both keep them alive and to serve as food for you. You're reading into the text what is not there.
If they brought two of each and ate even one of each, how many birds would there be? If they brought 7 of each, 2 to keep alive, 5 to eat, it ensures that it would keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Keep in mind that it's not just the food for his family, but also the animals. Unless they both don't eat meat for a month and a half. I feel sorry for the hawks. I don't think they eat grain. Some reasoning should tell you that some animals MUST be eaten.
Mindcrime has a clear point. It says NOTHING about them eating the animals. You assume every animal then ate / was the same then as now. When fnfact the bible states that neither animals nor humans ate eatchother before the flood.
Your point about cartels being self defeating was very much wrong. Take mobile phone operators in Europe. They got together and charged insane fees for roaming abroad because they knew they had no rivals. Now you're suggesting that that creates a niche for some other company to fill. Let me just break it down for you. The niche is for a company to create a mobile phone network that covers the entire continent of Europe (without hiring masts from any of the established companies it is attempting to undermine) in order to provide a service to a small group of businessmen and holidaymakers by not charging very much. That's your niche. Ever heard of startup costs? The EU recently stepped in and told them to lower the prices to just high rather than extortionate and they did, making life better for everyone but their shareholders. Think anyone else was on the brink of jumping in to fill that up?
Mobile phone operators is a good example because the startup costs are immense unless you work with an established competitor from another area and agree to rent each others networks. Then they're very low. It naturally forms cartels which can easily destroy competition by denying them access. The free market has no interest in contesting that niche because while it exists in theory in practice there is no money to be made.
On August 18 2009 22:51 Kwark wrote: Your point about cartels being self defeating was very much wrong. Take mobile phone operators in Europe. They got together and charged insane fees for roaming abroad because they knew they had no rivals. Now you're suggesting that that creates a niche for some other company to fill. Let me just break it down for you. The niche is for a company to create a mobile phone network that covers the entire continent of Europe (without hiring masts from any of the established companies it is attempting to undermine) in order to provide a service to a small group of businessmen and holidaymakers by not charging very much. That's your niche. Ever heard of startup costs? The EU recently stepped in and told them to lower the prices to just high rather than extortionate and they did, making life better for everyone but their shareholders. Think anyone else was on the brink of jumping in to fill that up?
Mobile phone operators is a good example because the startup costs are immense unless you work with an established competitor from another area and agree to rent each others networks. Then they're very low. It naturally forms cartels which can easily destroy competition by denying them access. The free market has no interest in contesting that niche because while it exists in theory in practice there is no money to be made.
How is there no money to be made? Pretty much everyone has a Cell Phone in the developed countries. How do you think these companies started in the first place? It's called capital acquisition; Investors, bank loans, etc.
I'm also sure EU has a gazillion policies and regulations in place in that industry that precludes competition and easy business start up. How long on average does it take for a business to start in the EU? How many regulatory hoops do they have to jump through? By the Government making it rigid and structured and a lot harder to start a business up irregardless of cost associated then of course its going to preclude such start ups, but that isn't a market fault.
Secondly, by charging such high prices it opens competition as prefaced. You're saying that its not economically feasible for a rival to start up? Where is your basis in fact? The cell phone market is a HUGE industry. I'm quite certain, as evident with pretty much every large market that investors would be jumping at the opportunity to get involved and reap the profits that the "cartel" is making. Its preposterous to say the start up costs outweigh any profits to be made. There is not one case in history that this proves true. Please document this for me.
Also, does EU have any laws making it mandatory for companies to have their prices pubicly published? Like I said Government involvement is the problem child, not the market.
Just watch this to get an idea of the way the Government operates.
As an Edit: Who is forcing you to buy from them? In a voluntary arrangement how are these businesses forcing you to spend your money on their products? If a great proportion said, no these prices are not fair and stopped their service they would have no choice, but to lower prices. It's a voluntary free arrangement. Unless of course you actually think these companies are FORCING you into these arrangements?!
For those of you who think this is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional to have an unsaid law prohibiting Christianity from being taught in school. Hence, this law shouldn't HAVE to exist if the Constitution was being followed in the first place.
On August 18 2009 23:06 NExUS1g wrote: For those of you who think this is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional to have an unsaid law prohibiting Christianity from being taught in school. Hence, this law shouldn't HAVE to exist if the Constitution was being followed in the first place.
Other religions ARE taught in school.
Nullification. Arm yourself and read up. It's just sad how far the paradigm has shifted from our founding. Hopefully we can reverse the trend before its too late.
On August 18 2009 22:51 Kwark wrote: Your point about cartels being self defeating was very much wrong. Take mobile phone operators in Europe. They got together and charged insane fees for roaming abroad because they knew they had no rivals. Now you're suggesting that that creates a niche for some other company to fill. Let me just break it down for you. The niche is for a company to create a mobile phone network that covers the entire continent of Europe (without hiring masts from any of the established companies it is attempting to undermine) in order to provide a service to a small group of businessmen and holidaymakers by not charging very much. That's your niche. Ever heard of startup costs? The EU recently stepped in and told them to lower the prices to just high rather than extortionate and they did, making life better for everyone but their shareholders. Think anyone else was on the brink of jumping in to fill that up?
Mobile phone operators is a good example because the startup costs are immense unless you work with an established competitor from another area and agree to rent each others networks. Then they're very low. It naturally forms cartels which can easily destroy competition by denying them access. The free market has no interest in contesting that niche because while it exists in theory in practice there is no money to be made.
How is there no money to be made? Pretty much everyone has a Cell Phone in the developed countries. How do you think these companies started in the first place? It's called capital acquisition; Investors, bank loans, etc.
I'm also sure EU has a gazillion policies and regulations in place in that industry that precludes competition and easy business start up. How long on average does it take for a business to start in the EU? How many regulatory hoops do they have to jump through? By the Government making it rigid and structured and a lot harder to start a business up irregardless of cost associated then of course its going to preclude such start ups, but that isn't a market fault.
Secondly, by charging such high prices it opens competition as prefaced. You're saying that its not economically feasible for a rival to start up? Where is your basis in fact? The cell phone market is a HUGE industry. I'm quite certain, as evident with pretty much every large market that investors would be jumping at the opportunity to get involved and reap the profits that the "cartel" is making. Its preposterous to say the start up costs outweigh any profits to be made. There is not one case in history that this proves true. Please document this for me.
Also, does EU have any laws making it mandatory for companies to have their prices pubicly published? Like I said Government involvement is the problem child, not the market.
Just watch this to get an idea of the way the Government operates.
Sigh. You're just not reading. The mobile phone operators are competitive within their own countries. That's how they established their market position. But when someone on their network wishes to use their phone abroad the operator does not expand their network to cover the whole of abroad. Rather they come to an arrangement with their foreign counterparts. Having come to a set of these arrangements they companies find themselves able to charge anything they like because a competitor would need a European wide network to compete.
There is no money to be made by being their native rival because they are competitive within their own countries. There is no money to be made by being their rival on roaming because the sheer scale of the service required is outside the reach of anyone but an established operator who can support the costs of providing the network through their native market share. In short, to exist in the roaming market you already need to have a large part of the domestic market share. The companies in the cartel offer competitive prices in the domestic market share where they have rivals. They price gouge on roaming where they do not. A rival cannot appear in the roaming market alone because maintaining a huge network without the income from the domestic markets is just unfeasible. Furthermore they cannot rent domestic networks because of the cartel.
You've just not read what I said at all. My entire point was about roaming charges, not about mobile phones in general. That was very clear. Stop ignoring other peoples posts and posting irrelevant youtube videos.
Aegraen you might want to clarify further on why monopolies are self defeating. You assert that they will fail to competition when there are no Government barriers to entry, but this is unconvincing since you haven't addressed the multitude of barriers to entry that are inherent to a market, nor have you addressed monopolies' deadweight loss problems.
On August 18 2009 22:51 Kwark wrote: Your point about cartels being self defeating was very much wrong. Take mobile phone operators in Europe. They got together and charged insane fees for roaming abroad because they knew they had no rivals. Now you're suggesting that that creates a niche for some other company to fill. Let me just break it down for you. The niche is for a company to create a mobile phone network that covers the entire continent of Europe (without hiring masts from any of the established companies it is attempting to undermine) in order to provide a service to a small group of businessmen and holidaymakers by not charging very much. That's your niche. Ever heard of startup costs? The EU recently stepped in and told them to lower the prices to just high rather than extortionate and they did, making life better for everyone but their shareholders. Think anyone else was on the brink of jumping in to fill that up?
Mobile phone operators is a good example because the startup costs are immense unless you work with an established competitor from another area and agree to rent each others networks. Then they're very low. It naturally forms cartels which can easily destroy competition by denying them access. The free market has no interest in contesting that niche because while it exists in theory in practice there is no money to be made.
How is there no money to be made? Pretty much everyone has a Cell Phone in the developed countries. How do you think these companies started in the first place? It's called capital acquisition; Investors, bank loans, etc.
I'm also sure EU has a gazillion policies and regulations in place in that industry that precludes competition and easy business start up. How long on average does it take for a business to start in the EU? How many regulatory hoops do they have to jump through? By the Government making it rigid and structured and a lot harder to start a business up irregardless of cost associated then of course its going to preclude such start ups, but that isn't a market fault.
Secondly, by charging such high prices it opens competition as prefaced. You're saying that its not economically feasible for a rival to start up? Where is your basis in fact? The cell phone market is a HUGE industry. I'm quite certain, as evident with pretty much every large market that investors would be jumping at the opportunity to get involved and reap the profits that the "cartel" is making. Its preposterous to say the start up costs outweigh any profits to be made. There is not one case in history that this proves true. Please document this for me.
Also, does EU have any laws making it mandatory for companies to have their prices pubicly published? Like I said Government involvement is the problem child, not the market.
Just watch this to get an idea of the way the Government operates.
Sigh. You're just not reading. The mobile phone operators are competitive within their own countries. That's how they established their market position. But when someone on their network wishes to use their phone abroad the operator does not expand their network to cover the whole of abroad. Rather they come to an arrangement with their foreign counterparts. Having come to a set of these arrangements they companies find themselves able to charge anything they like because a competitor would need a European wide network to compete.
There is no money to be made by being their native rival because they are competitive within their own countries. There is no money to be made by being their rival on roaming because the sheer scale of the service required is outside the reach of anyone but an established operator who can support the costs of providing the network through their native market share. In short, to exist in the roaming market you already need to have a large part of the domestic market share. The companies in the cartel offer competitive prices in the domestic market share where they have rivals. They price gouge on roaming where they do not. A rival cannot appear in the roaming market alone because maintaining a huge network without the income from the domestic markets is just unfeasible. Furthermore they cannot rent domestic networks because of the cartel.
You've just not read what I said at all. My entire point was about roaming charges, not about mobile phones in general. That was very clear. Stop ignoring other peoples posts and posting irrelevant youtube videos.
I bet the EU much like the US has a Government policy and law that says that each company has to pubicly provide their prices, right? One company cannot secretly charge a lower price, correct? This is how cartels are naturally broken, but because the Government has essentially made it illegal to do so, its Government allowing this to happen not the marketplace. Do you honestly think that a company would voluntarily give up market share and profit so everyone makes less money?
For example, say a German company secretly lets their customers know that they are going to charge their customers less than their supposed cartel member. Now, word of mouth gets out and everyone switches to the new lower cost provider. The other cartel members find out and get angry and boot him out, and the cycle repeats itself. This is why GREED, is a natural barrier to any cartel or monopoly. They naturally dissolve themselves.
On August 18 2009 22:51 Kwark wrote: Your point about cartels being self defeating was very much wrong. Take mobile phone operators in Europe. They got together and charged insane fees for roaming abroad because they knew they had no rivals. Now you're suggesting that that creates a niche for some other company to fill. Let me just break it down for you. The niche is for a company to create a mobile phone network that covers the entire continent of Europe (without hiring masts from any of the established companies it is attempting to undermine) in order to provide a service to a small group of businessmen and holidaymakers by not charging very much. That's your niche. Ever heard of startup costs? The EU recently stepped in and told them to lower the prices to just high rather than extortionate and they did, making life better for everyone but their shareholders. Think anyone else was on the brink of jumping in to fill that up?
Mobile phone operators is a good example because the startup costs are immense unless you work with an established competitor from another area and agree to rent each others networks. Then they're very low. It naturally forms cartels which can easily destroy competition by denying them access. The free market has no interest in contesting that niche because while it exists in theory in practice there is no money to be made.
How is there no money to be made? Pretty much everyone has a Cell Phone in the developed countries. How do you think these companies started in the first place? It's called capital acquisition; Investors, bank loans, etc.
I'm also sure EU has a gazillion policies and regulations in place in that industry that precludes competition and easy business start up. How long on average does it take for a business to start in the EU? How many regulatory hoops do they have to jump through? By the Government making it rigid and structured and a lot harder to start a business up irregardless of cost associated then of course its going to preclude such start ups, but that isn't a market fault.
Secondly, by charging such high prices it opens competition as prefaced. You're saying that its not economically feasible for a rival to start up? Where is your basis in fact? The cell phone market is a HUGE industry. I'm quite certain, as evident with pretty much every large market that investors would be jumping at the opportunity to get involved and reap the profits that the "cartel" is making. Its preposterous to say the start up costs outweigh any profits to be made. There is not one case in history that this proves true. Please document this for me.
Also, does EU have any laws making it mandatory for companies to have their prices pubicly published? Like I said Government involvement is the problem child, not the market.
Just watch this to get an idea of the way the Government operates.
Sigh. You're just not reading. The mobile phone operators are competitive within their own countries. That's how they established their market position. But when someone on their network wishes to use their phone abroad the operator does not expand their network to cover the whole of abroad. Rather they come to an arrangement with their foreign counterparts. Having come to a set of these arrangements they companies find themselves able to charge anything they like because a competitor would need a European wide network to compete.
There is no money to be made by being their native rival because they are competitive within their own countries. There is no money to be made by being their rival on roaming because the sheer scale of the service required is outside the reach of anyone but an established operator who can support the costs of providing the network through their native market share. In short, to exist in the roaming market you already need to have a large part of the domestic market share. The companies in the cartel offer competitive prices in the domestic market share where they have rivals. They price gouge on roaming where they do not. A rival cannot appear in the roaming market alone because maintaining a huge network without the income from the domestic markets is just unfeasible. Furthermore they cannot rent domestic networks because of the cartel.
You've just not read what I said at all. My entire point was about roaming charges, not about mobile phones in general. That was very clear. Stop ignoring other peoples posts and posting irrelevant youtube videos.
I bet the EU much like the US has a Government policy and law that says that each company has to pubicly provide their prices, right? One company cannot secretly charge a lower price, correct? This is how cartels are naturally broken, but because the Government has essentially made it illegal to do so, its Government allowing this to happen not the marketplace. Do you honestly think that a company would voluntarily give up market share and profit so everyone makes less money?
For example, say a German company secretly lets their customers know that they are going to charge their customers less than their supposed cartel member. Now, word of mouth gets out and everyone switches to the new lower cost provider. The other cartel members find out and get angry and boot him out, and the cycle repeats itself. This is why GREED, is a natural barrier to any cartel or monopoly. They naturally dissolve themselves.
The cartel members are not in competition with each other. If you are an Englishman going on holiday in Germany you will be on an English mobile phone company who will have an arrangement with a German mobile phone company whereby the English company rents access to the German network. If the German company announced it had lowered it's roaming charges I wouldn't care because I don't read German. Whereas if an English company offered lower roaming charges than the one I was on it wouldn't help because my phone wouldn't get any signal in Germany because they have no network there. Are you beginning to understand yet?
On August 18 2009 23:22 EchOne wrote: Aegraen you might want to clarify further on why monopolies are self defeating. You assert that they will fail to competition when there are no Government barriers to entry, but this is unconvincing since you haven't addressed the multitude of barriers to entry that are inherent to a market, nor have you addressed monopolies' deadweight loss problems.
The only barrier to market entry (Without Government involvement) is start up costs. This isn't even much of a problem due to how investments work. How do you think every single company as ever started up?
A Monopoly is not inherently a bad thing. Predatory pricing is cowed by the mainstream as bad, and hurts the people. This is false. Having goods and services cheaper allows more people to purchase which is a good thing. People then go on to say well, once all their competition is wiped out they'll simply raise prices and extort from people. Once they raise prices however, it allows competitors to come in undercut and make profit and have a successful business.
I seriously want you to look and try to find any historical data that shows where a company comes in, destroys competition by predatory pricing and then jacks the price back up and actually survives in any longevity. If you can find even one example I'll cede my point. However, I am backed by such giants as Friedman, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and the like and there have been no historical documents of this ever suceeding. I'm eager to hear your reply and which company succeeded in doing so.
On August 18 2009 22:51 Kwark wrote: Your point about cartels being self defeating was very much wrong. Take mobile phone operators in Europe. They got together and charged insane fees for roaming abroad because they knew they had no rivals. Now you're suggesting that that creates a niche for some other company to fill. Let me just break it down for you. The niche is for a company to create a mobile phone network that covers the entire continent of Europe (without hiring masts from any of the established companies it is attempting to undermine) in order to provide a service to a small group of businessmen and holidaymakers by not charging very much. That's your niche. Ever heard of startup costs? The EU recently stepped in and told them to lower the prices to just high rather than extortionate and they did, making life better for everyone but their shareholders. Think anyone else was on the brink of jumping in to fill that up?
Mobile phone operators is a good example because the startup costs are immense unless you work with an established competitor from another area and agree to rent each others networks. Then they're very low. It naturally forms cartels which can easily destroy competition by denying them access. The free market has no interest in contesting that niche because while it exists in theory in practice there is no money to be made.
How is there no money to be made? Pretty much everyone has a Cell Phone in the developed countries. How do you think these companies started in the first place? It's called capital acquisition; Investors, bank loans, etc.
I'm also sure EU has a gazillion policies and regulations in place in that industry that precludes competition and easy business start up. How long on average does it take for a business to start in the EU? How many regulatory hoops do they have to jump through? By the Government making it rigid and structured and a lot harder to start a business up irregardless of cost associated then of course its going to preclude such start ups, but that isn't a market fault.
Secondly, by charging such high prices it opens competition as prefaced. You're saying that its not economically feasible for a rival to start up? Where is your basis in fact? The cell phone market is a HUGE industry. I'm quite certain, as evident with pretty much every large market that investors would be jumping at the opportunity to get involved and reap the profits that the "cartel" is making. Its preposterous to say the start up costs outweigh any profits to be made. There is not one case in history that this proves true. Please document this for me.
Also, does EU have any laws making it mandatory for companies to have their prices pubicly published? Like I said Government involvement is the problem child, not the market.
Just watch this to get an idea of the way the Government operates.
Sigh. You're just not reading. The mobile phone operators are competitive within their own countries. That's how they established their market position. But when someone on their network wishes to use their phone abroad the operator does not expand their network to cover the whole of abroad. Rather they come to an arrangement with their foreign counterparts. Having come to a set of these arrangements they companies find themselves able to charge anything they like because a competitor would need a European wide network to compete.
There is no money to be made by being their native rival because they are competitive within their own countries. There is no money to be made by being their rival on roaming because the sheer scale of the service required is outside the reach of anyone but an established operator who can support the costs of providing the network through their native market share. In short, to exist in the roaming market you already need to have a large part of the domestic market share. The companies in the cartel offer competitive prices in the domestic market share where they have rivals. They price gouge on roaming where they do not. A rival cannot appear in the roaming market alone because maintaining a huge network without the income from the domestic markets is just unfeasible. Furthermore they cannot rent domestic networks because of the cartel.
You've just not read what I said at all. My entire point was about roaming charges, not about mobile phones in general. That was very clear. Stop ignoring other peoples posts and posting irrelevant youtube videos.
I bet the EU much like the US has a Government policy and law that says that each company has to pubicly provide their prices, right? One company cannot secretly charge a lower price, correct? This is how cartels are naturally broken, but because the Government has essentially made it illegal to do so, its Government allowing this to happen not the marketplace. Do you honestly think that a company would voluntarily give up market share and profit so everyone makes less money?
For example, say a German company secretly lets their customers know that they are going to charge their customers less than their supposed cartel member. Now, word of mouth gets out and everyone switches to the new lower cost provider. The other cartel members find out and get angry and boot him out, and the cycle repeats itself. This is why GREED, is a natural barrier to any cartel or monopoly. They naturally dissolve themselves.
The cartel members are not in competition with each other. If you are an Englishman going on holiday in Germany you will be on an English mobile phone company who will have an arrangement with a German mobile phone company whereby the English company rents access to the German network. If the German company announced it had lowered it's roaming charges I wouldn't care because I don't read German. Whereas if an English company offered lower roaming charges than the one I was on it wouldn't help because my phone wouldn't get any signal in Germany because they have no network there. Are you beginning to understand yet?
So your contention is that every single German carrier is in cohoots with one English service? So, instead of one German carrier getting a larger market share, they share amongst themselves? This is exactly what I said about cartels naturally destroying themselves. One of the German carriers would secretly create an arrangement with the English carrier to charge lower prices than the others, thereby creating a larger market share and increasing his profits. However, I am certain that EU law prohibits that from happening, much like the US law has. When you have Government involvement it distorts the marketplace so much. There literally is no free-market anywhere in the world. Every market really is controlled by Government through regulations and other hoodwinks. If you want examples how what you say is false, look at America in the 1870s to 1900. There is documentation after documentation about monopolies being naturally broken by the market the same with cartels. These people in competition then went to the Government and basically cried that the other companies were charging less and couldn't compete so the Government intervened and created the problem in the first place where there was none.
Are you honestly saying there is no incentive for one company to try and corner the vast majority of market share?
English man on English phone plan. English phone plan covers England. English phone plan competitive in England. English man goes to France. French company covers France. French company is competitive in France. English company doesn't cover France. This is because French people don't go on English plans and there aren't many English people in France. English company rents the French network because there are too few customers to justify setting up their own. English company charges a lot for this because the French company says they can in exchange for a mutual agreement.
New company wants to break into this market and offer low cost roaming. English people in France approve, but there are not many of them in France. French people in France don't care because the French company is already offering them good prices. Company builds a network that covers all England and France. English people in France join the company. French people in France don't join the company. English people in England don't join the company. Company has to maintain a network the same size as its rivals but without access to the same huge domestic market cannot sustain it. Company goes bust. Investors wonder why they were stupid enough to think this was a good idea. Then they wake up and realise it was all a bad dream.
It's really very simple. It's a case where an additional market is created without any additional costs provided you already have an established market share. Whereas if you are not established access to that market is hugely expensive. Once you reach a certain size, free. Before a certain size, expensive. All the companies of that size are in that cartel.
On August 18 2009 23:38 Kwark wrote: English man on English phone plan. English phone plan covers England. English phone plan competitive in England. English man goes to France. French company covers France. French company is competitive in France. English company doesn't cover France. This is because French people don't go on English plans and there aren't many English people in France. English company rents the French network because there are too few customers to justify setting up their own. English company charges a lot for this because the French company says they can in exchange for a mutual agreement.
New company wants to break into this market and offer low cost roaming. English people in France approve, but there are not many of them in France. French people in France don't care because the French company is already offering them good prices. Company builds a network that covers all England and France. English people in France join the company. French people in France don't join the company. English people in England don't join the company. Company has to maintain a network the same size as its rivals but without access to the same huge domestic market cannot sustain it. Company goes bust. Investors wonder why they were stupid enough to think this was a good idea. Then they wake up and realise it was all a bad dream.
It's really very simple. It's a case where an additional market is created without any additional costs provided you already have an established market share. Whereas if you are not established access to that market is hugely expensive. Once you reach a certain size, free. Before a certain size, expensive. All the companies of that size are in that cartel.
Your not understanding what I am saying. There will be a company in France no matter what you think because there is a thing called human greed, and will secretly form an arrangement with another English service to provide lower cost roaming charges; in secret. They will then corner the whole market and not have to share any with "their cartel friends". This benefits the company much more than being in a cartel and is why cartels naturally destroy themselves. I'll break this down.
All french companies agree to rent to one English company in exchange for high prices. This means that all French companies have to share amongst themselves thereby creating lower profits for each company. There will naturally be a dissenter due to human greed that wants to corner the whole market and betray his "cartel friends" by providing his all ready established cell phone signal and infrastructure which covers france to either that company or another English company at a lower cost thereby cornering the market to himself. This is how cartels naturally dissolve. Of course there is a brief time where "price gouging" occurs, but it can never happen for any period of time that one might think as "a period of longevity".
In any event, no one is forcing the people into the voluntary arrangements and contracts with the cell phone providers. You can opt out at anytime. If you are unhappy with service then make your voice heard with the power of your money. You don't need Government to get involved in any way whatsoever to effect this to happen. Once Government gets involved you'll never get it uninvolved and the "unintended" consequences are enormous.
On August 18 2009 23:38 Kwark wrote: English man on English phone plan. English phone plan covers England. English phone plan competitive in England. English man goes to France. French company covers France. French company is competitive in France. English company doesn't cover France. This is because French people don't go on English plans and there aren't many English people in France. English company rents the French network because there are too few customers to justify setting up their own. English company charges a lot for this because the French company says they can in exchange for a mutual agreement.
New company wants to break into this market and offer low cost roaming. English people in France approve, but there are not many of them in France. French people in France don't care because the French company is already offering them good prices. Company builds a network that covers all England and France. English people in France join the company. French people in France don't join the company. English people in England don't join the company. Company has to maintain a network the same size as its rivals but without access to the same huge domestic market cannot sustain it. Company goes bust. Investors wonder why they were stupid enough to think this was a good idea. Then they wake up and realise it was all a bad dream.
It's really very simple. It's a case where an additional market is created without any additional costs provided you already have an established market share. Whereas if you are not established access to that market is hugely expensive. Once you reach a certain size, free. Before a certain size, expensive. All the companies of that size are in that cartel.
Your not understanding what I am saying. There will be a company in France no matter what you think because there is a thing called human greed, and will secretly form an arrangement with another English service to provide lower cost roaming charges; in secret. They will then corner the whole market and not have to share any with "their cartel friends". This benefits the company much more than being in a cartel and is why cartels naturally destroy themselves. I'll break this down.
All french companies agree to rent to one English company in exchange for high prices. This means that all French companies have to share amongst themselves thereby creating lower profits for each company. There will naturally be a dissenter due to human greed that wants to corner the whole market and betray his "cartel friends" by providing his all ready established cell phone signal and infrastructure which covers france to either that company or another English company at a lower cost thereby cornering the market to himself. This is how cartels naturally dissolve. Of course there is a brief time where "price gouging" occurs, but it can never happen for any period of time that one might think as "a period of longevity".
In any event, no one is forcing the people into the voluntary arrangements and contracts with the cell phone providers. You can opt out at anytime. If you are unhappy with service then make your voice heard with the power of your money. You don't need Government to get involved in any way whatsoever to effect this to happen. Once Government gets involved you'll never get it uninvolved and the "unintended" consequences are enormous.
Because they don't know that if they start fucking themselves over it'll naturally break down... Better not tell them or they'll not do that. By Gods, if the management ever heard that their greed for maximum profits in the first year could fuck them over two years down the line they might show some restraint. Quick, edit out your post before they read it. In fact, edit out all your posts.
Does it ever occur to you that they might be both greedy and intelligent? Also it's all big providers in all countries in on it and they rent the networks to each other for virtually nothing, instead taking the reward from the quid pro quo income from the access they recieve.
On August 18 2009 10:51 NExUS1g wrote: You think that a burning bush that talks isn't fit for the tabloids? I think lighting G.W. on fire would make front page.
But kidding aside, you have a poor opinion and lack of open-mindedness and tolerance toward religion. And I've lived lots of places including backwoods Texas and there are idiots everywhere, it's not just limited to Texas.
There are certainly idiots everywhere, but they're especially numerous here
I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to your assessment of my perspective, but you're making several assumptions. I've said nothing to indicate a lack of open mindedness or tolerance, beyond that I have zero tolerance or open-mindedness for religious education in public schools. I'm not sure you know what open mindedness actually is.
I do have a poor opinion of religion. I don't feel articulating the reasons behind my opinion is worth the time, as I (and any other non-religious person who has tried) know from experience that debating religion with a religious person is a lost cause - religion requires a complete and utter lack of open mindedness as the cost of entry - you have to abandon free thought at the door and believe without question the doctrine of the religion. But I've said too much already, as I don't really want to go into it with you
I'll leave it at this: teaching the Bible in any context in public school is unacceptable. Period.
Greek and Roman mythology is taught in school. Why is it you don't complain about those?
Also, I'm agnostic, so you can't put me in the box labeled "religious".
For starters, I don't think they are required curriculum.
And then there is the fact that greek and roman mythology are not a big part of today's religions.
And finally, the fact that those are a study of beliefs rather than study of a text.
It would be easy to study christian beliefs without studying the actual bible.
This new law allowing a class about the Bible is an elective and not required for students to take.
It doesn't matter how major a religion it is in the modern world, the Greek and Roman pantheon and its mythology are still religions.
And when we study Greek/Roman mythology we read stories of Hercules, Zeus, Hera, Hades, etc. If we study the history of Christianity, we'll read stories about God, Jesus, Jacob, the prophets, etc. There's absolutely no difference other than the one caused by the stigma in peoples' heads.
The only argument I hear to any of this is, "but... it's Christianity! That's different!" Doesn't work, sorry.
You're just plain wrong, sorry. Unless they're going to label the course "Christian Mythology" or "Bible Mythology", it's completely different. Treating anything in the bible as historical fact is unacceptable.
On August 18 2009 23:06 NExUS1g wrote: For those of you who think this is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional to have an unsaid law prohibiting Christianity from being taught in school. Hence, this law shouldn't HAVE to exist if the Constitution was being followed in the first place.
Other religions ARE taught in school.
Nullification. Arm yourself and read up. It's just sad how far the paradigm has shifted from our founding. Hopefully we can reverse the trend before its too late.
And holy shit is this Aegrean guy for real or is he some kind of really bored troll? I've never read so much nonsense in one place since I quit going to church in 6th grade. I certainly hope you're not trying to suggest that Christianity was a core component of "our founding", considering the number of educated and articulate Atheists involved in it.
Humans really need to evolve beyond religion (superstition). Since the dawn of science religion has fought against it and been proven wrong time and time again - yet Americans are more suspicious of science than religion, think science is dogma and religion is not, think science IS a religion, think religion is open minded and science is not, and think the Bible is an accurate historical document but the fossil record and carbon dating are not. /wrists
On August 18 2009 23:59 L wrote: We've already gone down this Monopoly road, and the evidence posted was far more convincing that mr. niche market theory over here.
In certain fields, the theory Aegraen proposes actually works: Forestry, for instance. In others, like the ones we're discussing, it does not.
It amazes me how conservatives and advocates of complete market deregulation call liberal ideas "idealistic", when their own ideals are based on the assumption that the wealthy and powerful will always be good and fair and just - that they will pass on their wealth and everyone will prosper - despite countless evidence to the contrary.
On August 18 2009 10:51 NExUS1g wrote: You think that a burning bush that talks isn't fit for the tabloids? I think lighting G.W. on fire would make front page.
But kidding aside, you have a poor opinion and lack of open-mindedness and tolerance toward religion. And I've lived lots of places including backwoods Texas and there are idiots everywhere, it's not just limited to Texas.
There are certainly idiots everywhere, but they're especially numerous here
I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to your assessment of my perspective, but you're making several assumptions. I've said nothing to indicate a lack of open mindedness or tolerance, beyond that I have zero tolerance or open-mindedness for religious education in public schools. I'm not sure you know what open mindedness actually is.
I do have a poor opinion of religion. I don't feel articulating the reasons behind my opinion is worth the time, as I (and any other non-religious person who has tried) know from experience that debating religion with a religious person is a lost cause - religion requires a complete and utter lack of open mindedness as the cost of entry - you have to abandon free thought at the door and believe without question the doctrine of the religion. But I've said too much already, as I don't really want to go into it with you
I'll leave it at this: teaching the Bible in any context in public school is unacceptable. Period.
Greek and Roman mythology is taught in school. Why is it you don't complain about those?
Also, I'm agnostic, so you can't put me in the box labeled "religious".
For starters, I don't think they are required curriculum.
And then there is the fact that greek and roman mythology are not a big part of today's religions.
And finally, the fact that those are a study of beliefs rather than study of a text.
It would be easy to study christian beliefs without studying the actual bible.
This new law allowing a class about the Bible is an elective and not required for students to take.
It doesn't matter how major a religion it is in the modern world, the Greek and Roman pantheon and its mythology are still religions.
And when we study Greek/Roman mythology we read stories of Hercules, Zeus, Hera, Hades, etc. If we study the history of Christianity, we'll read stories about God, Jesus, Jacob, the prophets, etc. There's absolutely no difference other than the one caused by the stigma in peoples' heads.
The only argument I hear to any of this is, "but... it's Christianity! That's different!" Doesn't work, sorry.
You're just plain wrong, sorry. Unless they're going to label the course "Christian Mythology" or "Bible Mythology", it's completely different. Treating anything in the bible as historical fact is unacceptable.
They're teaching it for its historical, literary and cultural importance. Please read the law before trying to sound educated about it.
On August 18 2009 23:06 NExUS1g wrote: For those of you who think this is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional to have an unsaid law prohibiting Christianity from being taught in school. Hence, this law shouldn't HAVE to exist if the Constitution was being followed in the first place.
Other religions ARE taught in school.
Nullification. Arm yourself and read up. It's just sad how far the paradigm has shifted from our founding. Hopefully we can reverse the trend before its too late.
And holy shit is this Aegrean guy for real or is he some kind of really bored troll? I've never read so much nonsense in one place since I quit going to church in 6th grade. I certainly hope you're not trying to suggest that Christianity was a core component of "our founding", considering the number of educated and articulate Atheists involved in it.
Humans really need to evolve beyond religion (superstition). Since the dawn of science religion has fought against it and been proven wrong time and time again - yet Americans are more suspicious of science than religion, think science is dogma and religion is not, think science IS a religion, think religion is open minded and science is not, and think the Bible is an accurate historical document but the fossil record and carbon dating are not. /wrists
I am agnostic.
What does the president elect put his left hand on when swearing his oath? You lose.
On August 18 2009 23:06 NExUS1g wrote: For those of you who think this is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional to have an unsaid law prohibiting Christianity from being taught in school. Hence, this law shouldn't HAVE to exist if the Constitution was being followed in the first place.
Other religions ARE taught in school.
Nullification. Arm yourself and read up. It's just sad how far the paradigm has shifted from our founding. Hopefully we can reverse the trend before its too late.
And holy shit is this Aegrean guy for real or is he some kind of really bored troll? I've never read so much nonsense in one place since I quit going to church in 6th grade. I certainly hope you're not trying to suggest that Christianity was a core component of "our founding", considering the number of educated and articulate Atheists involved in it.
Humans really need to evolve beyond religion (superstition). Since the dawn of science religion has fought against it and been proven wrong time and time again - yet Americans are more suspicious of science than religion, think science is dogma and religion is not, think science IS a religion, think religion is open minded and science is not, and think the Bible is an accurate historical document but the fossil record and carbon dating are not. /wrists
What? I'm arguing Constitutional basis, not what is "right and wrong". Do you know what Nullification is?
PS You do know I'm agnostic and have argued that ideally neither secularist/atheist or religious views should be involved in the school place. The ultimate goal however, is to have free choice and a privatized educational system where the parents can elect to send their children wherever they please and that means educational institutions which most reflect their wants and needs. Which is a good thing. There have been many tests conducted with privatized educational systems and each have proven far better than the public alternative at relatively the same costs and some cheaper.
On August 18 2009 23:06 NExUS1g wrote: For those of you who think this is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional to have an unsaid law prohibiting Christianity from being taught in school. Hence, this law shouldn't HAVE to exist if the Constitution was being followed in the first place.
Other religions ARE taught in school.
Nullification. Arm yourself and read up. It's just sad how far the paradigm has shifted from our founding. Hopefully we can reverse the trend before its too late.
And holy shit is this Aegrean guy for real or is he some kind of really bored troll? I've never read so much nonsense in one place since I quit going to church in 6th grade. I certainly hope you're not trying to suggest that Christianity was a core component of "our founding", considering the number of educated and articulate Atheists involved in it.
Humans really need to evolve beyond religion (superstition). Since the dawn of science religion has fought against it and been proven wrong time and time again - yet Americans are more suspicious of science than religion, think science is dogma and religion is not, think science IS a religion, think religion is open minded and science is not, and think the Bible is an accurate historical document but the fossil record and carbon dating are not. /wrists
I am agnostic.
You assume we as humans know everything there is about the Universe to determine there is, in fact, no deity? The most anyone can claim is the lack of knowledge.
Also, the Bible has not been proven wrong. Instead, actually, archaeological finds often support historical notes found in the Bible. I know, everyone eventually mentions the "7 days" thing, but the translation is a point of debate because of the wording used in the original texts and later contexts put to a "day".
On August 18 2009 23:06 NExUS1g wrote: For those of you who think this is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional to have an unsaid law prohibiting Christianity from being taught in school. Hence, this law shouldn't HAVE to exist if the Constitution was being followed in the first place.
Other religions ARE taught in school.
Nullification. Arm yourself and read up. It's just sad how far the paradigm has shifted from our founding. Hopefully we can reverse the trend before its too late.
And holy shit is this Aegrean guy for real or is he some kind of really bored troll? I've never read so much nonsense in one place since I quit going to church in 6th grade. I certainly hope you're not trying to suggest that Christianity was a core component of "our founding", considering the number of educated and articulate Atheists involved in it.
Humans really need to evolve beyond religion (superstition). Since the dawn of science religion has fought against it and been proven wrong time and time again - yet Americans are more suspicious of science than religion, think science is dogma and religion is not, think science IS a religion, think religion is open minded and science is not, and think the Bible is an accurate historical document but the fossil record and carbon dating are not. /wrists
I am agnostic.
You assume we as humans know everything there is about the Universe to determine there is, in fact, no deity? The most anyone can claim is the lack of knowledge.
Also, the Bible has not been proven wrong. Instead, actually, archaeological finds often support historical notes found in the Bible. I know, everyone eventually mentions the "7 days" thing, but the translation is a point of debate because of the wording used in the original texts and later contexts put to a "day".
Louder doesnt assume that.
I think you start out at the assumption that there is a god and with that assumption dont see any evidence to the contrary. If there was no initial assumption about there being a god...WAY less people would believe because youd have to convince them that there WAS a god. Not that god didnt "exist".
Being an agnostic is lame anyway. Hate to say it but youd have to be an agnostic about just about everything.
On August 18 2009 23:06 NExUS1g wrote: For those of you who think this is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional to have an unsaid law prohibiting Christianity from being taught in school. Hence, this law shouldn't HAVE to exist if the Constitution was being followed in the first place.
Other religions ARE taught in school.
Nullification. Arm yourself and read up. It's just sad how far the paradigm has shifted from our founding. Hopefully we can reverse the trend before its too late.
And holy shit is this Aegrean guy for real or is he some kind of really bored troll? I've never read so much nonsense in one place since I quit going to church in 6th grade. I certainly hope you're not trying to suggest that Christianity was a core component of "our founding", considering the number of educated and articulate Atheists involved in it.
Humans really need to evolve beyond religion (superstition). Since the dawn of science religion has fought against it and been proven wrong time and time again - yet Americans are more suspicious of science than religion, think science is dogma and religion is not, think science IS a religion, think religion is open minded and science is not, and think the Bible is an accurate historical document but the fossil record and carbon dating are not. /wrists
I am agnostic.
You assume we as humans know everything there is about the Universe to determine there is, in fact, no deity? The most anyone can claim is the lack of knowledge.
Also, the Bible has not been proven wrong. Instead, actually, archaeological finds often support historical notes found in the Bible. I know, everyone eventually mentions the "7 days" thing, but the translation is a point of debate because of the wording used in the original texts and later contexts put to a "day".
Louder doesnt assume that.
I think you start out at the assumption that there is a god and with that assumption dont see any evidence to the contrary. If there was no initial assumption about there being a god...WAY less people would believe because youd have to convince them that there WAS a god. Not that god didnt "exist".
Being an agnostic is lame anyway. Hate to say it but youd have to be an agnostic about just about everything.
I am agnostic.
I don't think you know what agnosticism is. It is professing the lack of knowledge. I am actually an agnostic atheist, since I do not belong to any religion, nor do I presume to know whether or not a deity exists.
By stating, "There is no god," you immediately put yourself in a realm of fantasy more so than someone professing believe in a deity. The only difference is, we KNOW you don't know everything, while we don't and can't know there is absolutely no deity.
On August 18 2009 23:06 NExUS1g wrote: For those of you who think this is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional to have an unsaid law prohibiting Christianity from being taught in school. Hence, this law shouldn't HAVE to exist if the Constitution was being followed in the first place.
Other religions ARE taught in school.
Nullification. Arm yourself and read up. It's just sad how far the paradigm has shifted from our founding. Hopefully we can reverse the trend before its too late.
And holy shit is this Aegrean guy for real or is he some kind of really bored troll? I've never read so much nonsense in one place since I quit going to church in 6th grade. I certainly hope you're not trying to suggest that Christianity was a core component of "our founding", considering the number of educated and articulate Atheists involved in it.
Humans really need to evolve beyond religion (superstition). Since the dawn of science religion has fought against it and been proven wrong time and time again - yet Americans are more suspicious of science than religion, think science is dogma and religion is not, think science IS a religion, think religion is open minded and science is not, and think the Bible is an accurate historical document but the fossil record and carbon dating are not. /wrists
I am agnostic.
You assume we as humans know everything there is about the Universe to determine there is, in fact, no deity? The most anyone can claim is the lack of knowledge.
Also, the Bible has not been proven wrong. Instead, actually, archaeological finds often support historical notes found in the Bible. I know, everyone eventually mentions the "7 days" thing, but the translation is a point of debate because of the wording used in the original texts and later contexts put to a "day".
Louder doesnt assume that.
I think you start out at the assumption that there is a god and with that assumption dont see any evidence to the contrary. If there was no initial assumption about there being a god...WAY less people would believe because youd have to convince them that there WAS a god. Not that god didnt "exist".
Being an agnostic is lame anyway. Hate to say it but youd have to be an agnostic about just about everything.
I am an agnostic.
I don't think you know what agnosticism is. It is professing the lack of knowledge. I am actually an agnostic atheist, since I do not belong to any religion, nor do I presume to know whether or not a deity exists.
By stating, "There is no god," you immediately put yourself in a realm of fantasy more so than someone professing believe in a deity. The only difference is, we KNOW you don't know everything, while we don't and can't know there is absolutely no deity.
and you cant know that there arent 40000000 Pizzas flying through the planet that are invisible and undetectable. btw they also play starcraft.
On August 18 2009 23:06 NExUS1g wrote: For those of you who think this is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional to have an unsaid law prohibiting Christianity from being taught in school. Hence, this law shouldn't HAVE to exist if the Constitution was being followed in the first place.
Other religions ARE taught in school.
Nullification. Arm yourself and read up. It's just sad how far the paradigm has shifted from our founding. Hopefully we can reverse the trend before its too late.
And holy shit is this Aegrean guy for real or is he some kind of really bored troll? I've never read so much nonsense in one place since I quit going to church in 6th grade. I certainly hope you're not trying to suggest that Christianity was a core component of "our founding", considering the number of educated and articulate Atheists involved in it.
Humans really need to evolve beyond religion (superstition). Since the dawn of science religion has fought against it and been proven wrong time and time again - yet Americans are more suspicious of science than religion, think science is dogma and religion is not, think science IS a religion, think religion is open minded and science is not, and think the Bible is an accurate historical document but the fossil record and carbon dating are not. /wrists
I am agnostic.
You assume we as humans know everything there is about the Universe to determine there is, in fact, no deity? The most anyone can claim is the lack of knowledge.
Also, the Bible has not been proven wrong. Instead, actually, archaeological finds often support historical notes found in the Bible. I know, everyone eventually mentions the "7 days" thing, but the translation is a point of debate because of the wording used in the original texts and later contexts put to a "day".
Louder doesnt assume that.
I think you start out at the assumption that there is a god and with that assumption dont see any evidence to the contrary. If there was no initial assumption about there being a god...WAY less people would believe because youd have to convince them that there WAS a god. Not that god didnt "exist".
Being an agnostic is lame anyway. Hate to say it but youd have to be an agnostic about just about everything.
I am an agnostic.
I don't think you know what agnosticism is. It is professing the lack of knowledge. I am actually an agnostic atheist, since I do not belong to any religion, nor do I presume to know whether or not a deity exists.
By stating, "There is no god," you immediately put yourself in a realm of fantasy more so than someone professing believe in a deity. The only difference is, we KNOW you don't know everything, while we don't and can't know there is absolutely no deity.
and you cant know that there arent 40000000 Pizzas flying through the planet that are invisible and undetectable. btw they also play starcraft.
If they're undetectable, then no, we can't know. If you profess that you believe there are 40,000,000 undetectable flying pizzas that play StarCraft, more power to you buddy.
On August 19 2009 00:34 NExUS1g wrote: By stating, "There is no god," you immediately put yourself in a realm of fantasy more so than someone professing believe in a deity. The only difference is, we KNOW you don't know everything, while we don't and can't know there is absolutely no deity.
Epistemology is not as clear as you imply. You shouldn't present your argument as if that's all there is. It's just the argument you've thrown your epistemological chips in with! There are other options. Indeed, the other options are why you'll find that some scholars very well read on both epistemology and religion will profess atheism rather than agnosticism.
On August 19 2009 00:34 NExUS1g wrote: By stating, "There is no god," you immediately put yourself in a realm of fantasy more so than someone professing believe in a deity. The only difference is, we KNOW you don't know everything, while we don't and can't know there is absolutely no deity.
Epistemology is not as clear as you imply. You shouldn't present your argument as if that's all there is. It's just the argument you've thrown your epistemological chips in with! There are other options. Indeed, the other options are why you'll find that some scholars very well read on both epistemology and religion will profess atheism rather than agnosticism.
It is possible to be both agnostic and atheist which I am. I do not profess to know definitively of the existence or lack thereof of a deity, nor do I prescribe myself to the actual belief of any deity.
I do not say deities do not exist, because I do not know everything about the Universe and thus cannot make such a determination on an educated basis (making me agnostic), but at the same time, in my personal beliefs, I do not believe in a deity (making me atheist). One is knowledge, the other is personal belief.
Epistemology does cross lines because these are both philosophical (epistemology and theism); however, in this exact case, the definitions of the knowledge required to be either a strong or weak atheist and/or agnostic are made pointedly.
On August 18 2009 23:22 EchOne wrote: Aegraen you might want to clarify further on why monopolies are self defeating. You assert that they will fail to competition when there are no Government barriers to entry, but this is unconvincing since you haven't addressed the multitude of barriers to entry that are inherent to a market, nor have you addressed monopolies' deadweight loss problems.
The only barrier to market entry (Without Government involvement) is start up costs. This isn't even much of a problem due to how investments work. How do you think every single company as ever started up?
A Monopoly is not inherently a bad thing. Predatory pricing is cowed by the mainstream as bad, and hurts the people. This is false. Having goods and services cheaper allows more people to purchase which is a good thing. People then go on to say well, once all their competition is wiped out they'll simply raise prices and extort from people. Once they raise prices however, it allows competitors to come in undercut and make profit and have a successful business.
I seriously want you to look and try to find any historical data that shows where a company comes in, destroys competition by predatory pricing and then jacks the price back up and actually survives in any longevity. If you can find even one example I'll cede my point. However, I am backed by such giants as Friedman, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and the like and there have been no historical documents of this ever suceeding. I'm eager to hear your reply and which company succeeded in doing so.
In addition to start up costs, advertising strength, resource control, intellectual property, economies of scale, customer loyalty, high sunk costs, R&D strength, the network effect, and other effects serve to deter entry into a monopolized market. Answering non-governmental barriers to entry with the supposition that entrepreneurs can somehow magic together mountains of venture capital is naive.
Investors always consider risk since it is an incontrovertible resource in their livelihoods, and barriers to entry that are exacerbated by monopoly don't create favorable risk environments for them. You think small competitors can suddenly depose an incumbent via price undercutting? That and many other weapons are still options for a monopoly, and are more dangerous in stronger arms.
I did not address Predatory pricing and you did not address deadweight loss. I have no contention with Predatory pricing's occasional benefits to consumers. I hope you don't oppose the assertion that monopolies are overall inefficient and anti-competitive.
I refuse to find a counter-example tailored to your mold. To clarify: history is an uninformative case study since monopolies that have escaped with price gouging have been slain not by competition but by government intervention. I could speculate that such and such monopoly was historically unrivaled and would've lasted "any longevity" if not for government intervention (take Kwark's mention of AT&T) but that is hardly scholarly. A qualification of "longevity" is also vague. AT&T remained dominant for almost a century, but is that sufficient longevity for a counter claim?
Obviously markets change and monopolies that once were natural monopolies may fall from such grace in the face of technological progress. The phenomenon does not indicate monopolies' self-destruction, rather their mortality in the flow of time. Monopolies may be no different than other competitors in this respect (no company lasts forever) but since we can't tell the future, monopolies' negative effects essentially persist indeterminably. Friedman himself acknowledged in Capitalism and Freedom that countering technical (natural) monopolies is an important government function.
The men you cite certainly are giants of economics, but I'd recommend you forego lines that mention them for the sake of mentioning them, as they add no substance to your posts. "I adhere to the SKT1 School of TvZ, backed by giants such as Boxer, Canata, and Fantasy," does little to explain exactly why and where bunker rushes are used.
nexus1g: Yeah, I understand the different "levels" of belief/knowledge with regard to god. I just thought this particular statement was a bit strong:
By stating, "There is no god," you immediately put yourself in a realm of fantasy more so than someone professing believe in a deity.
I don't read it as having an implied "According to us" (with 'us' being you and everyone taking your position). I read it as a bit condescending, like if only they knew the good reasons to doubt the veracity of their knowledge about god's non-existence, then they'd take your position. So I thought it would be appropriate to mention that there are good epistemological arguments for being a strong atheist.
If you were simply describing your position, I apologize!
On August 19 2009 01:43 Liquid`NonY wrote: nexus1g: Yeah, I understand the different "levels" of belief/knowledge with regard to god. I just thought this particular statement was a bit strong:
By stating, "There is no god," you immediately put yourself in a realm of fantasy more so than someone professing believe in a deity.
I don't read it as having an implied "According to us" (with 'us' being you and everyone taking your position). I read it as a bit condescending, like if only they knew the good reasons to doubt the veracity of their knowledge about god's non-existence, then they'd take your position. So I thought it would be appropriate to mention that there are good epistemological arguments for being a strong atheist.
If you were simply describing your position, I apologize!
Ah, my mistake.
But, yes, I suppose it is condescending. I'd be interested to hear your side of the argument on that. From my personal PoV it seems if you definitively say X is fact due to lack of evidence, you are contradicting yourself. Can you really have a fact without evidence?
On August 19 2009 00:27 NExUS1g wrote: Also, the Bible has not been proven wrong.
Are you familiar with the cosmology presented in the Bible?
Instead, actually, archaeological finds often support historical notes found in the Bible.
And yet there is still no evidence for the grand, united kingdom described in the Bible that supposedly stretched from the Euphrates to Egypt's border at its peak.
Instead, actually, archaeological finds often support historical notes found in the Bible.
Oh, okay. In the year 3000, you could find the remains of New York City and verify it through watching a saved copy of The Day After Tomorrow but THAT STILL DOESN'T MEAN DENNIS QUAID CAN ACT.
It's unbelievable. TL is actually getting stupider over time.
Atheism is very much about having the humility to admit we don't have all the answers. Religion is the opposite - it claims to have all the answers, with only a book as it's proof.
Let me be clear: any atheist who is intellectually honest would be open to considering evidence that proved the existence of a deity. Since there is not, nor has there ever been such evidence, then we can only conclude that there is no such thing as a deity. The existence of inexplicable phenomena is not evidence of said being, nor are 2000 year old written documents. Lack of an acceptable explanation does not mean you are to accept ANY explanation.
Furthermore, the burden of proof is on the affirmative, not the negative. If a theist wants to prove to me that God exists, then he has to do so by presenting affirmative, substantial evidence - not by demanding I prove the negative, nor by citing observations for which there is no suitable explanation.
If I were to insist to you that there are invisible pink unicorns living in my back yard, you would demand evidence. If I respond that you cannot prove they are not there, therefore they are there, you would think I'm insane. You insist Jesus lived based on the "Biblical record". I therefore insist Hobbits, Elves and Orcs exist based on the "LotR record".
I am of the position that there is no God. I am also of the position that if there WAS a God, the major religions get it wrong so badly it's inexcusable. The Christian God is obviously extremely bipolar, irrational, spiteful and petty. "Our God is a jealous God"... "Fear God"... "Have no other Gods before our God"... why would God, omnipotent and perfect, possess such pathetic human traits? The contradictions are endless.
Going further you have the premise in the three main monotheistic faiths that they are the only ones who really have it right, and everyone else will go to "hell". Not only those of the wrong religion, but those of no religion, and those who have never been exposed to the "right" religion - they're just out of luck. This obviously derives from a need to feel important.
But of course, with no evidence that a God exists, I believe there is no God.
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
Your views are nothing like Friedman or Hayek at all. Your views come straight from Beck, and he's never read either. Both of their world views had a place for government, and even taxing. Yours doesn't. Linking those two schools together is a bit of a joke as well since this is a purely political discussion and you've just cited two economics schools that are not as close as you think, and are completely distinct from politics.
Politically, I don't think you're as similar to either as you seem to think. You say you've read CoL and others, but not one iota of your posts shows it unless you actually disagree with him.
First off, I've said quite a few times on this board that I am in favor of abolishing the 16th, but not creating a state that has no taxation at all. Contrary to Rothbard, I believe that a standing federal military is a construct of Government as such in the Constitution. However, I am opposed to every proposed taxation on income. I am however in favor of a Flat tax or consumer tax. No more than ~8-10%.
I also have a place for Government and have said it time and time again what their role in the market should be. Ensuring fair practices and upholding contractual obligations; voluntary contracts which are the guiding force of the free-market. That is it. No infusion of funds. No regulatory bodies.
I think you don't understand my positions whatsoever. In all my posts I am consistent; repeating these same principles which are directly inline with Hayek, Mises, and the rest. While not agreeing with everything they say; forming basis for some of my other viewpoints I am directly influenced by them. You can also see in my contemporary political philosophy that it is also directly influenced by limited Government proponents such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.
In any case, those are a general overview of my positions. Government; necessary evil. Limit as much as possible. Free-Market bulwark to Tyranny and Government intervention interferes and distorts market creating a bastardization of the idea of the market in the first place. Freedom, Liberty, Rule of law paramount. What again is not in line with the philosophies that my suppositions propose?
You know that current economic crises is blamed on insufficient regulations in financial markets and erosion of old regulatory laws. That's at least the current view of most economists including Robert Lucas... So well, if there is one role for government it is exactly to regulate the markets when there is a possibility of market failure (incomplete information, moral hazard, adverse selection).
Also I remember that you wrote somewhere that you are for abolishing FED. I am not aware of any economist who would support this claim. Central Banking is one of few developments of economics that actually works...
You do know Milton Friedman called for the abolishment of the FED? There have been many papers on the fraud and theft of Fractional Reserve Banking and manipulation of Inflation. There have also been many papers on how Inflation creates inequality in income disparity and putting that in the hands of a body like the FED is basically shoving the fox in the hen house.
Really? I would actually like to read those articles. Can you recommend one that was published in a peer-review economic journal?
On the other hand there is strong evidence that higher inflation reduced both growth and level of GDP. It is not a coincident most of developed countries keep it low (check out papers on that topic by Robert Barro). More interesting finding is that if the inflation is already low cutting it down even more is more beneficial then when cutting it when it is high (Andres & Hernando).
Also inflation is basically a tax on money holding. How then you can support it if you do not support government intervention in the economy?
Start with part one and work your way to part four.
Well, from all of those links posted above none of them is really scientific. They all involve private opinions. I was asking for a economic journal article where I can see either a model that supports those ideas or an emipirical analysis that points towards those conclusions. I haven't seen either that.
Also, as much as I respect Milton Friedman, his opinion on the role of government is quite controversial and is not the only one out there. And again, I would like to see it supported by some research not by his political views.
Milton Friedman is famous from promoting very limited government but it isn't what made him famous in academic circle and got him a noble prize. He received it for "his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy", that is proposing Permanent Income Hypothesis, analyzing Great Depression (the importance of monetary policy is fighting crisis), as well as his break through research in the unemployment-inflation connections. None of them had anything to do with his views expressed in that interview.
What is even more interesting to me that there is such an agreement among economists to keep inflation low and you haven't really provided me with any link that says it is harmful to the society. And that's the main task of Central Bank these days.
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
Your views are nothing like Friedman or Hayek at all. Your views come straight from Beck, and he's never read either. Both of their world views had a place for government, and even taxing. Yours doesn't. Linking those two schools together is a bit of a joke as well since this is a purely political discussion and you've just cited two economics schools that are not as close as you think, and are completely distinct from politics.
Politically, I don't think you're as similar to either as you seem to think. You say you've read CoL and others, but not one iota of your posts shows it unless you actually disagree with him.
First off, I've said quite a few times on this board that I am in favor of abolishing the 16th, but not creating a state that has no taxation at all. Contrary to Rothbard, I believe that a standing federal military is a construct of Government as such in the Constitution. However, I am opposed to every proposed taxation on income. I am however in favor of a Flat tax or consumer tax. No more than ~8-10%.
I also have a place for Government and have said it time and time again what their role in the market should be. Ensuring fair practices and upholding contractual obligations; voluntary contracts which are the guiding force of the free-market. That is it. No infusion of funds. No regulatory bodies.
I think you don't understand my positions whatsoever. In all my posts I am consistent; repeating these same principles which are directly inline with Hayek, Mises, and the rest. While not agreeing with everything they say; forming basis for some of my other viewpoints I am directly influenced by them. You can also see in my contemporary political philosophy that it is also directly influenced by limited Government proponents such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.
In any case, those are a general overview of my positions. Government; necessary evil. Limit as much as possible. Free-Market bulwark to Tyranny and Government intervention interferes and distorts market creating a bastardization of the idea of the market in the first place. Freedom, Liberty, Rule of law paramount. What again is not in line with the philosophies that my suppositions propose?
You know that current economic crises is blamed on insufficient regulations in financial markets and erosion of old regulatory laws. That's at least the current view of most economists including Robert Lucas... So well, if there is one role for government it is exactly to regulate the markets when there is a possibility of market failure (incomplete information, moral hazard, adverse selection).
Also I remember that you wrote somewhere that you are for abolishing FED. I am not aware of any economist who would support this claim. Central Banking is one of few developments of economics that actually works...
You do know Milton Friedman called for the abolishment of the FED? There have been many papers on the fraud and theft of Fractional Reserve Banking and manipulation of Inflation. There have also been many papers on how Inflation creates inequality in income disparity and putting that in the hands of a body like the FED is basically shoving the fox in the hen house.
Really? I would actually like to read those articles. Can you recommend one that was published in a peer-review economic journal?
On the other hand there is strong evidence that higher inflation reduced both growth and level of GDP. It is not a coincident most of developed countries keep it low (check out papers on that topic by Robert Barro). More interesting finding is that if the inflation is already low cutting it down even more is more beneficial then when cutting it when it is high (Andres & Hernando).
Also inflation is basically a tax on money holding. How then you can support it if you do not support government intervention in the economy?
Start with part one and work your way to part four.
Well, from all of those links posted above none of them is really scientific. They all involve private opinions. I was asking for a economic journal article where I can see either a model that supports those ideas or an emipirical analysis that points towards those conclusions. I haven't seen either that.
Also, as much as I respect Milton Friedman, his opinion on the role of government is quite controversial and is not the only one out there. And again, I would like to see it supported by some research not by his political views.
Milton Friedman is famous from promoting very limited government but it isn't what made him famous in academic circle and got him a noble prize. He received it for "his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy", that is proposing Permanent Income Hypothesis, analyzing Great Depression (the importance of monetary policy is fighting crisis), as well as his break through research in the unemployment-inflation connections. None of them had anything to do with his views expressed in that interview.
What is even more interesting to me that there is such an agreement among economists to keep inflation low and you haven't really provided me with any link that says it is harmful to the society. And that's the main task of Central Bank these days.
The Austrian School of Economics is one huge "peer reviewed" journal and backed up by the history of the past 50 years. Breton Woods in 71, and the current situation we find ourselves in today coupled with the knowledge of how the Great Depression occured.
You have to listen intentively on how the fiat monetary system works and the role the FED plays. Manipulation of interest rates and devaluation of currency to finance debt which results in inflationary spikes which create an income inequality because those at the forefront of the money supply benefit while those at the back end reap the consequences of inflation with a devalued dollar which means a reduced buying power. The Boom-Bust theory proposed by the Austrian School in the orthodox of Economists and by history has basically been proven. I can't hand feed you every source because most aren't available online. I would just urge independant study and analysis into the situation and what the Austrian School proposes.
For one there are many items to view at www.mises.org
On August 18 2009 23:22 EchOne wrote: Aegraen you might want to clarify further on why monopolies are self defeating. You assert that they will fail to competition when there are no Government barriers to entry, but this is unconvincing since you haven't addressed the multitude of barriers to entry that are inherent to a market, nor have you addressed monopolies' deadweight loss problems.
The only barrier to market entry (Without Government involvement) is start up costs. This isn't even much of a problem due to how investments work. How do you think every single company as ever started up?
A Monopoly is not inherently a bad thing. Predatory pricing is cowed by the mainstream as bad, and hurts the people. This is false. Having goods and services cheaper allows more people to purchase which is a good thing. People then go on to say well, once all their competition is wiped out they'll simply raise prices and extort from people. Once they raise prices however, it allows competitors to come in undercut and make profit and have a successful business.
I seriously want you to look and try to find any historical data that shows where a company comes in, destroys competition by predatory pricing and then jacks the price back up and actually survives in any longevity. If you can find even one example I'll cede my point. However, I am backed by such giants as Friedman, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and the like and there have been no historical documents of this ever suceeding. I'm eager to hear your reply and which company succeeded in doing so.
In addition to start up costs, advertising strength, resource control, intellectual property, economies of scale, customer loyalty, high sunk costs, R&D strength, the network effect, and other effects serve to deter entry into a monopolized market. Answering non-governmental barriers to entry with the supposition that entrepreneurs can somehow magic together mountains of venture capital is naive.
Investors always consider risk since it is an incontrovertible resource in their livelihoods, and barriers to entry that are exacerbated by monopoly don't create favorable risk environments for them. You think small competitors can suddenly depose an incumbent via price undercutting? That and many other weapons are still options for a monopoly, and are more dangerous in stronger arms.
I did not address Predatory pricing and you did not address deadweight loss. I have no contention with Predatory pricing's occasional benefits to consumers. I hope you don't oppose the assertion that monopolies are overall inefficient and anti-competitive.
I refuse to find a counter-example tailored to your mold. To clarify: history is an uninformative case study since monopolies that have escaped with price gouging have been slain not by competition but by government intervention. I could speculate that such and such monopoly was historically unrivaled and would've lasted "any longevity" if not for government intervention (take Kwark's mention of AT&T) but that is hardly scholarly. A qualification of "longevity" is also vague. AT&T remained dominant for almost a century, but is that sufficient longevity for a counter claim?
Obviously markets change and monopolies that once were natural monopolies may fall from such grace in the face of technological progress. The phenomenon does not indicate monopolies' self-destruction, rather their mortality in the flow of time. Monopolies may be no different than other competitors in this respect (no company lasts forever) but since we can't tell the future, monopolies' negative effects essentially persist indeterminably. Friedman himself acknowledged in Capitalism and Freedom that countering technical (natural) monopolies is an important government function.
The men you cite certainly are giants of economics, but I'd recommend you forego lines that mention them for the sake of mentioning them, as they add no substance to your posts. "I adhere to the SKT1 School of TvZ, backed by giants such as Boxer, Canata, and Fantasy," does little to explain exactly why and where bunker rushes are used.
EDIT: Apologies for necro'ing this derail.
I am not well versed enough to describe in such minutable detail all the intricacies involved. I am not an Econimist myself merely a proponent and advocate of one such system however well read I am. I have looked at the history provided and the theories expounded upon and correlation of Government involvement and intervention. Clear dileneations are made through the observation of this history and the theories proposed, both conflicting with orthodox views. Because there has never been a true Laissez-Faire economic system we can only truely theorize based on observation of the closest systems. All in which correlate to the efficacy of the Austrian School. Progressives in the early 20th century adopted Keynesian theories as the mainstream thought. Clearly history has taught us what a flop it was, from the Great Depression, to Japanese woes in the 90s, to today and the bail-outs. Those are just a small sample of the inconsistency between history and theory, one in which shows why it does not work, and why Austrian Economics do work. A more in-depth read and look on the specifics and more articulate than myself read this which addresses Cartels and Monopolies.
It answers every question you have. Once you have read it I am apt to hear your reply and thoughts. I truely wish more people would be exposed to Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and the like.
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
Your views are nothing like Friedman or Hayek at all. Your views come straight from Beck, and he's never read either. Both of their world views had a place for government, and even taxing. Yours doesn't. Linking those two schools together is a bit of a joke as well since this is a purely political discussion and you've just cited two economics schools that are not as close as you think, and are completely distinct from politics.
Politically, I don't think you're as similar to either as you seem to think. You say you've read CoL and others, but not one iota of your posts shows it unless you actually disagree with him.
First off, I've said quite a few times on this board that I am in favor of abolishing the 16th, but not creating a state that has no taxation at all. Contrary to Rothbard, I believe that a standing federal military is a construct of Government as such in the Constitution. However, I am opposed to every proposed taxation on income. I am however in favor of a Flat tax or consumer tax. No more than ~8-10%.
I also have a place for Government and have said it time and time again what their role in the market should be. Ensuring fair practices and upholding contractual obligations; voluntary contracts which are the guiding force of the free-market. That is it. No infusion of funds. No regulatory bodies.
I think you don't understand my positions whatsoever. In all my posts I am consistent; repeating these same principles which are directly inline with Hayek, Mises, and the rest. While not agreeing with everything they say; forming basis for some of my other viewpoints I am directly influenced by them. You can also see in my contemporary political philosophy that it is also directly influenced by limited Government proponents such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.
In any case, those are a general overview of my positions. Government; necessary evil. Limit as much as possible. Free-Market bulwark to Tyranny and Government intervention interferes and distorts market creating a bastardization of the idea of the market in the first place. Freedom, Liberty, Rule of law paramount. What again is not in line with the philosophies that my suppositions propose?
You know that current economic crises is blamed on insufficient regulations in financial markets and erosion of old regulatory laws. That's at least the current view of most economists including Robert Lucas... So well, if there is one role for government it is exactly to regulate the markets when there is a possibility of market failure (incomplete information, moral hazard, adverse selection).
Also I remember that you wrote somewhere that you are for abolishing FED. I am not aware of any economist who would support this claim. Central Banking is one of few developments of economics that actually works...
You do know Milton Friedman called for the abolishment of the FED? There have been many papers on the fraud and theft of Fractional Reserve Banking and manipulation of Inflation. There have also been many papers on how Inflation creates inequality in income disparity and putting that in the hands of a body like the FED is basically shoving the fox in the hen house.
Really? I would actually like to read those articles. Can you recommend one that was published in a peer-review economic journal?
On the other hand there is strong evidence that higher inflation reduced both growth and level of GDP. It is not a coincident most of developed countries keep it low (check out papers on that topic by Robert Barro). More interesting finding is that if the inflation is already low cutting it down even more is more beneficial then when cutting it when it is high (Andres & Hernando).
Also inflation is basically a tax on money holding. How then you can support it if you do not support government intervention in the economy?
Start with part one and work your way to part four.
Well, from all of those links posted above none of them is really scientific. They all involve private opinions. I was asking for a economic journal article where I can see either a model that supports those ideas or an emipirical analysis that points towards those conclusions. I haven't seen either that.
Also, as much as I respect Milton Friedman, his opinion on the role of government is quite controversial and is not the only one out there. And again, I would like to see it supported by some research not by his political views.
Milton Friedman is famous from promoting very limited government but it isn't what made him famous in academic circle and got him a noble prize. He received it for "his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy", that is proposing Permanent Income Hypothesis, analyzing Great Depression (the importance of monetary policy is fighting crisis), as well as his break through research in the unemployment-inflation connections. None of them had anything to do with his views expressed in that interview.
What is even more interesting to me that there is such an agreement among economists to keep inflation low and you haven't really provided me with any link that says it is harmful to the society. And that's the main task of Central Bank these days.
The Austrian School of Economics is one huge "peer reviewed" journal and backed up by the history of the past 50 years. Breton Woods in 71, and the current situation we find ourselves in today coupled with the knowledge of how the Great Depression occured.
You have to listen intentively on how the fiat monetary system works and the role the FED plays. Manipulation of interest rates and devaluation of currency to finance debt which results in inflationary spikes which create an income inequality because those at the forefront of the money supply benefit while those at the back end reap the consequences of inflation with a devalued dollar which means a reduced buying power. The Boom-Bust theory proposed by the Austrian School in the orthodox of Economists and by history has basically been proven. I can't hand feed you every source because most aren't available online. I would just urge independant study and analysis into the situation and what the Austrian School proposes.
For one there are many items to view at www.mises.org
Read some Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard they all have an array of books.
What do you mean it is proven? Almost nothing in economics is proven. Some things are just extremely likely the other are not. And Austrian School is dead. Noone labels themselves these days as a member of it. At least not any respectable economist.
Just one more thing: "The Austrian business cycle theory is generally dismissed by mainstream economics. Economists like Milton Friedman,Gordon Tullock,Bryan Caplan, and Paul Krugman have stated that they regard the theory as incorrect." That's from wikipedia but you may check their research papers on the topic.
For the business cycle thoery I would recommend to start with sth more modern than Hayek, start with famous, actually noble prize winning paper, by Kydland and Prescott, 1982. That's the first paper on modern business cycle theory. Obviously in the last 25 years economics did a huuuuuge leap forward (much bigger than in previous 50 years) so the paper is largely outdated but it is still must read for any economists.
How can you not provide me a link with a paper, even a working paper which supports your views? You know that one can access electronically all the articles published in any economic peer reviewed journal in last 50 years and in some cases even in last 100 years. And I have access to all electronic sources available online, including all of the peer-review journals. That's really nice as I don't need then to go through what Robert Lucas once termed as "pictures and talks". Also, if it is not published it doesn't matter... That's how academia works...
Your views are you private views which you combined by mixing them with OUTDATED Austrian School of Economics and they have nothing to do with the reality. And then you bunch them together with Milton Friedman who was extremely far from Austrian School.
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
Your views are nothing like Friedman or Hayek at all. Your views come straight from Beck, and he's never read either. Both of their world views had a place for government, and even taxing. Yours doesn't. Linking those two schools together is a bit of a joke as well since this is a purely political discussion and you've just cited two economics schools that are not as close as you think, and are completely distinct from politics.
Politically, I don't think you're as similar to either as you seem to think. You say you've read CoL and others, but not one iota of your posts shows it unless you actually disagree with him.
First off, I've said quite a few times on this board that I am in favor of abolishing the 16th, but not creating a state that has no taxation at all. Contrary to Rothbard, I believe that a standing federal military is a construct of Government as such in the Constitution. However, I am opposed to every proposed taxation on income. I am however in favor of a Flat tax or consumer tax. No more than ~8-10%.
I also have a place for Government and have said it time and time again what their role in the market should be. Ensuring fair practices and upholding contractual obligations; voluntary contracts which are the guiding force of the free-market. That is it. No infusion of funds. No regulatory bodies.
I think you don't understand my positions whatsoever. In all my posts I am consistent; repeating these same principles which are directly inline with Hayek, Mises, and the rest. While not agreeing with everything they say; forming basis for some of my other viewpoints I am directly influenced by them. You can also see in my contemporary political philosophy that it is also directly influenced by limited Government proponents such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.
In any case, those are a general overview of my positions. Government; necessary evil. Limit as much as possible. Free-Market bulwark to Tyranny and Government intervention interferes and distorts market creating a bastardization of the idea of the market in the first place. Freedom, Liberty, Rule of law paramount. What again is not in line with the philosophies that my suppositions propose?
You know that current economic crises is blamed on insufficient regulations in financial markets and erosion of old regulatory laws. That's at least the current view of most economists including Robert Lucas... So well, if there is one role for government it is exactly to regulate the markets when there is a possibility of market failure (incomplete information, moral hazard, adverse selection).
Also I remember that you wrote somewhere that you are for abolishing FED. I am not aware of any economist who would support this claim. Central Banking is one of few developments of economics that actually works...
You do know Milton Friedman called for the abolishment of the FED? There have been many papers on the fraud and theft of Fractional Reserve Banking and manipulation of Inflation. There have also been many papers on how Inflation creates inequality in income disparity and putting that in the hands of a body like the FED is basically shoving the fox in the hen house.
Really? I would actually like to read those articles. Can you recommend one that was published in a peer-review economic journal?
On the other hand there is strong evidence that higher inflation reduced both growth and level of GDP. It is not a coincident most of developed countries keep it low (check out papers on that topic by Robert Barro). More interesting finding is that if the inflation is already low cutting it down even more is more beneficial then when cutting it when it is high (Andres & Hernando).
Also inflation is basically a tax on money holding. How then you can support it if you do not support government intervention in the economy?
Start with part one and work your way to part four.
Well, from all of those links posted above none of them is really scientific. They all involve private opinions. I was asking for a economic journal article where I can see either a model that supports those ideas or an emipirical analysis that points towards those conclusions. I haven't seen either that.
Also, as much as I respect Milton Friedman, his opinion on the role of government is quite controversial and is not the only one out there. And again, I would like to see it supported by some research not by his political views.
Milton Friedman is famous from promoting very limited government but it isn't what made him famous in academic circle and got him a noble prize. He received it for "his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy", that is proposing Permanent Income Hypothesis, analyzing Great Depression (the importance of monetary policy is fighting crisis), as well as his break through research in the unemployment-inflation connections. None of them had anything to do with his views expressed in that interview.
What is even more interesting to me that there is such an agreement among economists to keep inflation low and you haven't really provided me with any link that says it is harmful to the society. And that's the main task of Central Bank these days.
The Austrian School of Economics is one huge "peer reviewed" journal and backed up by the history of the past 50 years. Breton Woods in 71, and the current situation we find ourselves in today coupled with the knowledge of how the Great Depression occured.
You have to listen intentively on how the fiat monetary system works and the role the FED plays. Manipulation of interest rates and devaluation of currency to finance debt which results in inflationary spikes which create an income inequality because those at the forefront of the money supply benefit while those at the back end reap the consequences of inflation with a devalued dollar which means a reduced buying power. The Boom-Bust theory proposed by the Austrian School in the orthodox of Economists and by history has basically been proven. I can't hand feed you every source because most aren't available online. I would just urge independant study and analysis into the situation and what the Austrian School proposes.
For one there are many items to view at www.mises.org
Read some Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard they all have an array of books.
What do you mean it is proven? Almost nothing in economics is proven. Some things are just extremely likely the other are not. And Austrian School is dead. Noone labels themselves these days as a member of it. At least not any respectable economist.
Just one more thing: "The Austrian business cycle theory is generally dismissed by mainstream economics. Economists like Milton Friedman,Gordon Tullock,Bryan Caplan, and Paul Krugman have stated that they regard the theory as incorrect." That's from wikipedia but you may check their research papers on the topic.
For the business cycle thoery I would recommend to start with sth more modern than Hayek, start with famous, actually noble prize winning paper, by Kydland and Prescott, 1982. That's the first paper on modern business cycle theory. Obviously in the last 25 years economics did a huuuuuge leap forward (much bigger than in previous 50 years) so the paper is largely outdated but it is still must read for any economists.
How can you not provide me a link with a paper, even a working paper which supports your views? You know that one can access electronically all the articles published in any economic peer reviewed journal in last 50 years and in some cases even in last 100 years. And I have access to all electronic sources available online, including all of the peer-review journals. That's really nice as I don't need then to go through what Robert Lucas once termed as "pictures and talks". Also, if it is not published it doesn't matter... That's how academia works...
Your views are you private views which you combined by mixing them with OUTDATED Austrian School of Economics and they have nothing to do with the reality. And then you bunch them together with Milton Friedman who was extremely far from Austrian School.
Look man, he's trying REAL HARD to look smart. Do NOT burst his bubble.
Let us first take what would seem to be the worst possible case of such action: the actual destruction of part of a product by a cartel. This is done to take advantage of an inelastic demand curve and to raise the price to gain a greater monetary income for the whole group. We can visualize, for example, the case of a coffee cartel burning great quantities of coffee.
In the first place, such actions will surely occur very seldom.
This is direly false. In fact, so direly false that it deserves a special mention: Nearly EVERY pecuniary usage of intellectual property rights, marks, or copyrights provides a profit by SPECIFICALLY and EXPRESSLY limiting or destroying works or access to works in general so as to increase the value of the distributer's set of licenses.
The fact that these holders of rights, especially those holding patent or distribution rights are (in most cases by definition) monopolistic holders makes this statement transperantly false. The reason why these actions occur in a seldom manner is not because they are advantageous, but rather because 1) there is the fear of institutional intervention and 2) because there have been very few complete monopolies throughout history with respect to commodities.
On August 18 2009 23:22 EchOne wrote: Aegraen you might want to clarify further on why monopolies are self defeating. You assert that they will fail to competition when there are no Government barriers to entry, but this is unconvincing since you haven't addressed the multitude of barriers to entry that are inherent to a market, nor have you addressed monopolies' deadweight loss problems.
The only barrier to market entry (Without Government involvement) is start up costs. This isn't even much of a problem due to how investments work. How do you think every single company as ever started up?
A Monopoly is not inherently a bad thing. Predatory pricing is cowed by the mainstream as bad, and hurts the people. This is false. Having goods and services cheaper allows more people to purchase which is a good thing. People then go on to say well, once all their competition is wiped out they'll simply raise prices and extort from people. Once they raise prices however, it allows competitors to come in undercut and make profit and have a successful business.
I seriously want you to look and try to find any historical data that shows where a company comes in, destroys competition by predatory pricing and then jacks the price back up and actually survives in any longevity. If you can find even one example I'll cede my point. However, I am backed by such giants as Friedman, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and the like and there have been no historical documents of this ever suceeding. I'm eager to hear your reply and which company succeeded in doing so.
In addition to start up costs, advertising strength, resource control, intellectual property, economies of scale, customer loyalty, high sunk costs, R&D strength, the network effect, and other effects serve to deter entry into a monopolized market. Answering non-governmental barriers to entry with the supposition that entrepreneurs can somehow magic together mountains of venture capital is naive.
Investors always consider risk since it is an incontrovertible resource in their livelihoods, and barriers to entry that are exacerbated by monopoly don't create favorable risk environments for them. You think small competitors can suddenly depose an incumbent via price undercutting? That and many other weapons are still options for a monopoly, and are more dangerous in stronger arms.
I did not address Predatory pricing and you did not address deadweight loss. I have no contention with Predatory pricing's occasional benefits to consumers. I hope you don't oppose the assertion that monopolies are overall inefficient and anti-competitive.
I refuse to find a counter-example tailored to your mold. To clarify: history is an uninformative case study since monopolies that have escaped with price gouging have been slain not by competition but by government intervention. I could speculate that such and such monopoly was historically unrivaled and would've lasted "any longevity" if not for government intervention (take Kwark's mention of AT&T) but that is hardly scholarly. A qualification of "longevity" is also vague. AT&T remained dominant for almost a century, but is that sufficient longevity for a counter claim?
Obviously markets change and monopolies that once were natural monopolies may fall from such grace in the face of technological progress. The phenomenon does not indicate monopolies' self-destruction, rather their mortality in the flow of time. Monopolies may be no different than other competitors in this respect (no company lasts forever) but since we can't tell the future, monopolies' negative effects essentially persist indeterminably. Friedman himself acknowledged in Capitalism and Freedom that countering technical (natural) monopolies is an important government function.
The men you cite certainly are giants of economics, but I'd recommend you forego lines that mention them for the sake of mentioning them, as they add no substance to your posts. "I adhere to the SKT1 School of TvZ, backed by giants such as Boxer, Canata, and Fantasy," does little to explain exactly why and where bunker rushes are used.
EDIT: Apologies for necro'ing this derail.
I am not well versed enough to describe in such minutable detail all the intricacies involved. I am not an Econimist myself merely a proponent and advocate of one such system however well read I am. I have looked at the history provided and the theories expounded upon and correlation of Government involvement and intervention. Clear dileneations are made through the observation of this history and the theories proposed, both conflicting with orthodox views. Because there has never been a true Laissez-Faire economic system we can only truely theorize based on observation of the closest systems. All in which correlate to the efficacy of the Austrian School. Progressives in the early 20th century adopted Keynesian theories as the mainstream thought. Clearly history has taught us what a flop it was, from the Great Depression, to Japanese woes in the 90s, to today and the bail-outs. Those are just a small sample of the inconsistency between history and theory, one in which shows why it does not work, and why Austrian Economics do work. A more in-depth read and look on the specifics and more articulate than myself read this which addresses Cartels and Monopolies.
It answers every question you have. Once you have read it I am apt to hear your reply and thoughts. I truely wish more people would be exposed to Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and the like.
So I am economist though I am not specializing in monetary policy. I don't want also to take on the debate on monoply as it would take long time to explain current stand of economists on it. Monopoly is inefficient, that's a fact. However, it might be beneficial in certain cicumstances. That's why we have both patent laws and antitrust organizations.
There is one thing that has to be noted out of your argument is so false that it screams to anyone with a bit of knowledge of economics!
So I will take on it right now: 1. Keynes ideas and Keynesian economics were developed only after Great Derpession and they did not become dominant till the end of WWII. What killed Keynesian ecnomics was the period of stagflation, sth that Keynesian economists at that time could not explain. Also bear in mind that Keynes's was actually insipred by what he witnesed in late 20s.
2. Japan economy hit a liquidity trap. Sth actually that Keynes described in late 30s but what was dismissed later by monetrists with Milton Friedman as the main figure as merely a theoretical possiblity. Check out Paul Krugman, Bradford DeLong and others on that topic. It seemed that actually in that situation one should go back to Keynes original writings. What exactly should be done in that situation is unresolved puzzle.
3. Keynesian theory as it was developed in 30s does not exists any more in academia and it wasn't used since at least mid 70s. Current crises has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.
On August 19 2009 01:43 Liquid`NonY wrote: nexus1g: Yeah, I understand the different "levels" of belief/knowledge with regard to god. I just thought this particular statement was a bit strong:
By stating, "There is no god," you immediately put yourself in a realm of fantasy more so than someone professing believe in a deity.
I don't read it as having an implied "According to us" (with 'us' being you and everyone taking your position). I read it as a bit condescending, like if only they knew the good reasons to doubt the veracity of their knowledge about god's non-existence, then they'd take your position. So I thought it would be appropriate to mention that there are good epistemological arguments for being a strong atheist.
If you were simply describing your position, I apologize!
Ah, my mistake.
But, yes, I suppose it is condescending. I'd be interested to hear your side of the argument on that. From my personal PoV it seems if you definitively say X is fact due to lack of evidence, you are contradicting yourself. Can you really have a fact without evidence?
as i pointed out there are levels of likelihood. The only reason people believe in god is because most people start out with the assumption that there is some sort of god or being. If you started out with a blank slate and no opinion on god (IE not saying God doesnt exist, but simply not having an opinion one way or another) it would be much more difficult to convince someone of the possibility of a god (much like my pizzas flying through the center of the earth)
and the tone was very condescending.....its not as if I havent thought of the agnostics viewpoint and I walk around saying there is NO GOD HAHAHAHAHA. Agnotic atheist....... psh now we're splitting hairs and arguing semantics .
3. Keynesian theory as it was developed in 30s does not exists any more in academia and it wasn't used since at least mid 70s. Current crises has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.
Don't do this to his argument. It's much easier on him to just assume spending = Keynesian, not spending = Austrian.
Instead, actually, archaeological finds often support historical notes found in the Bible.
And yet there is still no evidence for the grand, united kingdom described in the Bible that supposedly stretched from the Euphrates to Egypt's border at its peak.
Quote some cosmology for me.
There's no evidence... There's no contradiction. Lack of evidence is not proof, it is lack of evidence; aka the unknown.
Louder has very good points, and the bible has been wrong on several accounts... and I agree with his statements..
One of my friends works with very religious people..baptists and he barely has to work because they work around power lines and hes not religious so they don't want him to work around power lines in case he dies and goes to "hell" and if the baptist dies he'll go to heaven so it's all good..
On August 19 2009 00:27 NExUS1g wrote: Also, the Bible has not been proven wrong.
Are you familiar with the cosmology presented in the Bible?
Instead, actually, archaeological finds often support historical notes found in the Bible.
And yet there is still no evidence for the grand, united kingdom described in the Bible that supposedly stretched from the Euphrates to Egypt's border at its peak.
Quote some cosmology for me.
There's no evidence... There's no contradiction. Lack of evidence is not proof, it is lack of evidence; aka the unknown.
Again, you can't prove the negative. Without proof of the affirmative, it is assumed that the affirmative is false. This is how logic works.
I have not this thread in its entirety, but just wanted to say this: not teaching the historic and cultural impact of Christianity is retarded. And this coming from an atheist. I cannot see how one can put together a meaningful high-school curriculum without including the bible, since a lot of texts, poems, movies etc. makes absolutely 0 sense without at least a basic knowledge about Christianity. (Fall from grace, Cain & Abel, Sermon on the Mount just to mention a few)
Atheism is very much about having the humility to admit we don't have all the answers. Religion is the opposite - it claims to have all the answers, with only a book as it's proof.
An awareness of the limitations of human knowledge is deeply ingrained into the Christian worldview. It is democratic liberalism, not Christian theology, which has destroyed humility among Christian nations.
And if that's your definition of atheism, then very few people in the world are true atheists. All atheists believe in a set of truisms by which they live. The principle difference between the two is how they came in possession of those truisms.
As for the proposed law:
1) It's voluntary 2) It's constitutional 3) It's harmless 4) It does not matter how you waste the money; the education of children is largely a factor of upbringing and not public investment.
Are you familiar with the cosmology presented in the Bible?
3. Keynesian theory as it was developed in 30s does not exists any more in academia and it wasn't used since at least mid 70s. Current crises has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.
Don't do this to his argument. It's much easier on him to just assume spending = Keynesian, not spending = Austrian.
The concepts of Keynesian economics are absolutely used today. What liberals call it is irrelevant.
Atheism is very much about having the humility to admit we don't have all the answers. Religion is the opposite - it claims to have all the answers, with only a book as it's proof.
An awareness of the limitations of human knowledge is deeply ingrained into the Christian worldview. It is democratic liberalism, not Christian theology, which has destroyed humility among Christian nations.
And if that's your definition of atheism, then very few people in the world are true atheists. All atheists believe in a set of truisms by which they live. The principle difference between the two is how they came in possession of those truisms.
As for the proposed law:
1) It's voluntary 2) It's constitutional 3) It's harmless 4) It does not matter how you waste the money; the education of children is largely a factor of upbringing and not public investment.
This is completely false. The limits of human knowledge are all filled in with Christianity with one answer: God. That's not accepting a limit to your knowledge, that's just providing a complete cop out answer. "Oh I know God does it - don't know how he just does." You clearly know nothing about atheism.
Atheism is very much about having the humility to admit we don't have all the answers. Religion is the opposite - it claims to have all the answers, with only a book as it's proof.
An awareness of the limitations of human knowledge is deeply ingrained into the Christian worldview. It is democratic liberalism, not Christian theology, which has destroyed humility among Christian nations.
And if that's your definition of atheism, then very few people in the world are true atheists. All atheists believe in a set of truisms by which they live. The principle difference between the two is how they came in possession of those truisms.
As for the proposed law:
1) It's voluntary 2) It's constitutional 3) It's harmless 4) It does not matter how you waste the money; the education of children is largely a factor of upbringing and not public investment.
This is completely false. The limits of human knowledge are all filled in with Christianity with one answer: God. That's not accepting a limit to your knowledge, that's just providing a complete cop out answer. "Oh I know God does it - don't know how he just does." You clearly know nothing about atheism.
Well, allow me to invert the grammar of your assertion. If God is the answer, we might say as a connotative equivalent: "Oh I know there's an answer- don't know what, there just is."
On August 19 2009 00:27 NExUS1g wrote: Also, the Bible has not been proven wrong.
Are you familiar with the cosmology presented in the Bible?
Instead, actually, archaeological finds often support historical notes found in the Bible.
And yet there is still no evidence for the grand, united kingdom described in the Bible that supposedly stretched from the Euphrates to Egypt's border at its peak.
Quote some cosmology for me.
Genesis 1:6-8 (NIV) 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
So there was water on top of the sky on top of yet more water.
While the NIV translation is "expanse," other translations, both old and modern, use the word "firmament," which is a solid surface.
Genesis: 7:11-12 (NIV) 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
There were floodgates through which the previously mentioned "water above" could flow through.
1 Chronicles 16:30 (NIV) Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
The world does not move.
why doesn't it move?
Psalms 104:5 (NIV) He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
It can't move because its stuck on its foundations or "pillars" in other verses.
Isaiah 40:22 (NIV) He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
There are people that are sure that the Bible is inerrant and that the word "circle" there must therefore be a mistranslation. But circle is indeed the correct translation. The earth according to the Bible is a flat circle that rests upon a foundation and the "waters below" and is covered, as by a tent, by the heavens, and there are waters above this.
I'm going to stop there, but there are many, many more verses that say these things. Psalms in particular contains a large number of them. The picture that they paint of the world is one that looks like this:
There's no evidence... There's no contradiction. Lack of evidence is not proof, it is lack of evidence; aka the unknown.
Given the absence of evidence, how likely do you think it is that the united kingdom that David and Solomon ruled over was as great as the Bible says it was?
3. Keynesian theory as it was developed in 30s does not exists any more in academia and it wasn't used since at least mid 70s. Current crises has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.
Don't do this to his argument. It's much easier on him to just assume spending = Keynesian, not spending = Austrian.
The concepts of Keynesian economics are absolutely used today. What liberals call it is irrelevant.
Can you tell me what you understand by Keynesian economics?
3. Keynesian theory as it was developed in 30s does not exists any more in academia and it wasn't used since at least mid 70s. Current crises has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.
Don't do this to his argument. It's much easier on him to just assume spending = Keynesian, not spending = Austrian.
The concepts of Keynesian economics are absolutely used today. What liberals call it is irrelevant.
Can you tell me what you understand by Keynesian economics?
I am not going to pretend to be an expert on the subject and describe in any great detail Keynes' theories. However I can look at certain aspects of the theory and see that those ideas are still quite popular. The most obvious of which is of course government intervention. The idea that at a time of economic downturn the government should step in and spend money was introduced by Keynes.
I don't know if Keynesian theory exists any more in academia(although I find it hard to believe that it doesn't) but to say that it has not been used since the 70s is absurd.
On August 17 2009 18:02 CalvinStorm wrote: Think that's bad? My city has a mandatory course teaching about gay people.
what exactly do they teach?
edit: just so i won't be completely off topic, i believe that the original idea put forth is an excellent one, and that it would benefit an ignorant country like the US ( no offense but ignorance is abundant when it comes to religion, in any country but the US takes the cake from my experience ) But this will be poorly executed by bias teachers, principal, parents, and everyone in between, because let's face it, that's America. It's disappointing but their educational system is too corrupt.
whoa, whoa, whoa, don't paint all of the US with the texas brush
fair enough, by the US i meant anything west of virginia east of nevada and north of florida.
-_-
that last post was in jest, surely you agree that when it comes to religion Americans tend to be a bit over bearing and ignorant. I know i lived in the states most of my life.
Aegraen I am not bashing Christianity, I am simply stating that the US is a biased country when it comes to religion, and to answer your question, i will bash any religious fanatic regardless of the book they carry.
On August 17 2009 18:40 Savio wrote:
On August 17 2009 18:04 Etherone wrote:
On August 17 2009 18:02 CalvinStorm wrote: Think that's bad? My city has a mandatory course teaching about gay people.
what exactly do they teach?
My school made us watch a movie with gay people having explicit sex so we would be "sensitive".
Now, it was medical school and not high school, so I guess its better.....maybe?
you're kidding... please tell me I am missing the sarcasm
actually I am not kidding. It was during our "Reproduction and Human Sexuality" block. They used to use a more hardcore video (the block chairperson told us) with a lot of oral/anal and apparently really old people (like 80's) having sex, but they got way too many complaints and some kid threw up in class so now its just gay sex.
I never did see how being required to watch gay sex would make us more sensitive.
On August 17 2009 19:13 Foucault wrote: wtf @ watching gay people having sex. Doesn't sound very professional, and what on earth does that have to do with being a doctor??
Exactly. But the head of the block is a very "activist" lady and I'm pretty sure that "becoming better doctors" was not the only goal whether it was conscious or subconscious.
so wait, you are saying that information presented to you with the claim of making you a better, more sensitive doctor may have had underhanded intentions of (hell, i don't know) turning you gay? is that what you're saying?
I'm pretty sure the thought was that watching gay sex would somehow make us better doctors.
Or perhaps she just wanted a highly educated, influential group of people to be exposed to it in hopes that watching gay sex would make us support gay marriage. I'm not sure as to her reasons. All I know is she is the type that gets all vehement in a political discussion, is very liberal, and attends protests, etc.
On August 19 2009 00:27 NExUS1g wrote: Also, the Bible has not been proven wrong.
Are you familiar with the cosmology presented in the Bible?
Instead, actually, archaeological finds often support historical notes found in the Bible.
And yet there is still no evidence for the grand, united kingdom described in the Bible that supposedly stretched from the Euphrates to Egypt's border at its peak.
Genesis 1:6-8 (NIV) 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
So there was water on top of the sky on top of yet more water.
While the NIV translation is "expanse," other translations, both old and modern, use the word "firmament," which is a solid surface.
Genesis: 7:11-12 (NIV) 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
There were floodgates through which the previously mentioned "water above" could flow through.
Isaiah 40:22 (NIV) He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
There are people that are sure that the Bible is inerrant and that the word "circle" there must therefore be a mistranslation. But circle is indeed the correct translation. The earth according to the Bible is a flat circle that rests upon a foundation and the "waters below" and is covered, as by a tent, by the heavens, and there are waters above this.
I'm going to stop there, but there are many, many more verses that say these things. Psalms in particular contains a large number of them. The picture that they paint of the world is one that looks like this:
There's no evidence... There's no contradiction. Lack of evidence is not proof, it is lack of evidence; aka the unknown.
Given the absence of evidence, how likely do you think it is that the united kingdom that David and Solomon ruled over was as great as the Bible says it was?
I am an agnostic atheist.
The translation for circle is any round geometric shape and it used in ancient Hebrew as a round object either in 2 dimensions or 3.
I guess there's no water in the sky, hm? I guess clouds are made of cotton candy and rain is gumdrops?
Your assumption that the Earth is somehow on a pillar is discounted by the second part of Job 26 : 7 NIV, "...he suspends the earth over nothing.".
"He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."
I suppose we don't live in the Universe? I'm not sure why you bring this up.
I honestly think you're blindly following people who have no other purpose than to disprove the Bible and so pick it apart using only the portions that, when taken out of context, disprove it. It's the same as blindly following a religion that picks the Bible apart to use just the parts they can explain. But the Bible is cohesive despite both sides.
On August 17 2009 18:02 CalvinStorm wrote: Think that's bad? My city has a mandatory course teaching about gay people.
what exactly do they teach?
edit: just so i won't be completely off topic, i believe that the original idea put forth is an excellent one, and that it would benefit an ignorant country like the US ( no offense but ignorance is abundant when it comes to religion, in any country but the US takes the cake from my experience ) But this will be poorly executed by bias teachers, principal, parents, and everyone in between, because let's face it, that's America. It's disappointing but their educational system is too corrupt.
whoa, whoa, whoa, don't paint all of the US with the texas brush
fair enough, by the US i meant anything west of virginia east of nevada and north of florida.
-_-
that last post was in jest, surely you agree that when it comes to religion Americans tend to be a bit over bearing and ignorant. I know i lived in the states most of my life.
Aegraen I am not bashing Christianity, I am simply stating that the US is a biased country when it comes to religion, and to answer your question, i will bash any religious fanatic regardless of the book they carry.
On August 17 2009 18:40 Savio wrote:
On August 17 2009 18:04 Etherone wrote:
On August 17 2009 18:02 CalvinStorm wrote: Think that's bad? My city has a mandatory course teaching about gay people.
what exactly do they teach?
My school made us watch a movie with gay people having explicit sex so we would be "sensitive".
Now, it was medical school and not high school, so I guess its better.....maybe?
you're kidding... please tell me I am missing the sarcasm
actually I am not kidding. It was during our "Reproduction and Human Sexuality" block. They used to use a more hardcore video (the block chairperson told us) with a lot of oral/anal and apparently really old people (like 80's) having sex, but they got way too many complaints and some kid threw up in class so now its just gay sex.
I never did see how being required to watch gay sex would make us more sensitive.
On August 17 2009 19:13 Foucault wrote: wtf @ watching gay people having sex. Doesn't sound very professional, and what on earth does that have to do with being a doctor??
Exactly. But the head of the block is a very "activist" lady and I'm pretty sure that "becoming better doctors" was not the only goal whether it was conscious or subconscious.
so wait, you are saying that information presented to you with the claim of making you a better, more sensitive doctor may have had underhanded intentions of (hell, i don't know) turning you gay? is that what you're saying?
I'm pretty sure the thought was that watching gay sex would somehow make us better doctors.
Or perhaps she just wanted a highly educated, influential group of people to be exposed to it in hopes that watching gay sex would make us support gay marriage. I'm not sure as to her reasons. All I know is she is the type that gets all vehement in a political discussion, is very liberal, and attends protests, etc.
On August 17 2009 18:02 CalvinStorm wrote: Think that's bad? My city has a mandatory course teaching about gay people.
what exactly do they teach?
edit: just so i won't be completely off topic, i believe that the original idea put forth is an excellent one, and that it would benefit an ignorant country like the US ( no offense but ignorance is abundant when it comes to religion, in any country but the US takes the cake from my experience ) But this will be poorly executed by bias teachers, principal, parents, and everyone in between, because let's face it, that's America. It's disappointing but their educational system is too corrupt.
whoa, whoa, whoa, don't paint all of the US with the texas brush
fair enough, by the US i meant anything west of virginia east of nevada and north of florida.
-_-
that last post was in jest, surely you agree that when it comes to religion Americans tend to be a bit over bearing and ignorant. I know i lived in the states most of my life.
Aegraen I am not bashing Christianity, I am simply stating that the US is a biased country when it comes to religion, and to answer your question, i will bash any religious fanatic regardless of the book they carry.
On August 17 2009 18:40 Savio wrote:
On August 17 2009 18:04 Etherone wrote:
On August 17 2009 18:02 CalvinStorm wrote: Think that's bad? My city has a mandatory course teaching about gay people.
what exactly do they teach?
My school made us watch a movie with gay people having explicit sex so we would be "sensitive".
Now, it was medical school and not high school, so I guess its better.....maybe?
you're kidding... please tell me I am missing the sarcasm
actually I am not kidding. It was during our "Reproduction and Human Sexuality" block. They used to use a more hardcore video (the block chairperson told us) with a lot of oral/anal and apparently really old people (like 80's) having sex, but they got way too many complaints and some kid threw up in class so now its just gay sex.
I never did see how being required to watch gay sex would make us more sensitive.
On August 17 2009 19:13 Foucault wrote: wtf @ watching gay people having sex. Doesn't sound very professional, and what on earth does that have to do with being a doctor??
Exactly. But the head of the block is a very "activist" lady and I'm pretty sure that "becoming better doctors" was not the only goal whether it was conscious or subconscious.
so wait, you are saying that information presented to you with the claim of making you a better, more sensitive doctor may have had underhanded intentions of (hell, i don't know) turning you gay? is that what you're saying?
I'm pretty sure the thought was that watching gay sex would somehow make us better doctors.
Or perhaps she just wanted a highly educated, influential group of people to be exposed to it in hopes that watching gay sex would make us support gay marriage. I'm not sure as to her reasons. All I know is she is the type that gets all vehement in a political discussion, is very liberal, and attends protests, etc.
(....and makes medical students watch gay sex)
so is your argument then that information presented with the aim of improving the education of a student in some capacity could be used for an ulterior ideological purpose?
On August 19 2009 00:27 NExUS1g wrote: Also, the Bible has not been proven wrong.
Are you familiar with the cosmology presented in the Bible?
Instead, actually, archaeological finds often support historical notes found in the Bible.
And yet there is still no evidence for the grand, united kingdom described in the Bible that supposedly stretched from the Euphrates to Egypt's border at its peak.
Quote some cosmology for me.
Genesis 1:6-8 (NIV) 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
So there was water on top of the sky on top of yet more water.
While the NIV translation is "expanse," other translations, both old and modern, use the word "firmament," which is a solid surface.
Genesis: 7:11-12 (NIV) 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
There were floodgates through which the previously mentioned "water above" could flow through.
1 Chronicles 16:30 (NIV) Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
The world does not move.
why doesn't it move?
Psalms 104:5 (NIV) He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
It can't move because its stuck on its foundations or "pillars" in other verses.
Isaiah 40:22 (NIV) He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
There are people that are sure that the Bible is inerrant and that the word "circle" there must therefore be a mistranslation. But circle is indeed the correct translation. The earth according to the Bible is a flat circle that rests upon a foundation and the "waters below" and is covered, as by a tent, by the heavens, and there are waters above this.
I'm going to stop there, but there are many, many more verses that say these things. Psalms in particular contains a large number of them. The picture that they paint of the world is one that looks like this:
There's no evidence... There's no contradiction. Lack of evidence is not proof, it is lack of evidence; aka the unknown.
Given the absence of evidence, how likely do you think it is that the united kingdom that David and Solomon ruled over was as great as the Bible says it was?
I am an agnostic atheist.
The translation for circle is any round geometric shape and it used in ancient Hebrew as a round object either in 2 dimensions or 3.
This is the word used and sphere is not included in any definition of the word. As I understand it, there was not a word for sphere in old Hebrew, but they had a word for ball.
I guess there's no water in the sky, hm? I guess clouds are made of cotton candy and rain is gumdrops?
There's no water above a dome over us.
Your assumption that the Earth is somehow on a pillar is discounted by the second part of Job 26:7 NIV, "...he suspends the earth over nothing.".
Same book: Job 9:6 He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.
Job 38:4 Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
"He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."
I suppose we don't live in the Universe? I'm not sure why you bring this up.
A canopy is a rooflike structure and that is not what the universe is. The universe is not our roof; it surrounds us and we a part of it.
The religious debate here trying prove/disprove the bible is ridiculous.
The Bible CANNOT be perfect due to multiple layers of translations and figures of speech that existed in ancient cultures/languages we do not have now but tried to translate anyway. Not being perfect, however does not mean it is not scripture inspired from God.
So if someone is thinking that finding some little inconsistency (like arguing the meaning of the word "firmament"...its just retarded since the original author did NOT use that word and the text has been translated many times so arguing it is pointless) is going to disprove the existence of God, they need to....learn to think or something.
On August 17 2009 18:02 CalvinStorm wrote: Think that's bad? My city has a mandatory course teaching about gay people.
what exactly do they teach?
edit: just so i won't be completely off topic, i believe that the original idea put forth is an excellent one, and that it would benefit an ignorant country like the US ( no offense but ignorance is abundant when it comes to religion, in any country but the US takes the cake from my experience ) But this will be poorly executed by bias teachers, principal, parents, and everyone in between, because let's face it, that's America. It's disappointing but their educational system is too corrupt.
whoa, whoa, whoa, don't paint all of the US with the texas brush
fair enough, by the US i meant anything west of virginia east of nevada and north of florida.
-_-
that last post was in jest, surely you agree that when it comes to religion Americans tend to be a bit over bearing and ignorant. I know i lived in the states most of my life.
Aegraen I am not bashing Christianity, I am simply stating that the US is a biased country when it comes to religion, and to answer your question, i will bash any religious fanatic regardless of the book they carry.
On August 17 2009 18:40 Savio wrote:
On August 17 2009 18:04 Etherone wrote:
On August 17 2009 18:02 CalvinStorm wrote: Think that's bad? My city has a mandatory course teaching about gay people.
what exactly do they teach?
My school made us watch a movie with gay people having explicit sex so we would be "sensitive".
Now, it was medical school and not high school, so I guess its better.....maybe?
you're kidding... please tell me I am missing the sarcasm
actually I am not kidding. It was during our "Reproduction and Human Sexuality" block. They used to use a more hardcore video (the block chairperson told us) with a lot of oral/anal and apparently really old people (like 80's) having sex, but they got way too many complaints and some kid threw up in class so now its just gay sex.
I never did see how being required to watch gay sex would make us more sensitive.
On August 17 2009 19:13 Foucault wrote: wtf @ watching gay people having sex. Doesn't sound very professional, and what on earth does that have to do with being a doctor??
Exactly. But the head of the block is a very "activist" lady and I'm pretty sure that "becoming better doctors" was not the only goal whether it was conscious or subconscious.
so wait, you are saying that information presented to you with the claim of making you a better, more sensitive doctor may have had underhanded intentions of (hell, i don't know) turning you gay? is that what you're saying?
I'm pretty sure the thought was that watching gay sex would somehow make us better doctors.
Or perhaps she just wanted a highly educated, influential group of people to be exposed to it in hopes that watching gay sex would make us support gay marriage. I'm not sure as to her reasons. All I know is she is the type that gets all vehement in a political discussion, is very liberal, and attends protests, etc.
(....and makes medical students watch gay sex)
But you liked it, right? :D
Also, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?
lol, its been a long time. I started my clinical rotations and was working WAY too much to post anything worthwhile. I am on 2 week break now followed by 2 months of family practice which is only 5 "half-days" a week, so I should be posting a lot more.
The picture depicted is Thalean cosmology, not Mosaic, probably established five centuries before cosmology began as a form of philosophy. From a perspective of textual analysis, the Torah said very little about cosmology.
Anyhow the picture itself is nonsense: the pillars here depicted contradicts the biblical description, even if you took all hagiographical writings literally. Another problem. Chronicles is depicted as saying the earth stood motionless, yet in the same chapter, it depicted trees singing for the joy of God.
A better depiction of OT cosmology, if you think it's really necessary to map a thing, is probably provided by late-medieval cosmology of nine spheres under the empyrean heaven, the last representing the "water" above the firmament. However, that cosmology was the heir to Greek/Arabic astronomical philosophy, and is merely an inferred depiction of OT cosmology. The ancient Hebrews may have believed something like it. They certainly did not have the same cosmology as ourselves, however by divine irony, their scripture can still be interpreted to coincide with the naturalistic description of the universe. God writes straight for crooked lines.
The OT is less historical than the NT, and the Torah may even sit on the murky boundary between history and mythology. Its priciple values don't apply to the natural sciences. There will always be apologists for the precision of the scriptures, but precision is beside the point.
Goethe once pointed out that the highest problem of all art is to produce by illusion the semblance of a higher reality. One might add that this problem is not limited to art, but to all human intellectual endeavour. It's in religious knowledge that we aspire to reach the highest reality of all. Much of the accessible is sacrificed to pursuit of the inaccessible in mythological and theoretical thinking.
3. Keynesian theory as it was developed in 30s does not exists any more in academia and it wasn't used since at least mid 70s. Current crises has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.
Don't do this to his argument. It's much easier on him to just assume spending = Keynesian, not spending = Austrian.
The concepts of Keynesian economics are absolutely used today. What liberals call it is irrelevant.
Can you tell me what you understand by Keynesian economics?
I am not going to pretend to be an expert on the subject and describe in any great detail Keynes' theories. However I can look at certain aspects of the theory and see that those ideas are still quite popular. The most obvious of which is of course government intervention. The idea that at a time of economic downturn the government should step in and spend money was introduced by Keynes.
I don't know if Keynesian theory exists any more in academia(although I find it hard to believe that it doesn't) but to say that it has not been used since the 70s is absurd.
Unfortunately current gov't spending is more the result of huge lobby groups than any economic theory behind it...
The original idea to fight the crises was orientated on the money side of economy. Because of the turmoil in the financial markets the supply of broad money decreased substantially. In effect economy started shrinking. There was not enough money in circulation. Hence the idea to pump up the large quantities of money into the economy. For the same reason all the major banks received credit from FED. And for the same reason, it was suggested to buy all the bad loans from the banks which were currently holding it.
So the initial action undertaken was very far from what Keynes and his followers would suggest to tackle the crises, i.e. mainly boost the demand for goods as Keynes believed it was the demand side of economy which is responsible for the economic recessions.
The fact that government bails out now other companies and started lots of weird programs I would attribute to social pressure (car industry) and various lobby groups. Economists are largly against most of those programs as they perceive them (correctly) as a waste of tax-payers money. There is no evidence that those programs will make any difference.
Going back to current stand of economics, I would stand by the claim that Keynesian economics as followed in the post-war period doesn't exists. It was based on three fundamentals, IS-LM model, AS-AD curves and Phillips curve. It was widely believed that government could use fiscal policy to prevent business cycles. As such those theories were abandoned in 1970s with an emergence of new economic phenomena called stagflation. Keynesian economics had pretty simple solution for the economic problems, if there is inflation cut government spending to decrease money supply growth and if there is unemployment increase government spending to boost demand and so create the demand for labour. However, in 1970s major economies experienced simultaneous inflation and unemployment sth that their main theoretic models could not explain. As a result, Keynesian economics was abandoned and the attention was shifted to the supply side. Note that these days the main instrument to fight the recessions is through monetary policy (interest rate, expanding monetary base) and not through fiscal stimulus.
There is however a school of macroeconomic thought called New-Keynesian. They support Keynes views on the labour marker and pricing policies, do not however support his views on stabilization of economy. These economists believe that there are market failures in the economy and that they are responsible for the economic fluctuations, namely wage stickiness, menu costs and real rigidities (i.e. price stickiness).
I asked you what you mean by Keynesian economics simply because different people have different definitions. For me Keynesian economics is the one that suggest using fiscal policy as a main tool to fight recession. Modern macroeconomists would suggest using monetary policy to fight recession with very modest fiscal stimulus from government at most. Also Keynesian economists suggested negative relationship between inflation and unemployment (this is not due to Keynes himself but it was developed and fully used by post-war Keynesian economists). Currently it is recognized that such relation may hold, if at all, only in a short run. There are modifications to the original Phillips curve, so-called New Keynesian Phillips curve but it focuses on the relation between inflation, expected inflation and output.
So yes, Keynes ideas are still alive, Keynesian economics not so much.
Genesis 1:6-8 (NIV) 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
So there was water on top of the sky on top of yet more water.
While the NIV translation is "expanse," other translations, both old and modern, use the word "firmament," which is a solid surface.
Genesis: 7:11-12 (NIV) 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
There were floodgates through which the previously mentioned "water above" could flow through.
Because rain's exactly like pouring water? Or do you think it's more figurative? If I say it's pouring outside, I don't mean it's literally being poured out of a bucket. I couldn't imagine if someone says, "It's raining cats and dogs" in front of you.
1 Chronicles 16:30 (NIV) Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
The world does not move.
why doesn't it move?
Psalms 104:5 (NIV) He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
It can't move because its stuck on its foundations or "pillars" in other verses.
Isaiah 40:22 (NIV) He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
There are people that are sure that the Bible is inerrant and that the word "circle" there must therefore be a mistranslation. But circle is indeed the correct translation. The earth according to the Bible is a flat circle that rests upon a foundation and the "waters below" and is covered, as by a tent, by the heavens, and there are waters above this.
I'm going to stop there, but there are many, many more verses that say these things. Psalms in particular contains a large number of them. The picture that they paint of the world is one that looks like this:
The only reason you can take those quotes literally is if you completely ignore the quote I made that said God hung the Earth on nothing.
Given the absence of evidence, how likely do you think it is that the united kingdom that David and Solomon ruled over was as great as the Bible says it was?
If there is no evidence, I can't make an educated determination.
This is the word used and sphere is not included in any definition of the word. As I understand it, there was not a word for sphere in old Hebrew, but they had a word for ball.
The ancient Hebrew language did not have a word for sphere. Ball =/= sphere. "Duwr" is an object, "chuwg" is a geometric term.
There's no water above a dome over us.
No, there isn't. It doesn't say that either. You seem to think that translation is a linear process.
Same book: Job 9:6 He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.
Job 38:4 Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
Your assumption that the Earth is somehow on a pillar is discounted by the second part of Job 26 : 7 NIV, "...he suspends the earth over nothing.". You can't just disregard lines that do not agree with your theories.
"He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."
I suppose we don't live in the Universe? I'm not sure why you bring this up.
A canopy is a rooflike structure and that is not what the universe is. The universe is not our roof; it surrounds us and we a part of it.
Yes, it surrounds us and we live in it. Kind of like a tent, wouldn't you say? It's all around and we live in it. Ancient Hebrew did not have a term for infinite space.
If there is no evidence, there's a lack of information to make an educated decision or even a "best guess".
Are you going to blame semantics again when you reread this and realize how laughable this statement is? You have serious fucking problems with understanding inductive reasoning.
On August 19 2009 00:27 NExUS1g wrote: Also, the Bible has not been proven wrong.
Are you familiar with the cosmology presented in the Bible?
Instead, actually, archaeological finds often support historical notes found in the Bible.
And yet there is still no evidence for the grand, united kingdom described in the Bible that supposedly stretched from the Euphrates to Egypt's border at its peak.
Quote some cosmology for me.
Genesis 1:6-8 (NIV) 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
So there was water on top of the sky on top of yet more water.
While the NIV translation is "expanse," other translations, both old and modern, use the word "firmament," which is a solid surface.
Genesis: 7:11-12 (NIV) 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
There were floodgates through which the previously mentioned "water above" could flow through.
1 Chronicles 16:30 (NIV) Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
The world does not move.
why doesn't it move?
Psalms 104:5 (NIV) He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
It can't move because its stuck on its foundations or "pillars" in other verses.
Isaiah 40:22 (NIV) He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
There are people that are sure that the Bible is inerrant and that the word "circle" there must therefore be a mistranslation. But circle is indeed the correct translation. The earth according to the Bible is a flat circle that rests upon a foundation and the "waters below" and is covered, as by a tent, by the heavens, and there are waters above this.
I'm going to stop there, but there are many, many more verses that say these things. Psalms in particular contains a large number of them. The picture that they paint of the world is one that looks like this:
There's no evidence... There's no contradiction. Lack of evidence is not proof, it is lack of evidence; aka the unknown.
Given the absence of evidence, how likely do you think it is that the united kingdom that David and Solomon ruled over was as great as the Bible says it was?
The translation for circle is any round geometric shape and it used in ancient Hebrew as a round object either in 2 dimensions or 3.
This is the word used and sphere is not included in any definition of the word. As I understand it, there was not a word for sphere in old Hebrew, but they had a word for ball.
I guess there's no water in the sky, hm? I guess clouds are made of cotton candy and rain is gumdrops?
There's no water above a dome over us.
Like I say again in the next point, this is an ancient language with a very crude ability to describe things. For all intents and purposes, this is an accurate
Your assumption that the Earth is somehow on a pillar is discounted by the second part of Job 26:7 NIV, "...he suspends the earth over nothing.".
Same book: Job 9:6 He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.
Job 38:4 Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
"...he suspends the earth over nothing." By saying those quotes you made are literal, you have to disregard this line, and it just doesn't work that way. You're taking it out of context and scrutinizing the lines as stand-alone.
If I were to poetically describe an earthquake I could say, "It shook the very foundation of the Earth." It doesn't mean that I think there's a literal something that is holding the Earth up.
"Earth" also has two literal meanings; ground or the planet.
Foundation also has a multitude of meanings.
You have to keep in mind we're translating from an ancient language whose descriptions are limited.
"He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."
I suppose we don't live in the Universe? I'm not sure why you bring this up.
A canopy is a rooflike structure and that is not what the universe is. The universe is not our roof; it surrounds us and we a part of it.
Yes, it surrounds us and we live in it. Kind of like a tent, wouldn't you say? It's all around and we live in it. Ancient Hebrew did not have a term for infinite space.
Given the absence of evidence, how likely do you think it is that the united kingdom that David and Solomon ruled over was as great as the Bible says it was?
If there is no evidence, there's a lack of information to make an educated decision or even a "best guess".
On August 19 2009 08:54 Savio wrote: The religious debate here trying prove/disprove the bible is ridiculous.
The Bible CANNOT be perfect due to multiple layers of translations and figures of speech that existed in ancient cultures/languages we do not have now but tried to translate anyway. Not being perfect, however does not mean it is not scripture inspired from God.
So if someone is thinking that finding some little inconsistency (like arguing the meaning of the word "firmament"...its just retarded since the original author did NOT use that word and the text has been translated many times so arguing it is pointless) is going to disprove the existence of God, they need to....learn to think or something.
You're missing the point. The only record of the events in the Bible is the Bible itself. This is hardly evidence. Claiming that the authors, whomever they were, to have been inspired by God begs the question, as it assumes God's existence, the very question we're debating by assessing the legitimacy of the Bible. If there is no way to independently, objectively verify the claims made in the Bible, then it is presumed to be unreliable, and thus not satisfactory evidence for use in a debate.
And again, the burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist. Prove your God is real and I will not only "believe", but I will KNOW it to be true. You can present evidence, which I can attempt to disprove or discredit, but I cannot prove the negative. And it doesn't matter, because I don't have to. The burden is on you to prove that there is a God.
Apply the Scientific Method to proving there is a God. I'll do this from the perspective of a 15th century peasant.
Observation - Huge bolts of light come out of the sky when the weather is bad. Where do they come from?
Theory - God is doing it.
Evidence - My only evidence is my observation of the light coming from the sky, and what it does when it hits something - it blows stuff up and burns stuff.
Does this evidence prove the theory? Certainly not. No more than the Bible proves there is a God, or that JK Rowling proved the existence of Hogwart's school.
You're challenging faith with logic, which defeats the purpose of faith and leaves you both without a satisfactory answer. There are better ways to come to equal terms. I mean, you're both aware of the logical deficiency when believing in a god, yet he embraces it and you shun it. I don't think you'll get anything out of arguing that specific point.
There are some historical events in the Bible but they've obviously been warped simply due to the fact that they're retold by humans, for any number of purposes. What annoys me is when people claim universality because some event like Noah's flood seems to appear in other cultures as well, when in reality, there have been many major floods in the history of civilization because early civilizations are always cultivated around bodies of water, namely rivers, and so everyone has experience with them.
On August 19 2009 08:54 Savio wrote: So if someone is thinking that finding some little inconsistency (like arguing the meaning of the word "firmament"...its just retarded since the original author did NOT use that word and the text has been translated many times so arguing it is pointless) is going to disprove the existence of God, they need to....learn to think or something.
Disproving the existence of "God"? Is that what you think I was writing about?
On August 17 2009 15:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Is there a curriculum offering lessons on the Torah, and the Qur'an as well?
That's not the issue here. Even if there were lessons like that, it would technically still be discriminatory against all the various other religions. If you say teaching about only 1 religion is bad, you can't say that teaching about the "big three" is any better.
although i'd agree, i'm assuming you meant big three in terms of population. judaism isn't in the top 3 when it comes to the number of people following it.
On August 19 2009 10:41 Jibba wrote: You're challenging faith with logic, which defeats the purpose of faith and leaves you both without a satisfactory answer. There are better ways to come to equal terms. I mean, you're both aware of the logical deficiency when believing in a god, yet he embraces it and you shun it. I don't think you'll get anything out of arguing that specific point.
There are some historical events in the Bible but they've obviously been warped simply due to the fact that they're retold by humans, for any number of purposes. What annoys me is when people claim universality because some event like Noah's flood seems to appear in other cultures as well, when in reality, there have been many major floods in the history of civilization because early civilizations are always cultivated around bodies of water, namely rivers, and so everyone has experience with them.
You make a valid point about faith, to be sure. Of course, I believe faith to be a mental illness, based on current clinical definitions.
So the initial action undertaken was very far from what Keynes and his followers would suggest to tackle the crises, i.e. mainly boost the demand for goods as Keynes believed it was the demand side of economy which is responsible for the economic recessions.
My reading of Keynesian theory says both lowering interest rates AND stimulating consumption are recommended in recessions.
From his General Theory:
...and whilst a decline in the rate of interest may be expected, cet. par., to increase the volume of investment, this will not happen if the schedule of the marginal efficiency of capital is falling more rapidly than the rate of interest; and whilst an increase in the volume of investment may be expected, cet. par., to increase employment, this may not happen if the propensity to consume is falling off.
in his conclusion:
There is, however, a second, much more fundamental inference from our argument which has a bearing on the future of inequalities of wealth; namely, our theory of the rate of interest. The justification for a moderately high rate of interest has been found hitherto in the necessity of providing a sufficient inducement to save. But we have shown that the extent of effective saving is necessarily determined by the scale of investment and that the scale of investment is promoted by a low rate of interest, provided that we do not attempt to stimulate it in this way beyond the point which corresponds to full employment. Thus it is to our best advantage to reduce the rate of interest to that point relatively to the schedule of the marginal efficiency of capital at which there is full employment.
If there is no evidence, there's a lack of information to make an educated decision or even a "best guess".
Are you going to blame semantics again when you reread this and realize how laughable this statement is? You have serious fucking problems with understanding inductive reasoning.
I am an agnostic atheist.
Let's say We have a time line that runs from 1,000 B.C.E. to 500 B.C.E. Now we have a purported kingdom that existed in country X from 900 B.C.E. to 700 B.C.E. Now, we don't see any information that there was the existence of this purported kingdom that existed in country X. Can we say that it doesn't exist and the one source of information is wrong? Isn't it more sound to say we can't prove its existence rather than completely denying its existence or even saying that it probably didn't exist?
Regarding inductive reasoning: It's a fancy term for saying, "I don't know," for people who are too proud to say "I don't know."
Louder, you said you're from Texas, right? What is the county like where this is being taught? I know Texas as a state leans right, but there are some very liberal parts of Texas so I wonder what the full context of this class/school district is.
On August 19 2009 10:47 Jibba wrote: Louder, you said you're from Texas, right? What is the county like where this is being taught? I know Texas as a state leans right, but there are some very liberal parts of Texas so I wonder what the full context of this class/school district is.
I gave an example at my daughter's school. The only liberal areas of Texas are the metro areas - particularly Austin and San Antonio. Outside those, it's VERY backwoods.
If there is no evidence, there's a lack of information to make an educated decision or even a "best guess".
Are you going to blame semantics again when you reread this and realize how laughable this statement is? You have serious fucking problems with understanding inductive reasoning.
I am an agnostic atheist.
Let's say We have a time line that runs from 1,000 B.C.E. to 500 B.C.E. Now we have a purported kingdom that existed in country X from 900 B.C.E. to 700 B.C.E. Now, we don't see any information that there was the existence of this purported kingdom that existed in country X. Can we say that it doesn't exist and the one source of information is wrong? Isn't it more sound to say we can't prove its existence rather than completely denying its existence or even saying that it probably didn't exist?
I raped your mother last night.
Now, you might call your mother up and ask her "Did Jibba give you unbelievable pleasure against your will last night?" and you might gain a piece of evidence that can prove or disprove my claim, but until that happens, are you seriously going to remain agnostic to the claim that I raped the shit out of your hot mommy?
3. Keynesian theory as it was developed in 30s does not exists any more in academia and it wasn't used since at least mid 70s. Current crises has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.
Don't do this to his argument. It's much easier on him to just assume spending = Keynesian, not spending = Austrian.
The concepts of Keynesian economics are absolutely used today. What liberals call it is irrelevant.
Can you tell me what you understand by Keynesian economics?
I am not going to pretend to be an expert on the subject and describe in any great detail Keynes' theories. However I can look at certain aspects of the theory and see that those ideas are still quite popular. The most obvious of which is of course government intervention. The idea that at a time of economic downturn the government should step in and spend money was introduced by Keynes.
I don't know if Keynesian theory exists any more in academia(although I find it hard to believe that it doesn't) but to say that it has not been used since the 70s is absurd.
Unfortunately current gov't spending is more the result of huge lobby groups than any economic theory behind it...
The original idea to fight the crises was orientated on the money side of economy. Because of the turmoil in the financial markets the supply of broad money decreased substantially. In effect economy started shrinking. There was not enough money in circulation. Hence the idea to pump up the large quantities of money into the economy. For the same reason all the major banks received credit from FED. And for the same reason, it was suggested to buy all the bad loans from the banks which were currently holding it.
So the initial action undertaken was very far from what Keynes and his followers would suggest to tackle the crises, i.e. mainly boost the demand for goods as Keynes believed it was the demand side of economy which is responsible for the economic recessions.
The fact that government bails out now other companies and started lots of weird programs I would attribute to social pressure (car industry) and various lobby groups. Economists are largly against most of those programs as they perceive them (correctly) as a waste of tax-payers money. There is no evidence that those programs will make any difference.
Going back to current stand of economics, I would stand by the claim that Keynesian economics as followed in the post-war period doesn't exists. It was based on three fundamentals, IS-LM model, AS-AD curves and Phillips curve. It was widely believed that government could use fiscal policy to prevent business cycles. As such those theories were abandoned in 1970s with an emergence of new economic phenomena called stagflation. Keynesian economics had pretty simple solution for the economic problems, if there is inflation cut government spending to decrease money supply growth and if there is unemployment increase government spending to boost demand and so create the demand for labour. However, in 1970s major economies experienced simultaneous inflation and unemployment sth that their main theoretic models could not explain. As a result, Keynesian economics was abandoned and the attention was shifted to the supply side. Note that these days the main instrument to fight the recessions is through monetary policy (interest rate, expanding monetary base) and not through fiscal stimulus.
There is however a school of macroeconomic thought called New-Keynesian. They support Keynes views on the labour marker and pricing policies, do not however support his views on stabilization of economy. These economists believe that there are market failures in the economy and that they are responsible for the economic fluctuations, namely wage stickiness, menu costs and real rigidities (i.e. price stickiness).
I asked you what you mean by Keynesian economics simply because different people have different definitions. For me Keynesian economics is the one that suggest using fiscal policy as a main tool to fight recession. Modern macroeconomists would suggest using monetary policy to fight recession with very modest fiscal stimulus from government at most. Also Keynesian economists suggested negative relationship between inflation and unemployment (this is not due to Keynes himself but it was developed and fully used by post-war Keynesian economists). Currently it is recognized that such relation may hold, if at all, only in a short run. There are modifications to the original Phillips curve, so-called New Keynesian Phillips curve but it focuses on the relation between inflation, expected inflation and output.
So yes, Keynes ideas are still alive, Keynesian economics not so much.
If there is no evidence, there's a lack of information to make an educated decision or even a "best guess".
Are you going to blame semantics again when you reread this and realize how laughable this statement is? You have serious fucking problems with understanding inductive reasoning.
I am an agnostic atheist.
Let's say We have a time line that runs from 1,000 B.C.E. to 500 B.C.E. Now we have a purported kingdom that existed in country X from 900 B.C.E. to 700 B.C.E. Now, we don't see any information that there was the existence of this purported kingdom that existed in country X. Can we say that it doesn't exist and the one source of information is wrong? Isn't it more sound to say we can't prove its existence rather than completely denying its existence or even saying that it probably didn't exist?
I raped your mother last night.
Now, you might call your mother up and ask her "Did Jibba give you unbelievable pleasure against your will last night?" and you might gain a piece of evidence that can prove or disprove my claim, but until that happens, are you seriously going to remain agnostic to the claim that I raped the shit out of your hot mommy?
If there is no evidence, there's a lack of information to make an educated decision or even a "best guess".
Are you going to blame semantics again when you reread this and realize how laughable this statement is? You have serious fucking problems with understanding inductive reasoning.
I am an agnostic atheist.
Let's say We have a time line that runs from 1,000 B.C.E. to 500 B.C.E. Now we have a purported kingdom that existed in country X from 900 B.C.E. to 700 B.C.E. Now, we don't see any information that there was the existence of this purported kingdom that existed in country X. Can we say that it doesn't exist and the one source of information is wrong? Isn't it more sound to say we can't prove its existence rather than completely denying its existence or even saying that it probably didn't exist?
Regarding inductive reasoning: It's a fancy term for saying, "I don't know," for people who are too proud to say "I don't know."
It's not my position that the united monarchy did not exist. Have you been reading my posts? My position is that, given the lack of evidence for its existence, much less its grandeur as described in the Bible, it is probable that the kingdom was not as great or powerful as the Bible says.
If there is no evidence, there's a lack of information to make an educated decision or even a "best guess".
Are you going to blame semantics again when you reread this and realize how laughable this statement is? You have serious fucking problems with understanding inductive reasoning.
I am an agnostic atheist.
Let's say We have a time line that runs from 1,000 B.C.E. to 500 B.C.E. Now we have a purported kingdom that existed in country X from 900 B.C.E. to 700 B.C.E. Now, we don't see any information that there was the existence of this purported kingdom that existed in country X. Can we say that it doesn't exist and the one source of information is wrong? Isn't it more sound to say we can't prove its existence rather than completely denying its existence or even saying that it probably didn't exist?
Regarding inductive reasoning: It's a fancy term for saying, "I don't know," for people who are too proud to say "I don't know."
It's not my position that the united monarchy did not exist. Have you been reading my posts? My position is that, given the lack of evidence for its existence, much less its grandeur as described in the Bible, it is probable that the kingdom was not as great or powerful as the Bible says.
Probability is best left to dice and coin flips, not disregarding ancient accounts.
There are certain things that "probably" precedes that means "I don't know". For instance...
"X kingdom probably didn't exit." "Your tumor is probably benign." "The wings on your airplane are probably fine."
If you say any of the above, I would say, "OK, so you don't know."
If there is no evidence, there's a lack of information to make an educated decision or even a "best guess".
Are you going to blame semantics again when you reread this and realize how laughable this statement is? You have serious fucking problems with understanding inductive reasoning.
I am an agnostic atheist.
Let's say We have a time line that runs from 1,000 B.C.E. to 500 B.C.E. Now we have a purported kingdom that existed in country X from 900 B.C.E. to 700 B.C.E. Now, we don't see any information that there was the existence of this purported kingdom that existed in country X. Can we say that it doesn't exist and the one source of information is wrong? Isn't it more sound to say we can't prove its existence rather than completely denying its existence or even saying that it probably didn't exist?
I raped your mother last night.
Now, you might call your mother up and ask her "Did Jibba give you unbelievable pleasure against your will last night?" and you might gain a piece of evidence that can prove or disprove my claim, but until that happens, are you seriously going to remain agnostic to the claim that I raped the shit out of your hot mommy?
From a scientific standpoint, I would have to say I don't know.
From a personal standpoint, I'd tell you that you're a retard for attempting to win an argument using pathetic attempts at sly insults.
They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that. This is why information is triangulated and in this case, you have no more proof than 1 data set that has gone through thousands of retellings and retranslatings.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done.
On August 19 2009 10:41 Jibba wrote: You're challenging faith with logic, which defeats the purpose of faith and leaves you both without a satisfactory answer. There are better ways to come to equal terms. I mean, you're both aware of the logical deficiency when believing in a god, yet he embraces it and you shun it. I don't think you'll get anything out of arguing that specific point.
There are some historical events in the Bible but they've obviously been warped simply due to the fact that they're retold by humans, for any number of purposes. What annoys me is when people claim universality because some event like Noah's flood seems to appear in other cultures as well, when in reality, there have been many major floods in the history of civilization because early civilizations are always cultivated around bodies of water, namely rivers, and so everyone has experience with them.
You make a valid point about faith, to be sure. Of course, I believe faith to be a mental illness, based on current clinical definitions.
If we want to be broad-minded, we can see this in extra-religious terms:
Faith is the degree to which you assent to a certain truth.
Logic is the means by which certain truths are inferred.
Not all truths are or can be inferred. Inference requires assumption or presumption to form premises.
Some of the truths, including the most basic ones in the intellectual repetoire are intuitive (hence truisms or self-evident truths.) They are also manifested through declarative speech.
Logic requires truisms to function.
Where truisms refer to the "objective" world, the degree to which we accept them is faith.
Thus I take objection with your definition of atheist. It is not that your atheist requires faith. It is simply that a truly faithless atheist cannot even think. He has no foundation on which logic may be exercised.
If there is no evidence, there's a lack of information to make an educated decision or even a "best guess".
Are you going to blame semantics again when you reread this and realize how laughable this statement is? You have serious fucking problems with understanding inductive reasoning.
I am an agnostic atheist.
Let's say We have a time line that runs from 1,000 B.C.E. to 500 B.C.E. Now we have a purported kingdom that existed in country X from 900 B.C.E. to 700 B.C.E. Now, we don't see any information that there was the existence of this purported kingdom that existed in country X. Can we say that it doesn't exist and the one source of information is wrong? Isn't it more sound to say we can't prove its existence rather than completely denying its existence or even saying that it probably didn't exist?
I raped your mother last night.
Now, you might call your mother up and ask her "Did Jibba give you unbelievable pleasure against your will last night?" and you might gain a piece of evidence that can prove or disprove my claim, but until that happens, are you seriously going to remain agnostic to the claim that I raped the shit out of your hot mommy?
From a scientific standpoint, I would have to say I don't know.
From a personal standpoint, I'd tell you that you're a retard for attempting to win an argument using pathetic attempts at sly insults.
They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
If there is no evidence, there's a lack of information to make an educated decision or even a "best guess".
Are you going to blame semantics again when you reread this and realize how laughable this statement is? You have serious fucking problems with understanding inductive reasoning.
I am an agnostic atheist.
Let's say We have a time line that runs from 1,000 B.C.E. to 500 B.C.E. Now we have a purported kingdom that existed in country X from 900 B.C.E. to 700 B.C.E. Now, we don't see any information that there was the existence of this purported kingdom that existed in country X. Can we say that it doesn't exist and the one source of information is wrong? Isn't it more sound to say we can't prove its existence rather than completely denying its existence or even saying that it probably didn't exist?
I raped your mother last night.
Now, you might call your mother up and ask her "Did Jibba give you unbelievable pleasure against your will last night?" and you might gain a piece of evidence that can prove or disprove my claim, but until that happens, are you seriously going to remain agnostic to the claim that I raped the shit out of your hot mommy?
From a scientific standpoint, I would have to say I don't know.
From a personal standpoint, I'd tell you that you're a retard for attempting to win an argument using pathetic attempts at sly insults.
They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
If there is no evidence, there's a lack of information to make an educated decision or even a "best guess".
Are you going to blame semantics again when you reread this and realize how laughable this statement is? You have serious fucking problems with understanding inductive reasoning.
I am an agnostic atheist.
Let's say We have a time line that runs from 1,000 B.C.E. to 500 B.C.E. Now we have a purported kingdom that existed in country X from 900 B.C.E. to 700 B.C.E. Now, we don't see any information that there was the existence of this purported kingdom that existed in country X. Can we say that it doesn't exist and the one source of information is wrong? Isn't it more sound to say we can't prove its existence rather than completely denying its existence or even saying that it probably didn't exist?
I raped your mother last night.
Now, you might call your mother up and ask her "Did Jibba give you unbelievable pleasure against your will last night?" and you might gain a piece of evidence that can prove or disprove my claim, but until that happens, are you seriously going to remain agnostic to the claim that I raped the shit out of your hot mommy?
From a scientific standpoint, I would have to say I don't know.
From a personal standpoint, I'd tell you that you're a retard for attempting to win an argument using pathetic attempts at sly insults.
They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain? No, it means you don't know; you guess.
Probably in this case means you don't know, which means you just blew a lot of hot air trying to sound more knowledgeable than you are.
On the application of probability and historicity to Christianity, there is an interesting debate on youtube between Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig which is worth watching.
url:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjOSNj97_gk (1st of 12 videos in total)
It's all the more interesting in that I was taught Biblical criticism pretty much in conformity with the Ehrman school, and I accept him as an unquestionable authority on the history of early Christian texts. Nonetheless I'm not convinced by his ultimate line of reasoning in this series, even though my own historical agnosticism is more or less in line with his.
On August 19 2009 10:41 Jibba wrote: You're challenging faith with logic, which defeats the purpose of faith and leaves you both without a satisfactory answer. There are better ways to come to equal terms. I mean, you're both aware of the logical deficiency when believing in a god, yet he embraces it and you shun it. I don't think you'll get anything out of arguing that specific point.
There are some historical events in the Bible but they've obviously been warped simply due to the fact that they're retold by humans, for any number of purposes. What annoys me is when people claim universality because some event like Noah's flood seems to appear in other cultures as well, when in reality, there have been many major floods in the history of civilization because early civilizations are always cultivated around bodies of water, namely rivers, and so everyone has experience with them.
You make a valid point about faith, to be sure. Of course, I believe faith to be a mental illness, based on current clinical definitions.
If we want to be broad-minded, we can see this in extra-religious terms:
Faith is the degree to which you assent to a certain truth.
Logic is the means by which certain truths are inferred.
Not all truths are or can be inferred. Inference requires assumption or presumption to form premises.
Some of the truths, including the most basic ones in the intellectual repetoire are intuitive (hence truisms or self-evident truths.) They are also manifested through declarative speech.
Logic requires truisms to function.
Where truisms refer to the "objective" world, the degree to which we accept them is faith.
Thus I take objection with your definition of atheist. It is not that your atheist requires faith. It is simply that a truly faithless atheist cannot even think. He has no foundation on which logic may be exercised.
You don't understand faith OR logic. I'm not going to bother explaining.
On August 19 2009 11:22 MoltkeWarding wrote: On the application of probability and historicity to Christianity, there is an interesting debate on youtube between Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig which is worth watching.
url:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjOSNj97_gk (1st of 12 videos in total)
It's all the more interesting in that I was taught Biblical criticism pretty much in conformity with the Ehrman school, and I accept him as an unquestionable authority on the history of early Christian texts. Nonetheless I'm not convinced by his ultimate line of reasoning in this series, even though my own historical agnosticism is more or less in line with his.
What? I have never heard of ANY evidence that even verifies the existence of Jesus.
On August 19 2009 11:30 Louder wrote: What? I have never heard of ANY evidence that even verifies the existence of Jesus.
There's a significant amount of period texts written about or mentioning Jesus.
Even if you include the Josephus text mentioning him, which is thought to be a forgery by the vast majority, all texts were written many decades after he would have died. They show that there were Christians at the time of their writing, but beyond that, little can be said with certainty.
If there is no evidence, there's a lack of information to make an educated decision or even a "best guess".
Are you going to blame semantics again when you reread this and realize how laughable this statement is? You have serious fucking problems with understanding inductive reasoning.
I am an agnostic atheist.
Let's say We have a time line that runs from 1,000 B.C.E. to 500 B.C.E. Now we have a purported kingdom that existed in country X from 900 B.C.E. to 700 B.C.E. Now, we don't see any information that there was the existence of this purported kingdom that existed in country X. Can we say that it doesn't exist and the one source of information is wrong? Isn't it more sound to say we can't prove its existence rather than completely denying its existence or even saying that it probably didn't exist?
I raped your mother last night.
Now, you might call your mother up and ask her "Did Jibba give you unbelievable pleasure against your will last night?" and you might gain a piece of evidence that can prove or disprove my claim, but until that happens, are you seriously going to remain agnostic to the claim that I raped the shit out of your hot mommy?
From a scientific standpoint, I would have to say I don't know.
From a personal standpoint, I'd tell you that you're a retard for attempting to win an argument using pathetic attempts at sly insults.
They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
On August 19 2009 11:30 Louder wrote: What? I have never heard of ANY evidence that even verifies the existence of Jesus.
There's a significant amount of period texts written about or mentioning Jesus.
Even if you include the Josephus text mentioning him, which is thought to be a forgery by the vast majority, all texts were written many decades after he would have died. They show that there were Christians at the time of their writing, but beyond that, little can be said with certainty.
Most historians accept the historical existence of Jesus.
On August 19 2009 11:30 Louder wrote: What? I have never heard of ANY evidence that even verifies the existence of Jesus.
There's a significant amount of period texts written about or mentioning Jesus.
Even if you include the Josephus text mentioning him, which is thought to be a forgery by the vast majority, all texts were written many decades after he would have died. They show that there were Christians at the time of their writing, but beyond that, little can be said with certainty.
Most historians accept the historical existence of Jesus.
This is true. But the evidence is hardly overwhelming.
If there is no evidence, there's a lack of information to make an educated decision or even a "best guess".
Are you going to blame semantics again when you reread this and realize how laughable this statement is? You have serious fucking problems with understanding inductive reasoning.
I am an agnostic atheist.
Let's say We have a time line that runs from 1,000 B.C.E. to 500 B.C.E. Now we have a purported kingdom that existed in country X from 900 B.C.E. to 700 B.C.E. Now, we don't see any information that there was the existence of this purported kingdom that existed in country X. Can we say that it doesn't exist and the one source of information is wrong? Isn't it more sound to say we can't prove its existence rather than completely denying its existence or even saying that it probably didn't exist?
I raped your mother last night.
Now, you might call your mother up and ask her "Did Jibba give you unbelievable pleasure against your will last night?" and you might gain a piece of evidence that can prove or disprove my claim, but until that happens, are you seriously going to remain agnostic to the claim that I raped the shit out of your hot mommy?
From a scientific standpoint, I would have to say I don't know.
From a personal standpoint, I'd tell you that you're a retard for attempting to win an argument using pathetic attempts at sly insults.
They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
On August 19 2009 11:30 Louder wrote: What? I have never heard of ANY evidence that even verifies the existence of Jesus.
There's a significant amount of period texts written about or mentioning Jesus.
Even if you include the Josephus text mentioning him, which is thought to be a forgery by the vast majority, all texts were written many decades after he would have died. They show that there were Christians at the time of their writing, but beyond that, little can be said with certainty.
Most historians accept the historical existence of Jesus.
This is true. But the evidence is hardly overwhelming.
On August 19 2009 10:17 Jibba wrote: [quote] Are you going to blame semantics again when you reread this and realize how laughable this statement is? You have serious fucking problems with understanding inductive reasoning.
I am an agnostic atheist.
Let's say We have a time line that runs from 1,000 B.C.E. to 500 B.C.E. Now we have a purported kingdom that existed in country X from 900 B.C.E. to 700 B.C.E. Now, we don't see any information that there was the existence of this purported kingdom that existed in country X. Can we say that it doesn't exist and the one source of information is wrong? Isn't it more sound to say we can't prove its existence rather than completely denying its existence or even saying that it probably didn't exist?
I raped your mother last night.
Now, you might call your mother up and ask her "Did Jibba give you unbelievable pleasure against your will last night?" and you might gain a piece of evidence that can prove or disprove my claim, but until that happens, are you seriously going to remain agnostic to the claim that I raped the shit out of your hot mommy?
From a scientific standpoint, I would have to say I don't know.
From a personal standpoint, I'd tell you that you're a retard for attempting to win an argument using pathetic attempts at sly insults.
They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
And please explain how it is logically possible to prove something's lack of existence. Lay it out for us in Ps and Qs.
Let's say We have a time line that runs from 1,000 B.C.E. to 500 B.C.E. Now we have a purported kingdom that existed in country X from 900 B.C.E. to 700 B.C.E. Now, we don't see any information that there was the existence of this purported kingdom that existed in country X. Can we say that it doesn't exist and the one source of information is wrong? Isn't it more sound to say we can't prove its existence rather than completely denying its existence or even saying that it probably didn't exist?
I raped your mother last night.
Now, you might call your mother up and ask her "Did Jibba give you unbelievable pleasure against your will last night?" and you might gain a piece of evidence that can prove or disprove my claim, but until that happens, are you seriously going to remain agnostic to the claim that I raped the shit out of your hot mommy?
From a scientific standpoint, I would have to say I don't know.
From a personal standpoint, I'd tell you that you're a retard for attempting to win an argument using pathetic attempts at sly insults.
They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
On August 19 2009 11:30 Louder wrote: What? I have never heard of ANY evidence that even verifies the existence of Jesus.
There's a significant amount of period texts written about or mentioning Jesus.
Even if you include the Josephus text mentioning him, which is thought to be a forgery by the vast majority, all texts were written many decades after he would have died. They show that there were Christians at the time of their writing, but beyond that, little can be said with certainty.
Most historians accept the historical existence of Jesus.
This is true. But the evidence is hardly overwhelming.
On August 19 2009 11:30 Louder wrote: What? I have never heard of ANY evidence that even verifies the existence of Jesus.
There's a significant amount of period texts written about or mentioning Jesus.
Even if you include the Josephus text mentioning him, which is thought to be a forgery by the vast majority, all texts were written many decades after he would have died. They show that there were Christians at the time of their writing, but beyond that, little can be said with certainty.
Most historians accept the historical existence of Jesus.
This is true. But the evidence is hardly overwhelming.
On August 19 2009 10:51 Jibba wrote: [quote] I raped your mother last night.
Now, you might call your mother up and ask her "Did Jibba give you unbelievable pleasure against your will last night?" and you might gain a piece of evidence that can prove or disprove my claim, but until that happens, are you seriously going to remain agnostic to the claim that I raped the shit out of your hot mommy?
From a scientific standpoint, I would have to say I don't know.
From a personal standpoint, I'd tell you that you're a retard for attempting to win an argument using pathetic attempts at sly insults.
They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder.
I'm pretty sure that this law would be struck down if somebody were to raise a complaint that their kids were hurt by such a policy and that case were brought to a district or an appeals court (even Supreme Court if needs be). But at the same time, it would be pretty hard to prove that you were hurt by an optional choice of curriculum in a school.
From a scientific standpoint, I would have to say I don't know.
From a personal standpoint, I'd tell you that you're a retard for attempting to win an argument using pathetic attempts at sly insults.
They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder.
A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence.
I can't believe I have to do this...
If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
On August 19 2009 10:51 Jibba wrote: [quote] I raped your mother last night.
Now, you might call your mother up and ask her "Did Jibba give you unbelievable pleasure against your will last night?" and you might gain a piece of evidence that can prove or disprove my claim, but until that happens, are you seriously going to remain agnostic to the claim that I raped the shit out of your hot mommy?
From a scientific standpoint, I would have to say I don't know.
From a personal standpoint, I'd tell you that you're a retard for attempting to win an argument using pathetic attempts at sly insults.
They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have.
If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened.
On August 19 2009 11:04 Jibba wrote: [quote]They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder.
A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out
What fucking world do you live in? God, the police must have a really busy time investigating hospices and nursing homes.
From a scientific standpoint, I would have to say I don't know.
From a personal standpoint, I'd tell you that you're a retard for attempting to win an argument using pathetic attempts at sly insults.
They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have.
If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened.
There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise.
Let's say We have a time line that runs from 1,000 B.C.E. to 500 B.C.E. Now we have a purported kingdom that existed in country X from 900 B.C.E. to 700 B.C.E. Now, we don't see any information that there was the existence of this purported kingdom that existed in country X. Can we say that it doesn't exist and the one source of information is wrong? Isn't it more sound to say we can't prove its existence rather than completely denying its existence or even saying that it probably didn't exist?
I raped your mother last night.
Now, you might call your mother up and ask her "Did Jibba give you unbelievable pleasure against your will last night?" and you might gain a piece of evidence that can prove or disprove my claim, but until that happens, are you seriously going to remain agnostic to the claim that I raped the shit out of your hot mommy?
From a scientific standpoint, I would have to say I don't know.
From a personal standpoint, I'd tell you that you're a retard for attempting to win an argument using pathetic attempts at sly insults.
They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
And please explain how it is logically possible to prove something's lack of existence. Lay it out for us in Ps and Qs.
Given that I am aware (otherwise I could not make this post): Therefore I exist as something. I reside in this universe. Therefore this universe exists. Given this universe, there is a planet P such that for the existence of something given by the equation |an-L|<epsilon, where epsilon is a value that is infinitesimally small and near 0. Since an in this universe is defined as P, and since the limit L approaches P for a value n > 0 in this universe, the value becomes defined as |P-P| < epsilon, which is defined as true. Thus the planet P, which in this case is Earth, exists. On this planet P, there may or may not be an internet. Since I am making a post on this internet,and since I exist in this universe on this planet P which is proven to exist as above, this internet exists as well. Since this internet is undefined, I can claim any values may or may not exist in this internet. Since I exist, my claims are valid for this universe. Since I claim that TL.net exists on the internet, which is demonstrated because it has been defined that TL.net is a value, and that such a value may be on the internet, thus in this universe, on this internet in planet P/Earth, TL.net exists on the internet. Since TL.net exists on the internet that I have defined to be in this universe on this planet P on the internet, it can thus be concluded that TL.net exists in this universe.
In other universes, there is bound to be a proof in how TL.net exists in those respective universes but as they likely obey other laws it is impossible for us in this universe to do so. However, in this universe, since I am aware and am able to define myself and my setting, I exist, my setting exists, and subsequently as demonstrated above TL.net exists.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder.
A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out
What fucking world do you live in? God, the police must have a really busy time investigating hospices and nursing homes.
If a there is a human corpse and no medical professional was around to determine the cause of death, then it is a murder unless proven otherwise.
On August 19 2009 11:04 Jibba wrote: [quote]They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder.
A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence.
I can't believe I have to do this...
If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez.
On August 19 2009 11:04 Jibba wrote: [quote]They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have.
If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened.
There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise.
What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true?
Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source.
On August 19 2009 10:51 Jibba wrote: [quote] I raped your mother last night.
Now, you might call your mother up and ask her "Did Jibba give you unbelievable pleasure against your will last night?" and you might gain a piece of evidence that can prove or disprove my claim, but until that happens, are you seriously going to remain agnostic to the claim that I raped the shit out of your hot mommy?
From a scientific standpoint, I would have to say I don't know.
From a personal standpoint, I'd tell you that you're a retard for attempting to win an argument using pathetic attempts at sly insults.
They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
And please explain how it is logically possible to prove something's lack of existence. Lay it out for us in Ps and Qs.
Given that I am aware (otherwise I could not make this post): Therefore I exist as something. I reside in this universe. Therefore this universe exists. Given this universe, there is a planet P such that for the existence of something given by the equation |an-L|<epsilon, where epsilon is a value that is infinitesimally small and near 0. Since an in this universe is defined as P, and since the limit L approaches P for a value n > 0 in this universe, the value becomes defined as |P-P| < epsilon, which is defined as true. Thus the planet P, which in this case is Earth, exists. On this planet P, there may or may not be an internet. Since I am making a post on this internet,and since I exist in this universe on this planet P which is proven to exist as above, this internet exists as well. Since this internet is undefined, I can claim any values may or may not exist in this internet. Since I exist, my claims are valid for this universe. Since I claim that TL.net exists on the internet, which is demonstrated because it has been defined that TL.net is a value, and that such a value may be on the internet, thus in this universe, on this internet in planet P/Earth, TL.net exists on the internet. Since TL.net exists on the internet that I have defined to be in this universe on this planet P on the internet, it can thus be concluded that TL.net exists in this universe.
In other universes, there is bound to be a proof in how TL.net exists in those respective universes but as they likely obey other laws it is impossible for us in this universe to do so. However, in this universe, since I am aware and am able to define myself and my setting, I exist, my setting exists, and subsequently as demonstrated above TL.net exists.
Q.E.D.
There are an awful lot of assumptions in that, firstly that you live in the universe and secondly that experience should be treated as reality.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder.
A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence.
I can't believe I have to do this...
If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez.
If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact?
From a scientific standpoint, I would have to say I don't know.
From a personal standpoint, I'd tell you that you're a retard for attempting to win an argument using pathetic attempts at sly insults.
They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
And please explain how it is logically possible to prove something's lack of existence. Lay it out for us in Ps and Qs.
Given that I am aware (otherwise I could not make this post): Therefore I exist as something. I reside in this universe. Therefore this universe exists. Given this universe, there is a planet P such that for the existence of something given by the equation |an-L|<epsilon, where epsilon is a value that is infinitesimally small and near 0. Since an in this universe is defined as P, and since the limit L approaches P for a value n > 0 in this universe, the value becomes defined as |P-P| < epsilon, which is defined as true. Thus the planet P, which in this case is Earth, exists. On this planet P, there may or may not be an internet. Since I am making a post on this internet,and since I exist in this universe on this planet P which is proven to exist as above, this internet exists as well. Since this internet is undefined, I can claim any values may or may not exist in this internet. Since I exist, my claims are valid for this universe. Since I claim that TL.net exists on the internet, which is demonstrated because it has been defined that TL.net is a value, and that such a value may be on the internet, thus in this universe, on this internet in planet P/Earth, TL.net exists on the internet. Since TL.net exists on the internet that I have defined to be in this universe on this planet P on the internet, it can thus be concluded that TL.net exists in this universe.
In other universes, there is bound to be a proof in how TL.net exists in those respective universes but as they likely obey other laws it is impossible for us in this universe to do so. However, in this universe, since I am aware and am able to define myself and my setting, I exist, my setting exists, and subsequently as demonstrated above TL.net exists.
Q.E.D.
There are an awful lot of assumptions in that, firstly that you live in the universe and secondly that experience should be treated as reality.
Like I said:
I am aware therefore I can define myself and my setting. Therefore I exist, and the universe that I exist in exists.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have.
If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened.
There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise.
What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true?
Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source.
Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings.
On August 19 2009 11:11 Jibba wrote: [quote] No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder.
A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence.
I can't believe I have to do this...
If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez.
If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact?
The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist.
On August 19 2009 10:51 Jibba wrote: [quote] I raped your mother last night.
Now, you might call your mother up and ask her "Did Jibba give you unbelievable pleasure against your will last night?" and you might gain a piece of evidence that can prove or disprove my claim, but until that happens, are you seriously going to remain agnostic to the claim that I raped the shit out of your hot mommy?
From a scientific standpoint, I would have to say I don't know.
From a personal standpoint, I'd tell you that you're a retard for attempting to win an argument using pathetic attempts at sly insults.
They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
And please explain how it is logically possible to prove something's lack of existence. Lay it out for us in Ps and Qs.
Given that I am aware (otherwise I could not make this post): Therefore I exist as something.
1
I reside in this universe.
You've made a jump that existing = physically existing (residing.) We can accept it, depending on what you mean by universe (instead, say "there is something for me to exist in")
Therefore this universe exists.
Not really another point, restating the above.
Given this universe, there is a planet P such that for the existence of something given by the equation |an-L|<epsilon, where epsilon is a value that is infinitesimally small and near 0. Since an in this universe is defined as P, and since the limit L approaches P for a value n > 0 in this universe, the value becomes defined as |P-P| < epsilon, which is defined as true. Thus the planet P, which in this case is Earth, exists. On this planet P, there may or may not be an internet. Since I am making a post on this internet,and since I exist in this universe on this planet P which is proven to exist as above, this internet exists as well. Since this internet is undefined, I can claim any values may or may not exist in this internet. Since I exist, my claims are valid for this universe. Since I claim that TL.net exists on the internet, which is demonstrated because it has been defined that TL.net is a value, and that such a value may be on the internet, thus in this universe, on this internet in planet P/Earth, TL.net exists on the internet. Since TL.net exists on the internet that I have defined to be in this universe on this planet P on the internet, it can thus be concluded that TL.net exists in this universe.
In other universes, there is bound to be a proof in how TL.net exists in those respective universes but as they likely obey other laws it is impossible for us in this universe to do so. However, in this universe, since I am aware and am able to define myself and my setting, I exist, my setting exists, and subsequently as demonstrated above TL.net exists.
Q.E.D.
You didn't prove that P, the internet or TL.net exists, you simply defined them as ideas and by necessity they mean what you've defined. 2+2 necessarily equals 4 in this universe, but that's just an idea.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder.
A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence.
I can't believe I have to do this...
If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez.
If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact?
The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist.
We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time?
On August 19 2009 11:04 Jibba wrote: [quote]They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done.
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
And please explain how it is logically possible to prove something's lack of existence. Lay it out for us in Ps and Qs.
Given that I am aware (otherwise I could not make this post): Therefore I exist as something. I reside in this universe. Therefore this universe exists. Given this universe, there is a planet P such that for the existence of something given by the equation |an-L|<epsilon, where epsilon is a value that is infinitesimally small and near 0. Since an in this universe is defined as P, and since the limit L approaches P for a value n > 0 in this universe, the value becomes defined as |P-P| < epsilon, which is defined as true. Thus the planet P, which in this case is Earth, exists. On this planet P, there may or may not be an internet. Since I am making a post on this internet,and since I exist in this universe on this planet P which is proven to exist as above, this internet exists as well. Since this internet is undefined, I can claim any values may or may not exist in this internet. Since I exist, my claims are valid for this universe. Since I claim that TL.net exists on the internet, which is demonstrated because it has been defined that TL.net is a value, and that such a value may be on the internet, thus in this universe, on this internet in planet P/Earth, TL.net exists on the internet. Since TL.net exists on the internet that I have defined to be in this universe on this planet P on the internet, it can thus be concluded that TL.net exists in this universe.
In other universes, there is bound to be a proof in how TL.net exists in those respective universes but as they likely obey other laws it is impossible for us in this universe to do so. However, in this universe, since I am aware and am able to define myself and my setting, I exist, my setting exists, and subsequently as demonstrated above TL.net exists.
Q.E.D.
There are an awful lot of assumptions in that, firstly that you live in the universe and secondly that experience should be treated as reality.
Like I said:
I am aware therefore I can define myself and my setting. Therefore I exist, and the universe that I exist in exists.
I am aware. Therefore I can define myself and my setting. I am God, I live before the Universe. I have a vivid imagination.
On August 19 2009 11:11 Jibba wrote: [quote] No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have.
If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened.
There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise.
What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true?
Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source.
Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings.
On August 19 2009 12:14 MoltkeWarding wrote: Nice debate. I hope it's going to dawn on everyone sooner or later that it's idolatry of logic which has led us to this intellectual deadend.
Idolatry of the illogical is what has caused this problem.
On August 19 2009 11:11 Jibba wrote: [quote] No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have.
If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened.
There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise.
What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true?
Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source.
Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings.
If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction?
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have.
If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened.
There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise.
What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true?
Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source.
Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings.
Much of it? Which parts would those be?
I'm not going to give you every example of a 1,500 page book. But take the fall of Babylon for instance.
On August 19 2009 11:11 Jibba wrote: [quote] No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have.
If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened.
There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise.
What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true?
Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source.
Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings.
Nothing about Spiderman has been proven definitively false (we've not checked every human on the planet for spideysenses) whereas much (such as the existence of New York, guns, girls, angst, the colour red, spiders) is all verifiable. In fact, if Spiderman wasn't such an emo we could probably make a decent religion out of that.
On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote: [quote] Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder.
A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence.
I can't believe I have to do this...
If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez.
If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact?
The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist.
We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time?
What we have, in this case, is a semi-historical text written centuries later by men who clearly had a hard-on for what they believed were "the good old days."
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know."
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible.
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
And please explain how it is logically possible to prove something's lack of existence. Lay it out for us in Ps and Qs.
Given that I am aware (otherwise I could not make this post): Therefore I exist as something. I reside in this universe. Therefore this universe exists. Given this universe, there is a planet P such that for the existence of something given by the equation |an-L|<epsilon, where epsilon is a value that is infinitesimally small and near 0. Since an in this universe is defined as P, and since the limit L approaches P for a value n > 0 in this universe, the value becomes defined as |P-P| < epsilon, which is defined as true. Thus the planet P, which in this case is Earth, exists. On this planet P, there may or may not be an internet. Since I am making a post on this internet,and since I exist in this universe on this planet P which is proven to exist as above, this internet exists as well. Since this internet is undefined, I can claim any values may or may not exist in this internet. Since I exist, my claims are valid for this universe. Since I claim that TL.net exists on the internet, which is demonstrated because it has been defined that TL.net is a value, and that such a value may be on the internet, thus in this universe, on this internet in planet P/Earth, TL.net exists on the internet. Since TL.net exists on the internet that I have defined to be in this universe on this planet P on the internet, it can thus be concluded that TL.net exists in this universe.
In other universes, there is bound to be a proof in how TL.net exists in those respective universes but as they likely obey other laws it is impossible for us in this universe to do so. However, in this universe, since I am aware and am able to define myself and my setting, I exist, my setting exists, and subsequently as demonstrated above TL.net exists.
Q.E.D.
There are an awful lot of assumptions in that, firstly that you live in the universe and secondly that experience should be treated as reality.
Like I said:
I am aware therefore I can define myself and my setting. Therefore I exist, and the universe that I exist in exists.
I am aware. Therefore I can define myself and my setting. I am God, I live before the Universe. I have a vivid imagination.
But how do you know that you are in fact, not God, and live before the Universe? Perhaps you have used your infinite powers to turn yourself into another entity that can easily be broken by use of your infinite powers. Or perhaps there is no such thing as a God in this universe, but rather such a being would exist outside of the universe system. You make vast assumptions about yourself without proving that is the case first. I define myself as being myself. I do not define myself as Kwark, for instance, because that is imposing something on me that may or may not be true. I define that I exist because I am aware and able to define myself.
shit too much intensity at too late at night im going to sleep, you guys win the philosophical argument for now
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain?
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have.
If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened.
There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise.
What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true?
Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source.
Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings.
If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction?
You don't see how that doesn't fit into the current debate, do you? We know everything about Spiderman or have access to know everything about Spiderman. We don't know everything nor have access to know everything of ancient cultures.
Hmmm...the existential turn this thread has taken is very interesting but is it really on topic?
And as long as it's studied from a historical or literary context I see nothing wrong with it. If we can study Hindu stories in English class why not Christian? People are so damn afraid of the Bible that they forget it's a historical document as well as a religious one. It just depends on how it's studied.
On August 19 2009 12:14 MoltkeWarding wrote: Nice debate. I hope it's going to dawn on everyone sooner or later that it's idolatry of logic which has led us to this intellectual deadend.
Idolatry of the illogical is what has caused this problem.
Were that true you'd think we would see more budding Wordsworths and Byrons on this forum.
On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote: [quote] Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have.
If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened.
There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise.
What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true?
Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source.
Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings.
If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction?
You don't see how that doesn't fit into the current debate, do you? We know everything about Spiderman or have access to know everything about Spiderman. We don't know everything nor have access to know everything of ancient cultures.
No we don't. We don't know that my brothers alter-ego isn't Spiderman for example. We have records of Spiderman and the depiction of a lot of what is in those records is remarkably accurate. I put it to you that you have far more reason to be agnostic about Spiderman than you do Jesus. After all, New York exists. The story checks out.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder.
A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence.
I can't believe I have to do this...
If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez.
If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact?
The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist.
We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time?
What we have, in this case, is a semi-historical text written centuries later by men who clearly had a hard-on for what they believed were "the good old days."
This text is 3,500 years old and is written by various writers over a period of 1,600 years from 1,500 B.C.E. to 100 A.D. I'm not sure what you mean it was written centuries later.
It is technically a semi-historical text, but really that's splitting hairs for the intents and purposes of this argument. We're talking about kings, kingdoms, geography and anthropology -- not religion.
On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote: [quote] Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists?
You can't be serious.
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder.
A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence.
I can't believe I have to do this...
If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez.
If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact?
The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist.
We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time?
As far as we know, nothing. And a "historical text" that was written by some people that we don't know is hardly any evidence in the first place. Not to mention that most of the Torah was written a long time after the supposed events took place.
On August 19 2009 12:14 MoltkeWarding wrote: Nice debate. I hope it's going to dawn on everyone sooner or later that it's idolatry of logic which has led us to this intellectual deadend.
Idolatry of the illogical is what has caused this problem.
Were that true you'd think we would see more budding Wordsworths and Byrons on this forum.
I do see a bit of Candide taking place in this thread.
On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote: [quote]Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder.
A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence.
I can't believe I have to do this...
If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez.
If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact?
The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist.
We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time?
What we have, in this case, is a semi-historical text written centuries later by men who clearly had a hard-on for what they believed were "the good old days."
This text is 3,500 years old and is written by various writers over a period of 1,600 years from 1,500 B.C.E. to 100 A.D. I'm not sure what you mean it was written centuries later.
It is technically a semi-historical text, but really that's splitting hairs for the intents and purposes of this argument. We're talking about kings, kingdoms, geography and anthropology -- not religion.
The oldest texts of the Bible that we currently have dates to the 2nd century BCE. What texts are you talking about?
Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have.
If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened.
There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise.
What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true?
Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source.
Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings.
If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction?
You don't see how that doesn't fit into the current debate, do you? We know everything about Spiderman or have access to know everything about Spiderman. We don't know everything nor have access to know everything of ancient cultures.
No we don't. We don't know that my brothers alter-ego isn't Spiderman for example. We have records of Spiderman and the depiction of a lot of what is in those records is remarkably accurate. I put it to you that you have far more reason to be agnostic about Spiderman than you do Jesus. After all, New York exists. The story checks out.
Call Stan Lee. Ask him if Spiderman is real. This is stupid.
On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote: [quote]Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have.
If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened.
There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise.
What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true?
Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source.
Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings.
If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction?
You don't see how that doesn't fit into the current debate, do you? We know everything about Spiderman or have access to know everything about Spiderman. We don't know everything nor have access to know everything of ancient cultures.
No we don't. We don't know that my brothers alter-ego isn't Spiderman for example. We have records of Spiderman and the depiction of a lot of what is in those records is remarkably accurate. I put it to you that you have far more reason to be agnostic about Spiderman than you do Jesus. After all, New York exists. The story checks out.
Call Stan Lee. Ask him if Spiderman is real. This is stupid.
No it's not. You're saying Babylon fell, this can be verified therefore the logical position regarding the text is agnosticism. If that argument holds then so does the New York City exists, this can be verified, therefore the logical position regarding Spiderman is agnosticism argument. Either admit you cannot disprove Spiderman and therefore you're agnostic about it or concede the point.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder.
A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence.
I can't believe I have to do this...
If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez.
If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact?
The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist.
We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time?
What we have, in this case, is a semi-historical text written centuries later by men who clearly had a hard-on for what they believed were "the good old days."
This text is 3,500 years old and is written by various writers over a period of 1,600 years from 1,500 B.C.E. to 100 A.D. I'm not sure what you mean it was written centuries later.
It is technically a semi-historical text, but really that's splitting hairs for the intents and purposes of this argument. We're talking about kings, kingdoms, geography and anthropology -- not religion.
The oldest texts of the Bible that we currently have dates to the 2nd century BCE. What texts are you talking about?
I'm an agnostic atheist.
Wow... The Bible was written starting (I think) 1,536 B.C.E. and the last book written in 96 A.D. How do we know this? Matching up time lines of what we know with what the Bible says, we're able to determine when parts of the Bible were written. How is it determined that they were not written afterward? We don't, but the accounts are very detail-oriented and were clearly written by someone who was there to witness the account giving a relatively small range in date variation. So small a variation it really doesn't matter if there is one.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have.
If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened.
There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise.
What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true?
Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source.
Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings.
If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction?
You don't see how that doesn't fit into the current debate, do you? We know everything about Spiderman or have access to know everything about Spiderman. We don't know everything nor have access to know everything of ancient cultures.
No we don't. We don't know that my brothers alter-ego isn't Spiderman for example. We have records of Spiderman and the depiction of a lot of what is in those records is remarkably accurate. I put it to you that you have far more reason to be agnostic about Spiderman than you do Jesus. After all, New York exists. The story checks out.
Call Stan Lee. Ask him if Spiderman is real. This is stupid.
No it's not. You're saying Babylon fell, this can be verified therefore the logical position regarding the text is agnosticism. If that argument holds then so does the New York City exists, this can be verified, therefore the logical position regarding Spiderman is agnosticism argument. Either admit you cannot disprove Spiderman and therefore you're agnostic about it or concede the point.
I'm not proving or disproving God, which seems like what you're arguing.
Babylon fell and the Biblical account matches with that of other historical accounts of the event.
On August 19 2009 12:03 Jibba wrote: [quote]No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have.
If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened.
There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise.
What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true?
Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source.
Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings.
If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction?
You don't see how that doesn't fit into the current debate, do you? We know everything about Spiderman or have access to know everything about Spiderman. We don't know everything nor have access to know everything of ancient cultures.
No we don't. We don't know that my brothers alter-ego isn't Spiderman for example. We have records of Spiderman and the depiction of a lot of what is in those records is remarkably accurate. I put it to you that you have far more reason to be agnostic about Spiderman than you do Jesus. After all, New York exists. The story checks out.
Call Stan Lee. Ask him if Spiderman is real. This is stupid.
No it's not. You're saying Babylon fell, this can be verified therefore the logical position regarding the text is agnosticism. If that argument holds then so does the New York City exists, this can be verified, therefore the logical position regarding Spiderman is agnosticism argument. Either admit you cannot disprove Spiderman and therefore you're agnostic about it or concede the point.
I'm not proving or disproving God, which seems like what you're arguing.
Babylon fell and the Biblical account matches with that of other historical accounts of the event.
Like you've said, the Bible written over a long period of time and by many different people. Why does the work of those who wrote about Babylon help confirm the work of the authors of other sections? The strategy section has had some very good guides and even more very bad ones. It's not fair to say most of the threads in that forum are good because of the work of a few authors.
On August 19 2009 12:03 Jibba wrote: [quote]No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have.
If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened.
There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise.
What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true?
Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source.
Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings.
If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction?
You don't see how that doesn't fit into the current debate, do you? We know everything about Spiderman or have access to know everything about Spiderman. We don't know everything nor have access to know everything of ancient cultures.
No we don't. We don't know that my brothers alter-ego isn't Spiderman for example. We have records of Spiderman and the depiction of a lot of what is in those records is remarkably accurate. I put it to you that you have far more reason to be agnostic about Spiderman than you do Jesus. After all, New York exists. The story checks out.
Call Stan Lee. Ask him if Spiderman is real. This is stupid.
No it's not. You're saying Babylon fell, this can be verified therefore the logical position regarding the text is agnosticism. If that argument holds then so does the New York City exists, this can be verified, therefore the logical position regarding Spiderman is agnosticism argument. Either admit you cannot disprove Spiderman and therefore you're agnostic about it or concede the point.
I'm not proving or disproving God, which seems like what you're arguing.
Babylon fell and the Biblical account matches with that of other historical accounts of the event.
Spiderman depicts yellow cabs in NYC. This matches historical accounts of the place.
There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise.
What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true?
Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source.
Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings.
If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction?
You don't see how that doesn't fit into the current debate, do you? We know everything about Spiderman or have access to know everything about Spiderman. We don't know everything nor have access to know everything of ancient cultures.
No we don't. We don't know that my brothers alter-ego isn't Spiderman for example. We have records of Spiderman and the depiction of a lot of what is in those records is remarkably accurate. I put it to you that you have far more reason to be agnostic about Spiderman than you do Jesus. After all, New York exists. The story checks out.
Call Stan Lee. Ask him if Spiderman is real. This is stupid.
No it's not. You're saying Babylon fell, this can be verified therefore the logical position regarding the text is agnosticism. If that argument holds then so does the New York City exists, this can be verified, therefore the logical position regarding Spiderman is agnosticism argument. Either admit you cannot disprove Spiderman and therefore you're agnostic about it or concede the point.
I'm not proving or disproving God, which seems like what you're arguing.
Babylon fell and the Biblical account matches with that of other historical accounts of the event.
Like you've said, the Bible written over a long period of time and by many different people. Why does the work of those who wrote about Babylon help confirm the work of the authors of other sections? The strategy section has had some very good guides and even more very bad ones. It's not fair to say most of the threads in that forum are good because of the work of a few authors.
Because the historicity of each of the writers' separate works have been proven, at least in part, with extra-biblical texts.
There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise.
What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true?
Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source.
Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings.
If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction?
You don't see how that doesn't fit into the current debate, do you? We know everything about Spiderman or have access to know everything about Spiderman. We don't know everything nor have access to know everything of ancient cultures.
No we don't. We don't know that my brothers alter-ego isn't Spiderman for example. We have records of Spiderman and the depiction of a lot of what is in those records is remarkably accurate. I put it to you that you have far more reason to be agnostic about Spiderman than you do Jesus. After all, New York exists. The story checks out.
Call Stan Lee. Ask him if Spiderman is real. This is stupid.
No it's not. You're saying Babylon fell, this can be verified therefore the logical position regarding the text is agnosticism. If that argument holds then so does the New York City exists, this can be verified, therefore the logical position regarding Spiderman is agnosticism argument. Either admit you cannot disprove Spiderman and therefore you're agnostic about it or concede the point.
I'm not proving or disproving God, which seems like what you're arguing.
Babylon fell and the Biblical account matches with that of other historical accounts of the event.
Spiderman depicts yellow cabs in NYC. This matches historical accounts of the place.
OK, I have people who debate with reason that I'd much rather spend my time replying to.
On August 19 2009 12:14 MoltkeWarding wrote: Nice debate. I hope it's going to dawn on everyone sooner or later that it's idolatry of logic which has led us to this intellectual deadend.
Idolatry of the illogical is what has caused this problem.
Were that true you'd think we would see more budding Wordsworths and Byrons on this forum.
I do see a bit of Candide taking place in this thread.
Sure, if you mean by our new-found freedom we have taken the garden of life, and from it, cultivated dirt.
On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote: [quote]Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction.
Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST."
By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder.
A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence.
I can't believe I have to do this...
If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez.
If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact?
The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist.
We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time?
What we have, in this case, is a semi-historical text written centuries later by men who clearly had a hard-on for what they believed were "the good old days."
This text is 3,500 years old and is written by various writers over a period of 1,600 years from 1,500 B.C.E. to 100 A.D. I'm not sure what you mean it was written centuries later.
It is technically a semi-historical text, but really that's splitting hairs for the intents and purposes of this argument. We're talking about kings, kingdoms, geography and anthropology -- not religion.
Are you trolling me? Even the traditional view of the Bible doesn't have any of the texts being that old.
What? I have never heard of ANY evidence that even verifies the existence of Jesus.
The evidence exists.
Verification however is a collaborative effort of ability and will.
There's no evidence.
Declarative statement about external "truth", where truth is not supported by any facts , eg, believing in fairies that live around your head and direct your actions in live, = faith, = mental illness
On August 19 2009 11:59 Kwark wrote: [quote] Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder.
A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence.
I can't believe I have to do this...
If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez.
If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact?
The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist.
We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time?
What we have, in this case, is a semi-historical text written centuries later by men who clearly had a hard-on for what they believed were "the good old days."
This text is 3,500 years old and is written by various writers over a period of 1,600 years from 1,500 B.C.E. to 100 A.D. I'm not sure what you mean it was written centuries later.
It is technically a semi-historical text, but really that's splitting hairs for the intents and purposes of this argument. We're talking about kings, kingdoms, geography and anthropology -- not religion.
The oldest texts of the Bible that we currently have dates to the 2nd century BCE. What texts are you talking about?
I'm an agnostic atheist.
Wow... The Bible was written starting (I think) 1,536 B.C.E. and the last book written in 96 A.D. How do we know this? Matching up time lines of what we know with what the Bible says, we're able to determine when parts of the Bible were written. How is it determined that they were not written afterward? We don't, but the accounts are very detail-oriented and were clearly written by someone who was there to witness the account giving a relatively small range in date variation. So small a variation it really doesn't matter if there is one.
I like how the books about Jesus were written 60+ years after he died by people who never knew him in real life and only one mentions virgin birth. WIN!
On August 19 2009 12:09 Jibba wrote: [quote]What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true?
Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source.
Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings.
If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction?
You don't see how that doesn't fit into the current debate, do you? We know everything about Spiderman or have access to know everything about Spiderman. We don't know everything nor have access to know everything of ancient cultures.
No we don't. We don't know that my brothers alter-ego isn't Spiderman for example. We have records of Spiderman and the depiction of a lot of what is in those records is remarkably accurate. I put it to you that you have far more reason to be agnostic about Spiderman than you do Jesus. After all, New York exists. The story checks out.
Call Stan Lee. Ask him if Spiderman is real. This is stupid.
No it's not. You're saying Babylon fell, this can be verified therefore the logical position regarding the text is agnosticism. If that argument holds then so does the New York City exists, this can be verified, therefore the logical position regarding Spiderman is agnosticism argument. Either admit you cannot disprove Spiderman and therefore you're agnostic about it or concede the point.
I'm not proving or disproving God, which seems like what you're arguing.
Babylon fell and the Biblical account matches with that of other historical accounts of the event.
Spiderman depicts yellow cabs in NYC. This matches historical accounts of the place.
OK, I have people who debate with reason that I'd much rather spend my time replying to.
Only because you've trapped yourself in the natural end result of all agnosticism. Either you admit the grounds for agnosticism regariding religion also match the grounds for agnosticism regarding any number of stupid beliefs or you declare atheism. You can't have it both ways. If you're agnostic regarding one story with a few facts and a few undisprovable claims then you're agnostic about them all.
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder.
A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence.
I can't believe I have to do this...
If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez.
If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact?
The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist.
We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time?
What we have, in this case, is a semi-historical text written centuries later by men who clearly had a hard-on for what they believed were "the good old days."
This text is 3,500 years old and is written by various writers over a period of 1,600 years from 1,500 B.C.E. to 100 A.D. I'm not sure what you mean it was written centuries later.
It is technically a semi-historical text, but really that's splitting hairs for the intents and purposes of this argument. We're talking about kings, kingdoms, geography and anthropology -- not religion.
Are you trolling me? Even the traditional view of the Bible doesn't have any of the texts being that old.
A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence.
I can't believe I have to do this...
If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez.
If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact?
The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist.
We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time?
What we have, in this case, is a semi-historical text written centuries later by men who clearly had a hard-on for what they believed were "the good old days."
This text is 3,500 years old and is written by various writers over a period of 1,600 years from 1,500 B.C.E. to 100 A.D. I'm not sure what you mean it was written centuries later.
It is technically a semi-historical text, but really that's splitting hairs for the intents and purposes of this argument. We're talking about kings, kingdoms, geography and anthropology -- not religion.
The oldest texts of the Bible that we currently have dates to the 2nd century BCE. What texts are you talking about?
I'm an agnostic atheist.
Wow... The Bible was written starting (I think) 1,536 B.C.E. and the last book written in 96 A.D. How do we know this? Matching up time lines of what we know with what the Bible says, we're able to determine when parts of the Bible were written. How is it determined that they were not written afterward? We don't, but the accounts are very detail-oriented and were clearly written by someone who was there to witness the account giving a relatively small range in date variation. So small a variation it really doesn't matter if there is one.
I like how the books about Jesus were written 60+ years after he died by people who never knew him in real life and only one mentions virgin birth. WIN!
I am an agnostic atheist.
Only one book covers Jesus' early life to baptism. The other gospels were written by those who started following him after he began his ministry.
The books following the gospels regards the life of the apostles after Jesus' death except Revelations which is the final book and final prophecy written by John (not the gospel who was beheaded by that point.)
I like the hyperbole that Atheists use to try and "disprove" religion. It's quite hilarious the lengths they go to, to justify that their belief is the only correct belief and that they have the truth on their side. It is the same thing which most religious persons use also. Funny to hear how both sides, appearing to be so far apart are really quite alike.
On August 19 2009 11:59 Kwark wrote: [quote] Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder.
A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence.
I can't believe I have to do this...
If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez.
If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact?
The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist.
We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time?
What we have, in this case, is a semi-historical text written centuries later by men who clearly had a hard-on for what they believed were "the good old days."
This text is 3,500 years old and is written by various writers over a period of 1,600 years from 1,500 B.C.E. to 100 A.D. I'm not sure what you mean it was written centuries later.
It is technically a semi-historical text, but really that's splitting hairs for the intents and purposes of this argument. We're talking about kings, kingdoms, geography and anthropology -- not religion.
Are you trolling me? Even the traditional view of the Bible doesn't have any of the texts being that old.
Traditional says 1,400 B.C.E.
Yeah, for the Torah, not any of the books dealing with the United Monarchy. But it's a bullshit date anyway. What script were they written in? the script that hadn't even evolved into Phoenician yet much less any of the recognized Hebrew scripts?
Some texts are older, like Job, but the accepted view of how the Bible came together is that the majority of it was written during or after the Exile and the canon was not finalized until centuries after this. So yes, the texts dealing with the united monarchy were written centuries later.
On August 19 2009 10:41 Jibba wrote: You're challenging faith with logic, which defeats the purpose of faith and leaves you both without a satisfactory answer. There are better ways to come to equal terms. I mean, you're both aware of the logical deficiency when believing in a god, yet he embraces it and you shun it. I don't think you'll get anything out of arguing that specific point.
There are some historical events in the Bible but they've obviously been warped simply due to the fact that they're retold by humans, for any number of purposes. What annoys me is when people claim universality because some event like Noah's flood seems to appear in other cultures as well, when in reality, there have been many major floods in the history of civilization because early civilizations are always cultivated around bodies of water, namely rivers, and so everyone has experience with them.
You make a valid point about faith, to be sure. Of course, I believe faith to be a mental illness, based on current clinical definitions.
Perhaps one of the dumber statements that has been made in this thread.
You don't understand faith OR logic. I'm not going to bother explaining.
And definitely the dumbest excuse after being called out for the dumb statement.
I have no idea why people believe Keynesian Economics works in a Capitalist society. To illustrate the inanities of why Government intervention is antithesis to a functioning market listen to Keynes own words:
The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire.
For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to every one that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still.
To show Keynes contempt for the average person, on which laissez-faire is reliant upon, that is, the means of production to which in Capitalism has some value of power due to the nature of voluntary contracts and the ability to leverage purchasing power, as you can see the consumer dictates the terms to the entreprenuer who wishes to abide by them to be able to sell the goods; a give and take so to speak with both parties benefiting mutually. Here he says:
How can I accept a doctrine which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete text-book which I know to be not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application for the modern world? How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above bourgeois and the intelligentsia who, whatever their faults, are the quality in life and surely carry the seeds of all human advancement? Even if we need a religion, how can we find it in the turbid rubbish of the red bookshop? It is hard for an educated, decent, intelligent son of Western Europe to find his ideals here, unless he has first suffered some strange and horrid process of conversion which has changed all his values.
The man was a power-thirsty anti-free market Economist who exalted State power and intellectual elite running the proleteriat. This is exactly the opposite of contemporary American history and our foundation. If for nothing else the only lawful economic basis in America is Austrian, which exalts the mutuality of freedom and liberty both in economics, politics, and Epistemology. It specifically describes why Government intervention never works and why Keynesian theory always leads to stagflation and corporate Statism.
The thinking that a centralized all powerful banking structure coupled with highly deficit proponent spending works is a fallacious arguement because history itself shows it does not work every single time it is used. The reason why politicians and the elite continue to be proponents is because it centralizes their power. For those who espouse Keynesian economics can you point to me a time where it has been used successfully? Where unemployment dropped, inflation ceased, and stability in the market place occured? The whole notion of a fiat monetary system creates the instability and wealth inequality because of how inflationary devices work. There is no stabilitiy within a Fiat monetary system moreover; as seen in 71' with brettonwoods and currently today. Yet, still you believe that it works. If the idea of deficit spending and government intervention is not what keynesian economics is about then I would like to know what is? You then go on to say that it was not adopted during the Great Depression, yet Roosevelts policies are directly derived from Keynesian Economics.
You can specifically point to why the Great Depression lasted as long as it did precisely because of this fiscal policy and because of Government involvement. They purposefully destroyed goods and services (farm production, etc.), to price fix and artificially create a distressed market. So, what do you do? Give Government the power over money creation.
On August 19 2009 17:59 Aegraen wrote: I have no idea why people believe Keynesian Economics works in a Capitalist society. To illustrate the inanities of why Government intervention is antithesis to a functioning market listen to Keynes own words:
The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire.
The thinking that a centralized all powerful banking structure coupled with highly deficit proponent spending works is a fallacious arguement because history itself shows it does not work every single time it is used. The reason why politicians and the elite continue to be proponents is because it centralizes their power. For those who espouse Keynesian economics can you point to me a time where it has been used successfully? Where unemployment dropped, inflation ceased, and stability in the market place occured? The whole notion of a fiat monetary system creates the instability and wealth inequality because of how inflationary devices work. There is no stabilitiy within a Fiat monetary system moreover; as seen in 71' with brettonwoods and currently today. Yet, still you believe that it works. If the idea of deficit spending and government intervention is not what keynesian economics is about then I would like to know what is? You then go on to say that it was not adopted during the Great Depression, yet Roosevelts policies are directly derived from Keynesian Economics.
You can specifically point to why the Great Depression lasted as long as it did precisely because of this fiscal policy and because of Government involvement. They purposefully destroyed goods and services (farm production, etc.), to price fix and artificially create a distressed market. So, what do you do? Give Government the power over money creation.
What? Nice job writing about something completely off topic. In any case, what are we debating about again? I think the actual debate itself got derailed in the illogical posts being thrown around.
On August 19 2009 17:59 Aegraen wrote: I have no idea why people believe Keynesian Economics works in a Capitalist society. To illustrate the inanities of why Government intervention is antithesis to a functioning market listen to Keynes own words:
The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire.
The thinking that a centralized all powerful banking structure coupled with highly deficit proponent spending works is a fallacious arguement because history itself shows it does not work every single time it is used. The reason why politicians and the elite continue to be proponents is because it centralizes their power. For those who espouse Keynesian economics can you point to me a time where it has been used successfully? Where unemployment dropped, inflation ceased, and stability in the market place occured? The whole notion of a fiat monetary system creates the instability and wealth inequality because of how inflationary devices work. There is no stabilitiy within a Fiat monetary system moreover; as seen in 71' with brettonwoods and currently today. Yet, still you believe that it works. If the idea of deficit spending and government intervention is not what keynesian economics is about then I would like to know what is? You then go on to say that it was not adopted during the Great Depression, yet Roosevelts policies are directly derived from Keynesian Economics.
You can specifically point to why the Great Depression lasted as long as it did precisely because of this fiscal policy and because of Government involvement. They purposefully destroyed goods and services (farm production, etc.), to price fix and artificially create a distressed market. So, what do you do? Give Government the power over money creation.
What? Nice job writing about something completely off topic. In any case, what are we debating about again? I think the actual debate itself got derailed in the illogical posts being thrown around.
Basically this is what I call dual-thread. In one segment we have biblical talk, and the other economic. It's quite the duplicity, however neither are interacting with each other, so for all intents and purposes we have two threads in one. You'll have to go back and see how it started, I can't quite remember off-hand.
So, you can either join the biblical debate or the economic. Both are quite intriguing, in any event I still highly recommend that everyone listen to the speech. It's a fascinating look at Keynesian Economics, history, and the effects.
You don't understand faith OR logic. I'm not going to bother explaining.
Declarative statement about external truth = Faith = Mental illness?
What? I have never heard of ANY evidence that even verifies the existence of Jesus.
The evidence exists.
Verification however is a collaborative effort of ability and will.
There's no evidence.
Declarative statement about external "truth", where truth is not supported by any facts , eg, believing in fairies that live around your head and direct your actions in live, = faith, = mental illness
If facts were the basis on which we access truth, we are led to a perfectly circular logic:
For a statement to be true, it must be factual. For a fact to be factual, it must be true.
A statement thus becomes self-confirming from the moment a person accepts it.
A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence.
I can't believe I have to do this...
If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez.
If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact?
The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist.
We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time?
What we have, in this case, is a semi-historical text written centuries later by men who clearly had a hard-on for what they believed were "the good old days."
This text is 3,500 years old and is written by various writers over a period of 1,600 years from 1,500 B.C.E. to 100 A.D. I'm not sure what you mean it was written centuries later.
It is technically a semi-historical text, but really that's splitting hairs for the intents and purposes of this argument. We're talking about kings, kingdoms, geography and anthropology -- not religion.
Are you trolling me? Even the traditional view of the Bible doesn't have any of the texts being that old.
Traditional says 1,400 B.C.E.
Yeah, for the Torah, not any of the books dealing with the United Monarchy. But it's a bullshit date anyway. What script were they written in? the script that hadn't even evolved into Phoenician yet much less any of the recognized Hebrew scripts?
Some texts are older, like Job, but the accepted view of how the Bible came together is that the majority of it was written during or after the Exile and the canon was not finalized until centuries after this. So yes, the texts dealing with the united monarchy were written centuries later.
The accepted view doesn't mean it's the right view, but instead, it is one of the theories.
On August 20 2009 10:54 Aegraen wrote: And the Keynesian Economist doesn't respond.....
I suppose this refers to me...
Don't have really time to continue this debate.
As a bedtime reading about Keynesian Economics and account of Great Depression at least in US I would suggest reading Tom Kemp's book "Climax of Capitalism".
Why do I say that Keynesian economics wasn't used in Great Depression? Well, the answer is pretty simple. Let's start from the beginning. First, Hoover who was in power followed classical economists advice and didn't do almost anything to prevent the crises from spreading. Roosevelt came to power in 1933 and till then government wasn't really involved in fighting recession (there might have been small attempts to counter recession but I don't remember now and it is not important really).
The major change occurred when Roosevelt came to power in 1933. Did he followed Keynes advice? Most of economic historian wouldn't called his advisors Keynesian Economists. Keynes met Roosevelt in 1934 or maybe in 1933 I don't remember right now and he tried to convince him to his ideas. He didn't succeed. Later, Keynes wrote that he found Roosevelt were stubborn and economically illiterate. Basically Keynes watched all of the struggle with Great Depression from the side. He had no influence at all. Neither were economic advisors of Roosevelt believers of Keynes ideas. Yes, they did use some measures that Keynes prescribed but didn't use others. Keynes didn't recommend price setting and encouraging creation of monopolist as did Roosevelt. There are more differences but I for that I would need go back to actual articles and books (I recommend Tom Kemp "Climax of Capital" and your Milton Friedman & Anna Schwarz "Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960", both are classics). So that's why mostof economists and economic historians wouldn't call Roosevelt policy Keynesian. Also, no matter what one think about each particular measure undertaken by Roosevelt administration it was obviously better than not doing anything and believing in self-corrective power of market (as Hoover did; market failed big time and those mechanisms were not working).
Only after the WWII Keynesian Economics became a main paradigm in policy making not any earlier.
I don't know why you label me Keynesian Economist. I am and never was a supporter of Keynesian economics. But I might point to you that the reason Keynes ideas were used was the obvious failure of former economic ideas and the fact that for some time it seemed like it was working. If you dig some more information you will notice that years after WWII till 1973 were the most prosperous time in World history. Never before and never after did world experience such a high growth rate. Obviously, it is debatable that it was due to policy makers using Keynesian economics or not but well. It didn't definitely hurt it either.
Finally, the idea of Keynesian economics is belief in the following model consisting of: 1. IS-LM curves 2. Phillips curve 3. AS-AD curves It believes that government through use of fiscal policy can stabilize economy and get rid of business cycles. It believes in a permanent trade-off between inflation and unemployment. It overemphasise demand side of economy and understate importance of supply side during economic recessions. It believes in market imperfections like sticky wages and prices.
Government spending is just one of the recommendation to counter act the economic downturn, but by itself doesn't define what is Keynesian economics. Just because Keynes suggested government involvement in the market doesn't mean that everywhere you see it is Keynesian economics.
At the end of this post:
"For those who espouse Keynesian economics can you point to me a time where it has been used successfully? Where unemployment dropped, inflation ceased, and stability in the market place occured?"
For your information Keynesian economics were used everywhere in Western countries since 1945-1973. This was the period of unusual low unemployment and modest inflation. And a period of highest growth in the world history. So here you have it. Though again, I am not saying that it was plainly because of that. But it didn't harm economy either.
MY LAST POST IN THIS THREAD. I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT IT. I KEEP POSTING ON WHAT IS THE STANDARD ECONOMISTS REPLY AND YOU KEEP PREACHING ON STH YOU, UNFORTUNATELY, LACK KNOWLEDGE (just to mention economic performance of the world in last 50 years, current economic theory, and recent history of economic thought).
On August 19 2009 13:28 Aegraen wrote: I like the hyperbole that Atheists use to try and "disprove" religion. It's quite hilarious the lengths they go to, to justify that their belief is the only correct belief and that they have the truth on their side. It is the same thing which most religious persons use also. Funny to hear how both sides, appearing to be so far apart are really quite alike.
Continue.
Do you know nothing about Atheism? I'm pretty sure this has already been pointed out, but I'll make it perfectly clear now: there are very few Strong Atheists (these people think that there is no way any current God can exists biased on the current characteristics of any current gods), and Weak Atheists who believe there is no compelling evidence to suggest one should believe in any particular God.
In the first case, it is the burden of the Strong Atheist to prove why he does not believe in 'a certain god'.
However, in the Weak Atheist sense; the burden is on the believer to prove and provide a compelling reason why one should believe in god.
The vast majority of Atheists are Weak Atheists, and for good reason: Currently there is as much evidence to suggest there is a massive tea pot circling around some planet in the universe as there is support for any current god. That is to say; there is next to no evidence or proof that anyone should believe in one god over another, or if that god even exists at all.
This being said; you may ask a Strong Atheist all you like to disprove a certain god, however asking a Weak Atheist to disprove God only displays an ignorance for what they believe.
You don't understand faith OR logic. I'm not going to bother explaining.
Declarative statement about external truth = Faith = Mental illness?
What? I have never heard of ANY evidence that even verifies the existence of Jesus.
The evidence exists.
Verification however is a collaborative effort of ability and will.
There's no evidence.
Declarative statement about external "truth", where truth is not supported by any facts , eg, believing in fairies that live around your head and direct your actions in live, = faith, = mental illness
Sorry I just got to the thread and am not trying to get into the main argument(s) but just want to hate on this one post in particular.
I don't understand you louder; you simultaneously justify your derision of belief without evidence as mental illness, and in a previous post deride by implication the very means by which you can make this connection (by saying "by a clinical definition," i.e. by a loose and technical and ridiculously applicable definition).
No one gives a shit about the clinical definition. In an overwhelming majority of clinical situations, mental illness is diagnosed by interview and it is a slow and meticulous process. This is totally tangential to the thread, but I think your reference is completely ridiculous.
To deconstruct the rest of your post, I have to call foul with the blatant fallacy of reducing the belief in truth not supported by fact to belief that fairies live around your head (and direct your actions in "live?" sounds like you've had a few too many fairies tonight). None of man's action can be supported by a complete rational basis; you take for granted a million "facts" that you have no proof for, but are merely preprogrammed into your psyche by culture. These include basic rules that you, consciously or subconsciously, believe are conducive to your continued integration into society (but of course you don't know if integration into society is productive or if these rules will even further that or if it can be furthered, etc). For instance, you don't unzip to whiz on a public sidewalk in broad daylight even though you know for a fact that not doing so will cause you physical discomfort. This belief is a fairy too...You don't know if you will be called out for public disgrace or saluted for your heroic manliness, but you don't do it.
We know for a "fact" only what we can verify by our five senses (this being our most absolute of bases). You take for granted that lots of things are facts, like the earth revolving around the sun, mars being thataway, etc, but you havent really checked have you? (disregard my entire argument if you have a spacesuit and jetpack) You were told that by someone who also told you they had evidence. And the overwhelming majority of people around you believe that too. Ringing any bells here?
Moreover, there is no *evidence* that a "logical basis" (fundamentally rooted at the lowest level only by the combination in the self of outdated evolutionary goals and preprogrammed social values, or reactions to those also defined by different elements in society) is productive. We know this only anecdotally, and many others know the opposite to be true anecdotally, and many many more choose to define a basis somewhere in between believing everything and believing nothing.
You denigrate an "external basis" but you have no internal basis. In fact, your pretension to an internal basis (which you for some reason hold up as if it makes you a big boy) commits you to actions you believe are right, based on factors other than logical connections. Again, this can be trivially assigned (in clinical terms of course) as a case of mental illness.
I'm fine with this as long as the people teaching it admit it is taught as fiction then there is nothing separate from a given book. Besides the fact you are singling out 1 book for a reason that has not been expressed as generally things like that should be left to a list of approved reading etc.
But to blindly require religious teachings in a school is so far up some closed minded persons ass it is just so frustrating, To require the schools with populations exceeding a certain number to have optional religious courses is perfectly fine. But keep your peddling of any religion out of my public school.
I haven't read the bill so ionno wth is going on there but best to luck in people defending the Constitution of the United mother fucking States of America over Texas
On August 22 2009 13:56 Saddened Izzy wrote: I'm fine with this as long as the people teaching it admit it is taught as fiction then there is nothing separate from a given book. Besides the fact you are singling out 1 book for a reason that has not been expressed as generally things like that should be left to a list of approved reading etc.
But to blindly require religious teachings in a school is so far up some closed minded persons ass it is just so frustrating, To require the schools with populations exceeding a certain number to have optional religious courses is perfectly fine. But keep your peddling of any religion out of my public school.
I haven't read the bill so ionno wth is going on there but best to luck in people defending the Constitution of the United mother fucking States of America over Texas
Man, the wonder's of private schooling and home schooling. The curriculum is structured to the individuals need. Anyways, if you don't like it just move. The wonders of mobility. No one is "forcing" your family to stay in Texas. That is why anti-federalism is so wonderful
I also think it shouldn't be a required class. It should be an elective and guess what....it is an elective. No one is forcing you to choose it, its up to you.
I'm probably going to get my ass flamed off, but Imma say this anyways...
Atheism is a religion. If you go teaching Darwinism and the Big Bang and that we're all stardust, you are no different than one who teaches Intelligent Design (is that supposed to be capitalized?), Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, even that Flying Spaghetti Monster religion. Separation of state and church is impossible because everything in the world is all interconnected.
However, I would suggest that the state grant parents the permission to withhold their child from such a class if it's grade school.
WHITEHOUSE, TX (KLTV) - The school year is almost here, and if literature of the Bible is not already offered in your child's school, it will be this fall.
Books are a common sight in classrooms around the nation, but the Bible is one book that is not. Come this fall, a Texas law says all public schools must offer information relating to the Bible in their curriculum.
"By the end of the year, what they begin to realize is that it is pervasive. You can't get away from it. The kids came back and were like 'It's everywhere,'" said John Keeling, the social studies chair at Whitehouse High School. Whitehouse already offers a Bible elective. "The purpose of a course like this isn't even really to get kids to believe it per say. It is just to appreciate the profound impact that it has had on our history and on our government," said Keeling.
The law actually passed in 2007, but this will be the first school year it is enforced because the bill says, "The provisions of this act pertaining to a school district do not take effect until the 2009-2010 school year."
This has gained mixed reactions from East Texans. "I think it is a good thing because a lot of kids don't have that experience, and they already want to take prayer out of school as it is-- and you see where our kids are ending up!" said Tyler resident Laura Tucker.
Tyler resident Havis Tatum disagrees with Tucker. He said, "I don't want anybody teaching their religious beliefs to my child unless they want to send their child to my house and let me teach them my religious views. There is no difference."
School officials tell us schools haven't enforced this law because of confusion over the bill's wording and lack of state funding.
For now, each school district must find a way to fill the requirement before the seats are filled with students.
Cliffnotes: Texas is requiring all public schools to incorporate the bible into their curriculum.
What happened to church and state being separate? I'm not a christian, and I know there are people in Texas who are not as well. So this is going to be a huge burden on people on having to learn both creationism and darwinism. No matter what they believe.
Just to clarify, "Dawinism" is a term used derogatorily by those who believe that evolutionary biology is false. There were a lot of things Darwin didn't know, so "evolution" is not the same as "Darwinism." Evolution is a scientific theory, not an "-ism."
On August 23 2009 09:51 EEEE1234 wrote: I'm probably going to get my ass flamed off, but Imma say this anyways...
Atheism is a religion. If you go teaching Darwinism and the Big Bang and that we're all stardust, you are no different than one who teaches Intelligent Design (is that supposed to be capitalized?), Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, even that Flying Spaghetti Monster religion. Separation of state and church is impossible because everything in the world is all interconnected.
However, I would suggest that the state grant parents the permission to withhold their child from such a class if it's grade school.
If atheism is a religion not collecting stamps is a hobby! =-)
On August 23 2009 09:51 EEEE1234 wrote: I'm probably going to get my ass flamed off, but Imma say this anyways...
Atheism is a religion. If you go teaching Darwinism and the Big Bang and that we're all stardust, you are no different than one who teaches Intelligent Design (is that supposed to be capitalized?), Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, even that Flying Spaghetti Monster religion.
Your post displays a lack of understanding of some very basic points. It also makes use of a tired, repeatedly refuted trope.
Firstly, "Darwinism", the Big Bang and other such scientific notions have no direct connection to atheism whatsoever. Secondly, atheism is not a religion. Declining to accept theist assertions, on the grounds that such assertions are unsupported by the available evidence, is in no way, shape or form a religion.
On August 23 2009 09:51 EEEE1234 wrote: I'm probably going to get my ass flamed off, but Imma say this anyways...
Atheism is a religion. If you go teaching Darwinism and the Big Bang and that we're all stardust, you are no different than one who teaches Intelligent Design (is that supposed to be capitalized?), Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, even that Flying Spaghetti Monster religion. Separation of state and church is impossible because everything in the world is all interconnected.
However, I would suggest that the state grant parents the permission to withhold their child from such a class if it's grade school.
Negative.. Atheism has nothing to do with religion.. Zip.. Zero.
On August 23 2009 09:51 EEEE1234 wrote: I'm probably going to get my ass flamed off, but Imma say this anyways...
Atheism is a religion. If you go teaching Darwinism and the Big Bang and that we're all stardust, you are no different than one who teaches Intelligent Design (is that supposed to be capitalized?), Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, even that Flying Spaghetti Monster religion. Separation of state and church is impossible because everything in the world is all interconnected.
However, I would suggest that the state grant parents the permission to withhold their child from such a class if it's grade school.
Negative.. Atheism has nothing to do with religion.. Zip.. Zero.
The interesting point here is that without religion, there would be no atheism. There would be nothing for atheism to define itself against. Opposition requires an initial position for the other to oppose.
I'm a catholic-christian. But, I'm not convinced with bible or all the teachings and preachings from priests or pope.
I only believe there is God out there chillin, and that's it.
I'm only catholic because my parents forced me to.
Every kind of religion has always been "shove it over to people until they are converted". Except maybe Hinduism and Buddhism.
If they are gonna give the option to give bibles in school, they might as well give out copies of quran and torah and courses to teach islam and judaism as well.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.thatjonesgirl.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/20swearing_600.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_44ev6Q8AhCw/RlDzZJz_ZJI/AAAAAAAAAug/Wk9Qh0ayqdM/s400/Cosmology2.jpg)
