I suppose it would be too much to ask exactly what your point is Claus. This is the second time. It seems to me that when one engages in a serious derailment it would be courtious to explain the rationale, the point to be made, and it's relevance in some way. Your contentions seem to simply arise with no purpose other than to create an argument. Is there a position you hold?
Passenger killed by air marshall
- Thread starter Jas
- Start date
-
- Tags
- air marshal passenger
I've already explained it.
I do find it very telling that people focus on me being Danish - or, rather, me being a non-American - when they want to "counter" (and I use that in the loosest sense) my arguments.
I have provided ample evidence. I have yet to see anyone provide an inkling of counter evidence.
Can we cut the rhe-tor-ics and see some e-vi-dence?
If not, then there's not much point in con-ti-nu-ing.
I do find it very telling that people focus on me being Danish - or, rather, me being a non-American - when they want to "counter" (and I use that in the loosest sense) my arguments.
I have provided ample evidence. I have yet to see anyone provide an inkling of counter evidence.
Can we cut the rhe-tor-ics and see some e-vi-dence?
If not, then there's not much point in con-ti-nu-ing.
So, you cannot construct a cogent paragraph outlining your points and what your contentions are. You are simply throwing out unrelated factiods that add up to nothing more than unrelated factoids, is that it in essence?
Can you see a broader issue or is what you have posted it?
What is your point? Are you trying to say that the US is as bad as Denmark when it comes to state sponsered religion? If so your quotes don't support it. I'd like to get macro rather than the usual micro.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I find that quite ironic since you are the one who is projecting your own beliefs on a rhetorical device instead of trying to understand what those who are actually an authority on the matter really mean/meant.
How about the US's long-standing seperation of church and state?
How about SCOTUS's long-standing interpretation of church and state?
How about the fact that most of the US founders were either diests or naturalists?
How about the fact that I've already provided evidence that a "Creator" doesn't necessarily have to be supernatural?
Do any of those count as evidence or are you ignoring them because they don't fit with what you've already decided is true?
Founded on a "notion"? How can something be founded on a "notion"? Are you saying that this was a core rationale? Are you saying that religion is as core a factor in the US as, say Denmark?
n.b. edit to add an 'e' on rationale. Though given the quality of my spelling I am not sure why I bothered.
Last edited:
Now, now, you should know it's not cricket to point out Claus' crystalline residence when he still has rocks to chuck. As always, this is about some semantic issue in a nonbinding, 230-year-old document, not the egregious human rights violations happening right now at this very instant in Denmarktopia.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Correction: Religious freedom (among others) was one of the major reasons for the formation of the United States.
Your evidence does not support your conclusion.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Thought experiment: Let's say that the Decleration of Independance were worded just a little differently.
In CONGRESS, July 4 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by Nature with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
I made two subtle changes to the above passage (bolded). I removed an ambiguous and a direct reference to God. Now, if this document is, as Claus implies, dependant upon a supernatural Creator God, removal of that Creator God should fundamentally change the nature of the document. Does it?The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by Nature with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
Consider the historical background.
How about addressing the many references to "God"?
How about the fact that most of the Colonialists were not - and they were the ones who had to support the Holy Trinity of Documents?
How about the fact that that is a wee bit naive?
I've already considered these, and I am not convinced at all. The historical facts point in one direction: The US was founded on religious beliefs, not atheistic.
Got any evidence of your own?
What does "religious freedom" mean? Not free from religion, but the freedom to believe in whatever god you fancy.
You deny the deep religiosity of Colonial America? Really?
Really? Then parse this:
You can find it in your own constitution... or you can continue to ignore and think no one will notice.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
"long-standing" is not historical? Seperation of church and state has been around in US government history since the very beginning. What history are you considering?
I did. a number of times and in a number of ways.
"Holy Trinity of Documents"? Reference, please?
Baloney.
False delema. The US was put together under a secular philosophy.
Plenty, but you don't seem to find history historical.
Of course it does. Now, the tenets of the United States are based on science, not on religious belief.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Another false dilemma. It is the freedom to practice whatever religion you like, or none at all. No where in either the DoI or the US Constitution does it say that you have to believe in some God.
No, but that isn't what I said. I'm denying that the evidence you have provided demonstrates that the US is a religious government. It is definitvely secular.
Since I've referred to this in the past, I can hardly be blamed for "ignoring" it.