Passenger killed by air marshall
- Thread starter Jas
- Start date
-
- Tags
- air marshal passenger
You haven't stated a contention. You are debating soundbites. You insist on the relevance of the DoI contrary to evidence. You avoid the theocratic nature of your own country. You have multiple standards. You really do give the impression of being a true believer.
By your "logic", I don't live in a theocracy.
Keep banging, self-flagellation is popular among brainless zealots. You may get a photo spread in next year's I live in a theocracy and my tax dollars directly support a horsefaced queen and an evangelical church calendar.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
*sigh* okay, baby steps:
No, I am not saying that laws of the land are unconstitutional until challenged. It is not within my power, nor yours, to make that decision. I can express my opinion on how I think laws ought to be declared, but that's about it.
But, as i said, you have created a false dilemma which is, of course, a logical fallacy. (I'll assume that you know what a false dilemma is even though you did not see that you have engaged in it. Please correct me if I am mistaken.) Your dilemma is this: If the SCOTUS has not declared a law to be constitutional, then it is constitutional. This denies the possibility of a third option and assumes a default state for laws. The third possibility that you have overlooked is that a law, having not been reviewed by SCOTUS, can be said to be undecided with regards to it adherence to the Constitution. Not understanding this third possibility, you have lept to the assumption that the default constitutionality for laws is that they are constitutional.
Why make this assumption? When SCOTUS does declare that a law is unconstitutional, does that mean that the law is suddenly unconstitutional or that it always was and was merely undeclared as such until that point?
To my knowledge, the President's faith-based initiatives have not yet been brought before the SCOTUS, thus such laws/actions are neither decided constitutional nor unconstitutional. Your statement that these initiatves are constitutional because they have not been declared unconstitutional is a logical fallacy and, as such, incorrect.
Abstinance only sexual education is closely associated with religious points of view, but that does not mean that it is, in and of itself, a religious practice. Consider: what are the chances of accidently becoming pregnant while practicing abstinance? It isn't even close to zero. It is zero. What are the chances of catching a sexually transmitted disease while practicing abstinance? Not quite as good as pregnancy, but damn close.
Further, if merely not having sex is to be considered a religious practice, then under that definition how many of us are unknowingly practicing religion at this very moment?
No, Claus, just because religious fundies latch on to and promote something does not make that thing, itself, innately religious. Your argument constitutes (pardon the pun) another logical fallacy.
I told you, as an American, what it was like to be an American during the tail end of the Cold War anti-communist hysteria. You responded by telling me that I was wrong about what I was thinking and feeling. You told me that I wasn't afraid of communists, I was embracing religion.
Historical facts? Try researching Senator Joseph McCarthy. Try researching The House Committee on Un-American Activities. How much deep religious fervor do you see floating through these two topics?
What historical facts do you have? You have two meaningless phrases introduced at the point of hysteria that have no net legal or civil effect. They should be removed and I believe that they ultimately will. But, you have cherry picked these two nothing items out of a forrest of events that you have completely ignored. That is flat-out dishonest.
Claus, language is an extremely robust thing that has a tendancy to change over time. The cultural and contemporary significance of words and phrases can sometimes be entirely dependant on the context of when and where they were said and by whom.
Modern American students often have difficulty reading Shakespear because, although it is in their native tongue, it is written in an archaic form and format. The cultural references that Shakespear refers to are not so clear cut today and Lit teachers must often fill in the background in order for the plays to make sense.
I know that you don't understand rhetorics, as such. So let me attempt to fill in the gaps of what is going on with the DoI so that you can understand it the way it was intended.
The American Revolutionists found themselves at odds with not only their king, but also a rather formidable empire. The DoI was basically their letter of resignation from that empire and him. Rather than ask for King George's permission to make such a resignation, they proclaimed that permission had already been granted from a more innate source. (I know you're anxious to jump to the conclusion that this source is an innate God, but try to control your zeal for just a moment and hear me out.)
Note that they do not say "our God" or even just "God", but rather "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God".
Now consider, if they were, as you believe, invoking a supernatural entity from whom they believe that all rights originate, why include the Laws of Nature? (Of course, by Laws of Nature they are referring to the laws of the physical universe in which we exist.) Here, they are saying that the innate equality of all people, kings included, are derived from the fact that we are all subject to Natural Law.
Even though they had the advantage of the Enlightenment going on, their undersanding of Natural Law, or the laws of physics as it were, was woefully incomplete. There were still a lot of unknowns or, rather, at least more unknowns than there are today. There was still a possibility that there was yet still something else that controlled Natural Law. Maybe it was a supernatural entity, maybe not. But you'll note that they still did not envoke God, but rather Nature's God. This has a two-fold effect. (1) it implies that the equality they were talking about came not only from Natural Law but possibily from something even deeper than that, should it be found. (2) it was designed to impress upon the religious monoarchy that the Revolutionists authority springs from the same well that thier authority does.
Remember, the Revolutionists are playing to a very specific audience and they want to be taken very seriously. Their goal is to impress upon King George that he certainly has no more authority over them than they do themselves. (That isn't the end of the argument, but that is what that passage accomplishes.)
Note still that they still haven't envoked "our God" or "Christ Jesus our Savior" or even just "God".
When they say that all men are created equal, they are saying that this equality is not something that is bestowed upon them at some date, earned through their actions, or deserved because of who they are. They are saying that this equality is a part of the very being of mankind, like having a brain or a torso or ears. Whatever criteria you use to define "mankind", equality is part of that definition.
Later in that same sentince, they mention a creator, but just who is that creator? Given that "Creator" relates back to term "created" in the same sentince, it is that which is the root of man's equality. What is the root of man's equality? Natural Law. Thus, Natural Law is the "Creator" referred to in the sentince.
But wait, you say, they are obviously referring to a being! The "c" is capitalized, indicating that it is a proper name, or at least a proper title.
Here is where the changes in language thoughout time come into play. The gramatical rules of capitalization were not the same then as they are now. You'll note that Truths, Rights, Life, Liberty, and Happiness are also all capitalized. This was not done to indicate proper nouns, but to make create emphasis, much in the same way I use italics today.
Far from invoking a supernatural entity, they were all about Natural Law, which was really the core of the Enlightenment. Yes, they did play to their audience a little, but the main thrust of their argument is from a point of Nature and the natural world.
--------
and just to cover as many bases as possible, let's take a very brief look at The Enlightenment:
False dilemma.
No, I am not saying that laws of the land are unconstitutional until challenged. It is not within my power, nor yours, to make that decision. I can express my opinion on how I think laws ought to be declared, but that's about it.
But, as i said, you have created a false dilemma which is, of course, a logical fallacy. (I'll assume that you know what a false dilemma is even though you did not see that you have engaged in it. Please correct me if I am mistaken.) Your dilemma is this: If the SCOTUS has not declared a law to be constitutional, then it is constitutional. This denies the possibility of a third option and assumes a default state for laws. The third possibility that you have overlooked is that a law, having not been reviewed by SCOTUS, can be said to be undecided with regards to it adherence to the Constitution. Not understanding this third possibility, you have lept to the assumption that the default constitutionality for laws is that they are constitutional.
Why make this assumption? When SCOTUS does declare that a law is unconstitutional, does that mean that the law is suddenly unconstitutional or that it always was and was merely undeclared as such until that point?
To my knowledge, the President's faith-based initiatives have not yet been brought before the SCOTUS, thus such laws/actions are neither decided constitutional nor unconstitutional. Your statement that these initiatves are constitutional because they have not been declared unconstitutional is a logical fallacy and, as such, incorrect.
Guilt by association.
Abstinance only sexual education is closely associated with religious points of view, but that does not mean that it is, in and of itself, a religious practice. Consider: what are the chances of accidently becoming pregnant while practicing abstinance? It isn't even close to zero. It is zero. What are the chances of catching a sexually transmitted disease while practicing abstinance? Not quite as good as pregnancy, but damn close.
Further, if merely not having sex is to be considered a religious practice, then under that definition how many of us are unknowingly practicing religion at this very moment?
No, Claus, just because religious fundies latch on to and promote something does not make that thing, itself, innately religious. Your argument constitutes (pardon the pun) another logical fallacy.
The hell you didn't.
I told you, as an American, what it was like to be an American during the tail end of the Cold War anti-communist hysteria. You responded by telling me that I was wrong about what I was thinking and feeling. You told me that I wasn't afraid of communists, I was embracing religion.
Historical facts? Try researching Senator Joseph McCarthy. Try researching The House Committee on Un-American Activities. How much deep religious fervor do you see floating through these two topics?
What historical facts do you have? You have two meaningless phrases introduced at the point of hysteria that have no net legal or civil effect. They should be removed and I believe that they ultimately will. But, you have cherry picked these two nothing items out of a forrest of events that you have completely ignored. That is flat-out dishonest.
As I said, baby steps.
Claus, language is an extremely robust thing that has a tendancy to change over time. The cultural and contemporary significance of words and phrases can sometimes be entirely dependant on the context of when and where they were said and by whom.
Modern American students often have difficulty reading Shakespear because, although it is in their native tongue, it is written in an archaic form and format. The cultural references that Shakespear refers to are not so clear cut today and Lit teachers must often fill in the background in order for the plays to make sense.
I know that you don't understand rhetorics, as such. So let me attempt to fill in the gaps of what is going on with the DoI so that you can understand it the way it was intended.
The American Revolutionists found themselves at odds with not only their king, but also a rather formidable empire. The DoI was basically their letter of resignation from that empire and him. Rather than ask for King George's permission to make such a resignation, they proclaimed that permission had already been granted from a more innate source. (I know you're anxious to jump to the conclusion that this source is an innate God, but try to control your zeal for just a moment and hear me out.)
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 and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Note that they do not say "our God" or even just "God", but rather "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God".
Now consider, if they were, as you believe, invoking a supernatural entity from whom they believe that all rights originate, why include the Laws of Nature? (Of course, by Laws of Nature they are referring to the laws of the physical universe in which we exist.) Here, they are saying that the innate equality of all people, kings included, are derived from the fact that we are all subject to Natural Law.
Even though they had the advantage of the Enlightenment going on, their undersanding of Natural Law, or the laws of physics as it were, was woefully incomplete. There were still a lot of unknowns or, rather, at least more unknowns than there are today. There was still a possibility that there was yet still something else that controlled Natural Law. Maybe it was a supernatural entity, maybe not. But you'll note that they still did not envoke God, but rather Nature's God. This has a two-fold effect. (1) it implies that the equality they were talking about came not only from Natural Law but possibily from something even deeper than that, should it be found. (2) it was designed to impress upon the religious monoarchy that the Revolutionists authority springs from the same well that thier authority does.
Remember, the Revolutionists are playing to a very specific audience and they want to be taken very seriously. Their goal is to impress upon King George that he certainly has no more authority over them than they do themselves. (That isn't the end of the argument, but that is what that passage accomplishes.)
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator 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 to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.
Note still that they still haven't envoked "our God" or "Christ Jesus our Savior" or even just "God".
When they say that all men are created equal, they are saying that this equality is not something that is bestowed upon them at some date, earned through their actions, or deserved because of who they are. They are saying that this equality is a part of the very being of mankind, like having a brain or a torso or ears. Whatever criteria you use to define "mankind", equality is part of that definition.
Later in that same sentince, they mention a creator, but just who is that creator? Given that "Creator" relates back to term "created" in the same sentince, it is that which is the root of man's equality. What is the root of man's equality? Natural Law. Thus, Natural Law is the "Creator" referred to in the sentince.
But wait, you say, they are obviously referring to a being! The "c" is capitalized, indicating that it is a proper name, or at least a proper title.
Here is where the changes in language thoughout time come into play. The gramatical rules of capitalization were not the same then as they are now. You'll note that Truths, Rights, Life, Liberty, and Happiness are also all capitalized. This was not done to indicate proper nouns, but to make create emphasis, much in the same way I use italics today.
Far from invoking a supernatural entity, they were all about Natural Law, which was really the core of the Enlightenment. Yes, they did play to their audience a little, but the main thrust of their argument is from a point of Nature and the natural world.
--------
and just to cover as many bases as possible, let's take a very brief look at The Enlightenment:
My emphasis.
Context, context, context. The meaning of words can change drastically depending upon the context.
Note that only two of the four definitions of "god" in webster mean a supernatural being, and that's just one form. There are many ways for "god" to not mean a supernatural being.
Of course, for Claus' contention to be worthy of a second glance, one would expect to see references to god, religion and so on embodied in the only relevent document, the Constitution, again and again (like a certain monarchy that we all know). It does not, alas, occur. I feel like I am dealing with a numerologist of some sort.
Which is why I will not read his publication. I don't know what his publication is like, because I have never read it. I got to know Claus before I had even heard of his publication. His behavior on this forum has convinved me to not bother looking at a publication that he has such involvement with. Even if it is good, I wouldn't want to support such a jacka$$, anyway.
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
Nicely written.
It is like there are two different people looking at the Danish constitution and the DOI here. When speaking about Denmark, several more prominent mentions of God and religion and explicit ties to the state are placed into context so that the ultimate decision is that the contacts do not amount to a theocracy.
And then the same steps with an even more tenuous mention in the DOI are never taken -- lightning flashes, the blood roars in the ears and soon, the fervor and zeal causes someone to bite his own tongue, taste blood, and go wild -- completely avoiding the same type of analysis (which was, I think, the point that people have been trying to ram home with their points on the Danish Constitution, but they've just been too subtle, I guess).
I suppose so. Everyone, I am convinced, has a trace of the woo in them. With Claus it is the US and everything USish, it appears.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
It's not a double standard. The law you referred to is not in effect anymore.
Did the US Constitution render the DoI invalid? Of course not.
They wouldn't need to, because where their rights come from have already been established in the DoI.
What kind of criticism of the US would you accept?
I'm not saying that it is legal. I'm saying that in one of the Freedom Chapters, where rights are defined, those rights are endowed by a supernatural being.
Since I am not arguing that the DoI is a legal document, I wonder if that will make you change your description here.
Do you understand that we don't teach people to become religious, but that we teach them about religion?
Do you understand that religions must be "approved" because otherwise, they won't enjoy tax breaks?
Do you understand that it is irrelevant what religion the Regent has to belong to?
Do you understand that we have religious freedom in Denmark?
Do you understand that I am not saying that the US is a theocracy?
Are you able to tell me just how far back in time we have to go?
Is the DoI not one of the founding documents?
You can take them one by one, if you like.
I think you meant: "If the SCOTUS has not declared a law to be UNconstitutional, then it is constitutional.
A law is passed on the Hill. It is not contested yet by any court. Then, as the first, you are arrested for breaking that law.
Have you done anything illegal?
Funny you should say "guilt". I'm not accusing you of being right-wing.
Hardly, because I am not saying that abstinence in itself is religious. I am saying that it is used by the Religious Right to promote religious values.
Where did I do that?
You misunderstand. I'm not arguing the severity of the McCarthy era, quite contrary. It was a black spot on American history. I'm just saying that religion is a far more pervasive issue than McCarthy is.
Do you have much McCarthyism in the US today?
I have found the evidence to back up my contention. That's neither cherry-picking or dishonest.
Agree. Which is why I point to the use of Creator in those days. They meant what they said. They didn't say "Origins", "Mom & Pop", "evolution" or, as suggested here, a stick. Creator in those days - capitol C - meant God. They didn't mess around. Each word was carefully chosen.
Here's a very good example of the use "Creator":
Read that last sentence.
In which case, I'm right. Because King George's right to rule came directly from God.
They don't need to. All they need is, once, to refer to God as the power who gives them the right to do what they do. They have to invoke God, because King George has God on his side. We are not talking about some fuzzy concept here, we are talking about The God, The Biblical God, He Who Striketh, etc.
And who did people believe had created them? God.
If this was the case, they wouldn't even need to refer to "Nature's God". But they do, and they do for a very good reason.
I disagree. I'm not convinced by your arguments.
I'm not contesting that at least some of the Founding Fathers were, in a non-woo sense, "enlightened". But since they knew they were addressing a mostly religious colonist population, they knew they couldn't just get away with referring to a non-religious power.
Sure it can. I just don't agree with your rendering of the context.
I think you'll agree that freedom is a thing of supreme value. Is freedom a god?
Dubya is a powerful ruler. I doubt you will disagree. Is he a god? If not, why not?
I'll let that stand.
Because you would have to ignore and reject anything that wasn't written in English. That's rather condescendingly superior of you. And, of course, you would be wrong.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Will you be ok if from now on I post all my response in a language you do not understand?
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,600
Too bad there is no "ignore in this thread" option. When CFL isn't ranting about how horrible the USA is, he has some good posts. However, especially in this thread, it would be best to just ignore him.
Considering that Claus has already demonstrated that he cannot understand plain English, I'd say this is a moot question.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Yes, thank you.
Yes. Your example, however, is irrelevent because "illegal" and "unconstitutional" are two different things. The constitutionality of the law is not determined until it is challenged.
"Guilt by association" is the name of the logical fallacy that you were committing. Am I mistaken that you are familiar with logical fallacies? May I recommend this site as a resource?
What an attention span you have. Mayflies live longer. Here is what we were talking about:
CFLarsen said:
My point, which you seem to have forgotten, is that it is not a black and white issue that you have made it out to be. Yes, it is used by the religious right to promote their religion, but does that make abstenance-only birth control education unconstitutional? Of course not. This is the problem with faith-based initiatives, it is very difficult to say just where the service ends and the religion begins. It just isn't that clean cut.
here
CFLarsen said:
No, but we were discussing why those phrases were added to the pledge and made the motto. They were not done for religious reasons, but for anti-communist reasons as I have outlined. You have provided no evidence to the contrary except to claim that you know my culture and its motivations better than I do.
And do you know why there isn't much McCarthyism in the US today? Because it posed a much greater and immediate threat. At that point, it was even a greater threat than the "Red Scare" it was trying to protect America against.
Yes, and what was your evidence? Articles from 2004 and 2005 discussing modern America. Nothing concerning why those phrases were put there in the first place. Zero. Zip. Nada.
It is both cherry-picking and dishonest.
Yes, they meant what they said, but they didn't mean what you seem to think they said. Please provide some evidence that "Creator" in that specific instance and context meant "God". There are loads and loads of books, articles, and analysis of the DoI as well as original papers from the writers of the document. It shouldn't be hard to find something to back your claim.
*sigh*
Claus, this takes place 83 years (or 95, depending on which date you look at) after the DoI was written. You consider this a "very good example" of the contemporary and contextual meaning for the use of the word "Creator" in the DoI, written 2 or 3 generations before? Seriously?
King George perceived that his rule came from God. That has no bearing on whether or not the writers of the DoI thought the same.
...
This is ludicrous. I spent about an hour or more this morning explaining why that is absolutely not true. It certainly isn't the Biblical God they are referring to.
Yes, and I addressed what that reason is.
Have you ever been convinced by an argument? Has anyone ever made an argument that caused you to re-think something you were convinced was right? Seriously, these are not rhetorical questions.
edited because I apparently don't pay very good attention to my use of negatives.
Last edited:
I would be fine with that, as long as there were people would could understand it and state that the content was what you claimed it was.
Fortunately, I know more languages than just my own. That puts me at an advantage.
When is the legality of a law determined?
I'm very aware of logical fallacies.
My point, which you seem to ignore, is that I said that abstinence is a hallmark of the religious Right. I didn't say that abstinence in itself is religious. Are we clear on this?
I meant Americans in general. It's not my fault that "you" have several meanings in English. I'll try to make it more clear in the future.
Thus proving my point.
I have not done so. I have pointed to historical evidence, e.g. that McCarthyism is not as prevalent in American culture as religion is.
I'm not sure I agree with you there. While McCarthyism was a rather scary force in American culture, it was never a question of what to be more scared of.
At any rate: We agree that the impact of McCarthyism is not as prevalent in American culture as religious issues.
If you don't agree with the evidence, you don't agree with it.
I have presented my evidence. You can accept it or not.
Yes, seriously. What changed in the meantime? But, hey, if you reject this evidence, how about this quote from Jefferson?
You think Jefferson was not speaking of God here?
And Deism being:
Get it yet?
That's not my argument. I'm saying that Colonial America was under the rule of England. England was ruled by a King, who got his power from God.
I disagree, and I've presented my arguments why.
How long do you think I spend replying to people? If that's going to be an argument in itself, then I doubt I can lose any debate here.
And I disagree.
Yes, I have. I've changed my mind on the subject of hypnosis, based on sound arguments and evidence.