Passenger killed by air marshall

[CFLarsen]

religion in SCOTUS? Where?

The prayer invocation before SCOTUS hearings. A frieze on the wall of the U.S. Supreme Court depicts Moses holding the Ten Commandments.

Supreme Court justices noted (ORACH v. CLAUSEN (1952)): "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being..."

The evidence is piling up....

 

[CFLarsen]

Since your country(Denmark) has an esteblished state religion it seems to be a moot point to bring up that during campaign if it was run like politicians due it here. The candidate don't bring up the fact they are US Citizens because or that have not rulled other countries prior to the campaign, it's obvious and assumed thing.

Politicians in Denmark have all sorts of religious beliefs, different from the Lutheran. However, it isn't an issue, because politicians don't flaunt their religion.

http://www.restorethepledge.com/litigation/money/

http://www.restorethepledge.com/litigation/pledge/

Thank you. The courts haven't changed their opinions, I see. The point still stands.

What religion is our government Claus? By all means, name it.

Religious. Not religion. Learn the difference, please.

It's non of my business why they come here. If people want to answer on this thread why they came to this forum I won't stop them, but I won't engage in persuit in proving you more wrong than I already have. What's the benefit in making you wronger?

People can, indeed, judge for themselves.

God does not equal religion.

And war is peace.

 

[CFLarsen]

I certainly wouldn't complain, since nothing in those sources refutes what I've asserted.

Of course they do. I can understand why you want to drop it, though.

I think this is yet another example of your complete failure to understand the cultural idiom; or yet another example of your spinning offacts to support an untenable position. You certainly seem to have ignored about two-thirds of what I've posted.

I think you just evaded the point.

 

[Thanz]

The prayer invocation before SCOTUS hearings. A frieze on the wall of the U.S. Supreme Court depicts Moses holding the Ten Commandments.

Supreme Court justices noted (ORACH v. CLAUSEN (1952)): "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being..."

The evidence is piling up....

So, the SCOTUS is religious because of the art on the walls, but the gov't of Denmark is not religious despite a state supported official church, a monarch who must be a member of the church, and mandatory religious education in the schools?

What do they put in the water over there?

 

[Jocko]

There you go: You do not fit in because you are not a believer.

Yeah, Claus, it's a real pain living in a diverse society instead of a homegenized scandinavian country where you don't even need to think about the question of religion, since your nanny-state monarchy has already done all that messy thinking for you. You know which church to go to, because it's the one you write checks to every year when you pay your taxes.

If you think there's anything in the Constitution about the right to never feel uncomfortable, then I sincerely doubt you have ever set foot in this country, despite your frequent pleadings to the contrary. Discomfort is the engine of change, something you clearly have no grasp of, since this is the same tired circular reasoning married to willful ignorance that has become your exclusive MO.

In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever set foot on this planet.

 

[Jocko]

The prayer invocation before SCOTUS hearings. A frieze on the wall of the U.S. Supreme Court depicts Moses holding the Ten Commandments.

Supreme Court justices noted (ORACH v. CLAUSEN (1952)): "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being..."

The evidence is piling up....

So, you're basically saying that the US is a theocracy and Denmark is not, becuase no one has ever rendered your voluminous pages dealing with an official, tax-funded STATE RELIGION on a wall? Spelling it out in detail in a legal document is fine, so long as it never gets used artistically?

Tell me, Claus, since I can't be bothered to look it up myself... is this the half of the year when Denmark is in near-total darkness? You know, when the suicides spike and all sorts of loonies start howling at the moon?

 

[CFLarsen]

So, the SCOTUS is religious because of the art on the walls, but the gov't of Denmark is not religious despite a state supported official church, a monarch who must be a member of the church, and mandatory religious education in the schools?

What do they put in the water over there?

You don't think that learning about religions is important?

 

[CFLarsen]

Yeah, Claus, it's a real pain living in a diverse society instead of a homegenized scandinavian country where you don't even need to think about the question of religion, since your nanny-state monarchy has already done all that messy thinking for you. You know which church to go to, because it's the one you write checks to every year when you pay your taxes.

If you think there's anything in the Constitution about the right to never feel uncomfortable, then I sincerely doubt you have ever set foot in this country, despite your frequent pleadings to the contrary. Discomfort is the engine of change, something you clearly have no grasp of, since this is the same tired circular reasoning married to willful ignorance that has become your exclusive MO.

In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever set foot on this planet.

Since I have indeed not just visited the US, but also lived there, I think it says more about your argumentation than anything else.

So, you're basically saying that the US is a theocracy

No, I don't. Do you understand it now? Or are you so stupid that you can't understand what I say?

 

[Thanz]

You don't think that learning about religions is important?

As a matter of fact, I do think it is important. I went to Catholic schools from kindergarten through my undergraduate degree, so I know what I am talking about. And it wasn't until High School taht we started getting into comparative theology or world religions. I am not in Denmark, but I'd imagine that the Lutheran education is similar.

However, you have picked one small part of my post to respond to, and you do so in a way that is tangential to the point. You seem to be simultaneously pumping up the religiousity of the US while downplaying the religiousity of Denmark. It may be that Denmark is less religious than the US. But it also may be that Denmark is just as religious (if not more so) but approaches it in a more private manner - without the bible thumping that is prevalent in parts of the US. I think that what you are pointing to as "evidence" (the art in the SCOTUS? come on) is ridiculous considering the amount of overt religious references in the Denmark constitution.

I've said as much previously in this thread, a few days ago. Everyone ignored that post, however.

 

[CFLarsen]

As a matter of fact, I do think it is important. I went to Catholic schools from kindergarten through my undergraduate degree, so I know what I am talking about. And it wasn't until High School taht we started getting into comparative theology or world religions. I am not in Denmark, but I'd imagine that the Lutheran education is similar.

It is not a Lutheran education. It is an education about religions. Kids aren't taught to become religious.

However, you have picked one small part of my post to respond to, and you do so in a way that is tangential to the point.

I have already addressed the other points, in various ways. What do you want me to do, repeat myself?

You seem to be simultaneously pumping up the religiousity of the US while downplaying the religiousity of Denmark. It may be that Denmark is less religious than the US. But it also may be that Denmark is just as religious (if not more so) but approaches it in a more private manner - without the bible thumping that is prevalent in parts of the US.

I think that what you are pointing to as "evidence" (the art in the SCOTUS? come on) is ridiculous considering the amount of overt religious references in the Denmark constitution.

Since you are so familiar with the latter, perhaps you could tell me what it says in §71, §77, and §78?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I meant of the vanilla type. From this forum.

I am surprised you ask that since this whole tangent was set in motion by you asking why Americans get so defensive when our country is crticized, thus implying that you think we SHOULDN'T get so defensive which in turn would imply you thought most criticism of the US was of the 'vanilla' type.

But anyway, here you go. There are many criticisms of the US' failure to learn the lessons of Vietnam in that thread, little condescension and no 'You Americans are a bunch of stupid fatheads' type posts. Yeah some Americans get defensive, but as I said, when you hear enough of the nasty vitriolic criticism, you tend to get defensive of any criticism, even if it isn't of that type.

 

[CFLarsen]

I am surprised you ask that since this whole tangent was set in motion by you asking why Americans get so defensive when our country is crticized, thus implying that you think we SHOULDN'T get so defensive which in turn would imply you thought most criticism of the US was of the 'vanilla' type.

That's a lot of implications. What I'm asking is what kind of criticism was not seen as non-vanilla.

But anyway, here you go. There are many criticisms of the US' failure to learn the lessons of Vietnam in that thread, little condescension and no 'You Americans are a bunch of stupid fatheads' type posts. Yeah some Americans get defensive, but as I said, when you hear enough of the nasty vitriolic criticism, you tend to get defensive of any criticism, even if it isn't of that type.

Which was my point: That Americans are remarkably thin-skinned when it comes to criticism of their own country.

 

[Thanz]

It is not a Lutheran education. It is an education about religions. Kids aren't taught to become religious.

Well, according to the stuff posted previously by Ed, that is not true:

6. (1) The central knowledge area of the subject of Christian studies shall be the Evangelical Lutheran Christianity of the Danish National Church. At the oldest form levels, the instruction shall furthermore comprise foreign religions and other philosophies of life.

Seems quite similar to my education.

I have already addressed the other points, in various ways. What do you want me to do, repeat myself?

Once, coherently, would be nice. But, oh well.

Since you are so familiar with the latter, perhaps you could tell me what it says in §71, §77, and §78?

Ah. Personal Liberty, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Association. Seems quite similar to the protections afforded by the US Bill of Rights. They do not mean that there is NOT an official state religion, or that the Monarch can choose not to belong to it, or that religion is taught in school. All of which differ significantly from the US constitution, which provides for none of those things, and in fact, prevents it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, according to the stuff posted previously by Ed, that is not true:

Seems quite similar to my education.

Where does it say that children must be taught to be religious?

Ah. Personal Liberty, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Association. Seems quite similar to the protections afforded by the US Bill of Rights.

Perhaps. So, it means that you can have whatever religion (or none) you want in Denmark, without consequences.

They do not mean that there is NOT an official state religion

Nobody is saying that there isn't.

or that the Monarch can choose not to belong to it

No, the Regent has to belong to the Lutheran church. That doesn't mean he/she has to believe it, though.

or that religion is taught in school.

Children are not taught to be religious! Do you understand this, yes or no?

All of which differ significantly from the US constitution, which provides for none of those things, and in fact, prevents it.

And yet, we don't have a pledge of allegiance that specifically includes god. We don't have religious references on our currency. We don't swear on the bible in court. Etc, etc.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

That's a lot of implications. What I'm asking is what kind of criticism was not seen as non-vanilla.

It's two actually. And unless I make those two implications, your question makes no sense to me. If you don't feel we shouldn't get so defensive, it makes no sense to me that you would even ask why we do. If you don't feel that most criticism was of the non-nasty sort, then it makes no sense that you would ask the question because the answer would seem obvious.

As for what constitutes 'non-vanilla criticism', it's a very simple distinction. When the criticism is made with out invective or insult or condescension, then it's 'vanilla' and we probably ought not get so defensive about it. I.e. "You Americans ought to abolish the death penalty because.....". When it IS filled with invective, insult, etc. then it's the other kind, which deserves defensiveness. I.e "You Americans are obviously a bunch of barbarians because you have the death penalty, here's a list of reasons why that you are probably too uneducated to understand.....". Both statments make the same point, however the WAY the point is made is pretty obviously different

And as I said, some of us (me for instance) get defensive because we hear the two types in close proximity often enough that even when I hear the first type I am waiting for the other shoe to drop, because far too many times, the second kind has been right behind.

Which was my point: That Americans are remarkably thin-skinned when it comes to criticism of their own country.

And I gave a possible answer. The answer that is true in my case anyway.

 

[Thanz]

Where does it say that children must be taught to be religious?

You can try to split that hair if you like. They are taught all about the Evangelical Lutheran Church. I don't know how you can claim that this doesn't teach them to be religious. It's like saying in science class we teach kids all about science, but don't teach them to be scientific.

Perhaps. So, it means that you can have whatever religion (or none) you want in Denmark, without consequences.

Well, except for having some of your tax dollars fund a church that you don't believe in. I guess you don't consider that a consequence.

No, the Regent has to belong to the Lutheran church. That doesn't mean he/she has to believe it, though.

Seems rather hypocritical to belong to a Church you don't believe in, but whatever floats your Queen's boat, I guess.

Children are not taught to be religious! Do you understand this, yes or no?

I understand you claim that. I disagree with it, on the basis of my experience with religious education and the documents presented. Do you understand that?

And yet, we don't have a pledge of allegiance that specifically includes god. We don't have religious references on our currency. We don't swear on the bible in court. Etc, etc.

I don't think that the Pledge has any official standing - rather, it is part of the whole patriotism thing that Americans really seem to go for. Religious references on currency? Don't know much about it. I think Upchurch provided the background on that one.

Now, no swearing on the Bible? That actually surprises me, especially as you do have a State Church. Is there any oath that must be taken by witnesses in Court? The way it is here (Canada) is that a witness may choose to either swear or to "solemnly affirm" that they will tell the truth. What is the procedure in Denmark?

Lastly, it may be nice to point out these things, but I don't think that you can really get over the hump that you have an official state church, supported by state funds. That alone makes your government more religious than the US gov't. As I said in my previoius (ignored) post, if you want to talk about the varying degrees of religiousity in American vs. Danish culture, knock yourself out. It should be interesting. But please stop trying to show that the US documents show their gov't to be more religious - it is rather silly.

 

[CFLarsen]

You can try to split that hair if you like. They are taught all about the Evangelical Lutheran Church. I don't know how you can claim that this doesn't teach them to be religious. It's like saying in science class we teach kids all about science, but don't teach them to be scientific.

It isn't hair splitting at all. There is a hell of a difference between teaching kids about religion and teaching them to be religious.

If it teaches them to be religious, then why aren't the churches filled with people? Church attendance is only 2-4%.

You have to realize that you are wrong on this one.

Well, except for having some of your tax dollars fund a church that you don't believe in. I guess you don't consider that a consequence.

We can simply refuse to having some of our tax kroner fund a church, by opting out. And remember, you are not made a member by default, that is a choice your parents make.

Seems rather hypocritical to belong to a Church you don't believe in, but whatever floats your Queen's boat, I guess.

Hypocritical or not, that's the way it is.

I understand you claim that. I disagree with it, on the basis of my experience with religious education and the documents presented. Do you understand that?

Do you understand that I have lived here for most of my life? If you don't believe me, ask any Dane here. DD, Kerberos, whoever is here. Danish kids are not taught to be religious.

I don't think that the Pledge has any official standing - rather, it is part of the whole patriotism thing that Americans really seem to go for. Religious references on currency? Don't know much about it. I think Upchurch provided the background on that one.

But the reference is there.

Now, no swearing on the Bible? That actually surprises me, especially as you do have a State Church. Is there any oath that must be taken by witnesses in Court? The way it is here (Canada) is that a witness may choose to either swear or to "solemnly affirm" that they will tell the truth. What is the procedure in Denmark?

There is none. You are not sworn in, because in court, you have to tell the truth, regardless.

Lastly, it may be nice to point out these things, but I don't think that you can really get over the hump that you have an official state church, supported by state funds.

It's not a "hump". The church is supported by those who want to support it. Church support isn't mandatory. Do you understand this, yes or no?

That alone makes your government more religious than the US gov't.

No, it doesn't. The government and the state are two different things here. Our government is not religious, and the state is not either. You are wrong. Not just because you are ignorant of Danish matters, but because you also refuse to educate yourself.

As I said in my previoius (ignored) post, if you want to talk about the varying degrees of religiousity in American vs. Danish culture, knock yourself out.

I didn't ignore it. I specifically said that I had addressed it. Don't blame me for your own laziness.

It should be interesting. But please stop trying to show that the US documents show their gov't to be more religious - it is rather silly.

People can judge for themselves.

 

[Jocko]

Since I have indeed not just visited the US, but also lived there, I think it says more about your argumentation than anything else.

Evidence, please, that you have ever visited the US (let alone lived here). I think too many have given you too much benefit of the doubt. Well, this thread is too much disbelief to suspend, so please provide some proof.

No, I don't. Do you understand it now? Or are you so stupid that you can't understand what I say?

Funny, being called stupid by someone like you doesn't faze me much. But consider yourself reported anyway, just because I'm too "stupid" to know better.

 

[CFLarsen]

Evidence, please, that you have ever visited the US (let alone lived here). I think too many have given you too much benefit of the doubt. Well, this thread is too much disbelief to suspend, so please provide some proof.

I've been to all three TAMs.

Funny, being called stupid by someone like you doesn't faze me much. But consider yourself reported anyway, just because I'm too "stupid" to know better.

 

[Jocko]

I've been to all three TAMs.

That's not proof, that's you telling me you've been here. I don't know who you are, nor do I have any reason to believe you. Your inability to grasp, digest or understand the simplest idioms of English, and your willful disregard for the founding documents of this nation, are strong evidence you have never been here, and certainly never had to live or function here.

I'll repeat it, Claus: I WANT PROOF. Consult dictionary.com if you need a refresher on what that word means.