Passenger killed by air marshall

[CFLarsen]

Here's a little tip: Opinion is not evidence.

Hey, you just admitted that you can't prove that I don't provide evidence of my claims.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, it is. Nobody is questioning this.

But, do we see the same religious references as we do in the US?

No. We. Do. Not.

Actually, I would say the Denmark Constitution religious reference is much stronger and concretely written, but please, explain what you mean.

 

[CFLarsen]

Wow. I never realised the Danes were so knee-jerk defensive about how they did things.

I don't think we are. I am pointing out that there are other ways of doing things than the American way.

I trust that you are fine with that?

 

[Grammatron]

Hey, you just admitted that you can't prove that I don't provide evidence of my claims.

You just proved that you don't provide evidence.

 

[CFLarsen]

Not other religions until the upper years. Again, I think that you are splitting hairs here.

No, no, no. Not until the upper years. Danish children are not educated to become Christians, regardless of how far they have gotten in their education.

As I read that, church attendance has been somewhat constant since the 18th century (2.5 million being about half of Denmark's population) with perhaps more participation from those who do go. And about 5% are your frequent prayers - regular attendants. Not 2 - 4% as indicated. Roughly 50% at some point (likely Christmas and Easter) with 5% attending regularly.

You have read it wrong. It clearly says that in the beginning of the 18th century, about half the population attended church. There is no reference to church attendance before that time.

Do you admit this, yes or no?

You have absolutely no reason to claim that participation is larger than that.

Do you admit this, yes or no?

I can accept that you do it that way, I am just surprised that there is no formal remider process (like forcing a promise/taking an oath) to remind the witness and impress the importance of telling the truth upon them.

Why would there be? We don't require people to admit to a belief in the Bible, if they have to appear in a court of law. Why is it necessary for Americans to swear on the Bible, if the American society isn't based on religious tenets?

Ah yes, the lovely CFLarsen debate rules. I have a problem with the way that you phrase the question. I set out what my understanding was. My understanding is that the State must support the Church, constitutionally speaking. And as such, the State does support the Church from general revenue - either directly or indirectly. Unless you can opt out totally from taxes, then church support is mandatory - in that some portion of your regular tax dollars goes to the church. So, my understanding is that some level of Church support is mandatory, as set out in this paragraph. Which would make my answer to your question a qualified no.

Then, you are factually wrong. Church support is not mandatory. Bitch and moan all you like, you are wrong.

What is the distinction that you are making between the State and the Government? I don't understand what you are saying, and your last sentenct must be a typo. Our government, and neither is our government? Was one of those supposed to be State?

I'm sorry, but I can't be more clear: The Danish government is not the Danish state. I urge you to educate yourself on these matters, before you make an utter fool of yourself.

Well, actually believing I'm wrong for one thing.

So, what will that take? Be precise.

I'm not. I'm blaming you for yours. I am saying that you did not respond to that post. If I have missed your response, point it out to me. I went to the trouble of specifically identifying the post that I think you ignored, at least do me the courtesy of pointing to your response (if it exists).

Again, don't blame me for your laziness.

Uh, no, I guess. How am I supposed to answer that in advance? Until I see what they say, I don't know what I am admitting to being wrong about, if anything.

It's very easy to answer: If they agree with me, then will you admit that you are wrong? In other words, will you take their word for it?

If not, what will it take for you to admit you are wrong?

If you cannot answer this with a straight answer, then you are not a skeptic.

 

[Grammatron]

Yes, it is. Nobody is questioning this.

I dunno, some dude here is yelling at people over it. Here's a quote from him

The Danish government is not religious. Get it through your thick skull.

Sheeesh.........

Perhaps you need to show him your evidence so he will admit he's wrong.

 

[CFLarsen]

You just proved that you don't provide evidence.

You claim that I don't show evidence of my claim.

You refuse to show your evidence.

And then, you claim that this is evidence that I don't show evidence of my claims.

 

[Grammatron]

You claim that I don't show evidence of my claim.

You refuse to show your evidence.

I showed evidence, it's on the last page, look it up.

And then, you claim that this is evidence that I don't show evidence of my claims.

Not at all; I claim that your claim of my claim is invalid because the claim's claim is with no context and thus it's not a claim about a claim one should be making.

Quite simple really.

 

[Upchurch]

Does a religious reference in a official government document make that government religious?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Prove it.

Well, there is this little thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38047&page=3

. . . where there seems to be some difficulty in having you answer some questions -- the ones about Switzerland, for example.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I don't think we are. I am pointing out that there are other ways of doing things than the American way.

I trust that you are fine with that?

Why would me being fine with that matter? Sounds a bit defensive.


Or perhaps calling people defensive when they disagree with your position is just a tactic some people use in lieu of actually responding. That's possible, too, I suppose.

 

[Jocko]

Does a religious reference in a official government document make that government religious?

Of course it does.

If it's the USA.

 

[DavidJames]

Does a religious reference in a official government document make that government religious?

Is it possible to move beyond symbolism. I've listed examples of where the U.S. govt. provides special recognition of religion and one example where our president stated the religious views of a potential Supreme Court candidate (Harriet Meyers) were important to know. Can anyone provide similar examples in Denmark?

 

[Upchurch]

Claus, just so we're on the same page:

Do you understand that we, as a country, do not teach our citizens either about religion or to be religious?

Do you understand that religions must be "approved" because otherwise, they won't enjoy tax exempt status?

Do you understand that it is irrelevant what religion the President belongs to and, indeed, it is against our constitution to insist that he belong to a religion at all?

Do you understand that we have religious freedom in the US?

Do you understand that I am not saying that the Denmark is a theocracy?

Is Denmark's Constitution not one of its founding documents?

 

[Jocko]

Is it possible to move beyond symbolism. I've listed examples of where the U.S. govt. provides special recognition of religion and one example where our president stated the religious views of a potential Supreme Court candidate (Harriet Meyers) were important to know. Can anyone provide similar examples in Denmark?

Well, apart from naming evangelican lutheranism as the official religion, the Danish constitution also clearly states that the royal family is obliged to belong to that religion.

So yes, I rather think that's a more egregious example than the ones you named.

 

[WildCat]

Why would there be? We don't require people to admit to a belief in the Bible, if they have to appear in a court of law. Why is it necessary for Americans to swear on the Bible, if the American society isn't based on religious tenets?

You're confusing Hollywood movies w/ reality. I've never seen this happen in a real court room, though my only experience is traffic court and a few jury duty appearances.

 

[WildCat]

Well, apart from naming evangelican lutheranism as the official religion, the Danish constitution also clearly states that the royal family is obliged to belong to that religion.

Also, the Supreme Commander of the Danish Defense forces is the Queen, who of course is unelected and completely unaccountable.

 

[Grammatron]

You're confusing Hollywood movies w/ reality. I've never seen this happen in a real court room, though my only experience is traffic court and a few jury duty appearances.

You can select to take an out with out any mention of god, bible, etc. I know from personal experience with the real court.

One thing, though, you have to inform your lawyer who will inform the court so they know which oath to ask you to take.

 

[Thanz]

You have read it wrong. It clearly says that in the beginning of the 18th century, about half the population attended church. There is no reference to church attendance before that time.

Do you admit this, yes or no?

I didn't say that it did reference church attendance before that time. I was making a comparison between that time and now, on the basis of the paragraph. That paragraph says about half attended once or twice a year. It goes on to say that about 2.5 million now go to church. Again, about half. So, I said that it has remained basically constant.

You have absolutely no reason to claim that participation is larger than that.

Do you admit this, yes or no?

Larger than what? Where did I say participation was larger than in that paragraph? I said that it was larger than what you quoted previously (2-4%), on the basis of your source for regular church attendance. It is even higher if we count the Christmas-and-Easter crowd.

Why would there be? We don't require people to admit to a belief in the Bible, if they have to appear in a court of law. Why is it necessary for Americans to swear on the Bible, if the American society isn't based on religious tenets?

I son't know how it works in the US, but I specifically said that in Canada you have the choice to swear on the bible (if you believe) or solemnly affirm (if you don't believe), and both constitute a promise to tell the truth. In part, it is there to make sure the witness knows of this obligation. What surprises me about Denmark is that they don't seem to have this reminder to tell the truth and press the importance of that in court - and that it is backed up by jail time.

Then, you are factually wrong. Church support is not mandatory. Bitch and moan all you like, you are wrong.

You still haven't answered my points, so let's break it down Claus style:

Does the official state church receive any money from the general money fund of the government? Yes or no, please.

Does the official state church receive any benefits from the government that indirectly costs the taxpayers money (like land grants or something)? Yes or no, please.

If everyone chose to "opt out" as you say they can, does your constitution not require the state to support the church? Yes or no, please.

I'm sorry, but I can't be more clear: The Danish government is not the Danish state. I urge you to educate yourself on these matters, before you make an utter fool of yourself.

Restating it doesn't help me. Who runs the Danish state? Is it not the Government that runs the Danish state? What is the distinction you are drawing here, and more importantly, what is the point of the distinction?

So, what will that take? Be precise.

The usual. Convincing arguments, combined with credible evidence.

Again, don't blame me for your laziness.

I am not being lazy. You simply did not respond to that post. If you are insisting that you did, point it out to me. Otherwise, it is you who are being lazy - and lying, to boot.

It's very easy to answer: If they agree with me, then will you admit that you are wrong? In other words, will you take their word for it?

If not, what will it take for you to admit you are wrong?

If you cannot answer this with a straight answer, then you are not a skeptic.

Let me get this straight: You are saying that if I cannot prejudge evidence or opinions, of an unknown quality, from unknown persons, at some unknown point in time, I am not a skeptic. Really? Waiting for the actual evidence and argument to be presented before rendering an opinion on it means I am not a skeptic? It is a topsy-turvy world you live in, Mr. Larsen.

 

[DavidJames]

Well, apart from naming evangelican lutheranism as the official religion, the Danish constitution also clearly states that the royal family is obliged to belong to that religion.

So yes, I rather think that's a more egregious example than the ones you named.

Royal family? Maybe you or someone can explain the specific impact on anyone (other then the royal family) in Denmark?