Passenger killed by air marshall

[Bjorn]

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

Did you plead guilty or not?

 

[Grammatron]

Did you plead guilty or not?

I plead the 5th

 

[luchog]

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?

Tradition derived from the British legal system it was partially modelled on.

Tradition is, in many way, far more powerful than religion (or lack thereof); and will keep many anachronistic customs alive far beyond their necessity/desirability, or indeed memory of their origins or purpose.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Tradition derived from the British legal system it was partially modelled on.

Tradition is, in many way, far more powerful than religion (or lack thereof); and will keep many anachronistic customs alive far beyond their necessity/desirability, or indeed memory of their origins or purpose.

Except that no one swears on the Bible in court any more, and hasn't for quite some time, as far as I can tell. I've never seen it happen, for example.

 

[clarsct]

And people wonder why CFL has 20000+ posts.

Larsen:

Do you NOT see that the VERY same arguments you have leveled against us are being used against you? YOU keep claiming that Denmark is not religious. Yet, we find religious references in your legal documents. Why is that?

You answer, from what I've seen so far, is this: Just ask any Dane. Why, Me, Kerebos, and DD don't think so. You aren't Danish and don't live here, and know nothing about us.


Um.

Sound FAMILIAR?

It is the EXACT reasoning you are criticizing the Americans for using!!!!!!

And yet, when you do it, it is ok, somehow? Get off your damned pedestal! Or I'll see how high and narrow I can build it up before you fall. Upchurch and N/A have built it pretty high and narrow as it stands, but for some reason, you don't see it. Fine.

The fact that you have resorted to insult tells me the quality of your arguments.

 

[Upchurch]

Upchurch and N/A have built it pretty high and narrow as it stands,

Is that like piling it on pretty thick?

 

[clarsct]

Sorry, it's a poem from the Dune series:
Here lies the remains of a god
His fall was not a small one
We but built him a pedestal
A narrow and a tall one.


Larsen's been on his pedestal now for a while, and I noticed that a few folks here were using his own arguments in reverse and backing him into a stance that he, himself tried to refute.

A narrow and tall pedestal, indeed.

I saw a correlation, of sorts. But my mind works in strange ways, too.

 

[CFLarsen]

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

You don't need to, because most Americans already are religious. There's a risk that people will only learn about their own religion, and nothing about other religions. How much have you learned about other religions?

Do you understand that Denmark considers it important to teach children about religion? Do you understand that Denmark doesn't teach children to be religious?

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

Religions in the US? I would have guessed that.

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?

It is highly relevant what religion the President belongs to. Take JFK:

When Sen. John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts ran for president in 1960, he faced a barrage of questions from a predominantly Protestant public like: "How do we know you can separate your Catholic beliefs from your political responsibilities?"
Source

Kerry:

With Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts seeking the White House in 2004, the questions he'll get likely will come from Catholics and sound more like: "What makes you think you can separate your Catholic beliefs from your political responsibilities when it comes to voting on abortion?"
Source

In general:

The close 2004 presidential election produced increased polarization between and within religious communities, according to a new poll conducted by The University of Akron's Bliss Institute of Applied Politics.
...
"Both President Bush and Sen. Kerry benefited from strong support among key religious constituencies," explains Dr. John Green, director of the Bliss Institute. "Yet there was strong polarization not only between different religions as was common in the past, but also within the major religious traditions, a relatively new phenomenon."
Source

72% of our respondents agree that a president should have strong religious beliefs. That would suggest a reluctance to vote for someone who does not. Indeed, in our poll last summer found -- as polls for the past 40-50 years have shown -- that a significant number of people (50%) say that they would not vote for an atheist for president... more than say this about a Muslim or any other religious group.
Source

Do you understand that religion plays a huge role when it comes to elections?

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

Yes. Do you understand that we have religious freedom in Denmark?

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

Yes. Do you understand that I am not saying that the US is a theocracy?

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

No. Denmark was "founded" way before that. The Constitution is from 1953 and builds on the previous Constitution from 1849. Our first "Constitution" was from 1241. Margrethe I formed the Kalmar Union in 1397, where she managed to have the son of her sister's daughter crowned as King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. We count Gorm the Old as our first King of Denmark, who reigned about 958.

The current Constitution can be said to lay down the foundation of the modern Danish society.

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

Well, yes and no:

The North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit asking the state to rule that the term "Holy Scriptures" refers not just to the Bible but to other sacred texts.

The suit stems from a Superior Court judge's decision not to allow oaths taken on the Quran, the Muslim holy book. State law specifies that those testifying in court lay a hand on "Holy Scriptures."
...
North Carolina General Statutes allow people of no religious faith to affirm that their testimony is truthful. But the ACLU argues that this option leaves out people who have a faith other than Christian and want to use their faith's religious text.
Source

If you are a Muslim, you must either swear on the Bible, or take a non-religious oath:

The controversy began in Greensboro when a mosque tried to donate copies of the Quran to local courthouses. Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright, who sets policy for Guilford County's nine Superior Court courtrooms, ruled that an oath on the Quran is not lawful under state law.
...
But Charles Haynes, a scholar at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va., said the affirmation oath was designed for people of no faith, not for people of faiths other than Christianity.

"It gives Muslims and Jews the message, 'You are a lesser citizen than those who put their hand on the Bible,' " he said. "Nobody wants to be made to feel an outsider."
Source

Do you still want to argue that there is no religion in American courtrooms?

 

[CFLarsen]

Except that no one swears on the Bible in court any more, and hasn't for quite some time, as far as I can tell.

Wrong.

 

[CFLarsen]

clarsct,

You forget that I have also lived in the US. I visit regularly. While you haven't visited Denmark even once. Yet, this is ignored or downplayed. My knowledge of America is deemed worthless, because I am not American. My knowledge of Denmark is deemed worthless, because I am not American.

That kinda pisses me off.

 

[LW]

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

In addition, the Danish flag is not only a Christian flag, but a crusader flag and the legend tells that it fell from the heaven during a battle against pagan Estonians who had refused the Danish king's generous offer to take babtism and start paying taxes.

And speaking of money and religion, if you go the home site of Danmarks Nationalbank and look at the pictures of notes and coins, you may notice the every single Danish coin has at least one Christian cross in it (most have three) and that the artwork of the reverse side of all banknotes is taken from Medieval Christian church reliefs.

 

[Grammatron]

You don't need to, because most Americans already are religious.

How so?

There's a risk that people will only learn about their own religion, and nothing about other religions. How much have you learned about other religions?

The process I like to call "socializing."

Do you understand that Denmark considers it important to teach children about religion? Do you understand that Denmark doesn't teach children to be religious?

So it's "All religions are good...DON'T BE RELIGIOUS!" BTW, your tax dollars go to state-church...unless you opt out...but it's not at all religious!!! RAWR

It is highly relevant what religion the President belongs to. Take JFK:

Kerry:

In general:

Do you understand that religion plays a huge role when it comes to elections?

Yes, in that we want to know just how much the presidential candidate understand the concept of separation of church and state.

Yes. Do you understand that I am not saying that the US is a theocracy?

No, no just religious because of few paintings and phrases but a state church is somehow secular.

No. Denmark was "founded" way before that. The Constitution is from 1953 and builds on the previous Constitution from 1849. Our first "Constitution" was from 1241. Margrethe I formed the Kalmar Union in 1397, where she managed to have the son of her sister's daughter crowned as King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. We count Gorm the Old as our first King of Denmark, who reigned about 958.

The current Constitution can be said to lay down the foundation of the modern Danish society.

So the modern Danish society like a state church and a monarchy.

Fascinating.

 

[Grammatron]

Wrong.

Actually he's quite right.

When was the last time you were in a real US court room?

PS: This is the part where you show me evidence that someone has to swear on a bible before their testimony.

I'll be over here waiting.

 

[CFLarsen]

Tradition derived from the British legal system it was partially modelled on.

Tradition is, in many way, far more powerful than religion (or lack thereof); and will keep many anachronistic customs alive far beyond their necessity/desirability, or indeed memory of their origins or purpose.

But the pledge was changed long after the Revolution. That goes for the currency as well.

 

[CFLarsen]

In addition, the Danish flag is not only a Christian flag, but a crusader flag and the legend tells that it fell from the heaven during a battle against pagan Estonians who had refused the Danish king's generous offer to take babtism and start paying taxes.

The stuff of legend, yes. The history of the Danish flag is somewhat more prosaic. It is perhaps one of the oldest flags in the world, and certainly the one that has been in use the longest. Most likely, it was a crusader flag.

It probably stems from King Erik 7 of Pommern, and was the city of Lübeck's coat of arms, which, in turn, was formed as a protest against the German-Roman Emperor's flag that was white with a red cross. Erik tried to secure the support of various lords, but in vain.

Politics, war and power.

And speaking of money and religion, if you go the home site of Danmarks Nationalbank and look at the pictures of notes and coins, you may notice the every single Danish coin has at least one Christian cross in it (most have three) and that the artwork of the reverse side of all banknotes is taken from Medieval Christian church reliefs.

But wait:

The banknote series is of a contemporary design that is nonetheless firmly rooted in Danish banknote tradition. This is to ensure that the holder will instantly recognise the notes as banknotes. True to tradition, the portrait on the face of each banknote is an important element. The key motifs on the face of the banknotes are portraits of individuals who have made a noteworthy contribution to Danish art or science. The motifs on the reverse of the banknotes are inspired by Romanesque stone reliefs from Danish churches.

None of the reliefs are religious in nature. The 50 Kr depicts a mythical man-horse warrior. The 100 Kr shows a mythical bird. The 200 Kr is a heraldic lion. The 500 Kr is a warrior fighting a mythical snake-like beast. The 1000 Kr shows a battle scene.

There are no Christian crosses on the coins. There are hearts (from our coat of arms) and viking patterns.

There is one coin worth mentioning: A commemorative coin to celebrate the 1,000th anniversary of the minting of the coin of Svend Tveskæg (Sweyn Forkbeard).

The motif on the reverse is a Medieval crown with a cross. It is typical of the Danish coins issued in the late Middle Ages, when coins often bore symbols of the King and the Church.

It always helps to get the full, correct story.

 

[CFLarsen]

When was the last time you were in a real US court room?

Ah, that old ruse. Coincidentally, I just watched the program in the "Evolution" series last night, where Ken Ham instructs his audience to respond to an Evolutionist pointing to the millions of years old evidence with the quip "Were you there?". This is Ken Ham's idea of an effective rebuttal: If you haven't experienced it yourself, you can't prove it.

Same technique from you.

Tell me something, how do you know that Denmark exists? You've never been there, so you can't base any arguments on your knowledge of the country.

PS: This is the part where you show me evidence that someone has to swear on a bible before their testimony.

I'll be over here waiting.

I've already explained this in my post to Wildcat. #949.

 

[CFLarsen]

How so?

Religion plays an important role in the personal lives of most Americans. The number of people saying religion is very important to them has gradually increased over the past two decades, after declining sharply between the mid-1960s and late 1970s. Currently, nearly two-thirds of Americans (64%) call religion very important. Fully nine-in-ten pray at least once a week and the overwhelming majority of respondents described God in very personal terms.
...
When it comes to practicing their faith, Americans show fairly high rates of observance. Six-in-ten attend religious services -- not including weddings and funerals -- at least once a month, while 43% attend at least weekly.
...
Nearly four-in-ten (38%) attend prayer group meetings or Bible or scripture study groups at least sometimes. Roughly one-third participate in religious education programs, and a similar proportion do community volunteer work through their place of worship. Nearly as many (28%) work with children or youth at their place of worship.
Source

Do you admit that the vast majority of Americans consider themselves religious?

The process I like to call "socializing."

Perhaps. But isn't such an important issue worth devoting time to in class? You don't think so. I do.

So it's "All religions are good...DON'T BE RELIGIOUS!" BTW, your tax dollars go to state-church...unless you opt out...but it's not at all religious!!! RAWR

No, no, no. Kids are not taught anything about the goodness of religions, nor are they told not to be religious. They are learning about religions, but they are not taught to be religious.

I have already explained that you become a member by virtue of your parents. You don't automatically become a member at birth.

Why do you ignore this? Is it because it destroys your argument, or is it because you simply want to disagree?

Yes, in that we want to know just how much the presidential candidate understand the concept of separation of church and state.

Far from it. Read the links and texts I provided. Educate yourself about your own history.

No, no just religious because of few paintings and phrases but a state church is somehow secular.

Good. You have finally admitted that I do not claim that the US is a theocracy.

So the modern Danish society like a state church and a monarchy. Fascinating.

Yes, it is. When you have as long a history as we do, you will understand the reasoning behind it.

 

[Grammatron]

Ah, that old ruse. Coincidentally, I just watched the program in the "Evolution" series last night, where Ken Ham instructs his audience to respond to an Evolutionist pointing to the millions of years old evidence with the quip "Were you there?". This is Ken Ham's idea of an effective rebuttal: If you haven't experienced it yourself, you can't prove it.

Same technique from you.

Feel free to ridicule yourself for doing that

You forget that I have also lived in the US. I visit regularly. While you haven't visited Denmark even once.

But, I guess when you do it it's OK and it is something completely different.

Tell me something, how do you know that Denmark exists? You've never been there, so you can't base any arguments on your knowledge of the country.

Well I start by not making ridicules claims about Denmark that can't be verified.

I've already explained this in my post to Wildcat. #949.

It says you don't have to swear on the bible.

 

[Grammatron]

Do you admit that the vast majority of Americans consider themselves religious?

Based on that information, they seem to.

Perhaps. But isn't such an important issue worth devoting time to in class? You don't think so. I do.

No I do not.

I have already explained that you become a member by virtue of your parents. You don't automatically become a member at birth.

Why do you ignore this? Is it because it destroys your argument, or is it because you simply want to disagree?

Because government money goes to the one true church. You are simply justifying it as ok, and what's worse trying to make it seems as not religious aspect of your government

Far from it. Read the links and texts I provided. Educate yourself about your own history.

I have and your conclusions are wrong. Many people have said that but you seem to have ignored them.

Good. You have finally admitted that I do not claim that the US is a theocracy.

Good, I never made that claim.

Yes, it is. When you have as long a history as we do, you will understand the reasoning behind it.

I am sure there's a wonderful reason why your country has a one true church funded by taxes, there always is.