Passenger killed by air marshall

[CFLarsen]

Yet you made a huge deal out of nothing.

It's not "nothing". It's plain wrong to insist that you have to experience something to know about it. It's a true woo-argument.

Heck no.

This is evidence that you are not interested in finding the truth. It's a fact that non-Christian believers are disriminated against.

Doesn't change the fact that a majority wants a state-supported church of one true religion. Do you understand that?

You are wrong. A majority of Danes do not think there is one true religion:

If there is one true religion

In Denmark says 10% yes, 67% says "truths in many religions", 16% says no truth, 6% doesn't know.
Source: Kristeligt Dagblad & Berlingske 20.04.00 Gallups Millennium-survey, 58.851 responses from 60 countries.

Do you question their conclusion? Do you have counter-evidence to the source I provided?

It's not a question of counter-evidence, it's a question of understanding the evidence. I found the wording in Danish, and it says something entirely different:

63% siger ja til, at folkekirken fortsat skal have statsstøtte.
"63% says Yes to the Church should receive public funds in the future."
Source: Kristeligt Dagblad 4.06.99

That's a long way from what you claim: That people want "one true" religion. They say nothing about that. The evidence speaks against it.

Interpret "...63 percent of citizens feel that the Evangelical Lutheran Church should have a special place in the Constitution..." in another way then.

Interpret: There is nothing about the "one true" church.

 

[Grammatron]

It's not "nothing". It's plain wrong to insist that you have to experience something to know about it. It's a true woo-argument.

It's good then that I did not insist upon it.

This is evidence that you are not interested in finding the truth. It's a fact that non-Christian believers are disriminated against.

How?

You are wrong. A majority of Danes do not think there is one true religion:

So they want government to pay for the church because they think Denmark has too much land and money?

It's not a question of counter-evidence, it's a question of understanding the evidence. I found the wording in Danish, and it says something entirely different:

How's that entirely different?

That's a long way from what you claim: That people want "one true" religion. They say nothing about that. The evidence speaks against it.

Let's review: Majority of people want Danish constitution to provide special and unique privilages to ONE religion and ONE religion only. Hmm.

Interpret: There is nothing about the "one true" church.

Hmm.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's good then that I did not insist upon it.

Sure you did:

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.

There you go. You insisted on a true woo-argument.

How?

Shown in #949:

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.

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."

That's discrimination of non-Christian believers.

So they want government to pay for the church because they think Denmark has too much land and money?

I don't know why.

How's that entirely different?
...
Let's review: Majority of people want Danish constitution to provide special and unique privilages to ONE religion and ONE religion only. Hmm.

Ah, so you do acknowledge that you misrepresented the data: They do not talk about "one true" religion.

Hmm.

Hmm indeed.

 

[Grammatron]

Sure you did:



There you go. You insisted on a true woo-argument.

It was a question. Perhaps it's a language barrier, but I asked if you were in the courtroom in the hopes you had some personal experience you wanted to share with us. Further, I inquired if you had any other evidence. Your failure to comprehend that is no fault of mine.

Shown in #949:

That's discrimination of non-Christian believers.

Are christians required to swear on the bible? Are non-christians required to swear on the bible?

I don't know why.

Ah, so you do acknowledge that you misrepresented the data: They do not talk about "one true" religion.

No just ONE religion that they more than likely view as a true one. Other than that you are right.

Hmm indeed.

Quite so.

 

[CFLarsen]

It was a question. Perhaps it's a language barrier, but I asked if you were in the courtroom in the hopes you had some personal experience you wanted to share with us. Further, I inquired if you had any other evidence. Your failure to comprehend that is no fault of mine.

Weak.

Are christians required to swear on the bible?

That has been resolved before. No.

Are non-christians required to swear on the bible?

Again, resolved. No.

Can Muslims swear on the Koran?

No just ONE religion that they more than likely view as a true one. Other than that you are right.

I see you can't stop misrepresenting the facts. Only 10% of Danes believe that there is one true religion. Do you acknowledge this?

 

[Grammatron]

Weak.

And yet factual.

That has been resolved before. No.

Again, resolved. No.

So....where's the discrimantion?

Can Muslims swear on the Koran?

Nop.

I see you can't stop misrepresenting the facts. Only 10% of Danes believe that there is one true religion. Do you acknowledge this?

Evidence?

 

[CFLarsen]

So....where's the discrimantion?
...
Nop.

There you go: Christians can swear on their religious text. Muslims can't. Religious discrimination.

Evidence?

Feigning ignorance is not a good way of projecting competence.

#981:

If there is one true religion

In Denmark says 10% yes, 67% says "truths in many religions", 16% says no truth, 6% doesn't know.
Source: Kristeligt Dagblad & Berlingske 20.04.00 Gallups Millennium-survey, 58.851 responses from 60 countries.

 

[Grammatron]

There you go: Christians can swear on their religious text. Muslims can't. Religious discrimination.

Nop.

Feigning ignorance is not a good way of projecting competence.

#981:

Truth seem to stop when it comes to government tax money.

 

[CFLarsen]

Nop.

Why not?

Truth seem to stop when it comes to government tax money.

The issue is how many Danes think there is one true religion. How many is that?

 

[Grammatron]

Why not?

Their choice to opt-out.

The issue is how many Danes think there is one true religion. How many is that?

The number that support state-funding over one church.

 

[luchog]

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.

No, though they may still do so in some jurisdictions. The phrase "so help me God" is still included in the swearing-in for jurors and witnesses; however. But again, it's not affirmation of a state support for religion, but merely a traditional ritual; and few institutions are more fond of tradition and ritual than the legal profession.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, though they may still do so in some jurisdictions. The phrase "so help me God" is still included in the swearing-in for jurors and witnesses; however. But again, it's not affirmation of a state support for religion, but merely a traditional ritual; and few institutions are more fond of tradition and ritual than the legal profession.

God isn't a religious reference?

Does war mean peace?

 

[CFLarsen]

Their choice to opt-out.

They don't have the same possibilities as Christians. Ergo, religious discrimination.

The number that support state-funding over one church.

I asked you how many Danes think there is one true religion. How many is that? Percentagewise, thanks.

 

[Upchurch]

(groan)

Listen up, OK? I know I've said this so many times, but obviously, it hasn't sunk in yet. So, I'll give it yet another shot:

In Denmark, the government is not the state. The state is not the government.

We have a state with a constitution.

We have a government, comprised of those political parties that can muster a majority in the Parliament (or form a minority government).

Do you understand now? The government does not align itself with a specific religion.

Sorry. Could you please point me to the document that defines your government, then? In my country, it is our Constitution that defines how our government is set up and what it can and cannot do. What does that for your government, if not your constitution?

That is true. Which means that the monarchy is set down in the constitution, but that the Regent doesn't hold power over us. The Queen can't decide anything. She can't throw people in jail. She can't make laws of her own.

The only function she has is to receive dignitaries, go on ceremonial trips, cut the ribbons at major construction works and sign all laws put in front of her.

What definition of "monarchy" are you using? I'd ask more in depth questions, but I don't yet know what legal document defines your government.

For obvious reasons, both historically and practical. It is by far the biggest religion, and has been since the Reformation. It does not mean that Denmark is governed by religion. It does not mean that Denmark is a theocracy. It does not mean that we have all sorts of religious influences in our everyday life, government or not.

Nor did I say it was any of those things. I'm just trying to understand how you define the religious/secular government spectrum.

 

[Upchurch]

You will have to rephrase it to correct the false premises.

Actually, stictly speaking it is a hypothetical quesiton that does not mention any specific country. With that in mind, will you please answer the generic no-particular-countri-in-mind question:

Would you consider a government that aligns itself and supports a specific religion to the point that it's executive leader must be a member of that religion to be more or less religious than a government that broadly acknowledges that its constituants are religious but prohibits any one religion from having undo preferance in that government?

 

[Mycroft]

Sorry. Could you please point me to the document that defines your government, then? In my country, it is our Constitution that defines how our government is set up and what it can and cannot do. What does that for your government, if not your constitution?

Claus is dishonestly using two different definitions of "Government."

The same reasoning applied to the United States would be making a distinction between "government" meaning the system described in the Constitution consisting of the legislative, executive and judicial branches, versus the "government" meaning the Bush administration.

So because where he comes from the word "government" means the coalition of elected parties that form their current administration, he can “truthfully” claim that his “government” has no ties to their state church, though if he were honest he would acknowledge that when you, Jocko, Grammatron and others say “government” they mean the system described in the Denmark constitution, and not only the handful of people in power at the moment.

 

[CFLarsen]

Sorry. Could you please point me to the document that defines your government, then? In my country, it is our Constitution that defines how our government is set up and what it can and cannot do. What does that for your government, if not your constitution?

What definition of "monarchy" are you using? I'd ask more in depth questions, but I don't yet know what legal document defines your government.

Nor did I say it was any of those things. I'm just trying to understand how you define the religious/secular government spectrum.

Read all about the Danish political system here.

(Click on "English")

Actually, stictly speaking it is a hypothetical quesiton that does not mention any specific country. With that in mind, will you please answer the generic no-particular-countri-in-mind question:

Would you consider a government that aligns itself and supports a specific religion to the point that it's executive leader must be a member of that religion to be more or less religious than a government that broadly acknowledges that its constituants are religious but prohibits any one religion from having undo preferance in that government?

I can't answer the question based only on that. Like I said, we would need to know how things are implemented.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Since this conversation has gone through so many digressions, tangents, side-tracks, etc, I think it would be beneficial for all parties concerned to restate their positions. At the very least, it would help those of us who are non (or marginal) participants in this conversation.

So Claus, what exactly are you trying to say about the US government or the US in general.

Upchurch, Thanz, Gram, et. al, what are you trying to say about the Danish government or Denmark in general.

(you can't tell the players without a scorecard sometimes )

 

[CFLarsen]

So Claus, what exactly are you trying to say about the US government or the US in general.

I have pointed out that there are a multitude of religious references wrt the US government.

 

[Grammatron]

I have pointed out that there are a multitude of religious references wrt the US government.

Which are there for historical reason and not religious reasons.