Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Passenger killed by air marshall
- Thread starter Jas
- Start date
-
- Tags
- air marshal passenger
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
But they are there. That is indisputable.
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 7,503
Okay, and are you saying that there is any significance to that fact, byeond the fact itself? You have already denied that you claim this makes the US a theocracy, this I know. But is there any significance to this fact that you ARE claiming?
Of course there is a huge significance.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that religion permeates US society, given the high religiosity of Americans. Religious references in the court rooms, the currency, the pledge, the Declaration of Independence, a founding document (even though some claim it all of a sudden isn't), and so on. Everywhere.
This insistence that "church and state" - in this case, religion and government - are separated in the US is puzzling and, yes, disturbing. Because it is a false claim, and as skeptics, you should be the first to realize when you've developed a blind eye.
Be it intelligently designed or not.
Ok,
Larsen: State vs. Government
How do you define these terms?
Question 2: What section of the US did you live in? Yes, there is a point to this question. A general region(such as Northeast) or a state(such as North Carolina) will do. I wouldn't ask street addresses.
Question 3: Would you consider Denmark (State? Government?) more or less religious than its counterpart the US?
Question 4: Do you understand the Seperation of Church and State(Government? depending on your definition.) section of our Constitution?
Larsen: State vs. Government
How do you define these terms?
Question 2: What section of the US did you live in? Yes, there is a point to this question. A general region(such as Northeast) or a state(such as North Carolina) will do. I wouldn't ask street addresses.
Question 3: Would you consider Denmark (State? Government?) more or less religious than its counterpart the US?
Question 4: Do you understand the Seperation of Church and State(Government? depending on your definition.) section of our Constitution?
The State of Denmark is the whole shebang. The land, the people, the infrastructure, etc.
The government of Denmark is the part of the elected Parliament (and municipalities (there's a middle layer, but it's just been decided to remove it and make the municipalities bigger instead)) that makes the laws.
New York City.
Definitely a lot less religious, on all levels.
Yes.
I see. This clarifies a bit, I hope, anyway.
We think of State and Government to mean the same thing. This includes the bodies that make, pass, uphold, and interpret the laws, as well as the laws themselves. The Constitution is a State Document, meaning it is an offical Governmental guideline. I hope this clears up a bit.
Are you basing your view of US religious activities based on what you saw in NYC?
And for the last section, I would like you to clarify how the Danish Government(we'll keep using 'government' to avoid any miscommunications, if that's ok with you.), with its provisions for an Official Government Church in its Constitution(they DO exist, in black and white), is less religious than the US Government, which specifically deliniates in its own Constitution that the Government shall pass NO laws regarding religion. A complete seperation of Church and Government.
Not to say a President or Congressman cannot be religious, mind you, but that they have no power to enforce that religious belief on the rest of the populous. However much they may wish to.
If you could clarify a bit, I would appreciate it. I'm afraid I'm not making the connection.
We think of State and Government to mean the same thing. This includes the bodies that make, pass, uphold, and interpret the laws, as well as the laws themselves. The Constitution is a State Document, meaning it is an offical Governmental guideline. I hope this clears up a bit.
Are you basing your view of US religious activities based on what you saw in NYC?
And for the last section, I would like you to clarify how the Danish Government(we'll keep using 'government' to avoid any miscommunications, if that's ok with you.), with its provisions for an Official Government Church in its Constitution(they DO exist, in black and white), is less religious than the US Government, which specifically deliniates in its own Constitution that the Government shall pass NO laws regarding religion. A complete seperation of Church and Government.
Not to say a President or Congressman cannot be religious, mind you, but that they have no power to enforce that religious belief on the rest of the populous. However much they may wish to.
If you could clarify a bit, I would appreciate it. I'm afraid I'm not making the connection.
Far from. I read a lot about the US, both before, while I was there, and after. You could say that I have the advantage of seeing America with fresh eyes.
Yet, you have a legal precedence that favors one religion over another, as described in my earlier posts. Can you clarify that?
I already explained it: We don't see expressions of government-backed religious sentiments. I have absolutely no idea what faith the ministers have. I think there are a few Muslims among the members of Parliament. Nobody cares. It simply isn't an issue here what faith the government has.
There would be an uproar if they even tried to impose religious symbols in public life.
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 7,503
Of course there is a huge significance.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that religion permeates US society, given the high religiosity of Americans. Religious references in the court rooms, the currency, the pledge, the Declaration of Independence, a founding document (even though some claim it all of a sudden isn't), and so on. Everywhere.
This insistence that "church and state" - in this case, religion and government - are separated in the US is puzzling and, yes, disturbing. Because it is a false claim, and as skeptics, you should be the first to realize when you've developed a blind eye.
Be it intelligently designed or not.
Well, here's the thing. I don't think anyone would deny that the high degre of religiousity of Americans affects American politics. After all, I don't think Europeans made that "Jesusland" map that became so popular after the last presidential election. Nor would anyone that deny that some politicians (Especially in certain parts of the country, as like many things, religiousity really varies by region in this US) have to pander shamelessly to the religious in order to get elected.
However, and this is where I am still a little fuzzy on your claim, it does not mean religion has an official role in the government. If you aren't claiming that it does, then no harm, no foul, because I don't think you are claiming anything that most people wouldn't agree with. That is not to say that it has no influence, but when there are as many religious people as there are in this country, given that we are a democratic country I don't see how that can be helped, short of religion becoming less popular or some sort of armed atheist coup (which I doubt you are suggesting
).Where it does intrude into official life, it intrudes in fairly insignificant ways. One is still legally obligated to tell the truth in court whether one swears on a bible or not, and the decisions made int he supreme court would likely be the same with or without a picture of Moses with the ten commandments on the portico. And even some of those things are relics of our history. For example I sincerely doubt that if the Supreme Court building were being built TODAY, that the 10 Commandmets would be there, not without a knock down fight at the very least.
So in short, yes religion influences American politics, but not in any official capacity.
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
Ijust hopped by after a couple of days away to confirm that Claus had failed to answer my post regarding the Democracy thread and failed to even acknowledge that he is avoiding it, and to point it out once again.
Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays / Have a nice winter break / Whatever, all.
Stay safe.
Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays / Have a nice winter break / Whatever, all.
Stay safe.
We can always discuss to what degree it influences society, but when the courts uphold that you can only swear on one kind of religious text (the Bible), then religion - one particular religion, even - becomes an official part of society. When the Federal Reserve issues currency with religious text on it, then religion becomes an official part of society.
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
Hmm. Tough question. There might be a few unanswered questions oput there. Maybe. I'm just saying it's a possibility. If only there were some easy link to check.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38047&page=3
I have CFLarsen on ignore, but I can see his comments when someone else quotes them.
I can say that the reason that I don't read Skeptic Report is because of his behavior here. He has no reputation with me. I have never seen from him an ability to create and defend a rational argument. Instead, all I see is a bunch of "gotcha" games based on tiny little details, acting (or maybe actually being?) extraordinarily obtuse, ignoring evidence that contradicts what he says, and finally just resorting to insults. From what I see on this board, his abilities with critical thinking and logic are far below that of the average person's, not above it. That is enough to turn me away, and not bother reading anything he has a significant part of.
Claus has lost me as a potential reader of Skeptic Report.
That's OK. There are plenty left.
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
Nothing new, I see.
Upchurch:
I wanted to say something a few days back, but ran out of time. Your posts in this thread have been models of restraint and have been almost uniformly well crafted. Unlike me, you manage to remain patient and are much more polite.
Your task in this case was Herculean, but I cannot give that description to your work. I don't think this thread can qualify as "Herculean," as Hercules actually accomplished things. That is not to take anything away from your effort -- I think the work performed would have earned the title, if anything could. However, as the saying goes, "Hercules never met Claus."
You have been tasked with not only cleaning the Augean Stables, but also house-training the Augean horse, who is not only incontinent, but has a fondness for Mexican food that cannot be denied.
So your task here is more in line sith Sisyphus. In honor of that and your previous title, I'd like to ask the mods to award you the title "Sisyphunkian."
I want a percentage of any T-shirt sales.
Upchurch:
I wanted to say something a few days back, but ran out of time. Your posts in this thread have been models of restraint and have been almost uniformly well crafted. Unlike me, you manage to remain patient and are much more polite.
Your task in this case was Herculean, but I cannot give that description to your work. I don't think this thread can qualify as "Herculean," as Hercules actually accomplished things. That is not to take anything away from your effort -- I think the work performed would have earned the title, if anything could. However, as the saying goes, "Hercules never met Claus."
You have been tasked with not only cleaning the Augean Stables, but also house-training the Augean horse, who is not only incontinent, but has a fondness for Mexican food that cannot be denied.
So your task here is more in line sith Sisyphus. In honor of that and your previous title, I'd like to ask the mods to award you the title "Sisyphunkian."
I want a percentage of any T-shirt sales.
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 7,503
Well, the swearing on a bible thing is becomingly increasingly rare. In fact, in Nevada I am not even sure you have the option anymore, so far as I have seen you are merely asked to "swear and affirm" to tell the truth. Swearing on a bible is still an option in some jurisdictions, but it is hardly universal even in the US.
AS for the money, it is a small thing and quite frankly low on the list of priorities to make a big deal over at this point. We atheists are outnumbered 9-1 in this country and that means we have to pick our battles well, with the forces of religion trying to impose their will on us in much more substantivve ways (i.e all of the recent fights involving the teaching of ID in various parts of the country), i would much rather we spend our time fighting those and leave things like that until a more opportune time.
That sums up my thoughts exactly. I get really annoyed by my fellow atheists that waste so much time and energy on the little things, when instead the battles should be chosen much more carefully.
Can you find out just how rare?
That may be. There are indeed many fights to fight. The question is, which fight is the more important? The blatant display of adherence to religion in places where the Constitution forbids it, or the local psychic who tells you that your dead grandmother loves you?
Things to ponder, eh?