Passenger killed by air marshall

[LW]

Hmm...historical reasons...hmm...I'm glad you are so open-minded and understanding about your country but all the significance of images and phrases in the US seem to fly over your head and all you see is religion.

It just boggles my mind that an educated person can look at the traditional symbol of a Christian monarch [*], you know, one of those "King [**] by the Grace of God" types, and fail to see the religious imaginery there. Especially when the same person insists that "Creator" written by a Deist must refer to the Christian God.


[*] Since Claus seems to have trouble finding it, I should perhaps elaborate a bit more and tell that the particular symbol is the picture of a crown (the headgear one) that is topped by a Christian cross. This particular symbol has been used in Western Europe for centuries to tell that the object where it is pictured is somehow connected to a monarch that professes the Christian faith. Every single Danish coin that is pictured in Nationalbank's Danmarks møntserie page has at least one of them. Though, I was in error when I claimed that most of them have three since actually only the 1-, 2-, and 5-krone coins have three and 0.25-, 0.5-, 10-, and 20-krone coins don't so the correct ratio is 3/7. (When I made the claim, I unfortunately misremembered the design of 10-krone coins).

[**] Substitute King with Queen, Prince, Grand Prince, Emperor, Czar, Voivod, Hospodar, or other relevant title if necessary.

 

[Upchurch]

"Finally"? You asked where you could find them, and I provided.

My question was, specifically, Could you please point me to the document that defines your government, then? You're response was to point me not to a document, but to a website that mentions quite a number of documents. So, yes, I say "finally".

Further, any discrepancies between the 1859 and 1953 documents are rendered moot because the 1953 version is now the correct authoritative document.

Correct. 1849, not 1859.

Yes, thank you.

So, you do understand that that later documents can take precedent over earlier documents. Good. This is also the case with the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. The US Constitution is the correct authoritative document when questions arise concerning the US government and takes precedent over the DoI. It does not matter that the DoI mentions "God" or "Creator" because the US Constitution's First Amendment prohibits the legal establishment of religion.

Do you understand that the US government is defined by the US Constitution as a secular government?

What part of "and shall exercise such supreme authority through the Ministers" don't you understand? Why did you leave it out?

I understand that the Ministers are the method through which the King wields supreme authority, but it is still plainly written that it is the King who has the supreme authority, not the Ministers. The Ministers are, constitutionally, agents of the King.

Your quotes says that it is the Ministers (government) who exercises the authority of the affairs of the Realm. In §3 (which you must have read), it says:

§ 3
Legislative authority shall be vested in the King and the Folketing conjointly. Executive authority shall be vested in the King. Judicial authority shall be vested in the courts of justice.

The legislative authority is exercised through the government only.

Do you understand this?

No, apparently I don't. It specifically says that legislative authority belongs to the Folketing and the King, not the Folketing only.

Do you understand that that same passage states that "Executive authority shall be vested in the King"?

Are you sure the Constitutional Act of 1953 is the document that defines your government? Your description of your government does not match up to this document.

The King can't make any agreements that requires the Folketing (parliament)'s consent.

Do you understand this?

Yes, it is the same with our executive branch.

Here's the part where the King signs the laws:

§ 22
A Bill passed by the Folketing shall become law if it receives the Royal Assent not later than thirty days after it was finally passed. The King shall order the promulgation of statutes and shall ensure that they are carried into effect.

Do you understand this?

Yes, it is similar (but not exactly the same) with our executive branch.

This is crucial, because one of the most important powers the King historically has had was the right to mint money. This is not within his power anymore; the Parliament makes the laws regarding this.

Do you understand this?

Yes, our legislature has the same power.

The people votes for the politicians who get a seat in the Parliament. The Parliament makes the laws. The King signs them.

Do you understand this?

Yes, our legislature and executive branches have similar roles in the law passing process. The only difference is that we elect our executive leader and s/he doesn't have to belong to a specific religion.

The Election Act decides how to form Parliament, Government etc.

Do you understand this?

Sure.

While the King may call for an election, the PM - who is found by popular election - has to do this, at least once every 4 years.

Do you understand this?

Sure, but it doesn't mean that the PM isn't still an agent of the King, who can get rid of a PM at any time after the PM appears before the Folketing.

This means that the King cannot dismiss any member of the Parliament.

Do you understand this?

Yes, our executive lacks that power as well.

The Parliament constitutes itself. It is not the King who does this.

Do you understand this?

It is the same with our legislatures, except that our executive also gets a vote in his own state. Maybe your executive does as well, it isn't clear to me.

I can easily go on, but I don't want to overburden you. If you have more points you are unsure of, read the whole document first.

No overburden for me. You have very clearly reinforced the similarities between your King and our President. The prime differences are that your King delegates more of his/her responsibilities, isn't elected, and must belong to a specific religion.

As it should be clear by now, we disagree.

Yep, and your evasion of my points is clearly noted.

 

[CFLarsen]

It just boggles my mind that an educated person can look at the traditional symbol of a Christian monarch [*], you know, one of those "King [**] by the Grace of God" types, and fail to see the religious imaginery there. Especially when the same person insists that "Creator" written by a Deist must refer to the Christian God.


[*] Since Claus seems to have trouble finding it, I should perhaps elaborate a bit more and tell that the particular symbol is the picture of a crown (the headgear one) that is topped by a Christian cross. This particular symbol has been used in Western Europe for centuries to tell that the object where it is pictured is somehow connected to a monarch that professes the Christian faith. Every single Danish coin that is pictured in Nationalbank's Danmarks møntserie page has at least one of them. Though, I was in error when I claimed that most of them have three since actually only the 1-, 2-, and 5-krone coins have three and 0.25-, 0.5-, 10-, and 20-krone coins don't so the correct ratio is 3/7. (When I made the claim, I unfortunately misremembered the design of 10-krone coins).

[**] Substitute King with Queen, Prince, Grand Prince, Emperor, Czar, Voivod, Hospodar, or other relevant title if necessary.

What boggles my mind is that you based your argument on your memory and still have the audacity to tell me that I am still wrong.

Do you admit that you were wrong about the Danish bank notes? None of the reliefs are religious in nature, correct?

 

[CFLarsen]

My question was, specifically, Could you please point me to the document that defines your government, then? You're response was to point me not to a document, but to a website that mentions quite a number of documents. So, yes, I say "finally".

I am very sorry, but we don't have one defining document for everything. If you want to learn about Danish democracy, you have to spend time educating yourself, reading more than just flashcards.

So, you do understand that that later documents can take precedent over earlier documents. Good.

I have never claimed otherwise.

This is also the case with the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. The US Constitution is the correct authoritative document when questions arise concerning the US government and takes precedent over the DoI. It does not matter that the DoI mentions "God" or "Creator" because the US Constitution's First Amendment prohibits the legal establishment of religion.

Do you understand that the US government is defined by the US Constitution as a secular government?

Yes. That doesn't preclude religion to permeate the US government.

Are you saying that the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with how the US looks today? It has absolutely no relevance whatsoever?

I understand that the Ministers are the method through which the King wields supreme authority, but it is still plainly written that it is the King who has the supreme authority, not the Ministers. The Ministers are, constitutionally, agents of the King.

No, not "agents". The Ministers are elected by the people. The King can't tell the Ministers to do anything.

No, apparently I don't. It specifically says that legislative authority belongs to the Folketing and the King, not the Folketing only.

That's because you don't understand the part that you left out of your quote.

Why did you leave out the last part? You kinda "skipped" that question.

Do you understand that that same passage states that "Executive authority shall be vested in the King"?

Do you understand that this executive authority is exercised through the Ministers? Not "agents" but people elected by popular vote?

Are you sure the Constitutional Act of 1953 is the document that defines your government? Your description of your government does not match up to this document.

Like I explained, we have several documents. You need to educate yourself. You can't get a 15-second rundown on Danish Democracy. This isn't a TV-nation, where everything is broken down into soundbytes.

Yes, it is the same with our executive branch.
...
Yes, it is similar (but not exactly the same) with our executive branch.
...
Yes, our legislature has the same power.

Then, why do you claim that the King can dictate what the Ministers do? He can't - you just admitted this.

Yes, our legislature and executive branches have similar roles in the law passing process. The only difference is that we elect our executive leader and s/he doesn't have to belong to a specific religion.

The King of Denmark does not have the same powers as your President. You really, really have to understand this.

Sure.

Have you read it?

Sure, but it doesn't mean that the PM isn't still an agent of the King, who can get rid of a PM at any time after the PM appears before the Folketing.

No, not just the PM. The King can dismiss the entire government. But what happens then? A new election is called. And that's it: If the King chooses to do this, all he gets is a new parliament, one that the people decide. He won't get a parliament of his own choice.

And, I can assure you, if the King does this, the King will be deposed. It will probably be the end of the monarchy. We would never stand for such an action.

Yes, our executive lacks that power as well.

There you go: The King does not control Parliament.

It is the same with our legislatures, except that our executive also gets a vote in his own state. Maybe your executive does as well, it isn't clear to me.

It is clear to me that you have yet to educate yourself on Danish democracy. Every candidate runs in a district ("valgkreds").

No overburden for me. You have very clearly reinforced the similarities between your King and our President. The prime differences are that your King delegates more of his/her responsibilities, isn't elected, and must belong to a specific religion.

No, not "delegates". That implies that the King does it even though he doesn't have to. Which is wrong.

Yep, and your evasion of my points is clearly noted.

I haven't evaded them. I have addressed them quite thoroughly.

Sheesh....if I keep rehashing a point, I'm obsessive. If I leave it be, because I have addressed it, I'm evading.

Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

Where do I claim that the US is not a secular country and Denmark is?

 

[Upchurch]

None of the reliefs are religious in nature, correct?

It does look like a Christian cross. Are you suggesting that religious symbolism can be used for non-religious reasons?

 

[CFLarsen]

It does look like a Christian cross.

I'm talking about the reliefs on the back of the bank notes. Where are the religious symbolism in those?

Are you suggesting that religious symbolism can be used for non-religious reasons?

Symbols have to be viewed in their context.

The cross is one of the most used symbols, it can have many shapes, and have different meanings. There's the Christian cross, the greek cross, the saltire, the anhk, the coptic cross, the high cross, the Labarum, the Lorraine cross, the Papal cross, the Patriarchal cross, the Red Cross, the Cross of Sacrifice, etc. And yes, the Swastika.

Let's look at the Swastika. We think "Nazi Germany", "World War II", "Holocaust". But the Swastika is also used in other cultures, signifying other things. There are swastikas on the Carlsberg building in Copenhagen - but not because of any relations or references to Nazism.

The cross itself is also used in mathematics. Are mathematics religious now?

Symbols have to be viewed in their context.

 

[Upchurch]

Where do I claim that the US is not a secular country and Denmark is?

In no particular order:

Why isn't your government non-religious, considering that there are references to God in, e.g., the Supreme Court, as well as on your currency?

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.

You have to realize that the Danish government is not religious.

You are dead wrong here. Really, really wrong.

I have pointed out that there are a multitude of religious references wrt the US government. We don't have that in Denmark.

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?

Just pointing out that the rights in the Declaration of Independence is given to Americans by a supernatural being.

Just accept that the US is founded on a religious context.

That the rights are given by god.

I'm pointing out - to obvious, but understandable chagrin - that the rights in the US are given by a supernatural being.

I do, however, think - and have argued, with evidence - that the inclusion of the word "Creator" means that a supernatural being is the endower of American rights.

What do you think that "so help me God" means, if it doesn't mean a supernatural being? "We Trust in God"?

...and so on.

 

[Upchurch]

Symbols have to be viewed in their context.

Where have I heard this before? Oh, yeah.

 

[CFLarsen]

In no particular order:

...and so on.

Where do I state that the US is not a secular country? I am saying that there is a pervasive religious influence.

It's not either-or.

Care to address the rest of my post? Or do you concede your point?

 

[CFLarsen]

Where have I heard this before? Oh, yeah.

Yes, indeed. We differ in opinion on the context of God used in the Freedom Chapters.

 

[Upchurch]

Where do I state that the US is not a secular country? I am saying that there is a pervasive religious influence.

Do you understand that "secular" and "religious" are opposing terms? Do you understand that by saying that the US government "isn't ... non-religious" means that it is not secular, once you account for all the negatives?

Care to address the rest of my post? Or do you concede your point?

Answer me one question first. You said in a previous post that your government is made up of three branches: executive, legilative, and judicial. In your constitutional monarchy, in what branch does your King reside?

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you understand that "secular" and "religious" are opposing terms? Do you understand that by saying that the US government "isn't ... non-religious" means that it is not secular, once you account for all the negatives?

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that there is a pervasive religious influence on American society. Not just in the government, but also in everyday life.

Answer me one question first. You said in a previous post that your government is made up of three branches: executive, legilative, and judicial. In your constitutional monarchy, in what branch does your King reside?

I would say that he is outside all three. The regent (I really wish they would change it to "regent" instead of "king") has very limited formal power, but this is countered by the many safeguards that ensures that he holds no real power.

And that's what you need to understand: The regent has no real power, executive or otherwise. He - or she - is someone we dust off to sign laws, cut ribbons when a new bridge has been built (look at a map of Denmark and you'll understand why we have so many bridges), go on the summer tour to Danish cities, go on state visits to show the colors (it's really a plot to show off Danish products, since the entourage always has a group of Danish businesspeople following them) and - their primary function - to provide fodder for the tabloids.

There. I answered your question, despite the fact that you posed your question after I posed mine. That should quell any complaints in the future. I know it won't, but that's not my problem.

Your turn.

 

[Upchurch]

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that there is a pervasive religious influence on American society. Not just in the government, but also in everyday life.

Let me get this straight. In the first sentence, you're saying that you are not saying that the US government is religious. In the second and third sentence you are saying that religion is pervasive in government. What exactly is the difference?

Let's be very clear: Do you think the US government is secular?

I would say that he is outside all three. The regent (I really wish they would change it to "regent" instead of "king") has very limited formal power, but this is countered by the many safeguards that ensures that he holds no real power.

And yet, the King is still attributed in your constitution as holding supreme authority and executive power. You've not shown me any evidence to the contrary. If you can't take my word on the nuances of how my country works, what impetus is there for me to take your word on the nuances of how your country works?

And that's what you need to understand: The regent has no real power, executive or otherwise. He - or she - is someone we dust off to sign laws, cut ribbons when a new bridge has been built (look at a map of Denmark and you'll understand why we have so many bridges), go on the summer tour to Danish cities, go on state visits to show the colors (it's really a plot to show off Danish products, since the entourage always has a group of Danish businesspeople following them) and - their primary function - to provide fodder for the tabloids.

I know you need me to believe this, but you haven't provided any evidence to counter the words of your own constitution, which says otherwise. The evidence presented so far is against you.

There. I answered your question, despite the fact that you posed your question after I posed mine. That should quell any complaints in the future. I know it won't, but that's not my problem.

Your turn.

Fine. If that is the best you can provide, I don't conceed the point. Your argument is weak. Your double standard is more than apparent. Your appeal to emotion is unconvincing. And, frankly, I feel your creditablity is suffering.

These claims are yours. If you wish to convince anyone that your claims are correct, the onus is upon you to back these claims up.

 

[WildCat]

I would say that he is outside all three. The regent (I really wish they would change it to "regent" instead of "king") has very limited formal power, but this is countered by the many safeguards that ensures that he holds no real power.

According to your Constitution, he does have real power. Where in the Constitution are the "safeguards" you speak of? If they're not in your Constitution, then a mere law can supersede your Constitution?

 

[Thanz]

Man. As a citizen of a constitutional monarchy myself, I know just how different the paper and reality can be when it comes to political power and the exercise thereof. So, when Claus says that the role of the monarch is more symbolic than actual, I can believe him.

The problem lies in the double standard of the arguments from Mr. Larsen, relying so heavily on certain American documents ("It says 'Creator' in the DoI!!! How do you avoid that??") and marginalizing Denmark's (Well, yeah it says that the King has a bunch of power, and we do have a state church, but that is not how it really is. Do you understand this?")

I think, somewhat paradoxically, we have 2 nations: one is founded specifically not as a "Christian Nation", but is heavily populated by Christians, some of whom seem to have a large influence on government; the other is constated as a "Christian Nation" by virtue of having an official state church, but its populace is much less overtly religious and religion seems to have less influence on gov't despite the official state church (if we believe Claus). In theory, I don't have a problem with this - but I'm not the one trying to argue from the documents that America is a Christian nation.

I am curious, however, about a couple of things:

1. If Denmark is as non-religious as Claus says, wy do over 60% believe that the state church deserves special constitutional status?

2. Are there any hot-button issues (like gay marriage or abortion) in Denmark where the official religion holds one view but the law is the polar opposite?

 

[CFLarsen]

Let me get this straight. In the first sentence, you're saying that you are not saying that the US government is religious. In the second and third sentence you are saying that religion is pervasive in government. What exactly is the difference?

Let's be very clear: Do you think the US government is secular?

It is not entirely removed from religion. As to what degree it is pervaded by religion can be discussed, but don't claim that it is removed from religion. Because it demonstrably is not.

And yet, the King is still attributed in your constitution as holding supreme authority and executive power. You've not shown me any evidence to the contrary. If you can't take my word on the nuances of how my country works, what impetus is there for me to take your word on the nuances of how your country works?

Because I have shown a hell of a lot more evidence for my points than you have. You clearly haven't read what I linked to, and you clearly have not understood what I posted here.

I know you need me to believe this, but you haven't provided any evidence to counter the words of your own constitution, which says otherwise. The evidence presented so far is against you.

I don't need you to believe this personally. But if you want to understand why you are wrong, you need to understand what I have explained.

Fine. If that is the best you can provide, I don't conceed the point. Your argument is weak. Your double standard is more than apparent. Your appeal to emotion is unconvincing. And, frankly, I feel your creditablity is suffering.

I provide a host of evidence in favor of my point, and you can't even be bothered to address any of it. Feh.

These claims are yours. If you wish to convince anyone that your claims are correct, the onus is upon you to back these claims up.

Which I have. If you don't even want to study it, I can understand why you aren't convinced.

I can tell you one thing, though: It is very beneficial to have lived in both countries.

 

[CFLarsen]

According to your Constitution, he does have real power. Where in the Constitution are the "safeguards" you speak of? If they're not in your Constitution, then a mere law can supersede your Constitution?

Another one who refuses to read my evidence. Check out post #1039.

 

[CFLarsen]

1. If Denmark is as non-religious as Claus says, wy do over 60% believe that the state church deserves special constitutional status?

I can't speak for those, but I would say it has something to do with sentimental values.

2. Are there any hot-button issues (like gay marriage or abortion) in Denmark where the official religion holds one view but the law is the polar opposite?

Oh, yes.

Abortion is legal here, and has been since the early 1970's. There are strong forces in the Church (Indre Mission) who oppose this.

Same with homosexuals. They can be legally married at city hall, and be blessed in church. It probably won't take more than 5-10 years before they can also be married in church.

There has also been calls for Creationism/ID (even from a bishop) to be taught along side with Evolution, but that was immediately shot down, both by the Minister of Education and by articles from scientists and, in all modesty, by me and three other Danish skeptics.

 

[Grammatron]

Same with homosexuals. They can be legally married at city hall, and be blessed in church. It probably won't take more than 5-10 years before they can also be married in church.

Do homosexuals have the same rights and benefits as heterosexuals?

 

[CFLarsen]

Do homosexuals have the same rights and benefits as heterosexuals?

Not completely.

The blessing is as close to a marriage ritual as can be: The couple is asked "Do you, blah, blah, blah", they kneel before the altar, the priest places his hands on their heads, etc. Same as with heterosexuals.

There are, however, strong forces in the Church that want a full marriage ritual, so it's not that far off.

Although gay couples can't adopt, lesbian couples can be artificially inseminated by a midwife, but not a doctor.

Otherwise, yes.