Passenger killed by air marshall

[clarsct]

CFLarsen:
"You obviously aren't bright enough to understand my arguments and too lazy to read what I've put down."

This is not an argument, but rather an insult and a Ad Hom attack.

So, your country is suffering from some of the same religious attitudes as the US. ID was recently shot down in our country, as well. It is a good thing, for both our countries, yes?

So you can't say that religion isn't a part of the lives of the Danish people, as a whole. You've just admitted otherwise.

Face it, when it boils right down to it, there aren't that many differences. Yes, people are religious. In probably about the same percentages, as well. You'll probably find about the same percentages worldwide, as a matter of fact. That's humanity. But to claim that Denmark conforms to your own worldview better, when it can be shown a demonstrated that this is not clearly the case, is little more than patriotism.

Which is a fine thing, but nothing to base a rational argument on.

 

[Grammatron]

CFLarsen:
"You obviously aren't bright enough to understand my arguments and too lazy to read what I've put down."

This is not an argument, but rather an insult and a Ad Hom attack.

So, your country is suffering from some of the same religious attitudes as the US. ID was recently shot down in our country, as well. It is a good thing, for both our countries, yes?

So you can't say that religion isn't a part of the lives of the Danish people, as a whole. You've just admitted otherwise.

Face it, when it boils right down to it, there aren't that many differences. Yes, people are religious. In probably about the same percentages, as well. You'll probably find about the same percentages worldwide, as a matter of fact. That's humanity. But to claim that Denmark conforms to your own worldview better, when it can be shown a demonstrated that this is not clearly the case, is little more than patriotism.

Which is a fine thing, but nothing to base a rational argument on.

I think US has more religious people and I've read statistics to back it up. However, I believe the reason for that is that many who immigrate to USA do so because of religious persecution in their former countries. Thus they tend to be more religious over all, at least the first few generations.

At the same time, they are the most likely to want state and church to be seporated for the same reasons.

 

[CFLarsen]

CFLarsen:
"You obviously aren't bright enough to understand my arguments and too lazy to read what I've put down."

This is not an argument, but rather an insult and a Ad Hom attack.

You know, for some reason, I can't find the quote in this thread. Can you please show me where it is?

So, your country is suffering from some of the same religious attitudes as the US.

Whoa. Nowhere as widespread as in the US.

ID was recently shot down in our country, as well. It is a good thing, for both our countries, yes?

Yes, it is.

So you can't say that religion isn't a part of the lives of the Danish people, as a whole. You've just admitted otherwise.

Have I said it isn't?

Face it, when it boils right down to it, there aren't that many differences. Yes, people are religious. In probably about the same percentages, as well. You'll probably find about the same percentages worldwide, as a matter of fact. That's humanity. But to claim that Denmark conforms to your own worldview better, when it can be shown a demonstrated that this is not clearly the case, is little more than patriotism.

Which is a fine thing, but nothing to base a rational argument on.

Clearly, you have not read the material I have provided in this thread. Oh, well.

 

[WildCat]

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

OK...

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, I do. According to your Constitution, the King (unelected and completely unaccountable, who must be a member of the state church) can block any law passed by the Folketing from taking effect. Correct?

 

[Upchurch]

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

Claus, all that post did was strengthen the notion that the King is an active part of your government by showing the multiple duties your King performs within the government process.

 

[Upchurch]

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.

Is that a yes or a no?

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.

1. Most of your evidence works against your arguments.
2. It isn't my responsibility to do your research for you.
3. I've understood most of what you have posted here, the intelligable parts anyway.
4. Your continued evasions are still noted.

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.

Given your argument's tendancies towards logical fallacies and especially heavy in double standards, you'll forgive me if I find your critique on "right" and "wrong" lacking in credibility.

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

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

Having good reasoning skills and a skeptical appraoch to your own as well as other's ideas are also beneficial, probably more so.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, I do. According to your Constitution, the King (unelected and completely unaccountable, who must be a member of the state church) can block any law passed by the Folketing from taking effect. Correct?

Technically, yes. And the very next moment, the King would be deposed. It would be the end of monarchy.

Monarchy only exists because the King has accepted to stay out of politics.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, all that post did was strengthen the notion that the King is an active part of your government by showing the multiple duties your King performs within the government process.

You didn't notice the bits about the King not having any real power? E.g., the part you left out?

Do you feel up to addressing the points in my post #1039?

 

[CFLarsen]

Is that a yes or a no?

That's the answer you are going to get. It's not possible to answer either yes or no. It isn't a black-and-white issue.

What country is religious? What country besides the US is secular?

[*]Most of your evidence works against your arguments.

I disagree.

[*]It isn't my responsibility to do your research for you.

I didn't say it was. It is, however, your responsibility to read the evidence I showed you. You clearly haven't.

[*]I've understood most of what you have posted here, the intelligable parts anyway.

What was intelligable?

[*]Your continued evasions are still noted.

I am not evading.

Given your argument's tendancies towards logical fallacies and especially heavy in double standards, you'll forgive me if I find your critique on "right" and "wrong" lacking in credibility.

That's fine with me.

Having good reasoning skills and a skeptical appraoch to your own as well as other's ideas are also beneficial, probably more so.

Again, you set it up to be either-or. I didn't say this wasn't beneficial. I was just pointing to the fact that it is always beneficial to have lived and experienced both sides.

Do you think your understanding of Danish democracy would improve, if you had lived here?

 

[Jocko]

You didn't notice the bits about the King not having any real power? E.g., the part you left out?

What?! Two seconds ago you agreed with Wildcat's point that:

According to your Constitution, the King (unelected and completely unaccountable, who must be a member of the state church) can block any law passed by the Folketing from taking effect. Correct?

...which you then tried to dismiss, without evidence, on grounds that someone, somewhere, had the authority to depose the king - who you just admitted is unelected and unaccountable! So who, precisely, can depose him? And on what grounds, since blocking a law is perfectly within the rights of the monarch as detailed in your own constitution? That would be like arresting a legislator for voting on a bill - it's his friggin' job!

Do you feel up to addressing the points in my post #1039?

The mere fact that there is a post #1039 - or any post in the four-digit altitude this silliness has reached - shows the utter futility of addressing anything you consider a point.

 

[Jocko]

Again, you set it up to be either-or. I didn't say this wasn't beneficial. I was just pointing to the fact that it is always beneficial to have lived and experienced both sides.

Which you still have not proven you have done, so I hold your address history with the same skepticism as I do your reasoning and reading skills.

Do you think your understanding of Danish democracy would improve, if you had lived here?

It would be interesting to see firsthand how a democracy can maintain an unelected leader, yes. I've always had a sick curiosity about the sideshow freaks.

 

[Upchurch]

You didn't notice the bits about the King not having any real power? E.g., the part you left out?

Do you feel up to addressing the points in my post #1039?

Done and done. Didn't you notice?

 

[Thanz]

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

Or, it could be that to at least some of them, religion is more important to them than your posts would indicate.

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.

Not quite what I would call a direct conflict. Correct me if I am wrong, but "strong forces in the Church" seems less than official Church policy or teachings. I am interested in the official position, not what some factions might like.

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.

Again, not polar opposites at all. Polar opposite positions would be the State allowing gay marriage and the Church condemning all homosexuals to eternal hellfire, not blessing their unions in an all-but-name marriage.

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.

Each Church will have some people with more extreme views. What was the official Church position on this idea, if there was one?

 

[CFLarsen]

What?! Two seconds ago you agreed with Wildcat's point that:

...which you then tried to dismiss, without evidence, on grounds that someone, somewhere, had the authority to depose the king - who you just admitted is unelected and unaccountable! So who, precisely, can depose him?

The people.

And on what grounds, since blocking a law is perfectly within the rights of the monarch as detailed in your own constitution? That would be like arresting a legislator for voting on a bill - it's his friggin' job!

It's called a "revolution". I believe that's how your country was created.

The mere fact that there is a post #1039 - or any post in the four-digit altitude this silliness has reached - shows the utter futility of addressing anything you consider a point.

You can stop posting here, any time you want. It is entirely up to you.

 

[CFLarsen]

Which you still have not proven you have done, so I hold your address history with the same skepticism as I do your reasoning and reading skills.

If you don't believe me, educate yourself. Go check it out. See if I am wrong.

It would be interesting to see firsthand how a democracy can maintain an unelected leader, yes. I've always had a sick curiosity about the sideshow freaks.

You are most welcome.

 

[CFLarsen]

Done and done. Didn't you notice?

I stand corrected. I meant #1044.

Knock yourself out.

 

[CFLarsen]

Or, it could be that to at least some of them, religion is more important to them than your posts would indicate.

I am sure you can always find some. I doubt it is the reason for most, though. The numbers don't support it, and neither does attendance.

Not quite what I would call a direct conflict.

What would be a direct conflict, then?

Correct me if I am wrong, but "strong forces in the Church" seems less than official Church policy or teachings. I am interested in the official position, not what some factions might like.

The Danish Church is not run like a dictatorship. It is in fact often criticized for being way too inclusive and tolerant of fractions.

Again, not polar opposites at all. Polar opposite positions would be the State allowing gay marriage and the Church condemning all homosexuals to eternal hellfire, not blessing their unions in an all-but-name marriage.

Things are not that extreme here. I'm sorry if you don't understand that.

Each Church will have some people with more extreme views. What was the official Church position on this idea, if there was one?

Creationism is not to be taught in schools.

 

[Thanz]

What would be a direct conflict, then?

State position: Abortion on demand. Church position:Abortion is murder. That would be a direct conflict.

The Danish Church is not run like a dictatorship. It is in fact often criticized for being way too inclusive and tolerant of fractions.

It doesn't have to be a dictatorship to have an official position - see your response on creationism in school. Does it have one on abortion.

Things are not that extreme here. I'm sorry if you don't understand that.

No need to apologize. I am trying to determine IF things get "that extreme" there on any issue. If they don't, they don't. I'm not trying to suggest that they should. But what I see is a lot of agreement between church policy and state policy. I don't want to get into any sort of chicken or egg arguments, but you'd agree that the religion v. government issue, and who holds what influence over what, quickly fades into the background if they both agree on something, correct?

 

[CFLarsen]

State position: Abortion on demand. Church position:Abortion is murder. That would be a direct conflict.

Like I said, we don't have these deep conflicts. The gay issue is probably the biggest. Why not go with that?

It doesn't have to be a dictatorship to have an official position - see your response on creationism in school. Does it have one on abortion.

I have no idea. I would guess no.

No need to apologize.

I'm not apologizing. I am just sorry that you don't understand it.

I am trying to determine IF things get "that extreme" there on any issue. If they don't, they don't. I'm not trying to suggest that they should. But what I see is a lot of agreement between church policy and state policy. I don't want to get into any sort of chicken or egg arguments, but you'd agree that the religion v. government issue, and who holds what influence over what, quickly fades into the background if they both agree on something, correct?

It isn't as if state and church are like peas and carrots, so to speak. E.g., the Minister for Church Affairs is usually at odds with the clergy. The former Minister, Tove Fergo, was very much at odds.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

It's called a "revolution". I believe that's how your country was created.

Does anyone else find this as amusing as I do? This concept is whimsically appealing to me:

The king has no power because he theoretically could be overthrown and a new government put in place.

Is it possible to prove something (*anything*) about the present government by claiming that it could theoretically be replaced by a different one? Don't we have to assume the newly formed country doesn't have a King and an official church?

Does *any* country fail this test? No country has a monarch or any church-state ties because that government can be overthrown by the people. Problem solved.



But what about the Swiss?

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