• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Death Penalty in China

CFLarsen said:
A clear case of double-thinking.
Click to expand...

Grammatron said:
Wrong.

Correct.
Click to expand...

The problem is Grammatron is dealing with the real world and CFLarsen is dealing with bizarre hypotheticals.
The point CFL seems to be making is IF a legal augment could be made and accepted by the supreme court that the public feeding of criminals to lions was not "cruel and unusual" THEN it would be constitutional. Grammatron keeps trying to point out that in the real world, no such argument could (or would) be either made or accepted.
You may as well argue that as the Constitution has built in to it a mechanism for amendments, there is nothing in the constitution to stop an amendment making atheism a crime punishable by death, therefore the Constitution doesn't fully protect the rights of atheists.
 
brodski said:
The problem is Grammatron is dealing with the real world and CFLarsen is dealing with bizarre hypotheticals.
The point CFL seems to be making is IF a legal augment could be made and accepted by the supreme court that the public feeding of criminals to lions was not "cruel and unusual" THEN it would be constitutional. Grammatron keeps trying to point out that in the real world, no such argument could (or would) be either made or accepted.
You may as well argue that as the Constitution has built in to it a mechanism for amendments, there is nothing in the constitution to stop an amendment making atheism a crime punishable by death, therefore the Constitution doesn't fully protect the rights of atheists.
Click to expand...

I guess you missed this thread (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48646) and all of its 36 page glory.
 
brodski said:
The problem is Grammatron is dealing with the real world and CFLarsen is dealing with bizarre hypotheticals.
The point CFL seems to be making is IF a legal augment could be made and accepted by the supreme court that the public feeding of criminals to lions was not "cruel and unusual" THEN it would be constitutional. Grammatron keeps trying to point out that in the real world, no such argument could (or would) be either made or accepted.
You may as well argue that as the Constitution has built in to it a mechanism for amendments, there is nothing in the constitution to stop an amendment making atheism a crime punishable by death, therefore the Constitution doesn't fully protect the rights of atheists.
Click to expand...

Sure there would be:

Article. VI.
...
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Click to expand...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
 
CFLarsen said:
A clear case of double-thinking.
Click to expand...

I hesitate to wade into this, but...

There really is no practical distinction under U.S. law between what the Constitution "says" and how the courts interpret it. As a practical matter, the Constitution says what the courts say it says. I had a longer post about this yesterday, if you're interested.
 
CFLarsen said:
Sure there would be:
Click to expand...
well, it says that now just as the 8th amendment is currently interpreted as prohibiting throwing people to the lions, but who's to say these things will not t change as American society changes.
A challenge to the current interpretation of the 8th amendment arguing that throwing people to lions is not "cruel and unusual" would be just as likely to succeed as a legal argument that as atheism is not a religion- it is the lack of religion, then it is not protected under the 1st amendment.
In reality I expect that atheism will become a capital crime in the US about the same time that throwing people to lions becomes a legal form of execution.
 
JamesDillon said:
I hesitate to wade into this, but...

There really is no practical distinction under U.S. law between what the Constitution "says" and how the courts interpret it. As a practical matter, the Constitution says what the courts say it says. I had a longer post about this yesterday, if you're interested.
Click to expand...
The point is not if SCOTUS interprets it differently or not. The point is that SCOTUS interprets the Constitution.
 
brodski said:
well, it says that now just as the 8th amendment is currently interpreted as prohibiting throwing people to the lions, but who's to say these things will not t change as American society changes.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

brodski said:
A challenge to the current interpretation of the 8th amendment arguing that throwing people to lions is not "cruel and unusual" would be just as likely to succeed as a legal argument that as atheism is not a religion- it is the lack of religion, then it is not protected under the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...

That is a matter of interpretation. Sure, maybe not among skeptics - :) - but isn't it a favorite argument from religious believers that "atheism is just another belief"?

brodski said:
In reality I expect that atheism will become a capital crime in the US about the same time that throwing people to lions becomes a legal form of execution.
Click to expand...

Not if Elder Bush was in charge...
 
CFLarsen said:
That is a matter of interpretation. Sure, maybe not among skeptics - :) - but isn't it a favorite argument from religious believers that "atheism is just another belief"?
Click to expand...
yes it is, but usually only so that they can try and erode the separation of church and state, I'm sure that many hard core fundie's would soon switch their position if it would benefit them and their religion.


CFLarsen said:
Not if Elder Bush was in charge...
Click to expand...
He was in charge it didn't happen.
 
brodski said:
yes it is, but usually only so that they can try and erode the separation of church and state, I'm sure that many hard core fundie's would soon switch their position if it would benefit them and their religion.


He was in charge it didn't happen.
Click to expand...
Not for lack of intention.
 
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
Source
Click to expand...

Charming, eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom