• 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.

Expelled - Why does Ben Stein hate America?

jj said:
Really? You must be stretching those words as far as you're stretching a belief in nature to imply deism. Geeze.
Click to expand...

But you're creating a straw man by saying that an 18th Century "belief in nature" (whether that applies to 18th century deists is something you will need to evidence) is actually contradictory to 18th century common sense. One of the problems I have with people who insist on dragging the founders and framers into 21st Century political discourse is that, had they the knowledge of the last 230ish years, might have felt very differently than they did back then... though they might have been more pro-slavery or anti-right to incriminate oneself or whatever. Let molding bones decay, let's stick to discussion of ideas today in today's context.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
"The constitution of the USA prohibits the government recognizing religion."
Click to expand...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

It seems pretty clear to me. Religion, or the lack thereof, is between a person and his or her god as Jefferson said. According to SCOTUS, recognizing is respecting an establishment...

I hardily agree with them. And why the hell does anyone want government recognizing religion in the first place? Isn't religion a superior grown up concept that can stand on it's own with out the helping hand of big brother?

What is more personal than one's belief or disbelief in god? Why is it that we want government out of our personal lives except when it comes to religion? Why not let government do what government does best and let the people advance religion or anti-religion.

God's plan of salvation doesn't need governments to do his bidding. Of course, we know that governments just love to have influence through religion. Which is why our founding fathers put up the wall in the first place.
 
RandFan said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

It seems pretty clear to me. Religion, or the lack thereof, is between a person and his or her god as Jefferson said. According to SCOTUS, recognizing is respecting an establishment...
Click to expand...

You are ignoring the initiation of the phrase. Were does the SCOTUS rule that the Federal government is prohibited from recognizing a religion?

I hardily agree with them. And why the hell does anyone want government recognizing religion in the first place? Isn't religion a superior grown up concept that can stand on it's own with out the helping hand of big brother?

What is more personal than one's belief or disbelief in god? Why is it that we want government out of our personal lives except when it comes to religion? Why not let government do what government does best and let the people advance religion or anti-religion.

God's plan of salvation doesn't need governments to do his bidding. Of course, we know that governments just love to have influence through religion. Which is why our founding fathers put up the wall in the first place.
Click to expand...

I agree here.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You are ignoring the initiation of the phrase. Were does the SCOTUS rule that the Federal government is prohibited from recognizing a religion?
Click to expand...
With few exceptions ("in god we trust" on money) SCOTUS has constantly ruled against any recognition of religion (no Ten Commandments in courthouses).

The justification for "in god we trust" was in part due to the fact that "god" is non-specific and not necessarily religious in nature (as I remember).
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
With few exceptions ("in god we trust" on money) SCOTUS has constantly ruled against any recognition of religion (no Ten Commandments in courthouses).

The justification for "in god we trust" was in part due to the fact that "god" is non-specific and not necessarily religious in nature (as I remember).
Click to expand...

Prayer in Congress?


The prohibition is designed to prevent government interference with religion and religious interference with government. Nothings concerning recognition of religion. The government is not prohibited from recognizing religion.

Full discloser: I am vehemently against religion as it is a tool used by men to control other men.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Prayer in Congress?
Click to expand...
That would be a great example but there is a problem, correct me if I'm wrong here, SCOTUS has never ruled on prayer in Congress.

The prohibition is designed to prevent government interference with religion and religious interference with government. Nothings concerning recognition of religion. The government is not prohibited from recognizing religion.
Click to expand...
One man's interference is another's non-interference.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
So, the government can recognize religion until the SCOTUS rules against a specific circumstance.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's the way it works. It would be nice if Congress would actually focus on real world problems and not whether religious icons should adorn public places. The alternative would be to take each member out and shoot them if they should pass laws that are contrary to the Bill of Rights. Now I'm sure this gives all of us a warm feeling just thinking about it but it really isn't practical. I'm afraid we will just have to put up with their nonsense and childish pranks for the time being.

Still, I am saving up for that 50cal BMG with the sniper scope.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Yeah, that's the way it works. It would be nice if Congress would actually focus on real world problems and not whether religious icons should adorn public places. The alternative would be to take each member out and shoot them if they should pass laws that are contrary to the Bill of Rights. Now I'm sure this gives all of us a warm feeling just thinking about it but it really isn't practical. I'm afraid we will just have to put up with their nonsense and childish pranks for the time being.

Still, I am saving up for that 50cal BMG with the sniper scope.
Click to expand...

Then you agree that JJ's statement below is false.

Consider the following facts:

The constitution of the USA prohibits the government recognizing religion.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Then you agree that JJ's statement below is false.
Click to expand...
No. That doesn't follow from what I said. I can walk into my local Wall-mart naked but that doesn't mean that I'm not prohibited from doing so. I can disobey traffic laws but that doesn't mean that I'm prohibited from doing so.

You are confusing prohibition with the actual inability to do something. Alcohol was prohibited in The United States from 1919 to 1933 but that didn't keep people from drinking alcohol. On the contrary, alcohol consumption soared and that created an underground market for booze and fueled organized crime. Telling people that they are prohibited from doing something is no guarantee that it will work.

Let me know if you need additional examples.
 
Last edited:
jj said:
There is no reason whatsoever to assert that nature implies deism. None.
Click to expand...

Hm. From my understanding, ascribing things to "nature" in a meta-physical way such as Paine does in the origin of rights, is essentially attributing it to the creator; God's clock and all. I could be wrong here, but again, I have yet to see evidence of Paine's Atheism. In fact, I have read quotes by him in which he repudiates the charge of Atheism.

I think this is going the way of quote-mining, much like Franklin or Jefferson. All three of these men wrote extensively, so it's not a surprise that they would question their own spirituality, but again, I've yet to see anything that confirms Franklin, Jefferson, or Paine as an Atheist.
 
Last edited:
IchabodPlain said:
All three of these men wrote extensively, so it's not a surprise that they would question their own spirituality, but again, I've yet to see anything that confirms Franklin, Jefferson, or Paine as an Atheist.
Click to expand...


It seems clear that Jefferson was some sort of theist, but not Christian.

It also seems clear that Paine, especially, argued for atheism.

Franklin appears to have responded in a flip fashion when asked. Hard to know what that means, really.
 
jj said:
It seems clear that Jefferson was some sort of theist, but not Christian.

It also seems clear that Paine, especially, argued for atheism.

Franklin appears to have responded in a flip fashion when asked. Hard to know what that means, really.
Click to expand...

We are seeing the evolution of New Thought before us!!!

:gnome:
 
jj said:
It also seems clear that Paine, especially, argued for atheism.
Click to expand...

Where do you get this charge? Common Sense does not argue for Atheism. Show me something where Thomas Paine refers to himself as an Atheist or rejects the existence of a God.

Franklin appears to have responded in a flip fashion when asked. Hard to know what that means, really.
Click to expand...

When asked? When?

This derail is rather tiresome, and seems to reek of conformation and hindsight bias. You're original statement is correct, and nothing else needs to be pointed out about it. Jerome was wrong.

Personally, I believe evolution is the best supported theory available. Creationism ain't science. Neither is ID, as they both deal with the supernatural, which science does not. More data and knowledge will continually be acquired and more thorough conclusions will be reached. Even those who choose to look at perceived 'cracks' or 'flaws' in evolution are beneficial to the process. I haven't seen this movie, maybe I will if I can catch an online version.

IP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom