Passenger killed by air marshall

[CFLarsen]

There is an official state religion. The Constitution stipulates that the Evangelical Lutheran Church is the national church, the reigning monarch shall be a member of it, and the state shall support it. The Evangelical Lutheran Church is the only religious organization that can receive state subsidies or funds directly through the tax system. Approximately 12 percent of the Church's revenue comes from state subsidy;

We have religious freedom. What can I say?

Fewer people believe that the Evangelical Lutheran Church should have a special place in the Constitution, down from 68 percent in 1999.

You want to poll Americans on their religiosity? E.g., as in whether an atheist can become president? It's not even a question here. If a politician tried to espouse his religion as an argument for being elected, he would be thrown in the dungeons.

Can a candidate be elected President of the United States if he says he doesn't believe in God? He can't even be elected dog catcher of Bumblef*ck, NC.

The "religious" holidays are a joke: Only the few stout believers celebrate Easter for what it is meant to be. The rest of us just enjoy the many holidays we have (add the 6 weeks of general holidays, compared to the measly 2 in the US).

the Government gives official status to religions in two ways: it "recognizes" religions by royal decree, and it "approves" religions under the 1969 Marriage Act.

The Regent formally has to approve all laws. If she doesn't, she'll be deposed faster than you can say "revolution".

Approval of religions means tax breaks.

By "approving" religions under the 1969 Marriage Act, the Government allows individually named priests to conduct officially recognized marriage ceremonies and thereby legally "approves" the religion.

Is there a problem here?

Guidelines, published in 1999, for approval of religious organizations

Is there a problem here?

Government "approves" religions based on their "guidelines". The King "must" be a member of the state religion....

Sure. However, the Queen is actually a believer in the Greek Orthodox church. Even the Regent enjoys the freedom of religious belief.

Wowie zowie... a theocracy

Come to Denmark and see for yourself. We even have the Tøjhuset. You'll go wild there.

Moreover 63% think that their religion is special... what a hoot.

How do you figure that?

 

[Ed]

Got anything that is overtly religous, like "Jesus is the Savior of the USA"?

Or

Section 4 [State Church]
The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the Established Church of Denmark, and, as such, it shall be supported by the State.

or, perhaps

Section 6 [Member of the State Church]
The King shall be a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

or even this..

Section 66 [Church Constitution]
The constitution of the Established Church shall be laid down by Statute.

or this ...

Section 69 [Regulation of Other Religious Bodies]
Rules for religious bodies dissenting from the Established Church shall be laid down by Statute.

That would prove your case to my satisfaction.

 

[CFLarsen]

Who said that? I thought we were talking about American history. These are the thoughts of Jefferson.

But Jefferson wasn't the only one. You want to argue that just one man forced this document to be accepted?

It's this one-eyed focus on Jefferson I object to. One Man Did Not Do It All.

You're missing the point. Your pun was a rhetorical device to emphesize your argument. This is exactly what the writers of the DoI did. You insist on taking their rhetorical device literally, why not yours?

Because I made it clear that I was making a joke. You think they were making a joke?

what do you think church and state not being seperate means?

I look at reality. You should, too.

A traditional phrase.

Added due to anti-communist hysteria. Only tangentially related to religion.

Rhetorical device.

No, no, no. These things are used because they have a deep meaning. They are not "rethorical devices", they are used with great care. They are there for a reason.

Why weren't Elder Bush condemned for his quip about atheists not deserving citizenship?

Got anything that is overtly religous, like "Jesus is the Savior of the USA"?

"In God We Trust". What more do you need?

 

[Ed]

We have religious freedom. What can I say?

So do we except that our governent is forbidden to interfere..

Fewer people believe that the Evangelical Lutheran Church should have a special place in the Constitution, down from 68 percent in 1999.

Fewer, so? Still a lot and this refers to state sponsership, far worse than simple belief.

You want to poll Americans on their religiosity? E.g., as in whether an atheist can become president? It's not even a question here. If a politician tried to espouse his religion as an argument for being elected, he would be thrown in the dungeons.

Maybe, then why not change your constitution? Not changed? Wonder why.

Can a candidate be elected President of the United States if he says he doesn't believe in God? He can't even be elected dog catcher of Bumblef*ck, NC.

Maybe but we were discussing your theocracy.

The "religious" holidays are a joke: Only the few stout believers celebrate Easter for what it is meant to be. The rest of us just enjoy the many holidays we have (add the 6 weeks of general holidays, compared to the measly 2 in the US).

Are they religious holidays defined by the government? Yes or no.



Come to Denmark and see for yourself. We even have the Tøjhuset. You'll go wild there.

Yes, I have two old publications of theirs by a guy named Martin Ellehuge one on the development of the Glaive and the other on the evolution of the Spear. Good works indeed. Very nicely produced too.

 

[Upchurch]

Because I made it clear that I was making a joke. You think they were making a joke?

Do you think that jokes are the only non-literal uses of rhetorical devices?

I look at reality. You should, too.

No. you really aren't looking at reality. You are cherry-picking, taking those cherries out of context, and calling them "strawberries".

No, no, no. These things are used because they have a deep meaning. They are not "rethorical devices", they are used with great care. They are there for a reason.

What are your sources for the deep meanings these phrases were choosen for with great care?

"In God We Trust". What more do you need?

Something that was put there for religous reasons rather than anti-communist political reasons.

And please stop confusing a religious state with a religious populous. If you don't know the difference, try reading something about it.

 

[WildCat]

It gets better....



Government "approves" religions based on their "guidelines". The King "must" be a member of the state religion....


Wowie zowie... a theocracy

Moreover 63% think that their religion is special... what a hoot.

So, here we have a case wher Denmark funds their state church, compels teachers and students to become good evengelical Lutherans, the government must "approve" other religions, and didn't do so or allow another religions weddings to be recognized until 1969(!), the royal family must be a member of and defend the state religion, etc etc.

But Claus's argument is that Denmark has religious freedom, but the US is a theocracy because the word "creator" appears in a document drafted before the United States ever existed and has no legal status whatsoever...

Welcome to "Claus Land", where up is down, black is white, and compulsory religion is "religious freedom"... the mind can only boggle at such Orwellian nonsense.

My, how the mere mention of highly trained Air Marshals carrying guns on planes can rot the Danish mind...

 

[Grammatron]

Why weren't Elder Bush condemned for his quip about atheists not deserving citizenship?

Because that "quip" probably never happened in the first place?

 

[Jocko]

We have religious freedom. What can I say?

Fewer people believe that the Evangelical Lutheran Church should have a special place in the Constitution, down from 68 percent in 1999.

You want to poll Americans on their religiosity? E.g., as in whether an atheist can become president? It's not even a question here. If a politician tried to espouse his religion as an argument for being elected, he would be thrown in the dungeons.

Can a candidate be elected President of the United States if he says he doesn't believe in God? He can't even be elected dog catcher of Bumblef*ck, NC.

The "religious" holidays are a joke: Only the few stout believers celebrate Easter for what it is meant to be. The rest of us just enjoy the many holidays we have (add the 6 weeks of general holidays, compared to the measly 2 in the US).



Approval of religions means tax breaks.



Is there a problem here?



Is there a problem here?



Sure. However, the Queen is actually a believer in the Greek Orthodox church. Even the Regent enjoys the freedom of religious belief.



Come to Denmark and see for yourself. We even have the Tøjhuset. You'll go wild there.



How do you figure that?

So, bottom line, you're all a bunch of half-a$$ed religious folks who don't like religion or monarchy yet still seem happy to financially subsidize both.

That seems highly unlikely to me, Claus. What your snide comments tell me is that you're not just living in a theocracy, but an incompetent theocracy at that.

Seriously, you're starting to sound/look more like the Taliban than ever. A lazy version of the Taliban. You're all too "progressive" to behead nonbelievers anymore, but you don't mind the equivalent of a proscription for beheading to live on in your constitution.

Sad, very sad. What's next from our theocratic friends in Denmark? Designer burqas to show us all how enlightened you are?

Seriously, Claus, you point to a word and declare victory.
Someone points to your king and your state religion and suddenly you're blind. The very definition of a zealot, you are.

 

[Freakshow]

So, bottom line, you're all a bunch of half-a$$ed religious folks who don't like religion or monarchy yet still seem happy to financially subsidize both.

That seems highly unlikely to me, Claus. What your snide comments tell me is that you're not just living in a theocracy, but an incompetent theocracy at that.

Seriously, you're starting to sound/look more like the Taliban than ever. A lazy version of the Taliban. You're all too "progressive" to behead nonbelievers anymore, but you don't mind the equivalent of a proscription for beheading to live on in your constitution.

Sad, very sad. What's next from our theocratic friends in Denmark? Designer burqas to show us all how enlightened you are?

Seriously, Claus, you point to a word and declare victory.
Someone points to your king and your state religion and suddenly you're blind. The very definition of a zealot, you are.

I think some people consider themselves skeptics not because of their methods of reasoning, but because they think they have the "correct" skeptical viewpoints and conclusions. Whether or not such people are aware of this, I don't know. But it is something that I have noticed in some "skeptics".

 

[Ed]

Is there any evidence that there is no separation between church and state in the US?

The DoI stuff is a demonstration that a little education can be a dangerous thing. Claus has demonstrated nothing except that old wording can be quaint.

We have also seen the kind of wording that one would expect in a document that has the power of law (i.e. the Danish Constitution) in a theocracy. There is absolutely no parallel in in US Constitution or in any other current law in the US. We do not see religion permiating US education as it does in Denmark, again a distinction between a Theocracy and a secular state.

I am at a loss to see what Claus' point is. Since he is unwilling to explain, I would appreciate observations from others.

 

[Jocko]

I think some people consider themselves skeptics not because of their methods of reasoning, but because they think they have the "correct" skeptical viewpoints and conclusions. Whether or not such people are aware of this, I don't know. But it is something that I have noticed in some "skeptics".

It goes beyond wooism. I think zealotry is exactly the right word for this kind of staggeringly selective blindness. And by that I mean the snake-handling, arsenic-swigging, women's-rights-denying, going-bananas-because-someone-may-have-flushed-a-koran kind of zealotry.

 

[Freakshow]

I am at a loss to see what Claus' point is. Since he is unwilling to explain, I would appreciate observations from others.

Insecurity. That's my best guess.

 

[Upchurch]

Is there any evidence that there is no separation between church and state in the US?

When there is, it is usually struck as unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

 

[Ed]

I dearly hope, really, dearly hope that somewhere in this great land of ours someone does gave a honking great stone with the full text of the ten commandments and I hope, I dearly hope that they don't waffle on the second and that they pick one:

The protestant one
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

or The Catholic one:

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Either, it makes me no never mind. Because when that happens the sh!te will hit the fan. Big time. After all the loons get done congratulating themselves over their "victory" they will realize that one or the other was slipped a high hard one. One version is "correct" the other isn't.

This is a good thing. Why? Simple.

As some of you know I am a collector of arms and armor. The heyday for these things was in the 16th century during the various wars of religion. An excellent time that provided many nice things. I figure once the various factions get going at it we will once again have access to a trove of dangerous goodies. This will be good.

Am I being too self centered? My wife says I can be but I think I am being reasonable here.

 

[Upchurch]

Claus has demonstrated nothing except that old wording can be quaint.

Quaint isn't the word I would use, but I think it does show that it is important to understand the language and cultural references of the day when reading old documents. Claus's mistake is taking these phrases only from a modern perspective rather than taking the time to understand the historical context.

 

[Jocko]

Quaint isn't the word I would use, but I think it does show that it is important to understand the language and cultural references of the day when reading old documents. Claus's mistake is taking these phrases only from a modern perspective rather than taking the time to understand the historical context.

Funny, considering how much browbeating Americans take for living in country that's "only" 230 years old.

Sometimes age brings wisdom, but sometimes it just brings wrinkles.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Clause just has some strange disdain for the USA. Why is that?

 

[CFLarsen]

So do we except that our governent is forbidden to interfere..

"Faith based initiatives"? Want to talk about that?

Fewer, so? Still a lot and this refers to state sponsership, far worse than simple belief.

If you don't want to support the church, you can opt out.

Maybe, then why not change your constitution? Not changed? Wonder why.

Not maybe. Only 49% of Americans would vote for an Atheist.

Maybe but we were discussing your theocracy.

No, we are discussing the US. Remember that? Denmark isn't a theocracy. An atheist won't have a problem being elected, because we don't see a politician's religion as an issue. In the US, it's a huge issue.

Are they religious holidays defined by the government? Yes or no.

The holidays are "defined" by the State.

Are the religious holidays in the US defined by the government? Yes or no.

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you think that jokes are the only non-literal uses of rhetorical devices?

Answer the question, please: You think they were making a joke?

No. you really aren't looking at reality. You are cherry-picking, taking those cherries out of context, and calling them "strawberries".

On the contrary, I'm looking at the reality of historical context. Can I see what you rely on wrt historical texts?

What are your sources for the deep meanings these phrases were choosen for with great care?

Why, the rampant religiosity in the US population, of course. You deny that the US population is overtly religious?

Something that was put there for religous reasons rather than anti-communist political reasons.

How can "In god we trust" be called "Only tangentially related to religion"?

And please stop confusing a religious state with a religious populous. If you don't know the difference, try reading something about it.

Why weren't Elder Bush condemned for his quip about atheists not deserving citizenship?

 

[CFLarsen]

compels teachers and students to become good evengelical Lutherans

False. We don't teach people to become religious. We teach them about religion. All religions.

the government must "approve" other religions

Because they receive tax breaks. Anyone can believe what they want, but if you want tax breaks, your religion has to be recognized.

and didn't do so or allow another religions weddings to be recognized until 1969(!)

So? It's allowed today. How far back should we go? Where is this magical timeline?

the royal family must be a member of and defend the state religion, etc etc.

Officially, yes. Nobody cares that the Queen is more of a Greek-Orthodox faith.

But Claus's argument is that Denmark has religious freedom

We have religious freedom.

but the US is a theocracy

No, I'm not saying that.

because the word "creator" appears in a document drafted before the United States ever existed and has no legal status whatsoever...

Is the DoI not one of the founding documents?

Welcome to "Claus Land", where up is down, black is white, and compulsory religion is "religious freedom"... the mind can only boggle at such Orwellian nonsense.

My, how the mere mention of highly trained Air Marshals carrying guns on planes can rot the Danish mind...

You didn't get all that many right. Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully? Or perhaps stop inventing strawmen?