Passenger killed by air marshall

[Upchurch]

Because it's probably not true. Is this the kind of research you do for your publication? It's dissapointing if it is.

Could you source that, Grammatron? I did a brief google and couldn't find a debunking of it.

 

[Grammatron]

Could you source that, Grammatron? I did a brief google and couldn't find a debunking of it.

I'm not debunking it, hence my choice of words("probably never said") on the matter. I'm just not sure it happened.

The fact that only Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist reported that quote and it didn't appear anywhere until well after Bush Sr. became president calls the whole thing into question.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm not debunking it, hence my choice of words("probably never said") on the matter. I'm just not sure it happened.

Ah, my mistake. Sorry.

 

[Grammatron]

Could you source that, Grammatron? I did a brief google and couldn't find a debunking of it.

Here's something else, from Mr. Sherman's(the reported who printed the quote) website.

The entire Chicago political press corps was there, along with members of the White House press corps and national news reporters, but no reporter thought that this anti-atheist bigotry was sufficiently newsworthy to do anything with it, other than me.

 

[CFLarsen]

First of all, just because something hasn't been challenged, doesn't make it constitutional. Absence of evidence against does does not mean evidence for. You should know that.

Oh, no. We are not talking about scientific evidence here, but what is legal. If something isn't illegal, then it is legal. Likewise, if something is not ruled unconstitutional, then it is constitutional.

Second, the problem with the President's faith-based initiatives is that they aren't clear cut. The money they provide aren't specifically for promoting a specific religion, but I don't feel they provide enough safe-guards against it. When it happens (which it eventually will), it will be challenged in the courts and should be found unconstitutional.

It doesn't matter if they are promoting a specific religion. What matters is that the US government supports religion. With taxpayer money.

Yes, Claus. Thank you for being more of an authority on American culture than I, an American for three decades who actually experienced a small portion of the Cold War culture, am.**

I'll give it a shot anyway: I haven't experienced Cold War culture? You think the Rooskies only pointed their nukes at American targets? If the US and USSR were going to go to war, it would most likely have been on European soil.

So don't give me that Cold War 'tude, dude.

Did you not read anything I said? You don't understand. Religion was just one aspect of it, not the sum total.

But the only aspect that got that kind of attention was religion.

I have said it before and I will say it again now: a secular government does not necessitate an atheistic populous. Heck, religious politicians does not necessarily mean a religious government.

If you want to argue that the majority of US citizens are religious, I will agree. If you want to argue that this means that the US government is religious, I disagree.

I have said - quite a number of times now - that I find the founding document, the DoI, is stating that your rights are endowed by a supernatural being.

Show me one legally binding official US document that establishes an government sponsored religion.

I did: The 25th of December - Christmas - is sponsored by the US government. Christmas is a Christian holiday.

This would assume that they heard it in the first place. Do you understand what "not widely publicized" means?***

Sure, I do. But even the biggest story has a small start. This story did not catch fire.

Racial issues are much more sexy in this country than atheists. Reporters go for the sensational, sexy stories. I have issues with the media, too, but the media is not the government.

Religious issues are always red hot. At least as sensational as racial issues.

 

[Jocko]

Oh, no. We are not talking about scientific evidence here, but what is legal. If something isn't illegal, then it is legal. Likewise, if something is not ruled unconstitutional, then it is constitutional.

Wow, a false dichotomy about a false dichotomy. You've truly outdone yourself on that one.

It doesn't matter if they are promoting a specific religion. What matters is that the US government supports religion. With taxpayer money.

You mean like the Evangelical Lutheran Church? You know, the one your royalty must belong to? That kind of taxpayer money? You know, something specific, detailed, quantifiable and ensconced in your own constitution, unlike our own?

I'll give it a shot anyway: I haven't experienced Cold War culture? You think the Rooskies only pointed their nukes at American targets? If the US and USSR were going to go to war, it would most likely have been on European soil.

Yeah, you're so brave. A grateful world salutes you.

I have said - quite a number of times now - that I find the founding document, the DoI, is stating that your rights are endowed by a supernatural being.

That's not the founding document. Your point is a lie.

I did: The 25th of December - Christmas - is sponsored by the US government. Christmas is a Christian holiday.

So is Martin Luther King Day, so America is a black nation. Durr.

WTF do you mean, "sponsored"? It's recognized, but not sponsored. Let me demonstrate:

1. Christmas was celebrated before America was founded.
2. Christmas would continue to be celebrated even if not a LEGAL HOLIDAY.

Sheesh, you're not only obtuse, you're blind. A perfect example of a Talibanesque zealot.

 

[Grammatron]

Oh, no. We are not talking about scientific evidence here, but what is legal. If something isn't illegal, then it is legal. Likewise, if something is not ruled unconstitutional, then it is constitutional.

I am glad that you showed in one small paragraph how you know nothing about our legal system, especially with respect to constitutional law.

 

[Upchurch]

Oh, no. We are not talking about scientific evidence here, but what is legal. If something isn't illegal, then it is legal. Likewise, if something is not ruled unconstitutional, then it is constitutional.

Evidence?

It doesn't matter if they are promoting a specific religion. What matters is that the US government supports religion. With taxpayer money.

As much as I hate to admit it, there is no clear evidence that the money is going to support the religion itself but rather the beneficial activities these institutions perform.

I'll give it a shot anyway: I haven't experienced Cold War culture? You think the Rooskies only pointed their nukes at American targets? If the US and USSR were going to go to war, it would most likely have been on European soil.

So don't give me that Cold War 'tude, dude.

I never said you hadn't experienced Cold War culture. I said you have no authority about American culture during the Cold War. If we were discussing Denmark's reaction to communism, I would defer to your experiences and your knowledge of what your country did. I would also expect the same courtesy.

But the only aspect that got that kind of attention was religion.

Wrong. The entertainment industry got hit hard by McCarthyism. "In God we Trust" and "under God" were throw away things compared to the civil liberties trampled and the lives ruined through black lists.

I have said - quite a number of times now - that I find the founding document, the DoI, is stating that your rights are endowed by a supernatural being.

And you have been told - quite a number of times now - that (1) the DoI does not carry higher legal authority than the US Constitution, (2) the USC explicitly defines the USA as a secular government, and (3) the use of the term "Creator" in the DoI is a non-literal rhetorical device designed to provide emphasis.

I will point these out every time you decide to trot out that lame old horse. Can we now agree that the DoI does not prove anything of the kind and get on with our lives? Or if not, can you at least attempt to address these points from something other than just your opinion?

I did: The 25th of December - Christmas - is sponsored by the US government. Christmas is a Christian holiday.

But is it only a Christian holiday?

From the Herber Hoover Museum:

By 1870, rigid puritanical attitudes towards Christmas had softened, and the vast majority of the American people embraced the holiday as a permanent cultural tradition in this country. On June 26, 1870, for the first time in its history, the United States Congress declared Christmas a federal holiday.​

My emphasis. Look at all the American traditions centered around Christmas and tell me how many of them have anything to do with Christianity. The Christmas holiday itself was co-opted from older winter celebrations.

And I'm sure its perpetuation has nothing to do with economic reasons...

 

[CFLarsen]

So is Martin Luther King Day, so America is a black nation. Durr.

MLK Day is a religious day?

WTF do you mean, "sponsored"? It's recognized, but not sponsored. Let me demonstrate:

1. Christmas was celebrated before America was founded.
2. Christmas would continue to be celebrated even if not a LEGAL HOLIDAY.

That doesn't preclude the government from sponsoring it.

 

[Grammatron]

MLK Day is a religious day?



That doesn't preclude the government from sponsoring it.

Maybe your government.

 

[CFLarsen]

I am glad that you showed in one small paragraph how you know nothing about our legal system, especially with respect to constitutional law.

I am glad that you showed in one small paragraph how I was wrong.

Wait. You didn't. You just told me I was wrong.

Explain why I am wrong, please.

 

[CFLarsen]

Evidence?

It is still in effect. It hasn't been ruled unconstitutional.

As much as I hate to admit it, there is no clear evidence that the money is going to support the religion itself but rather the beneficial activities these institutions perform.

Of course it supports the religion itself. That's the whole point. Remember what the very first faith based initiative was? Birth control. Think that was a coincidence?

I never said you hadn't experienced Cold War culture. I said you have no authority about American culture during the Cold War. If we were discussing Denmark's reaction to communism, I would defer to your experiences and your knowledge of what your country did. I would also expect the same courtesy.

It's not a question of courtesy but of historical facts.

Wrong. The entertainment industry got hit hard by McCarthyism. "In God we Trust" and "under God" were throw away things compared to the civil liberties trampled and the lives ruined through black lists.

So why are they still there today? What has had the longest impact on American culture?

And you have been told - quite a number of times now - that (1) the DoI does not carry higher legal authority than the US Constitution, (2) the USC explicitly defines the USA as a secular government, and (3) the use of the term "Creator" in the DoI is a non-literal rhetorical device designed to provide emphasis.

Emphasis on what?

I will point these out every time you decide to trot out that lame old horse. Can we now agree that the DoI does not prove anything of the kind and get on with our lives? Or if not, can you at least attempt to address these points from something other than just your opinion?

It isn't just my opinion. Why do you ignore the many references I have provided?

But is it only a Christian holiday?

From the Herber Hoover Museum:

By 1870, rigid puritanical attitudes towards Christmas had softened, and the vast majority of the American people embraced the holiday as a permanent cultural tradition in this country. On June 26, 1870, for the first time in its history, the United States Congress declared Christmas a federal holiday.​

My emphasis. Look at all the American traditions centered around Christmas and tell me how many of them have anything to do with Christianity.

The list isn't complete. What about nativity scenes? Depicting the birth of Jesus.

The Christmas holiday itself was co-opted from older winter celebrations.

Who declared Christmas a federal holiday? Congress.

 

[Ed]

I'll try a fact, should be good for a laugh.

Christmas is a National Holiday. That is distinct from a religious Holiday. The holidays in Denmark are religious holidays.

Also, I am still waiting for eevidence that Danes can opt out of paying taxes to support the state theocracy.

 

[CFLarsen]

Christmas is a National Holiday. That is distinct from a religious Holiday. The holidays in Denmark are religious holidays.

Christmas is a religious holiday.

Also, I am still waiting for eevidence that Danes can opt out of paying taxes to support the state theocracy.

ønsker man ikke længere at være medlem af folkekirken, kan man melde sig ud ved at henvende sig til præsten, hvor man bor. Sker udmelding inden seks måneder efter datoen for tilmeldingen til folkeregistret, har udmeldingen virkning fra denne dato.
Source

 

[Grammatron]

I am glad that you showed in one small paragraph how I was wrong.

Wait. You didn't. You just told me I was wrong.

Explain why I am wrong, please.

I would but Upchurch has done a much better job explaining what is constitutional and what is not and you ignored him, and worse yet countered with an opinion.

 

[Grammatron]

ønsker man ikke længere at være medlem af folkekirken, kan man melde sig ud ved at henvende sig til præsten, hvor man bor. Sker udmelding inden seks måneder efter datoen for tilmeldingen til folkeregistret, har udmeldingen virkning fra denne dato..

Yes but Не понимам это и таким образом вы неправы.

 

[Jocko]

MLK Day is a religious day?

No, but - like Christmas - it is a LEGAL HOLIDAY. Do you have any grasp of what you're talking about? From the perspective of a federal worker's scehdule, there is no difference whatsover between Christmas, MLK day or Memorial Day.

The government doesn't "sponsor" anything. No one forces you to attend church, trim a tree, say "Merry Christmas" or anything else. You know, since you so often boast about your "experience" of living in America, you sure don't seem to know jack sh!t about it.

That doesn't preclude the government from sponsoring it.

No, the the FIRST AMENDMENT PRECLUDES THE GOVERNMENT FROM SPONSORING IT. Not that it even matters; since YOU made the claim, YOU have to back it up.

You know, I think you've shown me why Danes have an official state religion and are forced to subsidize it through their taxes. It's because they're all to friggin' stupid to know what to do with themselves on Sundays without someone telling them what to do.

 

[Jocko]

Christmas is a religious holiday.

You obviously have no idea what religion is, since you live in a theocracy, one clearly explained in detail in your constitution, and refuse to see it as such.

 

[Upchurch]

It hasn't been ruled unconstitutional.

Absence of evidence, etc., Claus. Your calling for a double standard when it is convenient, doen't make it so.

Crazy laws get passed all the time. You cannot assume they are constitutional merely because they haven't been challenged. It is not the Judiciary's responsibility to check every law, only those brought to it. This is how American law works.

Of course it supports the religion itself. That's the whole point. Remember what the very first faith based initiative was? Birth control. Think that was a coincidence?

Abstenance only birth control, actually. Tell me, what is innately religious about that? Strictly speaking, it is an effective form of birth control, albeit nieve and not particularly popular. Do you see the problem? The action itself is not inherently religious even though the motivation behind it probably is. It isn't as black and white as you make it out to be.

It's not a question of courtesy but of historical facts.

No, it is about attitudes and impressions and having the capacity to speak authoritatively about them. I was only partially a part of that time in American history, but you weren't a part of it at all. Who are you to tell me what I felt and thought? Or what my parents thought? Or my grandparents?

So why are they still there today? What has had the longest impact on American culture?

Why are they still there? Becuase they are minor things of no practical importance.

The witch hunts of McCarthyism have had the longest impact on American culture. Try reading Arthur Miller's "The Crucible". Try understanding why "McCarthyism" still has such negative connotations in American society.

Emphasis on what?

As I have said before, emphasis on the innateness of what the writers of the DoI termed "certain inalianable rights".

It isn't just my opinion. Why do you ignore the many references I have provided?

Unless I've missed something, I've countered every argument you have presented to me. Whereas you have have ignored my arguments about the rhetorics in the DoI, the fact that the DoI has no legal bearing over the Constitution, the distinction between a secular government and a religious populous, and the major significance of McCarthyism. In all cases, your response is to either ignore what I've said, respond with "nu-uh", or to re-assert what you have previously said, irrelevent though it may be.

No one is denying that the words "Creator" and "God" appear in the Declaration of Independence, it is your interpretation that I disagree with. No one is denying that the majority of the American populace has religious beliefs, it is your conclusion that this means that the American government is also religious that I disagree with. No one is denying that religious terminology was intruduced into minute parts of the US Government during the 1950s, it is why this happend that we disagree on.

On none of these points of contention have you offered any evidence for your opinions. You just keep reiterating your evidence for the stuff that we already agree on.

The list isn't complete. What about nativity scenes? Depicting the birth of Jesus.

Every time nativity scenes are brought to court, they are either disallowed or forced to make equal space for any other religious display.

eta: Nativity scenes on public property, that is.

Who declared Christmas a federal holiday? Congress.

Totally irrelevent to what I was saying. Humans have had winter festivals at least as long as we've the ability to record our own history. Christmas co-opted earlier winter festivals and became the traditional name for it in our society. Interestingly, early Americans rejected the idea of celebrating Christmas because it was considered too English (bad blood, I guess). But it was later re-adopted as part of our cultural heritage.

 

[Ed]

Approval of religions means tax breaks.

Wrong again:

Among the numerically smaller, but characteristically Christian congregations mention must finally be made of the Moravian Brethren in Christiansfeld and the Unitarian Church in Copenhagen (The Free Church Congregation), which in 1907 was expelled from the National Church on account of its denial of certain central Christian doctrines.
http://denmark.dk/portal/page?_pageid=374,520478&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL#553838

Not just a pro forma thing for tax breaks: Orthodoxy is required. A theocracy.