Passenger killed by air marshall

[CFLarsen]

Feel free to ridicule yourself for doing that

But I'm not doing that. I am pointing out that you are using Ken Ham's invalid technique.

But, I guess when you do it it's OK and it is something completely different.

Do what? I draw on my experience from having lived in both countries. You haven't even visited Denmark.

Well I start by not making ridicules claims about Denmark that can't be verified.

How are they verified? By using sources. Yet, you refuse to allow me to use sources, but insist that I have to have appeared in court.

It says you don't have to swear on the bible.

It also says that if you swear, you have to swear on the Bible. That makes non-Christian believers second-rate citizens.

Do you understand that kids are not taught to be religious?

Do you understand that kids are not taught about the goodness of religions?

Based on that information, they seem to.

There you go.

Because government money goes to the one true church. You are simply justifying it as ok, and what's worse trying to make it seems as not religious aspect of your government

You are not addressing the point. Do you understand that you do not become a member of the Church by birth, but by choice of your parents?

I have and your conclusions are wrong. Many people have said that but you seem to have ignored them.

We diagree. People can judge for themselves.

Good, I never made that claim.

I stand corrected.

I am sure there's a wonderful reason why your country has a one true church funded by taxes, there always is.

Yes, there is. History. However, you will need to come to Denmark to understand. Right?

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, it is. Nobody is questioning this.

But, do we see the same religious references as we do in the US?

No. We. Do. Not.

Actually, I would say the Denmark Constitution religious reference is much stronger and concretely written, but please, explain what you mean.

Does a religious reference in a official government document make that government religious?

You seem to have missed these, Claus.

 

[CFLarsen]

You seem to have missed these, Claus.

I didn't know that a question directed at noone is really directed at me. Better make it an official rule.

Actually, I would say the Denmark Constitution religious reference is much stronger and concretely written, but please, explain what you mean.

Does a religious reference in a official government document make that government religious?

It can be. We should also look at how much religion said government surrounds itself with.

How much have you learned about other religions?

Do you understand that Denmark considers it important to teach children about religion?

Do you understand that Denmark doesn't teach children to be religious?

Do you understand that religion plays a huge role when it comes to elections?

Do you understand that we have religious freedom in Denmark?

Do you understand that I am not saying that the US is a theocracy?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Amazing. You are not only continuing to ignore the Democracy thread (going on 3 weeks now with no responses from you); you now pass over all mentions of it without comment.

Remember this gem?

Until you answer the question, you are not entitled to ask questions

- CFLarsen
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48646&page=23

Nice Rule. Here's some from Dec 7 and Dec 12 for you:

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

Please start with the Switzerland ones if you don't want to take them all at once.

 

[Upchurch]

It can be. We should also look at how much religion said government surrounds itself with.

How much have you learned about other religions?

Do you understand that Denmark considers it important to teach children about religion?

Do you understand that Denmark doesn't teach children to be religious?

Do you understand that religion plays a huge role when it comes to elections?

Do you understand that we have religious freedom in Denmark?

Do you understand that I am not saying that the US is a theocracy?

huh. Not an answer to be seen. I guess you aren't entitled to ask any questions yet.

Do you understand that the US Government doesn't teach religion to children at all?

Do you understand that it is illegal for the US Government to teach children to be religious?

Do you understand that how US citizens vote is entirely upon their own choices and the religious nature of the candidates cannot be regulated by the US Government?

Do you understand that we have religious freedom in the US?

Do you understand that I am not saying that Denmark is a theocracy?

Do you understand that I've been parroting your own questions back at you for several times now and that you are really just arguing against yourself?

 

[CFLarsen]

huh. Not an answer to be seen. I guess you aren't entitled to ask any questions yet.

I have answered your questions. Please address mine.

Do you understand that the US Government doesn't teach religion to children at all?

Yes.

Do you understand that it is illegal for the US Government to teach children to be religious?

Yes.

Do you understand that how US citizens vote is entirely upon their own choices and the religious nature of the candidates cannot be regulated by the US Government?

Yes.

Do you understand that we have religious freedom in the US?

For the second time, yes. Do you realize that I have already answered this?

Do you understand that I am not saying that Denmark is a theocracy?

For the second time, yes. Do you realize that I have already answered this?

Do you understand that I've been parroting your own questions back at you for several times now and that you are really just arguing against yourself?

You can choose your own methods. If you throw questions at me that you don't really want an answer to, yet chide me for not answering them (although I do), then I submit that you are not interested in a serious debate. You are simply trolling. Hardly a behavior fit for a Moderator.

I cannot imagine that this is so. Given that, I have answered each and every question of yours. Please have the courtesy of answering mine:

• How much have you learned about other religions?
  
• Do you understand that Denmark considers it important to teach children about religion?
  
• Do you understand that Denmark doesn't teach children to be religious?
  
• Do you understand that religion plays a huge role when it comes to elections?
  
• Do you understand that we have religious freedom in Denmark?
  
• Do you understand that I am not saying that the US is a theocracy?

 

[Upchurch]

• How much have you learned about other religions?
• Do you understand that Denmark considers it important to teach children about religion?
• Do you understand that Denmark doesn't teach children to be religious?
• Do you understand that religion plays a huge role when it comes to elections?
• Do you understand that we have religious freedom in Denmark?
• Do you understand that I am not saying that the US is a theocracy?

Yes to all, and quite a bit to the first one. I got a minor in Philosophy & Religion in college and am now a Unitarian which draws on and explores a wide range of philosophical material. eta: In public grade and high school, I was not taught any religion whatsoever except what I gleaned from my fellow students of their religions.

It can be. We should also look at how much religion said government surrounds itself with.

Would you consider a government that aligns itself and supports a specific religion to the point that it's executive leader must be a member of that religion to be more or less religious than a government that broadly acknowledges that its constituants are religious but prohibits any one religion from having undo preferance in that government?

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes to all

Thank you.

and quite a bit to the first one. I got a minor in Philosophy & Religion in college and am now a Unitarian which draws on and explores a wide range of philosophical material. eta: In public grade and high school, I was not taught any religion whatsoever except what I gleaned from my fellow students of their religions.

And I bet that you chose your minor because you found the subject interesting. It's good to know something about religion, and especially other religions than your own, isn't it?

We think religion is important a subject, and so we teach the kids about it. If you have problems with kids learning more about an issue, so be it. It doesn't produce generation after generation of believers.

Would you consider a government that aligns itself and supports a specific religion to the point that it's executive leader must be a member of that religion to be more or less religious than a government that broadly acknowledges that its constituants are religious but prohibits any one religion from having undo preferance in that government?

Your question is based on several faulty premises:

• The Danish government does not align itself with a specific religion.
• The Queen is not our executive leader.
• Denmark also supports other religions by giving them tax breaks.

 

[Upchurch]

The Danish government does not align itself with a specific religion.

Your constitution does not support your claim.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the Established Church of Denmark, and as such shall be supported by the State.​

You have an Established Church of Denmark which is the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Has this portion of your constitution been rescinded?

The Queen is not our executive leader.

You have a constitutional monarchy. Your monarch holds (constitutionally, at least) the preeminent position of power. Irregardless, if you take exception to the word "executive", I'll remove it to say "it's leader must be a member of that religion".

Denmark also supports other religions by giving them tax breaks.

Yes, but it gives preferential treatment to the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Not only does Denmark have a constitutional obligation to support it, but it has been named the Established Church of Denmark. If that is not aligning oneself to a specific religion, I don't know what is.

Now, kindly answer the question.

 

[CFLarsen]

Your constitution does not support your claim.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the Established Church of Denmark, and as such shall be supported by the State.​

You have an Established Church of Denmark which is the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Has this portion of your constitution been rescinded?

(groan)

Listen up, OK? I know I've said this so many times, but obviously, it hasn't sunk in yet. So, I'll give it yet another shot:

In Denmark, the government is not the state. The state is not the government.

We have a state with a constitution.

We have a government, comprised of those political parties that can muster a majority in the Parliament (or form a minority government).

Do you understand now? The government does not align itself with a specific religion.

You have a constitutional monarchy.

That is true. Which means that the monarchy is set down in the constitution, but that the Regent doesn't hold power over us. The Queen can't decide anything. She can't throw people in jail. She can't make laws of her own.

The only function she has is to receive dignitaries, go on ceremonial trips, cut the ribbons at major construction works and sign all laws put in front of her.

That's it. Oh, yeah, she's also the only reason the tabloids exist.

Your monarch holds (constitutionally, at least) the preeminent position of power. Irregardless, if you take exception to the word "executive", I'll remove it to say "it's leader must be a member of that religion".

The Regent is our head of state. Purely ceremonial.

Yes, but it gives preferential treatment to the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

For obvious reasons, both historically and practical. It is by far the biggest religion, and has been since the Reformation. It does not mean that Denmark is governed by religion. It does not mean that Denmark is a theocracy. It does not mean that we have all sorts of religious influences in our everyday life, government or not.

Not only does Denmark have a constitutional obligation to support it, but it has been named the Established Church of Denmark. If that is not aligning oneself to a specific religion, I don't know what is.

Not the government. Do you understand this?

Now, kindly answer the question.

You will have to rephrase it to correct the false premises.

 

[Thanz]

Hey Mr. Larsen! Are you going to reply to my post on page 24, post number 939?

In the meantime,

Your question is based on several faulty premises:

• The Danish government does not align itself with a specific religion.

As pointed out by Upchurch, Denmark's constitution disagrees with you.

• [*]The Queen is not our executive leader.

Again, your constitution disagrees with you. Section 3 (emphasis added):The legislative power is jointly vested in the King and the Parliament. The executive power is vested in the King. The judicial power is vested in the courts of justice.

• [*]Denmark also supports other religions by giving them tax breaks.

Hooray for Denmark. So what?

 

[CFLarsen]

I didn't say that it did reference church attendance before that time. I was making a comparison between that time and now, on the basis of the paragraph. That paragraph says about half attended once or twice a year. It goes on to say that about 2.5 million now go to church. Again, about half. So, I said that it has remained basically constant.

No, read it again. It doesn't mean that 2.5 million now go to church regularly. It means that 2.5 million Danes go to church at least once a year. Not to pray, but to attend christenings, weddings and funerals.

Larger than what? Where did I say participation was larger than in that paragraph? I said that it was larger than what you quoted previously (2-4%), on the basis of your source for regular church attendance. It is even higher if we count the Christmas-and-Easter crowd.

Yeah, so it's 5%. And you are quite right about the Christmas and Easter crowd. Tomorrow afternoon, most churches will be stuffed with people. Not because they are religious, but because it's a tradition for some. It's basically a place to take the kids while we wait for the Christmas dinner to be ready and later, exchange presents.

I son't know how it works in the US, but I specifically said that in Canada you have the choice to swear on the bible (if you believe) or solemnly affirm (if you don't believe), and both constitute a promise to tell the truth. In part, it is there to make sure the witness knows of this obligation. What surprises me about Denmark is that they don't seem to have this reminder to tell the truth and press the importance of that in court - and that it is backed up by jail time.

So, you're surprised. You've learned something today. We are not discussing Canada, but the US and Denmark.

You still haven't answered my points, so let's break it down Claus style:

I have addressed your points.

Does the official state church receive any money from the general money fund of the government? Yes or no, please.

The official state church receives money from the tax coffers. So do other religions. Do you understand this?

Does the official state church receive any benefits from the government that indirectly costs the taxpayers money (like land grants or something)? Yes or no, please.

I have no idea.

If everyone chose to "opt out" as you say they can, does your constitution not require the state to support the church? Yes or no, please.

Yes. You already knew this.

Restating it doesn't help me. Who runs the Danish state? Is it not the Government that runs the Danish state? What is the distinction you are drawing here, and more importantly, what is the point of the distinction?

It is the government together with Parliament, and the municipalities that run the Danish state. About half of all political decisions are made locally.

The point is that there is a difference between the US and Denmark. It is crucial for people's understanding that they are aware of this.

The usual. Convincing arguments, combined with credible evidence.

What evidence of mine isn't credible? Why don't you find my arguments convincing?

I am not being lazy. You simply did not respond to that post. If you are insisting that you did, point it out to me. Otherwise, it is you who are being lazy - and lying, to boot.

I have spent this entire thread talking about the varying degrees of religiousity in American vs. Danish culture. You really want to claim that I haven't?

Let me get this straight: You are saying that if I cannot prejudge evidence or opinions, of an unknown quality, from unknown persons, at some unknown point in time, I am not a skeptic. Really? Waiting for the actual evidence and argument to be presented before rendering an opinion on it means I am not a skeptic? It is a topsy-turvy world you live in, Mr. Larsen.

You didn't answer it straight, ergo you are not a skeptic. You even give more evidence, because you make it clear that corroborating evidence from other Danes will not persuade you either.

The legislative power is jointly vested in the King and the Parliament. The executive power is vested in the King. The judicial power is vested in the courts of justice.

Since I have such a hard time convincing you, let me ask you this: Just what do you think "executive power" means in this case? What are the Queen's powers? What, specifically, can she do?

I know I've just explained it in the above post, but I would like to hear what you think.

Hooray for Denmark. So what?

So what? It shows that Denmark also supports other religions.

 

[Thanz]

No, read it again. It doesn't mean that 2.5 million now go to church regularly. It means that 2.5 million Danes go to church at least once a year.

I am with you to this point, and did not mean to imply otherwise. I was saying that the once or twice a year crowd is about the same (proportionally) as it was in the 18th century.

Not to pray, but to attend christenings, weddings and funerals.

And here is where you go too far, on the basis of your source. It says nothing about christenings, weddings or funerals. What it says is "Today, 2.5 million Danes bend their knees at the altar during the year." To me, that implies praying a lot more than it implies just attending a ceremony. If you want to allege that, you'll need another source.

I have addressed your points.

Obviously, I disagree.

The official state church receives money from the tax coffers. So do other religions. Do you understand this?

Sure, but I am not sure you do. If you are forced to pay taxes, and some of those taxes go to the church, then you are forced to support the church. Far from "Church support is not mandatory" - in fact, you are telling me that the government supports other religions as well, so you have to support many religions even if you believe in none of them.

It is the government together with Parliament, and the municipalities that run the Danish state. About half of all political decisions are made locally.

And all of those governments are required to run the State in accordance with the constitution. And that constitution requires them to support the State church. You guys could elect the the Denmark Atheist Mensa Network (or, DAMN) and they would have to support the state Church. And if they have to run the government in such a way to support the church, they are at least conditionally religious.

The point is that there is a difference between the US and Denmark. It is crucial for people's understanding that they are aware of this.

What difference are you referring to here? According to what you are saying, the US govt is not the US state either. They have at least as many levels of gov't as you do.

Further, in the US they could elect Pat Robertson president and only priests of the Baptist church as Congress and they still would be constitutionally forbidden from establishing the Baptist church as the state church or giving general tax dollars to the Baptist church.

So, in Denmark your constitution could force Athiests to support the Church. In the US, the constitution prevents Bible-thumping fundamentalist governments from supporting the church. Which set of founding documents is more religious? Which state is more religious?

What evidence of mine isn't credible? Why don't you find my arguments convincing?

Your evidence is not convincing as you rely too heavily on irrelevancies as having great weight. I don't care what art is in the SCOTUS chamber, and the language in the DoI, while quite pretty, does not have any legal weight as has been pointed out to you.

Your arguments are unconvincing for the same reason. You attach great significance to one word in the DoI, but ignore the specifics of the Bill of Rights. Similarly, your attempts to marginalize the Official church of Denmark are silly.

You didn't answer it straight, ergo you are not a skeptic. You even give more evidence, because you make it clear that corroborating evidence from other Danes will not persuade you either.

Sorry to burst your bubble here Claus, but you are not the arbiter of who is a skeptic or not. Further, I do not make it clear that corroborating evidence would not persuade me. Rather, I state that I would need to actually see this corroborating evidence before I judge it one way or the other. Isn't that what skeptics are supposed to do? Actually weigh the evidence, rather than judging it sight unseen?

Since I have such a hard time convincing you, let me ask you this: Just what do you think "executive power" means in this case? What are the Queen's powers? What, specifically, can she do?

I know I've just explained it in the above post, but I would like to hear what you think.

It may be by custom that she has been relegated to essentially a ceremonial role. But on paper, she has a lot of power.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Amazing. You are not only continuing to ignore the Democracy thread (going on 3 weeks now with no responses from you); you now pass over all mentions of it without comment.

Echo

Echo

Echo

 

[Grammatron]

But I'm not doing that. I am pointing out that you are using Ken Ham's invalid technique.

Do what? I draw on my experience from having lived in both countries. You haven't even visited Denmark.

Irony?

How are they verified? By using sources. Yet, you refuse to allow me to use sources, but insist that I have to have appeared in court.

Your sources do not support your position.

It also says that if you swear, you have to swear on the Bible. That makes non-Christian believers second-rate citizens.

That could be argued; and if someone were to challenge it on that ground it would probably be overturned at some point in our legal system.

Do you understand that kids are not taught to be religious?

Except they are

Do you understand that kids are not taught about the goodness of religions?

At all? I would need to see the lesson plans before I can "understand" that.

You are not addressing the point. Do you understand that you do not become a member of the Church by birth, but by choice of your parents?

Doesn't alter my point.

We diagree. People can judge for themselves.

And they have.

Yes, there is. History. However, you will need to come to Denmark to understand. Right?

Your constitution is quite young, enough for history not to be a valid answer.

 

[CFLarsen]

I am with you to this point, and did not mean to imply otherwise. I was saying that the once or twice a year crowd is about the same (proportionally) as it was in the 18th century.

So, church attendance has gone down dramatically since then.

And here is where you go too far, on the basis of your source. It says nothing about christenings, weddings or funerals. What it says is "Today, 2.5 million Danes bend their knees at the altar during the year." To me, that implies praying a lot more than it implies just attending a ceremony. If you want to allege that, you'll need another source.

I don't care if it implies something else to you. Whatever I present, you simply brush aside.

Obviously, I disagree.

You can disagree all you like. That doesn't change the facts.

Sure, but I am not sure you do. If you are forced to pay taxes, and some of those taxes go to the church, then you are forced to support the church. Far from "Church support is not mandatory" - in fact, you are telling me that the government supports other religions as well, so you have to support many religions even if you believe in none of them.

Again, you show your ignorance. We have a specific tax, a Church tax. If you are not a member, then you don't pay that tax. Do you understand this?

And all of those governments are required to run the State in accordance with the constitution. And that constitution requires them to support the State church. You guys could elect the the Denmark Atheist Mensa Network (or, DAMN) and they would have to support the state Church. And if they have to run the government in such a way to support the church, they are at least conditionally religious.

Of course they wouldn't be. Don't be silly.

What difference are you referring to here? According to what you are saying, the US govt is not the US state either. They have at least as many levels of gov't as you do.

People refer to the US government as the government. But they falsely refer to the Danish state as the government.

I can see that it is apparently a wholly new concept to you, but you will have to accept the facts.

So, in Denmark your constitution could force Athiests to support the Church. In the US, the constitution prevents Bible-thumping fundamentalist governments from supporting the church. Which set of founding documents is more religious? Which state is more religious?

You are wrong: Nobody is being forced to support the Church. If you don't want to, you don't have to. Do you understand this?

Your evidence is not convincing as you rely too heavily on irrelevancies as having great weight.

What irrelevancies? You merely brush off every piece of evidence I supply and call it "irrelevant". You don't want to be persuaded, do you?

Your arguments are unconvincing for the same reason. You attach great significance to one word in the DoI, but ignore the specifics of the Bill of Rights.

But that's not all I do. I also point to the many references to God and religion in government-controlled life in the US.

Similarly, your attempts to marginalize the Official church of Denmark are silly.

I'm not trying to marginalize the church, I am trying - in vain, apparently - to explain to you how things are.

Sorry to burst your bubble here Claus, but you are not the arbiter of who is a skeptic or not.

When you summarily reject all evidence because it clashes with your beliefs, you are not a skeptic.

Further, I do not make it clear that corroborating evidence would not persuade me. Rather, I state that I would need to actually see this corroborating evidence before I judge it one way or the other. Isn't that what skeptics are supposed to do? Actually weigh the evidence, rather than judging it sight unseen?

Up to now, I have shown an increasing amount of corroborating evidence. Do you acknowledge that I have not merely given my opinion on this?

It may be by custom that she has been relegated to essentially a ceremonial role. But on paper, she has a lot of power.

What power? Be specific.

 

[CFLarsen]

Irony?

Yes, I was being ironic. Do you understand that it isn't necessary to have experienced something to know about it?

Your sources do not support your position.

You can think that, if you like.

That could be argued; and if someone were to challenge it on that ground it would probably be overturned at some point in our legal system.

But it hasn't.

Except they are

Evidence that you refuse to acknowledge that you are wrong.

At all? I would need to see the lesson plans before I can "understand" that.

At all. Feel free to learn Danish.

Doesn't alter my point.

Just answer the question: Do you understand that you do not become a member of the Church by birth, but by choice of your parents?

Your constitution is quite young, enough for history not to be a valid answer.

I already explained this: The Constitution is from 1953 and builds on the previous Constitution from 1849. Our first "Constitution" was from 1241.

Do you have a poor memory, or did you just willingly ignore it?

 

[Grammatron]

Yes, I was being ironic. Do you understand that it isn't necessary to have experienced something to know about it?

Indeed I do, thus I didn't require that the only evidence you could provide be of personal kind. Do you understand that?

You can think that, if you like.

Just stating a fact.

But it hasn't.

Yup, not yet.

Evidence that you refuse to acknowledge that you are wrong.

That's simply your opinion, a biased one too.

At all. Feel free to learn Danish.

I'll put it on the list of languages to learn.

Just answer the question: Do you understand that you do not become a member of the Church by birth, but by choice of your parents?

Yes, and yet 66% of your countryman feel there should remain a state church of one true religion. And beyond that, regardless of how many members support the church it resieves 12% in the form of state subsidy. This means, even if everyone opts-out the government is still supporting the church.
source

I already explained this: The Constitution is from 1953 and builds on the previous Constitution from 1849. Our first "Constitution" was from 1241.

Do you have a poor memory, or did you just willingly ignore it?

Oh I am not ignoring anything, just pointing out that even in modern times your people want one true religion.

 

[CFLarsen]

Indeed I do, thus I didn't require that the only evidence you could provide be of personal kind. Do you understand that?

Yes, if it was true. But I have not merely presented evidence of a personal kind. Do you acknowledge this?

Just stating a fact.

No, it's your opinion. Your opinions are not facts.

Yup, not yet.

So, people in the US are discriminated against based on their religion. Do you acknowledge this?

That's simply your opinion, a biased one too.

No, it's a fact: You have been provided with evidence, but refuse to acknowledge that you are wrong.

I'll out it on the list of languages to learn.

Get back when you can.

Yes, and yet 66% of your countryman feel there should remain a state church of one true religion.

Let's see the full quote:

According to a poll conducted in the fall of 2003, 63 percent of citizens feel that the Evangelical Lutheran Church should have a special place in the Constitution, down from 68 percent in 1999.

In only four years, it drops from 68 to 63. Strange you should "leave" that "out".

And beyond that, regardless of how many members support the church it resieves 12% in the form of state subsidy. This means, even if everyone opts-out the government is still supporting the church.
source

I don't know where they have that number from.

Oh I am not ignoring anything, just pointing out that even in modern times your people want one true religion.

No, they don't. You are grossly misrepresenting the facts.

 

[Grammatron]

Yes, if it was true. But I have not merely presented evidence of a personal kind. Do you acknowledge this?

Yet you made a huge deal out of nothing.

No, it's your opinion. Your opinions are not facts.

Right back at ya.

So, people in the US are discriminated against based on their religion. Do you acknowledge this?

Heck no.

No, it's a fact: You have been provided with evidence, but refuse to acknowledge that you are wrong.

Right back at ya.

Get back when you can.

Mhmm

Let's see the full quote:

In only four years, it drops from 68 to 63. Strange you should "leave" that "out".

Doesn't change the fact that a majority wants a state-supported church of one true religion. Do you understand that?

I don't know where they have that number from.

Do you question their conclusion? Do you have counter-evidence to the source I provided?

No, they don't. You are grossly misrepresenting the facts.

Interpret "...63 percent of citizens feel that the Evangelical Lutheran Church should have a special place in the Constitution..." in another way then.