• 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.

Merged Scalia is dead

quadraginta said:
There is no way that an intelligent, educated adult could ever say that without either being a creationist or lying their ass off.

Which is it?

In fact, even a creationist couldn't honestly make the claim that the purpose of the law was secular, because support for creationism is always ultimately based in religion, and in this case specifically monotheistic Mosaic religion.

In that case he could be both a creationist and a liar. Definitely one or the other, though.
Click to expand...

well he wrote a well reasoned 25 page long dissent in the case, which you don't appear to have read? Of course you have not read.
 
16.5 said:
well he wrote a well reasoned 25 page long dissent in the case, which you don't appear to have read? Of course you have not read.
Click to expand...


I read the part you chose to cite. That was a simple, declarative statement which was more than sufficient to establish the supporting facts for the conclusion I drew.

Are you now claiming he didn't write that?
 
quadraginta said:
I read the part you chose to cite. That was a simple, declarative statement which was more than sufficient to establish the supporting facts for the conclusion I drew.

Are you now claiming he didn't write that?
Click to expand...

But you didn't read the entire dissent that I cited and linked? You read one sentence? That is remarkable....

I commend you on your honesty, tho
 
16.5 said:
But you didn't read the entire dissent that I cited and linked? You read one sentence? That is remarkable....

I commend you on your honesty, tho
Click to expand...


Do you honestly believe that if I were to read the entire dissent I would discover something within those pages which would contradict the essence of the cite you chose?

Since it was a cite you chose which prompted my comment, and since you seem to be claiming such intimate familiarity with the whole of the dissent, why don't you go ahead and offer a few cites which make clear that Scalia didn't actually mean what he wrote in the part you did choose to cite.
 
quadraginta said:
Do you honestly believe that if I were to read the entire dissent I would discover something within those pages which would contradict the essence of the cite you chose?

Since it was a cite you chose which prompted my comment, and since you seem to be claiming such intimate familiarity with the whole of the dissent, why don't you go ahead and offer a few cites which make clear that Scalia didn't actually mean what he wrote in the part you did choose to cite.
Click to expand...

Wait, you are refusing to read it? Again, remarkable.

Say, maybe you can read this part of the dissent?

Before summarizing the testimony of Senator Keith and his supporters, I wish to make clear that I by no means intend to endorse its accuracy. But my views (and the views of this Court) about creation science and evolution are (or should be) beside the point. Our task is not to judge the debate about teaching the origins of life, but to ascertain what the members of the Louisiana Legislature believed. The vast majority of them voted to approve a bill which explicitly stated a secular purpose; what is crucial is not their wisdom in believing that purpose would be achieved by the bill, but their sincerity in believing it would be.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Wait, you are refusing to read it? Again, remarkable.

Say, maybe you can read this part of the dissent?

Before summarizing the testimony of Senator Keith and his supporters, I wish to make clear that I by no means intend to endorse its accuracy. But my views (and the views of this Court) about creation science and evolution are (or should be) beside the point. Our task is not to judge the debate about teaching the origins of life, but to ascertain what the members of the Louisiana Legislature believed. The vast majority of them voted to approve a bill which explicitly stated a secular purpose; what is crucial is not their wisdom in believing that purpose would be achieved by the bill, but their sincerity in believing it would be.
Click to expand...
Someone who is not a creationist would have to be extremely stupid to believe that the purpose of teaching creationism in public schools isn't to push religion. Scalia, whatever else he was, was not stupid.
 
Tony Stark said:
Someone who is not a creationist would have to be extremely stupid to believe that the purpose of teaching creationism in public schools isn't to push religion. Scalia, whatever else he was, was not stupid.
Click to expand...

Meh, when the only counter arguement that has been made isn't that Scalia isn't a Creationist but might not be a Creationist I'm not sure it really matters. Just remember he defended teaching Creationism and criticize him for that.
 
16.5 said:
Wait, you are refusing to read it? Again, remarkable. Say, maybe you can read this part of the dissent?
Before summarizing the testimony of Senator Keith and his sup <snip>
Click to expand...

This passage has been pasted here several times. The fact is, a judge CAN judge what is pseudo-science and what isn't (weren't expert witnesses called?).

...to ascertain what the members of the Louisiana Legislature believed
Click to expand...
The Court did not have to approve the law because the Louisiana legislature may (or may not) have sincerely believed it was Constitutional. The Court is supposed to decide whether the law really is Constitutional. The majority decided it wasn't.

Even conservative commentators like George Will disagreed with Scalia on this case and disagreed vehemently. From Foolmewunz link:
[Will] ridiculed the suggestion that “creation science” is a scientific theory, calling it a “dogma” that “is neither based on, nor vulnerable to, scientific scrutiny of the world.” Needless to say, Will offered no support for the man who usually is his favorite justice. He called Scalia’s dissent “dismaying” and compared teaching the creation science in biology to teaching “alchemy in chemistry classes” or “flat-earth doctrines in geography classes.” Facts might “incovenience” beliefs, Will admitted, but when they do so, the proper response should be to say, “Too bad for the beliefs.” Western civilization, according to Will, rests on its “eagerness…to face and embrace facts.”
Click to expand...

I'm not sure Scalia was a creationist but he certainly seems to have leaned that way. One fact becomes clear, his dissent in Edwards was not his finest hour.
 
16.5 said:
Wait, you are refusing to read it? Again, remarkable.

Say, maybe you can read this part of the dissent?

Before summarizing the testimony of Senator Keith and his supporters, I wish to make clear that I by no means intend to endorse its accuracy. But my views (and the views of this Court) about creation science and evolution are (or should be) beside the point. Our task is not to judge the debate about teaching the origins of life, but to ascertain what the members of the Louisiana Legislature believed. The vast majority of them voted to approve a bill which explicitly stated a secular purpose; what is crucial is not their wisdom in believing that purpose would be achieved by the bill, but their sincerity in believing it would be.
Click to expand...


You aren't making much progress in his favor here.

This seems to be saying that he believes it isn't important whether the bill required religious instruction to be offered by the schools as long as the authors of the bill made the claim that they didn't believe it to be religious.


Is this the kind of facile doubletalk you believe somehow demonstrates he wasn't a creationist?

It isn't working.

At the rate you are going it seems apparent that the more someone digs into his dissent the more obvious his sympathy for and even outright support of creationism becomes. Even your best examples seem to establish the opposite of your claims.
 
Myron Proudfoot said:
nothing about the RW freakout claiming Obama had him MURDERED??? Drudge and Breitbart are running with it.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/con...calia-was-found-dead-with-a-pillow-over-head/
Click to expand...
uke2se said:
This is a good link to save the next time one of our righties assert that Breitbart is a reliable media organization.

Actually, reading a Breitbart article on this, they don't seem to be running with the conspiracy theory, but rather reporting that it exists.
Click to expand...


I was just about to post this, too.
 
quadraginta said:
You aren't making much progress in his favor here.

This seems to be saying that he believes it isn't important whether the bill required religious instruction to be offered by the schools as long as the authors of the bill made the claim that they didn't believe it to be religious.


Is this the kind of facile doubletalk you believe somehow demonstrates he wasn't a creationist?

It isn't working.

At the rate you are going it seems apparent that the more someone digs into his dissent the more obvious his sympathy for and even outright support of creationism becomes. Even your best examples seem to establish the opposite of your claims.
Click to expand...

That is what Judges do. As I have pointed out repeatedly, for example, several Judges have upheld the right of Nazis to march, without themselves being Nazis!

I know, amazing!
 
16.5 said:
That is what Judges do. As I have pointed out repeatedly, for example, several Judges have upheld the right of Nazis to march, without themselves being Nazis!

I know, amazing!
Click to expand...
You don't have to be Nazi to believe that they have 1st Amendment rights.

You do have to be a creationist (or really stupid) to believe that there is a secular reason for teaching creation "science" in biology class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom