David Limbaugh
August 30, 2003
Recently I have
discussed the
issues involved in
the controversy
surrounding Alabama Chief
Justice Roy Moore. Before
finally leaving the subject, I
want to address this
nettlesome notion of the
separation of church and
state.
Often the sword of separation
is used to smother, rather than
promote religious liberty.
There is nothing in the
Constitution mandating a
separation of church and
state. (The phrase originated
in a letter from Thomas
Jefferson.) When you hear
people talking about the
supposed "separation of
church and state," what they
usually mean is "The
Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment requires a
separation." But it doesn't.
Aside from the fact that the
Establishment Clause has
been erroneously extended to
apply to the states as well as
Congress, let's look how far
the scope of "establishment"
has been stretched on both
the state and federal levels.
It's darn near criminal.
The Framers meant that
Congress couldn't establish a
national church. They did not
intend to forbid every little
activity on government
property or partially funded
by the government. Justice
Moore's monument flap is just
the tip of the iceberg.
The courts are using the
Establishment Clause to
scrub Christianity entirely
from the public square,
including public schools. Their
restrictions on religious
freedom in schools illustrate
the obscene extremes to
which the law has been
extended.
The separationists contend
that public schools, because
they are funded by federal
and state money, cannot
engage in activities that are deemed an
endorsement of a religion. Just the slightest nod
toward a religion will be enough to trigger an
Establishment Clause violation.
Consider the case in which public high school
students held their own two-step election, first, to
decide whether a student address, possibly
containing a prayer, could be delivered at a football
game, and second, which student would deliver it.
The Supreme Court ruled, in effect, that just by
permitting such an election the state was violating
the Establishment Clause.
Now seriously, just how far do we have to suspend
our disbelief to conclude that the Framers intended
to prohibit such an election merely facilitated -- not
initiated -- by a public school?
Well, first we have to ignore that the First
Amendment restricted the federal Congress only.
Second, we have to disregard that it also prohibited
Congress from intruding on the states' right to
establish religion if they so chose. Third, we have to
assume that a local school, which happens to
receive funding from both the state and federal
governments, is deemed to be an extension of those
governments, keeping in mind that there were no
such government funded and controlled schools at
the time of the nation's founding.
Fourth, we have to find that the students' voluntary
action to elect a speaker to deliver a statement that
might or might not contain a prayer, with no
involvement from the school beyond permitting the
election, should be imputed to the state or federal
governments -- as if they are the ones choosing to
say the prayer.
Fifth, we have to conclude that the reading of the
prayer itself is tantamount to establishing a federal
or state religion -- notwithstanding that there are
thousands of other government-run schools
throughout the United States that would be
completely unaffected by the prayer and no other
part of the nation would be affected by it. (How can
we conclude that a single public school in a single
community in a single state, by merely permitting
and not encouraging its students to choose, on their
own, to read a prayer at a football game, constitutes
the establishment of a particular denomination as
the national or state religion?)
Sixth, we have to assume that you can ignore all
these obstacles, even though in the very process
you are emasculating that other critically important
religion clause of the First Amendment, the Free
Exercise Clause, which also guarantees our
religious liberty.
By precluding the student-led prayer through these
outrageous legal fictions and convoluted reasoning,
the Court sanctioned the school's encroachment on
the freedom of students to worship as they pleased
-- thwarting the very purpose of both First
Amendment religion clauses.
The point here is not that it is desirable for the
government to endorse religious activities. Rather it
is that courts have made the law up as they've gone
along, completing mucking up Establishment
Clause jurisprudence, and, in the name of
protecting religious freedom, have greatly
suppressed it.
92 responses total.
The author apparently thinks it would be a fine idea to allow individual states to establish state religions. This position is so distant from my own opinion on the subject that I really can't see much point in trying to argue with anyone who thinks the positions set forth in #0 are reasonable and desirable -- we're simply starting out so far apart that it would be ludicrous to expect either of us to ever be able to win over the other by means of argument.
Well then how the hell do you expect to live in the same political entity with the author of #0? Do you expect some right to impose your view on the author of #0? How so and on what basis? Other than merely prohibiting you from inflicting your views on all other citizens how does the view of #0 directly have anything to do with your view? You can either kill him, or structure a political system where you can live with each other, yes? To do nothing is granted under his view, how about yours?
"Well then how the hell do you expect to live in the same political entity with the author of #0?" Simple. I shrug and go about my business. (I might omit the shrug.)
The opinions expressed by the author of #0 are completely irrelevant, as the Supreme Court has interpreted the framers' intent behind the establishment clause to be the prohibition of a sociopolitical climate which favors the adherents of any one religious belief system over any other. Since atheism obviously qualifies as a religious belief system, the courts have ruled in a manner consistent with that interpretation. The extent it is unpopular with the protestant majority is a perfect example of why this interpretation is so important to sustain.
The author of #0 is a radical who obviously rejects the 14th Amendment, and the incorporation of the Bill of Rights (i.e., extending those guarantees to individuals vis-a-vis state and local government) which is sensibly based on it, in effect taking the Confederate view of the Constitution. There's nothing inherently wrong with that point of view, but most everybody else -- even Southerners and conservatives -- has accepted the outcome of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment, and incorporation of the Bill of Rights, and moved on. Indeed, I think you'd have a hard time finding very many lawyers or mainstream public figures who would seriously argue that incorporation was a bad thing and should be undone. If a nominee for the Supreme Court took this position, I can't imagine that more than a handful of the most extremist Senators (if that many) would vote to confirm such a person.
Re 2. Individuals with all kinds of minority or radical views are perfectly free to advocate those beliefs and attempt to persuade others. It certainly doesn't guarantee that the minority view prevail.
This response has been erased.
Think how Limbaugh (#0) would scream if the religious expression were totally Muslim because of a local majority of Muslims on the school board and among the students.
*roftl*
#0 would also seem to suggest that it'd be okay for the government to fund a religion, make laws based on its teachings, and tailor public spaces to make only people of that religion feel welcome, as long as it's never referred to with the magic words "official state religion." Obviously this would be an established state church in every way except the name.
So what if muslim are allowed to use the school for their religious purposes? Do I worry about a muslim boy scout troop? No. And I am fairly sure Limbaugh doesn't either. If the local hindu population want to hold a prayer session in the local gym, Should you care? No. And as a christian, I wouldn't either. If the local judge decided to put a copy of the talmud in the library, which is government funded, are you going to care?
You are only describing extracurricular and *independent* religious activities of a sect for members of that sect. I have no problem with that either, so long as the facilities are available and can be shared equally by all those wishing to use them for non-profit purposes. However this was about secular activities within the academic context for all students. That is what is unconstitutional.
no, many schools have taken the position that ALL such activities are in violation of seperation of church and state. If the Jews, hindus, christians and islam all want to have their creeds posted in the Courthouse, I would not complain. I suppose part of the problem is that our justice system is based on the Judeo-christian belief system, so we are not readily willing to put up something that calls for public flogging, shunning, or lopping off hands or heads. I still see nothing wrong with a community that is a majority displaying its beliefs. If Dearborn wants to put out displays for Shiite beliefs, I have no problem with that. If they want to force all people to say prayer 7 times a day, I do see a problem with that.
Displays of majority religious symbolism on public property or at public functions can be seen as (and in fact sometimes is) intimidation. It demonstrates a governmental preferences for particular religion(s). It does not make it better by saying that other creeds "may" display their symbolism as different creeds have different tenets or preferences or resources in that regard. There is no way to enforce equality in religious advertising - it would be bizarre to try. The blanket prohibition of governmental exhibition of religious preferences in any form, provided by the first amendment, solves all of these problems at once.
Bruce says he wouldn't mind Jewish, Hindu, or Islamic symbols in the courtroom. As for myself, I'd personally be nervous about receiving a fair trial if I had to appear before a Muslim judge who was an outspoken advocate of shari'a and of the idea that man's law should be based on God's law and who insisted on decorating his court room with illuminated manuscripts of verses from the Q'uran. I can only conclude that Bruce is a far more openminded and tolerant individual than I am.. Or maybe, just maybe, he's totally lying to himself when he insists that there's nothing wrong with what Justice Moore is doing and that he'd be comfortable with the same kind of behavior from a Jewish, Hindu, or Muslim judge.
Three of the 10 Commandments have the force of civil law in most societies: don't murder, don't steal, and don't commit perjury. (Another one, don't fuck someone else's spouse, is the law in many societies, although it is routinely broken by people for various reasons -- true love, career advancement, revenge, nice eyes, nice ass, nice tits, I'm bored, he's the President of the US, she's a willing young intern, the First Lady is frigid, etc., etc. -- often without a trace of regret until they get caught.) Two of the 10 are standard-issue oriental philosophy: honor your parents and don't desire other people's stuff. Healthy for you psychologically, maybe, but hardly enforceable as civil law. The other four -- put all the other gods behind YHVH in line, don't make or worship images, don't work on whatever day you call the Sabbath, and don't use YHVH's name frivolously -- are Jewish religious strictures, later adopted by Christians. Nobody, not even bap, can make an intelligent case that any of this should be posted in a court of law.
Displays of majority religious symbolism on public property or at public functions can be seen as (and in fact sometimes is) intimidation. It demonstrates a governmental preferences for particular religion(s). It So thats what the gay coalition is doing by holding gay pride marches, intimidating people? The Red Cross need to change their emblem because they are intimidating people? No wonder they cannot get enough blood. While I would not find a display on the Talmud or the Koran intimidating, I suppose since our laws stem from the Judeao-Christian religion and european common law, that the display of such would not be appropriate in a court room. I wouldn't want people to think just because a judge was Islamic that they would resort to chopping off hands and heads for certain crimes.
Why do you think that the founding fathers specifically named religion as the subject that government may not promote, while specifically allowing all other peaceable forms of address? Gay pride marches and Red Cross symbolism are Constitutional because they do not promote a religiion. You are downplaying the power of religions to raise people's passions, I presume in order to try to sneak some in under the door, so to speak. Our laws stem from many sources. So did Judeao-Christian laws. It doesn't matter what they "stem" from - what matters is that our laws were developed and applied in a secular form applicable to people of any mythological persuasion.
*I* think they specificially mentioned religion because Massachusetts didn't want to be under the Church of Virginia.
Re #17: The government doesn't fund gay pride marches. The idea here is that the government should remain neutral on the subject of religion. When the government starts paying to erect monuments to a specific religion, it's no longer neutral; it's expressing support for that religion over others.
This response has been erased.
Which is why they have the right to enforce "time, place and manner" restrictions, though without regard to the content of the march, rally or protest.
Sept. 2, 2003, 7:30PM Clergy must be the peacemakers in `culture war' By ED MENKEN TODAY, we see and hear the rising tide of rants and outrage bellowed by those who insist that the United States is a Christian nation and must be acknowledged as such, by allowing Chief Justice Judge Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument to stand in a government building in Alabama and a King James version of the Bible to be displayed outside a government building in Houston. The simple fact is, the Founders never intended that this should be anything but a secular nation, making that abundantly clear in the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause isn't complicated or confusing; it is absolute in its simplicity. And the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously upheld the principle that government cannot and must not endorse a particular religion, even if that religion represents the majority of the citizenry. It's called "protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority," and the Founders were extremely deliberate about it. But we have a growing chorus of radical Christian fundamentalists who believe otherwise ... who preach that Christians are under attack, that their beliefs are being assaulted by "Christ-haters," and that "atheists and devil-worshipers want to remove every vestige of religion from the public square." Apart from the massive absurdity of these inflammatory claims, the purveyors of these lies are major beneficiaries of their deceit as they plead for more and more money from misled followers to "defend Christianity." They tell their audiences that this country was "founded on Christian beliefs," but never mention the fact that although the Declaration of Independence contains several references to God (or "Nature's God," "their Creator" or "the Supreme Judge of the World"), nowhere does the name Jesus ever appear. And nowhere in that Declaration of Independence, where the reasons for severance from England are clearly defined, is there any mention whatsoever of a religious motive, or a desire to establish a Christian nation or a theocracy. Moreover, nowhere in the Constitution -- which is the supreme document that governs the country -- is there any reference to God. In fact, not only does the Constitution clearly state, in the requirement for attaining office, that the candidate must either swear or affirm, there is no requirement that a Bible be present or used. Most significantly, the Constitution specifically says, " ... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." And the fact that the phrase, "In God We Trust," is on our money, or that every session of the Supreme Court opens with the call, "God save this Honorable Court," are notable in that nowhere, again, is the name of Jesus invoked. But the radical Christian fundamentalists would have us believe that the God mentioned is Jesus, and that it's time to acknowledge that, no matter what the federal courts or the Constitution say. What we are faced with now is a tragedy and a danger of immense proportions, where a cadre of power- and money-hungry televangelists -- most of them already multimillionaires who use their pulpits for despicable personal gain -- along with a larger number of other theo-propagandists who want a piece of the power-and-profit action -- are hell-bent on inciting what they refer to as a "culture war." And, rather than review the facts, rather than read history books and the Constitution, rather than exercise the same rational thinking that's applied when crossing the street, the "faithful" are listening to the demagogues and getting angrier and more militant ... much to the pleasure of their venomous leaders. Anyone who believes that this "culture war" will be settled by the courts, or that it's just a passing protest that will benignly fade away, is sadly -- and dangerously -- mistaken. As long as those much more numerous clergy who understand and support the separation of church and state remain silent ... as long as responsible religious leaders of all faiths in this country remain out of sight ... as long as the demagogues continue to go unchallenged ... this nation grows ever closer to more violence in the name of Jesus. The rising tide of intolerance, the overheated rhetoric of self-anointed "defenders of Christ," the calls for greater militancy on the part of hate-filled fundamentalists whose lies and distortions are being swallowed whole by naive believers ... all signal a prelude to catastrophe. And the fact that these self-described "Christian Warriors" believe, not without reason, that the current president of the United States is supportive of their aims, adds all the fuel to the raging fire that's necessary for the destruction of this beloved democracy. Unless there is a massive public outcry from mainstream religious leaders, and soon, such misguided fervor will add a great many more names to the list of people who have been killed in recent years in the name of Jesus. The fact that a recent poll told us that 77 percent of the American people believe that Moore's monument should have remained is another signal that should be heeded. For among that huge number there are surely those whose misguided frustration is rapidly approaching a boiling point. The roster of Bible-quoting murderers, which includes John Salvi, Michael Griffin, Paul Hill, James Kopp and Eric Rudolph, awaits only the erupting vehemence of the willing before it grows. The writing, so to speak, is on the wall. Menken, of Houston, is a member of both the national and local chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/2078995
And of course the author's comments aren't inflammatory, although they include "fundamentalist" and "radical" in a sweeping fashion...
This response has been erased.
I think it points out inherent problemswith Christianity, and I think we should dig up some of Russ's suggestions for dealing with Islamic extremism and apply them to Christianity the same way. ;)
This response has been erased.
i don't trust 'em! sonofabitches!
This response has been erased.
Re #24: If you actually read the piece, you'll see that the
qualifications include:
... who preach that Christians are under attack, that their
beliefs are being assaulted by "Christ-haters," and that
"atheists and devil-worshipers want to remove every vestige
of religion from the public square."
If that's sweeping, I'm the king of Siam. (Though I found this
editorial particularly compelling because one of our own, Bruce
Price, has apparently bought into that last lie. I'd include klg
there if I thought klg believed anything he said.)
There are some very wealthy people paying to broadcast the lies that
Bruce is buying: http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs7003.htm
Re #25: Paul Hill may not be the last at the rate things are going. :/
paul hill will be reincarnated as a paintchip eating mongoloid who gets raped and impregnated and forced to carry the mutant baby to term. this will occur sometime in the 1940's. that or he will be reborn as an unwanted crack baby. IT'S TRUE! 8D
Re #30: Part of the reason the televangelists are so big on this is that if you want to get people to really rally strongly behind a cause (and send you money), you need to convince them that they're a threatened minority who is in real danger of losing everything. A side benefit of this, if you're a political figure, is you get to take credit for slaying the dragon you've created.
dirty stinky fundies.
I need to see if I got any change coming from my buyin...
Bruce, you're thinking too small. Go for a full refund.
Oh, come on, Russ! At least commend him for the attempt! I thought it was a good, humourous response to your not necessarily unwarranted, but not necessarily necessary attack.
I'm curious, Bruce - how religious are you? How many times per year do you go to Church? Is your endorsement of state-sponsored Christianity more about your desire to put down other religious than your own religous beliefs?
/cracks knuckles and leans back with a bowl of heathen popcorn
I haven't been to church for anything other than weddings and funerals more than three times in the last 20 years. I do not beklieve in any state-sponsored religion. I also do not believe in the state acting to prevent the free exercise of religion. What right does a cross standing at ground zero of the World Trade Center violate? Which right of yours do you believe it violates? What about the Ten commandments in a public park? How does that violate your civil rights? Tell me which right is violated. Tne commandmants in the lobby of a court house. How are you harmed by it? What clause of the Constitution is violated? The establishment Clause? It was put there so that no state could force you to attend religious services, not so it could be used to prevent the free and open exercise of religion. I know of no law, federal, state or local that tells a single american what religion they have to follow. I do not believe that monuments erected in public locations are state sponsored religion. Aaron, I consider myself a Christian. There are 17 tenets to my faith, none fo which you will find in any christian, jewish, or moslem text because I arrived at them thru my own personal, independent thought. I am christian because I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Other than that, I doubt you could find much in common with my reasoned philosophy with any of the major religions today. I have no quarrel with Christian, Moslem, or jewish faiths. They worship the same God I do, they just haven't figured out how to play together nicely yet. Budhism, shinto, wiccan and any number of other minor religions bother me. mostly because unlike the threee major religions, they do not believe in the one true God. But then again, maybe God saw a way around all these other religions that bring us closer to the truth. Maybe that is why we have them out there, and why we have athiests. Here are tenets 9, 10, and 11 of my beliefs: 9. All men and women are equal. God makes no distinction in people, either in sex or in color. Each of us has a destiny to fulfill. For some it will mean going to the stars, for others it may be teaching a stubborn man how to love a less than perfect child. Whatever our form, be it beautiful or ugly, God created us all equal. 10. All people are sinners. Every single one of us is born with a flaw in our character. No one of us is perfect. One of the challenges is to see beyond the sin into the soul of the sinner and to show each and every one the way to salvation. We can forgive the sinner, and not the sin. Only God can forgive the sin. 11. Faith needs only faith. Those who believe need no miracles to neither prove nor strengthen their faith. You need no logical arguments to prove the existence of God. Each person finds God through faith in their own way. Some see it in the sunset, some in a leaf; some hear it in the peals of laughter from a playground, or the smell of hot bread fresh from the oven. All man is, and all he accomplishes, are a tribute to God.
And you're an English major.
I'm curious, Bruce. Why does it matter to you what form of god or lack thereof that other people believe in and/or worship, or not? Especially being someone who does not subscribe to any particular religion beyond your own particular interpretation of Christianity, that particular facet of your belief system is a bit bizarre. In effect, what you are doing is saying, "No church is good enough for me, so I'm going to make up my own, but other people ought to believe what I choose to believe." Do Buddhist, Shinto, Wiccan and other "minor" religions practiced by significant proportions of the population of Earth bother you because deep down, you fear that your own beliefs might actually be wrong? And even if they were, what's the problem with that? If your belief in a particular higher truth demands that all other truths be subject to it, than you'll have to come up with something more substantial upon which to base it than "faith," as you call it. Because if faith is your only means of testing truth, then "truth" is determined by cultural influences and nothing more. That kind of truth is nothing more than a haven for those too incapable or intellectually lazy to pursue reason. And, it is the basis of moral relativism and bigotry. It would be disingenuous to say that I didn't mean to be so vigorous in my expressions here, but it is just unconscionable to me that people who actually think similarly to the ways you have just described have undermined the democratic process and are forcibly reshaping the world in which I and the people I love have to live, so my righteous indignation has gotten the better of me. Don't take it personally.
re39: i hadn't realized that buddhism is a *religion* and a minor one at that! you are a smelly bigot.
atheism is a religion to some people.
Gee, Bruce, what right would the state be violating if it made applicants for Section Eight housing listen to a sermon on the evils of depending on government subsidy, as part of the housing application process? A nice, Calvanist sermon about how God favors the righteous with economic success, and how you had best cure your evil ways. Or if all public parks and school yards contained a giant state-sponsored placard, "God hates unwed mothers and their bastard children." You could plug your ears or avert your eyes, but somewhere along the line isn't there a right to be free from that type of state sponsorship of religion? You get all giddy about state sponsorship of religion because you assume first of all that it will be sponsorship of Christianity - that is, that somebody else's ox will be gored - and second that it will less be about religion than it will be about the advancement of a right wing social agenda - an agenda you espouse, even if you have never been quite able to live it.
wait a minute. If the government wnated to dissuade people from government housing, wouldn't they just stop building it? As I said. A Menorah sitting on a table in a state supported museaum, does that support a religion? Does the holocaust museaum get any stae sponsorship? Does a school taking children there support religion? Is a school allowed to have someone from a moslem school come in and talk about religion? Is an islamic child allowed to take his prayer mat into school and pray at te times he is supposed to? Seeing the symbols of other religions does not offend me. Why does seeing the symbols of my religion offend you?
The problem is that the display of religious sumbols in public venues can be a threat to conform in some fashion. The KKK's burning crosses is the extreme example of this. It is particularly threatening if done by the majority religion, as they generally have some social, political or judicial power over others. If I see any religious symbol in any public venue, especially related to goverment, I think that it would be against my interests to show any disrespect or perhaps even indifference to other expressions of those religions. It could be "stepping on toes". I favor keeping any religous displays totally unassociated with any function or branch of government.
So we cannot teach tolerance of other people and cultures in public schools because that would be supporting various religions, right.
Exactly right, bru! Promoting intolerance and cultural monopoly is exactly what we liberals have been after all this time. We're so glad you've taken the time to understand our arguments.
re43 ...and in your case being a smelly retard-o is a religion.
<grin>
<50 was in response to 48, not 49)>
Re #47: a non-sequitar, if inresponse to #46: putting religious symbols on display in pubolic venues does not "teach tolerance of other people and cultures". In fact, it teaches religious division. Our "founding fathers" understood this well by adopting the first amendment. But teaching tolerance is very desirable, and can be done in many contexts that do not require the unrelated display of religious symbols. A course on the US Constitution and history would be a good format.
bru, you really don't see how the government paying to erect a monument to the Ten Commandments in a courthouse might be construed as a) the goverment favoring Christianity over other religions, and b) a not-so-subtle suggestion that people of other religions should not expect equal treatment in tht courthouse? I really think you're deliberately trying not to understand this argument.
In all apparent seriousness, Bruce asks: >What about the Ten commandments in a public park? How does that >violate your civil rights? Tell me which right is violated. So I'll tell him: it violates my Constitutional right to not have one religion (Christianity, which I understand is the only one to find exactly ten commandments in that text!) established as superior to other religions, or no religion. They, and their adherents, become unequal in the park and before the law. Someone is favored with the priviledge of putting their religious symbols on public land (which is *my* land *too*), and others (including me, more likely than not - what would I put there?) are disfavored. I don't expect Bruce to see the virtue in strict adherence to the Establishment clause, to see how it is the grease which keeps religious friction from igniting the fires of conflict and even civil war. He's too dense, too blind, to see how others would be forced to react if the power of the state could start telling them that their faith makes them second-class citizens. He just follows instructions as best he can. This is ideal for his job, but as a citizen... best not to go there. And atheism is a religion just like teetotalling is substance abuse.
You keep missing the fact that I have no problem with other religions expressing their monuments as well. Also, I do not believe the Establishment Clause was to ban all religious expression, only to prevent the government from making one government religion.
Actually, i agree with the notion that atheism is a religion. It just isn't an organized one. The logic is that atheism is defined as the belief in the absence of deity, which is no more proven or provable than the presence of deity. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is the proper path of the true skeptic. It is merely the acceptance that we just don't know. Of course, Occam's Razor makes the Agnostic tend to lean toward the atheistic position, but the difference is that both ends of the spectrum involve acceptance without proof. #55 slipped in, so: Your interpretation of the Establishment Clause is not consistent with the interpretation of the Supreme Court. What makes YOUR interpretation superior?
Re #55: While you may have no problem with it, a lot of people would. The protests we're seeing in Alabama are small potatos compared to what could happen if the government started erecting religious monuments all over the place. That kind of thing can tear countries apart, and has many times in the past.
There is a lot more evidence for the absence of gods than for the presence of gods, in the same way there is more evidence for the absence of (say) fluorescent green elephants than for their presence.
There is no evidence of the absence of God. There was no proof of the existence of choelenchanth, and no proof of their none existence. Until the 1950's that is, when one was caught. If you believe in flourescent Green elephants, good for you.
Rane's arguments about green elephants rely on this assumption: If flourescent green elephants exist, then we will eventually find evidence that they exist. He concludes that since we have found no such evidence, they don't exist. A reasonable conclusion. The same logic does not work, however, with respect to god. If a god exists, it is certainly capable of concealing its existence from the prying scientific eyes of the Rane Curls of the world, and quite possibly motivated to do so. The existence of green elephants is a falsifiable claim, and as such belongs to the problem domain of science. The existence of god is not a falsifiable claim.
Mr. gull We thought that the 10 Commandments were given to the Jews, not the Christians.
Although more or less an atheist myself, I can't escape the feeling that these militant atheist types are just making themselves look like half-wits. The American Constitution does of course say that there should be no mixing of church and state, and thus it makes sense that no religious icons or things of the sort should be placed on public grounds, as that may give the notion that the organisation prefers one religious group to another. But all the same, I cannot help thinking that these guys are making mountains out of molehills and making assholes out of themselves in the process. Same thing when the "Under God" phrase of the Pledge of Allegiance came under fire. I mean, these atheists screech and scream about these things like there was some serious discrimination going on. Hell, if I walked into a hospital that had a statue of Parvati or St. Peter or Anton LaVey for that matter, I wouldn't feel oppressed. As long as the hospital did their jobs right and treated me like anyone else, who the hell cares about what religious icons they put up? If they think that this kind of thing oppresses them, why not try moving to Saudi Arabia for a few months, where females aren't even allowed to drive cars, or to Nepal maybe, where killing a cow, even accidentally, can net you life in prison? Female Genital Mutilation is religious oppression, the arrest of Shi Enxiang, the killing of Graham Staines, the making pariahs of Hindu widows . . . that's oppression. It seems to me all they are doing is making a mockery of the very idea of "religious oppression" by taking those who really suffer oppression and forgetting them, while focusing on trifles that don't degrade the quality of anyone's life. "Oppression" is not the same as having your own set of religious (or non-religious) ideas offended. If you don't like the statue or don't believe in the commandments, look in the other bloody direction. It's all a big to-do over absolutely nothing. I wonder how much dough went to fighting these silly court cases that could have been used for educating some inner-city kids or feeding the hungry? We can see the kinds of priorities these people have . . .
It is not a "big to-do over absolutely nothing" because these things can start in small and seemingly irrelevant ways. How do you think the major (and minor) religions got started? Usually one person and a few followers. The small insinutions of religions into the functioning of our democracy opens the door to increasingly greater insinuations. This is, in fact, why the religious right is trying to make small inroads into abortion rights (and other rights too). I think the point to call a halt is at the door, and reject any displays of religions in public venues. Re #60: the same logic works for both gods and fluorescent green elephants. I will just declare the fluorescent green elephants cannot be verified, although they can still stomp on you. That's all the religionists have done with their gods.
Re #62: I'm curious who you think is a "militant atheist" in this item. (Other than Rane, I mean.) Rane is right in #63 that this is just the camel's nose under the tent. You don't have to listen to people like Pat Robertson for long to realize that the eventual goal is to have the U.S. become a Christian theocracy. These things start in small ways.
agreed.
I'm not "militant" about practically anything - in fact, I am a member of Handgun Control and don't even have bullets for my Colt 45.
AHAHAHAHA< THE CAMEL"S FOOT CAUSES THE TENT! AHAHAHahah.
Hadn't Mr. rcurl previously argued *agains*t the "slippery slope" when it comes to abortion or, perhaps, cloning for fetal stem cells? Now, he's here arguing *in favor* of it regarding religion and government! Which is it, sir?
So when can I get tax-free status for my athiest church?
Re 68, I told him so. Did he listen?
This response has been erased.
If you're talking about capital-A Atheism, the positive belief that there is not and cannot be such a thing as a deity, you are right that it can be considered a religion. The mere small-a version of disbelief until evidence is presented is not, and the difference cannot be honestly overlooked. (Agnosticism is the belief that a deity cannot be found, perhaps because it does not want to be; the evidence in that case would be indistinguishable from Atheism.) To be truly fair to all religions, the state cannot take a position on any one of them unless the evidence for it meets a rather high standard. I suggest that the standards required for confirmation of a scientific theory are sufficient. Until any, some or all are so confirmed, they should all be treated as personal preferences to which people are entitled, but which confer no rights in interactions with either other people or the government.
Re #72: russ' argument in his first paragraph presumes that the concept of "gods" came first and atheism is a reaction against that. I consider the normal, original and rational concept doesn't even consider the possibiity of gods. Religions first arose first when some people came up with the idea of gods. There were none before that.
Funniest statement in Agora right now: >Budhism ... and any number of other minor religions
To be fair, if we're talking only about the U.S. population that statement is probably true. Buddhists are probably a pretty small minority.
Re #68: I think there's a difference. No one is calling for infanticide or any of the other things that anti-abortion activists claim are at the bottom of that slippery slope. There absolutely *are* lots of people calling for a government based exclusively on religious principles.
Re 76. I support abortion rights. I think it's critical that women have control over their own bodies. I also have trouble with the concept of a fertilized egg or a blastocyst being endowed with rights that override the needs and wants of fully born people. The trouble is that imposing death is an easy, quick, cheap, effective, and popular way to solve almost any human problem. It is such an appealing notion that this impulse must always be resisted, because a society which readily resorts to lethal means of solving problems becomes a monstrous place. When we debated legalized abortion back in the early 1970s, opponents predicted that by legitimizing the death option, it would lead to euthanasia. We abortion rights supporters all denied this at the time, but sure enough, Dr. Kevorkian came along; he and his supporters made no secret that euthanasia was their goal. It's important to draw a clear line between abortion and other highly appealing uses of the death option, such as euthanasia and capital punishment -- and hold that line.
re: "#76 (gull): Re #68: I think there's a difference. No one is calling for infanticide or any of the other things that anti-abortion activists claim are at the bottom of that slippery slope." We beg to differ, Mr. gull. For example, does not Peter Singer (a leading "ethicist" at Yale (?)) contend that newborns ought not to have the same civil protections as older persons, thus providing for the "post birth abortion" of the imperfect and inconvenient?
Re #77: Dr. Kervorkian was not supporting or practicing euthanasia. He was a proponent of "end of life choices": that is, allowing and providing means for people that conclude their lives are no longer worthwhile to end their own lives. This is legal in Oregon, and the theme of a national organization named "Choices". "End of life choices" and abortion are very similar, in that they involve the rights of people to "have control over their own bodies".
Re #78: I'm not aware of Peter Singer; I doubt he's getting the same level of media attention as people like Pat Robertson or Bob Dornan, who would like to see a government where non-Christians need not apply.
PETER SINGER LINKS (The first few of over 62,000 hits) PETER SINGER LINKS. ... PUSHING TIME AWAY. My Grandfather and the Tragedy of Jewish Vienna. by Peter Singer. [other books]. ALSO AVAILABLE. Click to buy. ONE WORLD. ... Description: Resource site for this thinker. Includes book excerpts, links to articles and interviews. Available... Category: Society > Philosophy > Philosophers > Singer, Peter www.petersingerlinks.com/ - 74k - Cached - Similar pages Princeton - PWB 120798 - The Appointment of Professor Peter ... THE PRESIDENT ' S PAG E. The Appointment of Professor Peter Singer. ... As Peter Singer has said, "obviously, most of these matters are controversial. ... Description: Letter from the university president in the Princeton Weekly Bulletin, welcoming Singer to Princeton. Category: Society > Philosophy > Philosophers > Singer, Peter www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/98/1207/singer.htm - 9k - Cached - Similar pages [PDF]Peter Singer: Curriculum Vitae Full Name: Peter Albert David ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Peter Singer: Curriculum Vitae Full Name: Peter Albert David Singer Address: University Center for Human Values Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544 Phone ... www.princeton.edu/~uchv/faculty/singercv2.pdf - Similar pages [ More results from www.princeton.edu ] Statement on the Hiring of Peter Singer Statement on the Hiring of Peter Singer. the Statement on the Hiring of Peter Singer. The Petition Against the Hiring of Peter Singer! ... Who is Peter Singer? ... Description: Princeton University has hired a Professor of Bioethics who advocates killing disabled infants. Dr.... Category: Society > Activism > Petitions www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/2900/psai.html - 7k - Cached - Similar pages International Vegetarian Union - Professor Peter Singer (1946- ) IVU logo, Famous Vegetarians Professor Peter Singer (1946- ). Peter Singer is now a Professor at Princeton University, USA. ... For more books by Peter Singer go to: ... Description: Various extracts from Singer's works regarding animal rights, from the International Vegetarian Union... Category: Society > Philosophy > Philosophers > Singer, Peter www.ivu.org/people/writers/psinger.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Reason magazine -- December 2000, The Pursuit of Happiness, Peter ... ... REASON * December 2000. The Pursuit of Happiness Controversial philosopher Peter Singer argues for animal rights, utilitarian ethics, and A Darwinian Left. ... reason.com/0012/rb.the.html - 39k - Cached - Similar pages Peter Singer An ECO BOOKS Featured Author. Peter Singer. Peter Singer is professor of philosophy at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. ... www.ecobooks.com/singer.htm - 3k - Cached - Similar pages "Peter Singer's Solution to World Poverty," New York Times Sunday ... September 5, 1999. The Singer Solution to World Poverty. By PETER SINGER. Illustrations by ROSS MacDONALD The Australian philosopher ... people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/singermag.html - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Peter Singer - Wikipedia Peter Singer. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. ... Further Reading. Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, 2nd edition, New York: Avon, 1990. ... www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer - 15k - Cached - Similar pages Peter Singer and Bioethics: Agencies of Anomie ... permission. Peter Singer and Bioethics: Agencies of Anomie. Copyright P. Meehan November 2000. All rights reserved. Bioethics ... Description: A critical review by P. Meehan of the central principles of bioethics, as these are posited by Peter Singer. Category: Society > Philosophy > Philosophers > Singer, Peter www.literatus.net/essay/BioEthics.html - 101k - Cached - Similar pages Result Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Search within results
Yes, you can cut-and-paste from Google. None of those are exactly mass media sources, though.
Tell that one to the New York Times, please. I do not believe they would agree.
I have Singer's _Practical Ethics_. He's a fascinating philosopher who uses controversial arguments to get people thinking about their own beliefs and choices. He's a tenured Philosopy professor at Princeton. He's not an easy read.
Er, Philosophy.
What should I study at university, Mary Remmers?
the history of farts in canada.
Re 79. Dr. Kevorkian was careful to deny that he was advocating euthanasia. He dressed it up as just another form of personal autonomy, and publicized a bunch of highly atypical and extreme cases. The theory is that we should "loosen the rules", with certain "careful safeguards" so that people have the "right to die". But, back when the assisted-suicide Proposal B was on the ballot, I heard some revealing and appalling conversations among some of his key supporters. There was deep contempt for the "safeguards" which theoretically would hem in the practice if Proposal B were adopted. They were confident that once the door was opened, the practice would become accepted, and the constraints cast aside. I think they are exactly right about this.
The constraints can be cast into law and practice. There have, so far, been no accusations against the Oregon "end of life" choice program, except of course from assorted demagogues (like Ashcroft). I don't myself know what you heard from whom, but such hearsay can be generated for any liberalization. There was something similar probably for emancipation.
Question: How does Mr. rcurl "win" arguments with those opposed to physician euthenasia? a. Through carefully constructed, logical reasoning. b. By labelling all the opponents "demagogues."
You are sadly blind if you do not recognize Ashcroft as a real, honest-to-goodness, no ifs'ands'or'buts, demagogue. He is probably one of the most dangerous men in American today for our democratic form of society.
response #90 (revised) Question: How does Mr. rcurl "win" arguments with those opposed to physician euthenasia? a. Through carefully constructed, logical reasoning. b. By labelling all the opponents "demagogues." c. By fancy footwork, such as changing the subject and implying he said one thing, when, in fact, he said quite another.
You have several choices: