|
Grex > Agora56 > #84: Newspaper in Denmark prints cartoon pics of Mohammed | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 432 responses total. |
other
|
|
response 113 of 432:
| 
Feb 6 20:38 UTC 2006 |
The current interpretation of the establishment clause has evolved
logically. It has not been reshaped, but it has been applied. In each
application, the courts have (ultimately) determined how it should be
applied based on logically consistent interpretation of the
Constitution.
Our whole system of laws is based on the fact that the few words of the
Constitution cannot be universally and unequivocally understood as to
their application is every specific dispute. That is why the courts are
set up to arbitrate those disputes, and their rulings establish
precedent in the application of Constitutional principles to specific
situations. If the framers could have foreseen every eventuality then
the Constitution would have taken an eternity to write and no court
system would have been needed.
So, the claim that the ACLU has "twisted," bent, broken, altered, or
otherwise affected the establishment clause is indicative only of the
ignorance (or at best, political agenda) of anyone who would make such a
statement. The same can be said of anyone who promotes the idea that
judges legislate from the bench. All judges do is interpret the law
as they see it, attempting to insure that laws are applied and enforced
in a manner consistent with the principles on which this country was
founded. (As well as settling disputes that individuals or corporations
are incapable of resolving without resorting to some higher authority.)
You can quote all the partisan "authorities" you want on the intent of
the framers of ther Constitution, but no matter what they say, it
doesn't change the reality that the current interpretations of the
Constitution have evolved mostly over extended periods of significant
debate in courtrooms across the land, and nothing they can say will
change it unless they are sufficiently persuasive in arguing their
positions in the courts.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 114 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:39 UTC 2006 |
An axiom is something which is accepted as true either because it is
universally recognized as true, or because one is assuming it is true
for the sake of argument. Evolution is not an axiom (and neither, in
general, are Newton's Laws of Motion or the Fundamental Theorems of
Calculus, although they could be within a particular context.)
From a pedagogical standpoint, the fear behind ID is that it opens the
door to pretty much any other religious idea to try to wrap itself up in
scientific language and push its way into the schools. Today the
Discovery Institute, tomorrow the Foundation for the Advancement of
Science and Education (FASE), which will require all biology classes to
teach Thetan Theory.
|
other
|
|
response 115 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:49 UTC 2006 |
Opponents of the teaching of ID in public schools are not afraid that
Evolution will not stand up comparison. They are afraid of the loss of
valuable time and resources in the education of children because of the
fact that THERE IS NO COMPARISON. ID has no scientific foundation,
period. It is a conclusion based on lack of evidence, which in itself
is a contravention of the very scientific process by which the theory of
evolution was developed, along with every other theory that science has
produced. ID is itself an attack on the scientific process, and that is
why its opponents protest so vigorously its inclusion in any scientific
curriculum.
Teaching ID in a science class is nothing more than a statement of
profound and *willful* ignorance on the part of its proponents.
|
richard
|
|
response 116 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:51 UTC 2006 |
they are not AFRAID of intelligent design, they are simply against teaching
it in science class because there is no basis for it whatsoever in science.
There is no logical reason to accept it as an alternative scientific theory
therefore. You dont teach mythology in science class. This is like saying
you want Aesop's fables or Grimms Fairy Tales taught as fact in biology class.
Its ridiculous.
|
richard
|
|
response 117 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:54 UTC 2006 |
Satanists want their version of intelligent design taught in schools, whereby
we were "created" by intelligent design to serve Satan. Is that an
alternative theory kingjon and klg want taught in science class?
|
gull
|
|
response 118 of 432:
|
Feb 6 22:20 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:77: There are two problems with "intelligent design theory."
The first is that it's simply a rephrasing of the Judeo-Christian
religious belief of Creationism. There's been little attempt to hide
the fact that this is just a way of trying to get around church-state
separation by subtracting overt references to the Christian God from
Creationism while leaving the rest of the idea intact. Religious
indoctrination should not be the job of public schools.
The second problem with "presenting both sides and letting the students
decide" is it can get pretty confusing when views that aren't really
backed by mainstream, peer-reviewed science are being presented.
Should we also allow flat-earthers to give lectures to students? How
about people who believe in spontaneous generation, or people who
believe that the moon landing was faked? There are people who consider
all of these things to be valid "scientific" positions. Are you
prepared to argue they should be taught in schools, too?
Re resp:101: If you allow the state to give special privileges to a
particular religion, by displaying its imagery on public property and
teaching its beliefs in schools, aren't you, in effect, creating an
established state religion?
|
bru
|
|
response 119 of 432:
|
Feb 6 22:24 UTC 2006 |
the right wing in islamic countries either want or have a theocracy. The far
right wing in the u.s. wants a theocracy. Bush isn't interested in
Constitutional law, he is interested in God's law (just listen to many of his
speeches) Same holds true for Osama Bin Laden.
Richard, this just shows your paranoia.
|
twenex
|
|
response 120 of 432:
|
Feb 6 22:32 UTC 2006 |
Just because he's paranoid doesn't mean the religious right aren't after him.
|
tod
|
|
response 121 of 432:
|
Feb 6 22:35 UTC 2006 |
re #119
I agree. I think he should be impeached for dumping all those millions into
Faith Based organizations. His executive orders piss all over our
Constitution.
|
richard
|
|
response 122 of 432:
|
Feb 6 22:40 UTC 2006 |
re #119 it isn't paranoia bru, if you can't see the similiarities in religious
extremism around the globe you aren't paying attention. What Bush wants is
to follow the laws of "god" That is the same thing the muslim extremists
want. Allah and "God" are the same old testament deity. The islamic
fundamentalists don't like the liberal media, they don't like god or allah
taken in vain or insulted in literature. They promote censorship. Which are
the same things the Bush administration is doing here.
|
twenex
|
|
response 123 of 432:
|
Feb 6 23:01 UTC 2006 |
Bru makes Ray Charles look like Superman.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 124 of 432:
|
Feb 7 00:15 UTC 2006 |
Here's an interesting take on the cartoon controversy (to wit: the
Saudis stirred up the pot in an attempt to divert attention from the
yearly death toll during the Hajj, kinda like when Reagan invaded
Grenada after the bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon):
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/5/13149/60748
|
bru
|
|
response 125 of 432:
|
Feb 7 05:07 UTC 2006 |
Actually, taken in as a whole, Intelligent Design would not support
Christianity any more than it would hinduism, or Shintoism, or North American
Indian creation theory, ir judaism, or islam, or even being visited by aliens
from another planet.
and then again, new theories appear all the time...
http://www.stanford.edu/~afmayer/docs/Lecture2Signed.pdf
|
gull
|
|
response 126 of 432:
|
Feb 7 07:19 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:125: Maybe so, but Intelligent Design is largely being pushed
by Christian creationists.
|
klg
|
|
response 127 of 432:
|
Feb 7 11:55 UTC 2006 |
re: EtP "Opponents of the teaching of ID in public schools are not
afraid that Evolution will not stand up comparison. They are afraid of
the loss of valuable time and resources in the education of children"
The time in public schools is so tight that it can't find the 2 minutes
it would take to read the Dover, PA statement on ID?
What public school did you attend???? And how were they able to keep
your mind so closed??
|
fudge
|
|
response 128 of 432:
|
Feb 7 12:26 UTC 2006 |
my real concern would be that kids that are not really into science, and who
will not put much thought into it, will be left with the absurd notion that
ID has anything to do with science ( which incidentally is a method, not
another fucking religion ), thus growing into misinformed adults, ready to
join the herd...
|
kingjon
|
|
response 129 of 432:
|
Feb 7 12:40 UTC 2006 |
And the concern of thousands if not millions of Americans is that students will
get the idea that molecules-to-man Evolution is the same thing as science --
which is supposedly a method.
|
fudge
|
|
response 130 of 432:
|
Feb 7 12:48 UTC 2006 |
darwinian evolution by selection is not "the same thing as science" but it
definitely *is* a scientific theory, inasmuch as it has been developed by
scientific approach and is a process that has been observed in a number of
contexts. "intelligent design" might be a theory, but it is definitely NOT
scientific and from where I'm standing not even near "intelligent". want to
talk fairy tales? do it in RE or humanities classes, or better at a SF con.
|
twenex
|
|
response 131 of 432:
|
Feb 7 12:54 UTC 2006 |
You lot are as bad as each other.
|
fudge
|
|
response 132 of 432:
|
Feb 7 12:57 UTC 2006 |
I'm badder.
|
jep
|
|
response 133 of 432:
|
Feb 7 13:57 UTC 2006 |
re resp:103: "Are there any honest ACLU opponents out there?" Yes,
there are. I consider myself an honest man, with strong and honorable
convictions which cause me to oppose the ACLU. I don't believe you
have any reason to call me dishonest, but if you disagree, I would
appreciate hearing why.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 134 of 432:
|
Feb 7 14:53 UTC 2006 |
(Re #133, it was a rhetorical question based on the huge number of
distortions and half-truths against the ACLU previously quoted.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 135 of 432:
|
Feb 7 17:56 UTC 2006 |
I'm puzzled by why an honest person would oppose the ACLU categorically,
unless they also opposed the Bill of RIghts.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 136 of 432:
|
Feb 7 17:58 UTC 2006 |
An honest person could look at the ACLU and come to the conclusion that it's
only paying lip service to the Bill of Rights and is actually trampling on it
instead. (This is *not* my conclusion, but it's a possible explanation for the
honest-person-categorically-hates-ACLU position.)
|
tod
|
|
response 137 of 432:
|
Feb 7 18:02 UTC 2006 |
The ACLU has engaged in lobbying has it not? And a good amount of funding
for the ACLU has come from legal fees payed by states and other entities that
lose cases regarding the Ten Commandments displays and free speech cases?
I can understand entirely why someone would oppose aligning themself with any
lobbyists which may include the ACLU.
|