Oh hush, ManBitch. I'm sure you have a toilet bowl to drink out of or a leg to hump somewhere. Don't make me get the newspaper because you know I will!

-S-

 

I never said it was redundant. You obviously can't read or your comprehension skills need working on. Just one example. How do astronomers in laboratories use Newtonian physics to explain and measure light bending in gravitational fields? I KNOW they use Newtonian physics but they also HAVE TO use Relativity.

Nobody is saying that physicists dont use Newtonian physics. All I am saying is that if an earlier theory expounds a law stating that "x to the power of y/x = the inverse square of the co-efficent of r (where r is the difference between b and c (two distinct masses)" and then later on a different theory expounds a law covering the same field but also covers so much more about the universe stating that "k = rp squared" which theory do you think people would use?

There's no point arguing with you Shake, and I see little point in writing what I just have cos you'll just read it while drooling stating "he's a fucking retard! he's a fucking retard." I think you'd be happier in here on your own. Be a good boy and turn the lights off when you leave.

 

Just for the record, Newtonian physics is not used to describe the laws of motion for everything bigger than an atom. In order to fully explain Mercury's orbit you need Einstein's theory of Relativity. Infact it was because of the "anomalous" precession of the perihelion of Mercury, that created the tangable evidence to unify Newton's law of Universal Gravitation with Relativity. More importantly, I'm guessing that you and many others on this forum own a car, so it's reasonable to assume many people here own a Sat Nav / GPS which they use daily. If Sat Navs / GPS did not account for relativity, the accuracy of such devices would incur an error of about 7 miles per day.:rose:

 

What?!

 

InTheMindsEye,

If you think ShakeZula is bad now, wait until he is drunk.

 

An opinion, personal or otherwise is simply a belief or judgment that falls short of absolute conviction, certainty, or positive knowledge, usually based on feeling or emotion rather than reasoning.


You may claim to base your opinions on factual assertions, but I claim that your opinions are truly invalid if you continue to base your opinions on others factual assertions,basically I believe that you never have an opinion on any relevant issue at hand, if you need to claim someone else's facts as your own opinion.

 

No, you didn't say it was redundant. That is correct. You said Newtonian physics is only taught in schools because people aren't smart enough to understand the maths behind the relativity that Einstein proposed. So no, you didn't say directly that it was redundant, but it sure sounds like you think it is. After all, if it's only taught because people can't understand relativity then... well, what use is it? Newtonian Physics is still relevant and still used.

It sure doesn't sound like Newtonian Physics are kept around only because people don't understand relativity. Relativity augments Newtonian physics but it doesn't replace it. Or, to use wiki's wording, it's 'enhanced'.

-S-

 

When was the last time you saw me drunk on the forum, ManBitch? Go find it.

-S-

 

Awhile ago you said that you said that you were drinking many cans, bottles, glasses, or whatever of some kind of strong Korean drink. Finding that post would require me to wade through too many of your posts. The experience would make me as sick as you must have felt the next day.

 

I was going to become an Islamic nun once. I was *highly attracted* by the feast of Ramadan, it was almost a turning point, in fact. Until I realised it had nothing to do with ewe, and everything to do with me.

Confused? Try naffing posting this gawdawful stuff!!

 

The only thing I would call into question is the, "Should not legislate based on faith" argument put forward.

Not so much in relation to the wordings of laws. As you and others have pointed out, the 1st amendment is fairly clear on the limitations concerning the government when it comes to religion and enforcing religions doctrine. What it does not do, however, is limit people from trying to vote according to their religious beliefs. That, in fact would also be against the 1st amendment, since that would essentially be the government interfering in the expression of free speech.

If a sufficient number of people, inspired by their faith, choose to elect a representative at any level, then that representative is in fact fulfilling their job as proscribed by the various documents establishing the government. Thus such laws as the Prohibition amendments and the attempts by the Right to Life crowd are entirely constitutional, despite having a faith inspired origin. It might not be what you'd choose or someone you'd vote for, but the Constitution really doesn't care about that. As long as A) it doesn't violate any of the rules or interpretations of the rules as established by the court and B) has sufficient backing in numbers of voters, then it is not considered to be religion interfering with government but the will of the people acting instead.

So...

A public school cannot require students to pray or observe any particular religious ritual. However students and faculty may pray during school hours or even host and form religious themed extracurricular clubs so long as they observe the rules posted by the school.

A county government may not pay for and erect a nativity scene or menorah at the tax payer's expense. However, it is perfectly acceptable for them to host a nativity scene or menorah erected by a tax payer or group of tax payers as part of a holiday arts festival or the like.

The government cannot use faith as a motive in instructing the citizen, but the citizen may use faith as a motive in instructing the government. If anyone disagrees with that, then those opposed merely need to organize their own group to politic against.

 

You're certainly proof of that, Ace.

 

I never bothered to read it ... because it is shit ... .
............. your blind hated towards the Catholic Church poisons your thought processes -S- ... you are a very good debater -S- ..at least on the NET.
Like Inky, you seem to live in a shoe box .... look at other peoples ideas ... some will seem absurd I'm sure .... but at least give them there due.

You attack Religion and yet do not renounce GOD ... .. I find this an interesting dichotomy..... yet I do not denounce you ,,, I read on and try to understand your arguements .... mostly your a very good read.

 

................ separating GOD from nature is an interesting view ... I tend to think GOD and nature are very much in synchronicity .....

def: .... the coincidence of events that seem related, but are not obviously caused one by the other. The term was first used in this sense in the work of the psychologist Carl Jung.

 

I never said people couldn't vote their religious beliefs. I'm talking about the legislators and other elected officials. If the only justification for a proposed law or their opposition to something, etc. is it's against what god wants then it should be considered invalid. If you want to use god as a legitimate reason for some kind of government action then you first have to prove god exists and that this is in fact what it wants. They can't do that.

In other words, they need a real reason, not faith. What the ignorant masses vote on is entirely up to them. But government and elected officials should be held to a higher standard. They took the oath to protect the constitution, not subvert it with biblical nonsense.

Actually, this is where you're wrong. We live in a representative democracy. A republic. The elected officials are under no obligation to enact the 'will of the people'. The founders were afraid of mob rule. They designed it so that the populace did not have a direct voice in government, but had to go through intermediaries. However, once the elected official is in office, they are under no obligation to do anything that we want them to do. They might not get elected next time, but these days, thanks to the gerrymandering of districts, even that's unlikely. Haven't you ever wondered why there are so many incumbents in congress and very little new blood?

Once the person is in office, their job is to uphold the Constitution, not uphold their faith. If they can't, then they shouldn't have run for office in the first place. The Constitution is the highest authority in the land, not god or a holy book.

It's constitutional for them to try. But the checks and balances are there to see that religion does not gain a strangle-hold on our government.

They can't proselytize during school hours nor engage in any purely religious activity. So a teacher can't turn a study hall in to a bible study class. If they want to use school grounds after school then they have to pay for it, just as the school would charge any other organization that wants to use their facilities. Teachers can run it if they like but they can't be using that as overtime or something and get paid as a teacher to do it.

The Supreme Court has decided that it's perfectly acceptable as long as the court house, etc. allows other displays as well. But as so often happens every Christmas, other groups petition for the right to put up a display, the city officials find a way to block it so only the Christian one goes up, and there's a lawsuit that costs the tax payers thousands of dollars, all because the city or state governments tried to subvert the Constitution. It would be so much easier if they just realized that a government building is not a place for celebrating Jesus. But they can't leave well enough alone.

A citizen can tell their representative that god wants this or that but the representative is under no obligation to listen and, indeed, if they did, I would say they were not adhering to the duties of their position. They represent more than just Christians (or whatever religious group) and need to be aware of that. Their duty to the people (all of them, Christian and non-Christian alike) takes precedence over their duty to their faith.

-S-

 

Answer my question or get the fuck out. I'm tired of your artless dodging. You really appear to have nothing of substance to say. My disgust with religion has nothing to do with the merits of Evolution. You've already said Evolution is true. If Evolution is true then it's impossible for the bible to be true. Full stop.

-S-

 

I am, in fact, quite aware of gerrymandering, as well as the role seniority takes in deciding who ends up on which committee when it comes time to hand out the money. However, while you are quite correct that the founders were afraid of mob rule, at the same time they never intended to for the people to remain voiceless, either. The job of any elected officially is to listen to and respect the wishes of the people who elected them. By the same logic you're trying to use, the Democrats currently running congress should never have passed the health care bills, since the Republicans living in their districts opposed it. What you're proposing is an effectively slipper slope that would leave the government paralyzed any time there was close call in the opinion polls.

Ah, but as you have already pointed out, the Constitution is intended to be a living document, subject to change as societal pressures demand. And as I mentioned before, there already has been faith initiated amendment included. Prohibition was driven not by any secular purposes, but by religious and moral ones. (The fact it was a failure is not particularly germane to the argument. While it does prove the old axiom that any rule that cannot be enforced is a poor rule to begin with, it also proves that a faith based initiative can have an impact on politics while still remaining constitutional.)

You'll have to define "strangle hold" for me in this case. Are we talking about there being sufficient faithful for them to have a blanket control over getting elected officials into the necessary offices, or we talking about the Pope and various Imams calling up the President and demanding such-and-such action? Because there actually isn't any constitutional control for the first. People can say what they want to persuade others, and if they succeed than quite literally more power to them.

I do believe that is what I said, yes. But at the same time the school can't interfere with a child praying during their lunch or break, time either.

Yeah, but that's the sort of stupidity that government can't cure, no matter what it tries. Actually, the only ones who might be able to stop it in the long run are other Christian groups telling the haters to sit down and shut up, since they give the rest a bad name.

And if its a dozen citizens? 200? 2,000,000? Second, any representative that doesn't bother to listen to the people they are supposed to be representing is doing a poor job of it. Then there's the entire automatic assumption that anything faith initiated is automatically going to be harmful to the rest of society. So while I agree that they shouldn't take the office simply to enact God(s)((ess(es)) will as they see it, what's wrong with religion having an influence on government?

 

No, we just like to think it is. Elected officials don't have to do anything we say. We vote them in to office because we think they will best represent our feelings, but if they don't, our only option is to not vote for them again. Which is usually ineffectual anyway. Incumbents win back their seats about 90% of the time.

Maybe I'm just tired but that seems the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying that Congress is under no obligation to do anything we want them to do. Our power over the legislature is minimal at best. And with the recent supreme court ruling that money = free speech, you and I have even less influence then we did before, and that wasn't much.

The idea that they are in office to represent the will of the people is a very weak one, at best. That would put us at the mercy of mob rule, which is exactly what our system was designed to prevent. More on that in a minute.

Congress can pass any law it wants. Really. They can pass a law that says calling the sky blue is a punishable offense and that chickens (but not roosters) are to be counted in the next census. But this is why we have the checks and balances we do. All laws are subject to presidential approval and judicial review. So if religion does influence the legislature to such an extent that the Constitution is violated, then we have stop-gaps to ensure that it doesn't get very far.

Amending the Constitution is much harder. And in this political climate there is no way that such a thing would ever happen.

It's funny you should mention the faith based initiatives, because congress actually has no hand in that. Bush Jr. knew that it would never pass constitutional muster and would be destroyed immediately. Funneling money directly to religious organizations so they can then spread their lunacy with it and discriminate willy-nilly while on the federal dole was exactly what the 1st Amendment was designed to stop. So, while Congress does handle the purse strings, as we call it, they money from that is spent on the Faith Based Initiatives comes directly from the White House's Office of Faith Based Initiatives (Obama changed the name to something a little different, but it's the same thing.) The White House writes those checks, not Congress. The White House submits a budget request to Congress that includes the money to be spent on those religious projects and congress sends it over.

It's a devilishly clever little work-around. Churches get their government money, which they've been endeavoring to get for over 200 years and the politicians get to buy those church votes without ever having to face a Judicial review.

Some folks did take issue with it and it did go to the Supreme Court, but not for the reasons you might think. Since nothing like this had ever happened before since the country was founded, it first had to be decided if tax payers had a right to challenge what the White House did with the money given by Congress. Turns out, we don't. At least according to this Roberts court. You and I can't ever challenge White House spending.

Just an FYI.

When I use the term 'strangle hold', it's for cases like we see now, where very few people in office dare to go against a religious organization. We aren't supposed to have a religious test for public office, but try running as a non-Christian in most places. Religious forces have been allowed to bully their candidates in to office for generations and it's had a lot of detrimental effects. They often can't pass laws directly citing religious frameworks but given enough time, they can find a work-around. If they push it too far, we have the checks and balances to knock it back. All we can do in the meantime is hope for a time when preaching on the job is seen as embarrassing and when politicians keep their faiths to themselves. Kinda like how they do in Europe. It's usually a big faux pas for politicians there to start going on about their faith in Jebus or whatever.

Nope, as long as they aren't disruptive. And I have no problem with that. One's personal religious choice is completely up to them.

Or you can have politicians with enough backbone to say enough is enough and that no displays go up on public land. After all, why is it even necessary. Businesses and private residences have them in abundance. It's completely redundant for a public building to be wasting the time and the resources on it. No permanent sectarian or religious displays by any group, anywhere at any time. If the Holy Trinity Baptist Church wants to hold a Christmas rally in front of the State Capital then fine. Come down, fill out your permit, pay your fee, and show up between the hours of 2 and 5. Whatever. But after that, you take your signs and your banners and go home.

Religion and all the accompanying baggage that goes with it, only causes problems when it gets involved with government. Leave public land alone and do whatever you want on your own land. Can you tell me why religions are always so anxious to claim public land for their own purposes?

Irrelevant. If those people are advocating the stoning of gay people in the town square, is it the representatives job to submit a bill to stone gay people in the town square? Once again, it's mob rule which a republic is designed to prevent. A representative democracy protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

The Rep can listen to their opinions, but it's his or her job to adhere to the law, not succumb to an angry mob of voters. Mob rule, again.

Are you familiar with the Lemon Test?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

It centers around a Supreme Court case from the 60's, but it gave us a very useful tool in determining the efficacy of 'faith based' legislation. It's brilliant, really.

So, as long as some bit of faith legislation meets those three stipulations, then it's fine.

-S-

 

Not really much left to discuss, though it is good for us to finally hammer out where the lines are supposed to be drawn. (Thanks for the Lemon test, by the way. Will look into that more.)

Would point out that when I was talking about faith based initiatives, I wasn't talking about the modern money sinks, but the fact that a bunch of religion inspired groups managed to get the political will to lead to an amendment being passed. there's a lot of problems that do need to be fixed, but it has to be handled from both sides, not just the government or the churches. Though getting either one to make the first move would be a nice start...

 

http://www.27bslash6.com/easter.html