Seperation of Church and State
- Thread starter Soapvox
- Start date
[And I hope to, well, whoever, that the Framers' ideas of the separation of church and state as consistently interpreted by the courts and enforced by lawmakers remain around long enough to keep people like you from forcing your god on me and any kids I may decide to have.]
I feel like the conservative guest on Polically Incorrect when I'm tring to make a point and 4 people keeping telling me I'm saying something I'm not. I believe in the full statement of the first amendment. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD NEVER BE A STATE SPONSERED RELIGION IN SCHOOLS!!!! Now for the second part of that amendment. I will defend the right of any person or group who chooses individually or collectively to pray in front of me or you at any place (with the exception of private property/ my home) or at any time whether I like it or agree with it. Its called tolerance. Its called "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Contrary to popular belief there is no Consitutional right to shut someone up because it is offensive or we don't agree with them. It's called mutual respect. Other than parents with their children, no one can force any beliefs on anyone. Even then when they become adults they can agree or disagree, ignore completely, change the channel etc..
I agree that it is the parents right and duty to teach their children the concepts that they believe will be in their best interest. Notwithstanding my (I'll use your term, Convictions), if you knew me you would know that you could not find a greater defender of freedom. However, I tend to lean towards Jeffersons philosophy that the majority should decide the standard of the community as long as individual rights are not infringed.
But I am baffled that the only thing that seems to be offensive to others is someone elses religious views. Rather than judging the content of a point of view, it is immediately attacked and dismissed because the content happens to fall in the religious category???
As far as facts go people go to jail all the time because of the testimony of a witness and that testimony is considered to be a fact of the case. That is why they swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is the law of the land. It is true that in the ultimate sense it may or may not be true, but it is considered such if the person is convicted or aquitted based upon that testimony.
Sorry if I got off track from the initial topic with my comments, but I believe they were related and therefore relevent.
I feel like the conservative guest on Polically Incorrect when I'm tring to make a point and 4 people keeping telling me I'm saying something I'm not. I believe in the full statement of the first amendment. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD NEVER BE A STATE SPONSERED RELIGION IN SCHOOLS!!!! Now for the second part of that amendment. I will defend the right of any person or group who chooses individually or collectively to pray in front of me or you at any place (with the exception of private property/ my home) or at any time whether I like it or agree with it. Its called tolerance. Its called "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Contrary to popular belief there is no Consitutional right to shut someone up because it is offensive or we don't agree with them. It's called mutual respect. Other than parents with their children, no one can force any beliefs on anyone. Even then when they become adults they can agree or disagree, ignore completely, change the channel etc..
I agree that it is the parents right and duty to teach their children the concepts that they believe will be in their best interest. Notwithstanding my (I'll use your term, Convictions), if you knew me you would know that you could not find a greater defender of freedom. However, I tend to lean towards Jeffersons philosophy that the majority should decide the standard of the community as long as individual rights are not infringed.
But I am baffled that the only thing that seems to be offensive to others is someone elses religious views. Rather than judging the content of a point of view, it is immediately attacked and dismissed because the content happens to fall in the religious category???
As far as facts go people go to jail all the time because of the testimony of a witness and that testimony is considered to be a fact of the case. That is why they swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is the law of the land. It is true that in the ultimate sense it may or may not be true, but it is considered such if the person is convicted or aquitted based upon that testimony.
Sorry if I got off track from the initial topic with my comments, but I believe they were related and therefore relevent.
Finally we agree on something.
I said earlier re: 'the prohibition thereof' clause, that you can walk down the street and pray out loud if you feel the need, bow to mecca or say what you will (within certain laws of safety/keeping of the peace - which I think cops are pretty lenient about.
However, it has been interpreted that there is a Constitutional right by the government to shut you up for using offensive language (at some times an assault or can lead to an assault ie "fighting words"). These words usually get said, but there are repercussions under law and as interpreted by S.C. decisions. Also, ever heard of the FCC? You may not get your physical freedom taken away, but I believe a fine is a kind of taking of freedom.
They have also had the right to shut us up during darker times. Happily, things changed, but not too soon and some of it goes on today. During WWI and WWII, and both conflicts (OK, one was as a 'Peacekeeper' but a guy still died and lots of civilians there wouldn't have called it Peacekeeping) in which I have been engaged, there have been differing degrees of news blackouts. It's called national security (martial law is another example though much less common). I'm no UFO freak, but ever hear of Groom Lake? Work for them and try to talk about it later. It'll most likely result in a jail term. In WWI an II we had the equivalent of thought police running around and getting people locked up for their thoughts and words.
I think everyone has stated in one way or another - I know I have more than once - that I (we) am not disagreeing with your choice of a religion. I cannot recall one post that insulted your religion itself (your claims of Fact, maybe, but never the religion).
We have an adversarial system of jurisprudence. If a witness is lying, it is the job of opposing counsel to prove it. It's the best system I've sen for us imperfect humans. Until we all get into StarFleet and can tell the little "vulcan" ensign is really a Romulan through that sexy computer on board the Enterprise, it's the best we can do. There is also a penalty for perjury which often includes loss of freedom.
Lastly, witness testimony is often the least reliable and noted as such by the courts. Facts speak louder than all the witness testimony combined. The bullet matches the gun found in the possession of the defendant right after the shooting, We have video tape of the heist. "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!" Man! and I OWN a pair of Bruno Maglis!!!
I said earlier re: 'the prohibition thereof' clause, that you can walk down the street and pray out loud if you feel the need, bow to mecca or say what you will (within certain laws of safety/keeping of the peace - which I think cops are pretty lenient about.
However, it has been interpreted that there is a Constitutional right by the government to shut you up for using offensive language (at some times an assault or can lead to an assault ie "fighting words"). These words usually get said, but there are repercussions under law and as interpreted by S.C. decisions. Also, ever heard of the FCC? You may not get your physical freedom taken away, but I believe a fine is a kind of taking of freedom.
They have also had the right to shut us up during darker times. Happily, things changed, but not too soon and some of it goes on today. During WWI and WWII, and both conflicts (OK, one was as a 'Peacekeeper' but a guy still died and lots of civilians there wouldn't have called it Peacekeeping) in which I have been engaged, there have been differing degrees of news blackouts. It's called national security (martial law is another example though much less common). I'm no UFO freak, but ever hear of Groom Lake? Work for them and try to talk about it later. It'll most likely result in a jail term. In WWI an II we had the equivalent of thought police running around and getting people locked up for their thoughts and words.
I think everyone has stated in one way or another - I know I have more than once - that I (we) am not disagreeing with your choice of a religion. I cannot recall one post that insulted your religion itself (your claims of Fact, maybe, but never the religion).
We have an adversarial system of jurisprudence. If a witness is lying, it is the job of opposing counsel to prove it. It's the best system I've sen for us imperfect humans. Until we all get into StarFleet and can tell the little "vulcan" ensign is really a Romulan through that sexy computer on board the Enterprise, it's the best we can do. There is also a penalty for perjury which often includes loss of freedom.
Lastly, witness testimony is often the least reliable and noted as such by the courts. Facts speak louder than all the witness testimony combined. The bullet matches the gun found in the possession of the defendant right after the shooting, We have video tape of the heist. "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!" Man! and I OWN a pair of Bruno Maglis!!!
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
"...I tend to lean towards Jeffersons philosophy that the majority should decide the standard of the community as long as individual rights are not infringed."
I think that you need to do a little more research on Jefferson and the role of the majority. If we were to be governed by the majority, then why does california (the most populous state in the union) have the same number of senate seats as Rhode Island? And why is Bush president? The minority can and should have a strong voice in our society.
"But I am baffled that the only thing that seems to be offensive to others is someone elses religious views. Rather than judging the content of a point of view, it is immediately attacked and dismissed because the content happens to fall in the religious category???"
Wow, were have you been? No one here claims to have the same religious view as anyone else here. I have no reason to attack your views, but you entered this discussion with some strong statement which (minus the term "Fact") would have been considered and then we would have moved on. Your presentation has brought this attention, not you beliefs. If I were to present my beliefs the way you have I would have gotten the same response.
"As far as facts go people go to jail all the time because of the testimony of a witness and that testimony is considered to be a fact of the case. That is why they swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is the law of the land. It is true that in the ultimate sense it may or may not be true, but it is considered such if the person is convicted or aquitted based upon that testimony."
As someone who is the son of a lawyer, and as someone who has held a position of enforcing those laws, I can tell you that it is understood that eye witness testimony does not carry that much weight. Specially when I have gotten three different statements from three different witnesses at the scene of an accident. If it was that cut and dry, then why are so many people walking the streets free even after a witness identified them and someone who was not identified (but the evidence pointed to) serving time. Our systems works on checks and balances, and even with witnesses a person has the right to mount a defense in this country. If we weight you "Facts" based on your account of testimony from a witness (which we have no direct contact) and the lack of information which you are willing to provide, I can assure you that no court in the land would let you represent your "Facts" as facts.
I think that you need to do a little more research on Jefferson and the role of the majority. If we were to be governed by the majority, then why does california (the most populous state in the union) have the same number of senate seats as Rhode Island? And why is Bush president? The minority can and should have a strong voice in our society.
"But I am baffled that the only thing that seems to be offensive to others is someone elses religious views. Rather than judging the content of a point of view, it is immediately attacked and dismissed because the content happens to fall in the religious category???"
Wow, were have you been? No one here claims to have the same religious view as anyone else here. I have no reason to attack your views, but you entered this discussion with some strong statement which (minus the term "Fact") would have been considered and then we would have moved on. Your presentation has brought this attention, not you beliefs. If I were to present my beliefs the way you have I would have gotten the same response.
"As far as facts go people go to jail all the time because of the testimony of a witness and that testimony is considered to be a fact of the case. That is why they swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is the law of the land. It is true that in the ultimate sense it may or may not be true, but it is considered such if the person is convicted or aquitted based upon that testimony."
As someone who is the son of a lawyer, and as someone who has held a position of enforcing those laws, I can tell you that it is understood that eye witness testimony does not carry that much weight. Specially when I have gotten three different statements from three different witnesses at the scene of an accident. If it was that cut and dry, then why are so many people walking the streets free even after a witness identified them and someone who was not identified (but the evidence pointed to) serving time. Our systems works on checks and balances, and even with witnesses a person has the right to mount a defense in this country. If we weight you "Facts" based on your account of testimony from a witness (which we have no direct contact) and the lack of information which you are willing to provide, I can assure you that no court in the land would let you represent your "Facts" as facts.
Soapvox
Want some of my Kool-aid?
iThink exactly where do you stand on seperation of church and state?
If you are against state sponsored religion in our schools, why did you come in proclaiming all those facts? I think the main demate that we started going off on is when you started saying your "facts" but it sounds like you actually agree with me that the religion thing needs to be kept out of schools. Is that a correct assumption?
If you are against state sponsored religion in our schools, why did you come in proclaiming all those facts? I think the main demate that we started going off on is when you started saying your "facts" but it sounds like you actually agree with me that the religion thing needs to be kept out of schools. Is that a correct assumption?
[I think that you need to do a little more research on Jefferson and the role of the majority. If we were to be governed by the majority, then why does california (the most populous state in the union) have the same number of senate seats as Rhode Island? And why is Bush president? The minority can and should have a strong voice in our society.]
On the contrary, I have researched Jefferson's writings and if I may state my humble opinion, he was an inspired man and probably the most influential of all the Founding Fathers. The Constitutional provision for the election process is an exception. Jefferson's belief in the majority rule did not apply to the inalienable individual rights. I have 6 pages of Jefferson on this particular topic but maybe this will suffice.
"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes it's place, and life and property are his who can take them."
"[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law."
"[We acknowledge] the principle that the majority must give the law."
"This ...[is] a country where the will of the majority is the law, and ought to be the law."
"The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object."
"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once discarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism."
"The fundamental principle of [a common government of associated states] is that the will of the majority is to prevail."
[iThink exactly where do you stand on separation of church and state?
Apparently I don't have the necessary skills to make my point clear. Against: State sponsored religion that would mandate a specific religious point of view. For: Individual right to express religious views, prayers, etc., at school, at the courthouse, in the halls of Congress, again with a few exceptions. Someone's personal property right would trump my religious right if I insisted that I be allowed to prayer on his premises without his or her consent. My neighbor is some type of eastern religion (I believe Hindu), and they built some type of prayer room in their home when it was being built. If they invite us over for a dinner they can do their chants or burn incense or whatever they do or want, however if they are my guests in my home then my rules apply. Common sense. Personally they would have a lot of latitude even in my home unless they started to sacrifice the dog or something.
[If you are against state sponsored religion in our schools, why did you come in proclaiming all those facts? I think the main demate that we started going off on is when you started saying your "facts" but it sounds like you actually agree with me that the religion thing needs to be kept out of schools. Is that a correct assumption?]
I'm dumbfounded how my claiming of facts relate to state sponsored religion????? Am I a government official on government property dictating what you shall believe? I don't want to rehash what I think I have made as clear as I know how. I know what I know and I stand by my statements. You can choose to believe or disbelieve, write it off as being delusionary or whatever. It won't effect me either way or change my position. It just seems odd that because I stated something as being factual, I now must present the evidence or it cannot be stated. Nonsense! If someone posted that they had a new baby boy today, are we all supposed to ask for video or photos of the lovemaking session to prove it? And if the video and photos were produced should we then demand to have them analyzed by the FBI? How about a DNA test? Frankly, if someone stated that as a fact I would give them the benefit of the doubt, congratulate them and go on my way. I could care less if it were true or not. It seems so pointless.
Off topic but did everyone download 10.0.4 yet?
On the contrary, I have researched Jefferson's writings and if I may state my humble opinion, he was an inspired man and probably the most influential of all the Founding Fathers. The Constitutional provision for the election process is an exception. Jefferson's belief in the majority rule did not apply to the inalienable individual rights. I have 6 pages of Jefferson on this particular topic but maybe this will suffice.
"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes it's place, and life and property are his who can take them."
"[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law."
"[We acknowledge] the principle that the majority must give the law."
"This ...[is] a country where the will of the majority is the law, and ought to be the law."
"The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object."
"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once discarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism."
"The fundamental principle of [a common government of associated states] is that the will of the majority is to prevail."
[iThink exactly where do you stand on separation of church and state?
Apparently I don't have the necessary skills to make my point clear. Against: State sponsored religion that would mandate a specific religious point of view. For: Individual right to express religious views, prayers, etc., at school, at the courthouse, in the halls of Congress, again with a few exceptions. Someone's personal property right would trump my religious right if I insisted that I be allowed to prayer on his premises without his or her consent. My neighbor is some type of eastern religion (I believe Hindu), and they built some type of prayer room in their home when it was being built. If they invite us over for a dinner they can do their chants or burn incense or whatever they do or want, however if they are my guests in my home then my rules apply. Common sense. Personally they would have a lot of latitude even in my home unless they started to sacrifice the dog or something.
[If you are against state sponsored religion in our schools, why did you come in proclaiming all those facts? I think the main demate that we started going off on is when you started saying your "facts" but it sounds like you actually agree with me that the religion thing needs to be kept out of schools. Is that a correct assumption?]
I'm dumbfounded how my claiming of facts relate to state sponsored religion????? Am I a government official on government property dictating what you shall believe? I don't want to rehash what I think I have made as clear as I know how. I know what I know and I stand by my statements. You can choose to believe or disbelieve, write it off as being delusionary or whatever. It won't effect me either way or change my position. It just seems odd that because I stated something as being factual, I now must present the evidence or it cannot be stated. Nonsense! If someone posted that they had a new baby boy today, are we all supposed to ask for video or photos of the lovemaking session to prove it? And if the video and photos were produced should we then demand to have them analyzed by the FBI? How about a DNA test? Frankly, if someone stated that as a fact I would give them the benefit of the doubt, congratulate them and go on my way. I could care less if it were true or not. It seems so pointless.
Off topic but did everyone download 10.0.4 yet?
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
On the contrary, I have researched Jefferson's writings and if I may state my humble opinion, he was an inspired man and... ....inalienable individual rights. I have 6 pages of Jefferson on this particular topic but maybe this will suffice.
Interesting quotes, but I dont recognize them. You said that you are referring to a document of 6 pages in length, which document is it? Was it a letter? What was the date? The reason I ask is that any one can use a sub set of ones writings to support an arguments where the complete set would not. I too have spent much time reading thought of many of the men who helped form this country (primarily Jefferson and Franklin) and have no problem with the feelings expressed in your quotes as long as they are not at the exclusion of other feels not supporting your argument. Most of us have a spectrum of feelings on any subject, and Jefferson had some deep and complex beliefs that could not be communicated in this age of the sound bite. If your quotes are in direct response to to a statement or are limited to expressing a single ideal, they may or may not (and in my humble opinion dont) represent his true feeling on the greater subject. In a different argument I could easily find myself echoing those every statement, but then again context is very important.
I'm dumbfounded how my claiming of facts relate to state sponsored religion????? ...I don't want to rehash what I think I have made as clear as I know how. I know what I know and I stand by my statements.
The operative word (for me) is claiming, the facts of which you speak (and are apparently unable to express completely) are not common with this group of individuals. As I pointed out many times, your presentation if these claims as facts is were you have peaked my curiosity. I dont see where you find it easy to proclaim facts and then dont have the ability to expand on them (you have been able to mount a noble defense in the area of Jeffersons ideals, I would think this would be even easier).
You can choose to believe or disbelieve, write it off as being delusionary or whatever. It won't effect me either way or change my position.
Most important note here: We (I) have no intention of damaging your belief structure. A persons beliefs are VERY important, and I would never want to do any thing to undermine yours.
It just seems odd that because I stated something as being factual, I now must present the evidence or it cannot be stated. Nonsense! If someone posted... I could care less if it were true or not. It seems so pointless.
Ah, but having a daily occurrence being stated as fact is something very different from divine intervention. If someone posted that they had just had contact with aliens, would you take that at face value also? By your statement I would have to conclude that you would. The post could be completely factual in all respects, but without asking for clarification how would you know if that person was speaking of little green men or foreign nationals? I think we have asked for clarification more than evidence, and also your usage of the word Fact in your first post has been at the heart of my interest in this discussion thus far.
And, no I haven't yet installed 10.0.4. I usually wait a couple days before installing updates unless they address specific problems that I have been having with my system. This lets others test the waters first to see if the update does more harm than good.
Interesting quotes, but I dont recognize them. You said that you are referring to a document of 6 pages in length, which document is it? Was it a letter? What was the date? The reason I ask is that any one can use a sub set of ones writings to support an arguments where the complete set would not. I too have spent much time reading thought of many of the men who helped form this country (primarily Jefferson and Franklin) and have no problem with the feelings expressed in your quotes as long as they are not at the exclusion of other feels not supporting your argument. Most of us have a spectrum of feelings on any subject, and Jefferson had some deep and complex beliefs that could not be communicated in this age of the sound bite. If your quotes are in direct response to to a statement or are limited to expressing a single ideal, they may or may not (and in my humble opinion dont) represent his true feeling on the greater subject. In a different argument I could easily find myself echoing those every statement, but then again context is very important.
I'm dumbfounded how my claiming of facts relate to state sponsored religion????? ...I don't want to rehash what I think I have made as clear as I know how. I know what I know and I stand by my statements.
The operative word (for me) is claiming, the facts of which you speak (and are apparently unable to express completely) are not common with this group of individuals. As I pointed out many times, your presentation if these claims as facts is were you have peaked my curiosity. I dont see where you find it easy to proclaim facts and then dont have the ability to expand on them (you have been able to mount a noble defense in the area of Jeffersons ideals, I would think this would be even easier).
You can choose to believe or disbelieve, write it off as being delusionary or whatever. It won't effect me either way or change my position.
Most important note here: We (I) have no intention of damaging your belief structure. A persons beliefs are VERY important, and I would never want to do any thing to undermine yours.
It just seems odd that because I stated something as being factual, I now must present the evidence or it cannot be stated. Nonsense! If someone posted... I could care less if it were true or not. It seems so pointless.
Ah, but having a daily occurrence being stated as fact is something very different from divine intervention. If someone posted that they had just had contact with aliens, would you take that at face value also? By your statement I would have to conclude that you would. The post could be completely factual in all respects, but without asking for clarification how would you know if that person was speaking of little green men or foreign nationals? I think we have asked for clarification more than evidence, and also your usage of the word Fact in your first post has been at the heart of my interest in this discussion thus far.
And, no I haven't yet installed 10.0.4. I usually wait a couple days before installing updates unless they address specific problems that I have been having with my system. This lets others test the waters first to see if the update does more harm than good.
Soapvox
Want some of my Kool-aid?
Yeah I installed it and it does seem a little zippier, haven't had too much time to play with it.
On to the subject you state that :
On to the subject you state that :
We all pay for the schools, so my biggest conviction is that any representation of religion on "OUR" property is wrong, if you want to say a little prayer that is one thing, but top set aside time for a prayer is wrong in my opinion. For those of us who are non beleivers we sit there in an awkward silence (I really hate moments of silence) and the dirty looks people give me and my family when we don't bow our heads is very disturbing. To make my children feel worse than yours is wrong, so we need to keep all religion out of schools. This is not to say if your child wants to say a prayer before eating or starting their day there is anything wrong with that, and if our two children want to sit around and debate religion I would be very happy(productive debate is always good), but having a moment of silence before a football game, or the pledge of alegience in the morning I just feel is wrong (I am not anti american, I just don't follow the part one nation under god).
[Interesting quotes, but I dont recognize them]
Go to http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/index.html
It is a compilation of the quotations of Jefferson from majority rule to inalienable rights, but I warn you that you might find that Jeffersons view on where inalienable rights originate a little unsettling considering that they seem to contradict the majority view of this thread. Like this one for example: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"
Have fun!
Go to http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/index.html
It is a compilation of the quotations of Jefferson from majority rule to inalienable rights, but I warn you that you might find that Jeffersons view on where inalienable rights originate a little unsettling considering that they seem to contradict the majority view of this thread. Like this one for example: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"
Have fun!
Refer to earlier post (mine) stating the reason(s) why - beyond the fact that the Framers believed in a god - they made ONE of the justifications of their new society and their right to do what they were attempting - a god.
Refer to earlier posts by others explaining the TYPE of god about whom they were speaking.
Refer to earlier posts by others explaining the TYPE of god about whom they were speaking.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
iThink: "...I warn you that you might find that Jeffersons view on where inalienable rights originate a little unsettling considering that they seem to contradict the majority view of this thread."
Thomas Jefferson: "Religion. In the first place, divest yourself of all bias in favor of novelty and singularity of opinion. Indulge them on any other subject rather than that of religion. On the other hand, shake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of Reason than of blindfolded fear. You will naturally examine, first, the religion of your own country. Read the Bible, then, as you would Livy or Tacitus. For example, in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood for several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus, we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of statues, beasts, etc. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the laws of Nature. You will next read the New Testament. It is the history of a personage called Jesus. Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions: 1, Of those who say he was begotten by God, born of a virgin, suspended and reversed the laws of Nature at will, and ascended bodily into heaven; and, 2, Of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out with pretensions to divinity; ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition, by being gibbeted, according to the Roman law, which punished the first commission of that offense by whipping, and the second by exile, or death in furea.... Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you will feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a God, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, and that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement: if that Jesus was also a God, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven; and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness, of the decision."
Aug. 10, 1787, a letter from Jefferson to his nephew and ward, Peter Carr.
This is again unsurprising. As I stated, the ideals and beliefs of Jefferson are quite deep and passionate. He has always argued his points without apology and with full force. I would be happy to duel quotes with you (actually I LOVE dueling quotes ), but I couldn't help but notice that you are replying only to the easiest of the questions. Why avoid the other far more important questions raised by your post? This seems odd to me (you argue side points and leave the main points unanswered). A good example was my counter arguement to your arguement about posting "Facts".
And again we have the presentation issue. In your last post you said that you thought that we/I would find the information "little unsettling", why? Nothing presented so far has phased anyone here from what I can see. And in an earlier post you said "...offensive to others is someone elses religious views" when all of us have differing views of religion and do not seem to be taking offension to any one else's views. Throughout your responce you have tried to employ a tactic of implying what our motive are or what our reactions are going to be. This tactic is used by many to get people to fight perseptions of them selves rather than the arguments at hand. Lets stick to the actual arguments here, and respond to the major points rather than the minor ones.
Thomas Jefferson: "Religion. In the first place, divest yourself of all bias in favor of novelty and singularity of opinion. Indulge them on any other subject rather than that of religion. On the other hand, shake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of Reason than of blindfolded fear. You will naturally examine, first, the religion of your own country. Read the Bible, then, as you would Livy or Tacitus. For example, in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood for several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus, we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of statues, beasts, etc. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the laws of Nature. You will next read the New Testament. It is the history of a personage called Jesus. Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions: 1, Of those who say he was begotten by God, born of a virgin, suspended and reversed the laws of Nature at will, and ascended bodily into heaven; and, 2, Of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out with pretensions to divinity; ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition, by being gibbeted, according to the Roman law, which punished the first commission of that offense by whipping, and the second by exile, or death in furea.... Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you will feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a God, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, and that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement: if that Jesus was also a God, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven; and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness, of the decision."
Aug. 10, 1787, a letter from Jefferson to his nephew and ward, Peter Carr.
This is again unsurprising. As I stated, the ideals and beliefs of Jefferson are quite deep and passionate. He has always argued his points without apology and with full force. I would be happy to duel quotes with you (actually I LOVE dueling quotes
), but I couldn't help but notice that you are replying only to the easiest of the questions. Why avoid the other far more important questions raised by your post? This seems odd to me (you argue side points and leave the main points unanswered). A good example was my counter arguement to your arguement about posting "Facts".And again we have the presentation issue. In your last post you said that you thought that we/I would find the information "little unsettling", why? Nothing presented so far has phased anyone here from what I can see. And in an earlier post you said "...offensive to others is someone elses religious views" when all of us have differing views of religion and do not seem to be taking offension to any one else's views. Throughout your responce you have tried to employ a tactic of implying what our motive are or what our reactions are going to be. This tactic is used by many to get people to fight perseptions of them selves rather than the arguments at hand. Lets stick to the actual arguments here, and respond to the major points rather than the minor ones.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
It is fun that it wasn't there originally, and I personally think the placement is damaging to the pledge:
Originally: ...One Nation, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.
After Ike (ca. 1954): ...One Nation, under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.
To place "under God" between "One Nation" and "Indivisible" weaken the concept "united we stand, divided we fall" that inspired that part of the pledge.
Originally: ...One Nation, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.
After Ike (ca. 1954): ...One Nation, under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.
To place "under God" between "One Nation" and "Indivisible" weaken the concept "united we stand, divided we fall" that inspired that part of the pledge.
I think RacerX (or I should say Jefferson) reinforced what I have been saying all along. The only sure way to know the truth is to go to the source of truth, God. You've never heard me argue that everything contained in the bible was necessarily correct or transalated correctly. Nor did you hear me say that everything that Jefferson has said is necessarily true or correct. What I am certain of is that (as I stated earlier), you can find truth in Jeffersons words, in the Bible, the Koran, the Consitution, and on the internet. What we don't know is how much of scripture or any history for that matter has been changed throughout time to suit the purposes of those in power at the time. We don't know whether some of the stories told in the Bible were actually true, fictional to make a point, taken out of context, or changed over the years by evil and corrupt individuals. I think Jefferson would backpeddle on some of his comments if he could see the space shuttle rocketing into space. One of my favorite movie lines is at the beginning of Braveheart, "Heros are hanged by those who write history."
During the impeachment hearings, I sat down and listened to the historians that will write the Clinton legacy and in my mind it isn't going to be representative of the facts. Of course once again who knows but what we are told. If we depend on Dan Rather for the facts, we'll most likely be wondering in the darkness for the good part of our life.
As to addressing every point of rebuttal I just don't have time. I tried to address them generally.
By the way, does air exist and can you prove it by showing it to me. Not feel it, not descibe the composition, and not color it with something else. Prove to me that it exists by showing me so it can see it with my eyes. Then will I believe.
During the impeachment hearings, I sat down and listened to the historians that will write the Clinton legacy and in my mind it isn't going to be representative of the facts. Of course once again who knows but what we are told. If we depend on Dan Rather for the facts, we'll most likely be wondering in the darkness for the good part of our life.
As to addressing every point of rebuttal I just don't have time. I tried to address them generally.
By the way, does air exist and can you prove it by showing it to me. Not feel it, not descibe the composition, and not color it with something else. Prove to me that it exists by showing me so it can see it with my eyes. Then will I believe.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
Air is a fluid medium, and it follows the laws of fluid dynamics. As a medium air is how I can tell the temperature of an object (be it hot or cold) without touching. In fact all temperature changes that we feel that are not direct radiation (i.e. sun light) are carried by the medium of air. Air is the cool breeze I feel when I step outside (after sitting in front of a computer for too long). And on a grander scale, air is what has destroyed many homes and lives in my state do to tornadoes. Yes, air was one of the first discoveries of science (when the elements that made up the universe were thought to be air, water, earth and fire). Any child who sits next to an open window in a moving car or who has blown out a birthday candle understands that air exist. Even the blind have little trouble realizing that air exist, and they do not have the benefit of seeing anything with their own eyes.
The part of the quote that was most telling was not Jefferson's beliefs, it was the advice about accepting facts. "Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." Have we not done this with your stated "facts"? As for your statement "The only sure way to know the truth is to go to the source of truth, God", I would point out that Jefferson said: "Question with boldness even the existence of a God". Do you always claim support from statements that contradict the ideas you are trying to put forth?
As for impeachment, we have some idea of how history may play this out. Nixon was a very successful president in his achievement while in office. As time past, those achievements slowly began to out shine the darkness under which he was force to leave office. I have no doubt that the same shall someday be true for Clinton as well. Those who have studied presidential history have already noted that the failures of the Bush (original) presidency had grown from the seeds of the Reagan years (from what Bush called VooDoo economics in the primaries of the 1980 elections). I only hope that this Bush stops short of undoing what his father helped give to all of us... the end of the Cold War.
(1) Do you only believe something exists because you can see it with your eyes? Of course not. There are many things (facts not opinions or beliefs, BTW) that we KNOW exist through indirect and other types of direct observation. Touch, Olfaction, taste (you brought up sugar - re-read your own posts), Auditory sensation, Arthroscopes, IR Goggles/sensors, RADAR, satellite imagery, ad infinitum all can prove something exists to one degree or another and together often support the factual finding of existence.
Can you see radiation? Wanna stand next to a decommissioned warhead someday? I may be able to arrange that. Or how about some depleted uranium shells? Want to spend a couple days in an x-ray machine being invisibly bombarded with these things we cannot see? Have at it. Ever hear of Gravity (just like your flawed 'electricity theory ' example, Gravity is a fact, some aspects of its manifestation or some gravitational hypotheses may be unknown or just guesses - but Gravity IS)? Did ya ever see that? It's effects maybe but not actual gravity. This can go on forever. But I think (hope) you see my point.
And this doesn't even cover things that we need mechanical devices and/or aides to detect. Listen to radio? Ever see an atom or subatomic particle without the aide of such a device? Can you see the aforementioned x-rays and other radiation without artificial devices? Ugh. Again - I'll even pray to whatever - I hope you see my point.
(2) If you're really interested in KNOWING FOR A FACT that air exists, my wife has volunteered her lab at Harvard Med. She'll put us in touch with the right people (she does genetics work). This may entail a drive to Cambridge as her lab is at Children's Hospital in the Longwood Medical Area (Subway, Green Line, E-Train, Longwood stop; I'll meet you in front of Sparr's. Can't miss it) and she thinks the lab we'll need is across the river.
Pick a time. Several of the aforementioned methods will prove to you for a fact that air exists. Or we can just tie plastic bags over our heads and prove it exists by the result of it being absent...