Well, considering I posted a link with all the evidence necessary to prove you wrong, and you posted not one iota of evidence to the contrary That is obviously false. I provided several quotes.
Perhaps if hundreds of years of court decisions, case law, and opinions from Constitutional Scholars didn't disagree, you might have something. Except, there are many court decisions, case law, and opinions from constitutional scholars that DO agree, from James Madison -- bar none, the most important figure in constitutional interpretation -- to several of our current Supreme Court justices, including Justices Thomas and Alito.
Indeed, I am the only one here who has provided any evidence. You've provided none at all. So I am not sure who you think you're fooling.
Federal funding of science allows the funding of basic research. Corporations and private organizations almost never want to fund basic research because practical results (which equal money) are not guaranteed, and if they do come, they can be a long time in coming. However, basic research is how major breakthroughs in science happen and also how many students get interested in science in the first place. It is a long term investment. None of that means argues against what I said. You are only saying you prefer it be done through government, that you think it is more efficient. But I am saying I think it is wrong, regardless of whether it is in your mind "the best way."
I get that many people think it is the most efficient means to achieve the desired result. But that is really irrelevant to me, because my desired result is different than yours: my goal is to achieve the highest level of freedom for all.
Only if you think the government should have such complete control over society, if you believe that this is necessary or wise because people cannot be trusted on their own to make decisions in their own best interest over the long term. I reject such notions. Just because the government funds science doesn't mean that corporations and private organizations can't fund it. Sure. But that private organziations can do it does mean that the government doesn't have to.:-)
And it is why we have a Tenth Amendment to limit the power of the federal government, which most funding of science violates. Hmmm. I'm certainly not an expert in Constitutional Law (actually, I'm a scientist funded by the NSF!), but Article 1, Section 8 seems to fit nicely: "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;" Science definitely provides for the "general Welfare of the U.S.". Yeah, I responded to this notion in a separate subthread. The bottom line is that the guys who wrote that (most particularly James Madison, the author of most of The Federalist and the Bill of Rights) never intended it to be a broad grant of authority, but a description of the specific authorities to follow. Everything following what you quoted in Section 8 is entirely superfluous if we take "general Welfare" to mean what you think it means. In Madison's words, your interpretation, if established, "would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."
It's so much better when private companies patent discovering things like the human thumb and therefore I have to send them a check every time I use it. Patent reform is a separate, though related, issue. Besides, our government often will pay a company to develop something and then not only give them a full patent term, but then arbitrarily extend it! So it's not like government control solves this problem...
I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. Be sorry all you want, but you are quite clearly incorrect.
Pretty much the only thing that Congress can't do with money is spend it on religion. If they want to violate the Tenth Amendment, sure. It's very clear.
Madison's writings on the subject are irrelevant. No, in fact, they are not. They tell us the intent of the law by the people who wrote it, and voted for it. This matters more than anything else.
Congress' spending and commerce powers allow for federal regulation of almost every aspect of your life, so long as they frame the legislation correctly So now you are arguing against yourself. Previously you said that the spending power was essentially unlimited because of the "general welfare" phrase, but not you are arguing from the commerce clause. But why does the commerce clause matter? It is irrelevant, according to your argument.
And you still haven't even explained why they bothered WRITING the commerce clause, since it is, according to your argument, irrelevant. This is the most obvious problem with your argument, and I don't blame you for not addressing it, because there's no reasonable answer.
The only authority on the constitutionality of a given action is the judicial branch, most importantly the Supreme Court. Nope. That too is a common, false, misconception. Indeed, no less than Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter explicitly denied this notion, saying, "the ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it." You are conflating two different concepts: whether something is unconstitutional, and what the prevailing judicial interpretation is. They are not the same thing. Ideally they are the same, but often, they are not.
Was "separate but equal" constitutional before Brown v. Board of Education, then suddenly became unconstitutional? Of course not. If it was unconstitutional afterward, it was unconstitutional before, too. The Constitution didn't change. All that changed was how the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution, but that is not the same thing as "constitutionality."
Of course if you have your nose stuck in 1780's political pamphlets you'd believe that the Supreme Court did not have the power to determine the constitutionality of legislation The Constitution necessarily gives the Supreme Court the authority to review laws for constitutionality, under Section 2. I know many people disagree, but they, too, are incorrect.
No Child Left Behind is just as much, if not more, a violation of my rights under the Constitution You don't even have standing to challenge non-religious spending as a taxpayer. That is, of course, irrelevant to any point I made. You are again conflating two different concepts, in a similar manner as before: whether something is constitutional is completely separate from whether something is, or can be, challenged in court as such.
There's also nothing unconstitutional about time/place/manner restrictions on public speech that are content-neutral. The problem with "Free Speech Zones" as implemented is that they are not content-neutral. Well, sort of. There may be other problems other than a lack of neutrality as to content, but content is the most important one. There must be an important government interest, that interest must be served by the restrictions, the restrictions must be narrowly tailored, and there must be left open ample alternative means of communicating the message.
For the Democratic National Convention in Boston in 2004, where the Zone was far away from the convention, such that participants in the protest and the convention could not even see or hear each other, which violated the fourth test, and perhaps the third as well.
Maybe, but can government really afford to be as independent of science as possible? Of course. This is necessarily true. There's always more than one way to do things.
Government is, ideally, about decision-making and allocation of resources. Therefore, the government has (or at least should have) a very strong vested interest in making educated decisions and allocating its limited resources as smartly as possible, in order to get the most bang for its buck and not lead the country into any silly pitfalls like health crises or dubiously justified wars. Only if you think the government should have such complete control over society, if you believe that this is necessary or wise because people cannot be trusted on their own to make decisions in their own best interest over the long term. I reject such notions.
What we have instead currently is a system so politically charged the repulsing forces are close to tearing it apart. That would be a good thing.
It invests its resources in carefully selected areas which agree a priori with its beliefs That always happens. It has always happened. It never won't happen. That is the nature of a representative system. It's why we have a Bill of Rights and other systems to prevent a majority from tyrannizing a minority. And it is why we have a Tenth Amendment to limit the power of the federal government, which most funding of science violates.
"The Constitution does not give the authority to the U.S. to do things that are in the USA's best interest, but only those things which the Constitution specifically allows the U.S. to do (Tenth Amendment)." Um, actually that's not right, as the Constitution does, in fact, give authority to act in the USA's best interest. And the "specifically allows" argument is wrong too. It's something people trot out when things like this get discussed, but it isn't true and really never has been. False. Indeed, it has always been true.
Now, SPECIFICALLY what is the "general Welfare" and how can the US go about providing for it? That is what the rest of Article I, Section 8 is for.
Now you see why that argument doesn't work. No, I know that it does work. Indeed, if what YOU say is true, then the rest of Section 8 has no meaning. Why do you think they listed all of those powers if, as your argument necessarily implies, it was unnecessary to do so?
Hamilton's argument makes no sense whatsoever, for that reason.
And in addition, since Madison actually wrote the Tenth Amendment, and wrote the defense of his position in the Federalist Papers which were the most influential document in the ratification of the Constitution, his interpretation is far more valuable than anyone else's.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States The spending power is easy to miss. It's up there at the beginning of the enumerated powers in Article I, section 8. No, this is a common misconception. There is no broad "spending power." The spending power was limited "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." But obviously, that doesn't mean the spending can be on anything related to those things. That is a description of what follows in the rest of Section 8: a preamble, not a broad enumeration of power. The person who wrote the Bill of Rights, including the Tenth Amendment, dismissed this faulty interpretation many years ago:
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.
And:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.... I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America...
Granted, many of those things, our federal government does today: they pay for teachers, take into their own hands the education of children, assume provision for the poor, undertake regulation of all roads, regulate police.
But as James Madison said, this is all unconstitutional.
No Child Left Behind is just as much, if not more, a violation of my rights under the Constitution as anything else Bush is accused of doing, whether it is "warrantless wiretapping" or "free speech zones." The Constitution and its authors are quite clear.
The bad news for science is where there IS funding. Science should be independent of government as much as possible. AFAICT, federally funded science has historically been pretty independent of political meddling. Not really. It's been almost entirely meddled with from beginning to end. Even the decision to fund one project over another is meddling, since the direction of science should follow the evidence, not political funding choices.
Of course, you might be experiencing difficulties if you are researching climate change or the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs under the current administration, but hopefully that's a short-term blip on an otherwise effective system. See, you expose the problem there: you WANT the meddling of government. You WANT the government to choose one thing over another... as long as it is the thing you prefer.
Constitutionally, I agree with you. However, our Civil War ended this idea within our federal government. No, it did not. We often ignore it, but it is still there, and it is still law, and it is unconstitutional. We may not be able to dismantle existing institutions entirely, but we can resist new ones, or expanded ones, and we can welcome opportunities to cut back when they are presented.
Further change back to the "Strong state, weak federation" will take a rather nasty war No, it won't. It just takes time, patience, and persistence.
I don't care. The ends do not justify the means. There is no means for hard science. The "means" in question is "violating the Constitution."
Also, we may direct our attention towards Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8: The goal is to promote the arts and sciences. What better way to do that than to choose a limited amount of projects and grant monies into them? Um, no, the Constitution does not say that. It only gives one specific means of doing such promotion: "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"... no other means of promotion is allowed. Congress can make laws necessary and proper for securing such exclusive rights, but may not invent new ways of doing such promotion.
It really comes down to this: should the USA be the strongest military technological power? See, you talk about not looking nuts, but then you say that our Constitutional rights don't matter. Sounds entirely nuts to me.
NSF-funded science is independent in the sense that funding decisions are made by experts rather than politicians. Not ultimately, but yes, in some cases, it is mostly independent. Though still unconstitutional, since the U.S. government was explicitly prohibited by the Tenth Amendment from exercising authority not specifically granted to it by the Constitution, and such authority is not granted in the Constitution.
I'd at least argue that public subsidy of higher education is in the USA's best interest. The Constitution does not give the authority to the U.S. to do things that are in the USA's best interest, but only those things which the Constitution specifically allows the U.S. to do (Tenth Amendment).
Or try this: do you think multiple universities without government intervention could create the current-needed particle accelerator labs? I don't care. The ends do not justify the means.
Damn those Public Universities and their research. When it is done by public money, yes. However, those are often funded by private grants, and I have no problem with that.
You are confusing "evidence" and "proof." It absolutely is evidence. It absolutely is not proof. It is evidence that something is going on (this kind of thinking causes that kind of sensory reaction), but it doesn't favor "my arm is real" over "my arm is fake". Yes, it does. Absolutely. You can see your arm. You can feel it. You can sense it in multiple ways. The evidence absoultely favors the existence of your arm, because (quite obviously and simply) there is plenty of evidence your arm exists, and none that it doesn't. There is evidence that it is POSSIBLE you arm does not exist, but that's not the same thing.
If video game monsters had true, sentient AI, they could preform the same experiment, watch their arm wave, and using your logic, come to the conclusion that the game was reality. No, because I concluded nothing. So using my logic, they could not come to any conclusion, either.
And people who are not religious, as demonstrated time and again. You have not even begun to make the case that this happens more with religious people than others, unless one counts assertion as making a case, and I don't.:-) And your assertions don't prove the opposite. I didn't intend to prove the opposite (which would be that it happens more with NON-religious people than religious people). I intended to prove it happens with both, and I did prove that. You're the one who contends it happens more with religion than not, and you've not provided any reason for anyone to think that.
I'll bring this up again though: A voice came out of a fire, therefore the voice is that of the creator of the universe? I don't understand the question. When you pointed me to a passage saying that Moses' god is the only god around, his supporting logic for that statement was that a voice came from a fire.
I think it's quite a big leap from "talking flame" to "creator of the entire universe". I don't care. That is entirely beside the point, which is whether God claims, in the Bible, that he is the one and only. Whether you believe it was God is irrelevant; whether the Bible claims it is, is the only point that matters. If you want to come back to the topic, feel free.
No - the resulting sensations and images could just as easily come from a simulation (or even a dream), so that isn't evidence either way.
False. You are confusing "evidence" and "proof." It absolutely is evidence. It absolutely is not proof.
You do believe you are more than a head in a jar. That doesn't mean you don't accept the possibility you're wrong... We seem to be using different definitions. I'm using a strict definition of belief (since we're talking epistemology) - if I truely believe something, I can't think that I could be wrong at the same time. Again, that's false. You are confusing "belief" with "knowledge." There is nothing in philosophy, including in the field of epistemology, that implies or states that one cannot think they could be wrong about a belief.
Everyone does it, including you, no matter how much you deny it. NOT taking things on faith is irrational. Again, we're using the words differently. We all make assumptions about things just to get through the day, but that's not the way most people use the word "faith". Shrug. It is what the word actually means.
If you have the same attachments to people you know are fictional... as to people you believe are not, then you have serious psychological problems. They don't have to be identical, but if people didn't empathize with characters in fiction then most kinds of entertainment would be pointless. I didn't say you wouldn't empathize at all. I said it's not the same thing. Yes, of course you empathize with characters in a movie, but you truly, to your core, love your family (for example... I dunno, maybe YOU don't:-). It's a very different thing.
You said, "when religion comes first there can be no room for doubt."... Whether they should have been more tolerant is beside the point: there was clearly room for doubt. Others had doubt, and formed their own communities. You're taking my description of an attitude that some people have and taking it far too literally. In general, the more influence religion has the less tolerant the believers are of skepticism. False. You keep saying it, but it's not true. Indeed, in Protestantism, it is normally taken as a given that EVERYONE doubts. It is part of being human. It is not about religion or not-religion. Let me put it this way: Protestants in general are FAR more tolerant of doubt about everything to do with Christianity, than liberal Democrats are about doubts regarding the war in Iraq, abortion, taxes for the rich, Social Security, global warming, evolution, and so on.
Intolerance is not about religion. It's about humanity, and ideologies, and associations, and perceived threats. The more a group feels threatened by an idea, the more likely they are to be intolerant. Welcome to earth.
As far as I can tell, when a person believes something and a doubt appears, their mind has to either accept that the belief is merely an assumption or get rid of the doubt. All you're saying is the truism that our minds attempt to rationally manage apparently conflicting thoughts. Yes, of course. If we believe gravity always pulls things down, and then we see a counterexample, then normally, either our belief is adjusted (either to include the counterexample, or to allow for the possbility of it), or the counterexample is explained away.
And psychologically it's far harder to accept uncertainty than to find a way to block the doubt with a rationalization. Speak for yourself. That depends on many factors.
Which would explain why the arguments of the religious seem so odd to skeptics (and often people of other religions). And people who are not religious, as demonstrated time and again. You have not even begun to make the case that this happens more with religious people than others, unless one counts assertion as making a case, and I don't.:-)
No, that's not true. There is plenty of evidence. That's great! If you could tell me what that evidence is, I think I'd have an easier time understanding your point of view. Evidence that you are more than just a head in a jar?
Wave your arms around. There. Satisfied?
You do believe you are more than a head in a jar. Everyone does. That doesn't mean you don't accept the possibility you're wrong, but you take it as an article of faith, because you cannot practically function otherwise. No, I don't. Yes, you do.
I function perfectly well knowing that this could all be an illusion. Yes, but BELIEVING that it is not.
If I can grow attached to people that I know are fictional, why is is so hard to believe that I can have feelings for people that may possibly be fictional? If you have the same attachments to people you know are fictional (although in fact you don't know that, but that's not the point) as to people you believe are not, then you have serious psychological problems. Only literally mentally ill people do that.
Why do you care about my beliefs, since they do not threaten you? Your beliefs may affect how you vote Everyone's do, including yours. So what?
and you also spread the idea that taking things on faith is acceptable It is. Everyone does it, including you, no matter how much you deny it. NOT taking things on faith is irrational.
Both of these things directly affect me. No moreso than everyone else's beliefs affect you. And I don't mean "everyone with beliefs," of course. Because everyone has beliefs. Everyone has faith, accepts things on faith, and operates under faith.
It's been that way in the U.S. since shortly after the Pilgrims got here... So after fleeing to the edge of the know world, risking their lives, and essentially isolating themselves from the rest of the western world, they managed to break away to start their own colony that could kick out people that they considered heretics. Is that supposed to illustrate tolerance of doubt? No. You are not even following your own argument now. You said, "when religion comes first there can be no room for doubt." Except, there was, as this demonstrates. There has been doubt all along. Whether they should have been more tolerant is beside the point: there was clearly room for doubt. Others had doubt, and formed their own communities.
Further, for those people who DO disallow doubt, they are no different from the non-religious people who disallow doubt. Right, but I still think that religion encourages people not to doubt, and not to tolerate doubt. Nope. No moreso than any other ideology... including any ideology that teaches non-ideology.
I'll bring this up again though: A voice came out of a fire, therefore the voice is that of the creator of the universe? I don't understand the question.
There is no way IN THIS FUCKING PASSAGE, that the celestial beings are the angels who dare not slander them or the men who aren't even as powerful as the angels that dare not slander them. You're wrong, of course. There is absolutely no indication that it isn't dead men that the angels dare not slander, or other angels. In your mind you presume that the REASON they dare not slander them is some sort of hierarchical one, but the passage does not contain any such implication. You are reading that into the passage to further your own preconception.
That you are more than just a head in a jar imagining the universe is based on faith. Do you believe that, too, is irrational?
Yes, there isn't any evidence either way (which is the while point of using that concept in philosophy).
No, that's not true. There is plenty of evidence. It isn't scientific evidence, but there is also no scientific evidence that scientific evidence can be trusted. There is no PROOF either way, but plenty of evidence.
Similarly, it is not irrational to believe in something for which there is no scientific proof. That is obviously self-refuting, since there is no scientific proof that scientific proof is meaningful. Saying it is irrational to believe in a world that all our senses tells us exists, for which we have no reason to doubt, is nonsense.
Why? As long as people understand that they can't really know whether it's true or not, it doesn't matter what they choose to believe because it doesn't make a practical difference.
First, no one chooses to believe anything. Ever. Right now, believe that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it. I'll wait.:-)
What does happen is that we can choose to try to convince ourselves to believe something, but that's not the same thing. Maybe I got dumped by my girlfriend, so I try to tell myself that I am better off without her. Or maybe I think the Bible says the Earth was created in six actual days, and my religion is very important to me, so I try to look for ways to make that believable. Maybe I will succeed. But I don't just choose to believe it. I can't. No one can.
Second -- and this point feeds off the first -- what we believe affects us. You do believe you are more than a head in a jar. Everyone does. That doesn't mean you don't accept the possibility you're wrong, but you take it as an article of faith, because you cannot practically function otherwise. Have you ever worried or been concerned about anything that happens to you, or your family? Ever cared about someone else, had feelings about them? That is because you believe this world and your loved ones exist, despite your inability to prove it, despite your intellectual recognition that it may all be a dream.
On the other hand, suppose you meet Alice and Bob, who both say that they believe that we're all brains in jars, based on faith and revelations (or whatever else you feel supports religious beliefs), and our brains are being supported by "Makers" - would you believe them?
Not without reason to believe them beyond their mere words, no.
What if Alice says that the dream given to her by the Makers tells her that our simulated reality is a nursery to teach us to be socially mature, so we should form a global communistic society, prove our worth, and thus be allowed to join the real world. Bob says that that we're just here to be toyed with, so a hedonistic lifestyle is fine even if it leads to early death, because none of it really matters.
I assume you would find their beliefs ridiculous, and even dangerous (given the things they advocate). What's the real difference between Alice and Bob's belief in the Makers and a religious person's belief in God?
I would only find their beliefs dangerous if they were actually threatening to others. Beyond that, I don't care. And my religious beliefs never threaten anyone. I cannot tell from what you say here whether their beliefs would threaten others in any way. If not, then, why do I care? Why do you care about my beliefs, since they do not threaten you?
It is so common now that it doesn't require any group, let alone fanfare or special attention.
Right - now that life primarily revolves around secular pursuits that's true, but when religion is the center of public life it doesn't tend to be that way.
False. It's been that way in the U.S. since shortly after the Pilgrims
Interesting response, Ill get the first bit over with, I think that we are unlikely to agree, so I will state my opinion but not introduce anything new;
When necessary to protect the rights and safety of others, yes, as long as those zones do not interfere with the right to protest. Preventing protests or herding protesters into small areas *does* interfere with the right to protest It depends on where the area is, and what sort of access it has.
That is obviously untrue, because the people democratically CHOOSE for those to be the dominant parties.... From a foreign perspective (and the small amount of time I have spent in LA and NY) it would appear that the media treat politics in much the same way as they treat sports, its adversarial and there are two sides. This (unfortunately) seems to shape the entire political discussion, or at least a large portion of it. Yes, but in the end, people still have a choice of who to vote for.
I am unaware of any major coverage of anything other than Republican and Democratic events That too is mostly a function of choice. Nader was a big deal in 2000, and Perot in 1996 and 1992. But after the Iraq conflict began, voters became more polarized. Voters on the left -- not the media, not the government -- blamed Nader for Gore's loss, and so they ostracized Nader and anyone who would even think of voting for a third party that catered to the left. The fact that we saw no major coverage of other parties in 2004 is because the voters didn't want it, and weren't casting votes or talking to pollsters in that direction.
So far 2008 is shaping up similarly, although there's still chance for a third party to emerge, if the nominees of either are not well-served. For example, if Hillary is the candidate, we might see a lot of left-wing voters go for the Greens. If Giuliani is picked, then we will see -- almost overnight -- a new political party formed that will cater to social conservatives.
Moreover much of the campaigning (some of it apparently openly *by* the news media) appears to be negative, leaving me at least with the feeling that people were less likely to vote for the party they wanted to win any given vote, but rather the side they would rather not see in power. Sure, but that happens in countries with more parties, too. It happened in Canada and France and Australia, to significant degrees.
It also appears that the two parties resist any attempt to reform any elements of the current system that might reduce their own influence and position, but that really is a general impression. Yes, I addressed this a bit in my last post.
Yep. And that is why I opposed the Free Speech Zones at the conventions in 2004. They should have been right near the entrance to the conventions. So, you think they should have been near the entrances, fine, that suggests that you *do* approve of these zones. When necessary to protect the rights and safety of others, yes, as long as those zones do not interfere with the right to protest.
Personally I think that they should have had a small area required for access as a 'clear area' and then allow people to protest wherever they wanted. Have you ever been to Boston? That just wasn't feasible. ANYWHERE the protestors would be, would cause problems for safety and right of access.
With regard to free speech zones more generally, it may have been the Left that introduced them I didn't mean to imply that. I am not sure where the first instance was. I just know the Democrats did it first in recent years, during the last election cycle.
but as you are apparently a self professed member of the right and you seem to support their use, I would suggest that regardless of who 'started it' it is now something that is perpetuated by the right, or more correctly both parties. That's uninteresting. I do not support how they were actually implemented, and what I do support would not have been widely protested by... well, anyone. You'll always find someone who will complain, but there would have been no significant complaint from what I propose should have been done.
As with most schemes that reduce personal freedoms and restrict the freedom of expression... Exactly my point: what I propose would not restrict the freedom of expression.
Now as a brief comment on the Republican vs Democrat discussion, if all you have in a democracy are two parties with any chance at power (without even the chance of a minority party holding a balance between two larger blocks) you don't really have a democracy. That is obviously untrue, because the people democratically CHOOSE for those to be the dominant parties. Indeed, in order for us to have an additional party with any sort of power right now, it would have to be implemented UNdemocratically, by force. Two dominant parties is the clear will of the people. There's nothing in the law that requires it.
Now, that said, there are some roadblocks to other parties. And I fight to remove them where they exist. For example, I have spread the word about, and donated money to, Open Debates, which is a group that fights the illegal collusion by the R and D parties to block other candidates from participating in the general election debates (four are planned for later this year). And in state legislatures, you often have the two parties colluding to exclude other parties (such as in "top two primaries" which mean only two candidates get to the general election, and extremely strict filing requirements, making it only large party organizations can get candidates on the ballot in the first place).
However, these blockades, while bad, are a very small part of the overall picture, which is that a large majority of people prefer to pick candidates from the two parties.
First, there are many mentions that there is only one God, and that others are false. I already gave you some (despite your incorrect claim that none exist). And all other statements must be taken in that context. My claim that none exist? Fuck you. I never claimed that there weren't parts where the bible contradicts itself. Fuck yourself. YOU claimed that "god doesn't claim to be the only god." YOU claimed that. YOU were proven wrong.
God is jealous of the time and attention that people give to these false gods, whether they exist or not. What a petty, immature being. Red herring fallacy.
Finally, as to 2 Peter 2:10-11, why do you assume "celestial beings" refers to "other gods"? The word "doxas" can refer to any of a number of things, including angels, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, God the Father, and even of Christians who have died. "Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; 11yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings"
There is no way this refers to mortals or angels. Angels are ranked between men and celestials in this hierarchy. Please stop making yourself look foolish by saying "there is no way" when, in fact, it is what the word means. I am not an expert on everything, but I can read and analyze the Greek texts with some basic proficiency, enough to be able to compare word usages. So when someone says a word cannot mean a certain thing, I can look to find if it is ever used that way. And, in fact, it is used that way, often.
In fact, there is no evidence that the word used here, "doxas," ever refers primarily to a specific group of beings in a hierarchy. It is used to refer to all kinds of heavenly beings.
For example, 1 Corinthians 15:42-44: So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. This is quite obviously talking about mortals, and it is the same word: doxa.
It refers to cherubim in LXX Ezekiel 10:4 and Hebrews 9:5. It refers to Moses' face in 2 Corinthians 3:7.
The word is general. You don't know what you are talking about.
You're the one with the preconception, I'm just reading the bible for what it is. No, in fact, you're not. If you were, then you would not have falsely claimed that God doesn't say he is the only one. You also wouldn't have falsely claimed that "doxa" cannot refer to both humans and angels.
You told me that when other gods are mentioned, there are clear indications that they are false gods No, I did not. I wrote, in response to you saying "he specifically names other gods when telling people to worship only him:" Yes, and the clear implication is that those "other gods" are "false gods." That does not mean they are called false in every case, only that the whole context clearly implies that.
So apparently most of your last post, and all of your anger now, is stemming from your lack of reading comprehension.
You gave me deuteronomy 4, where there are sporadic indications that the other gods aren't real Yes. Which proves you wrong when you claimed "god doesn't claim to be the only god."
No indication that the other gods are false, in fact, he wouldn't be jealous if they there was no competition. Again, you are quite wrong.
First, there are many mentions that there is only one God, and that others are false. I already gave you some (despite your incorrect claim that none exist). And all other statements must be taken in that context.
Second, your claim that God would not be jealous if they did not exist is nonsense. God is jealous of the time and attention that people give to these false gods, whether they exist or not. Almost your entire post is based on that one illogical assumption, that God can only be jealous if those other gods exist.
Finally, as to 2 Peter 2:10-11, why do you assume "celestial beings" refers to "other gods"? The word "doxas" can refer to any of a number of things, including angels, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, God the Father, and even of Christians who have died. I don't know which it is referring to here, but to assume it means "other gods" is clearly unwarranted by the text or by other existing usage (indeed, looking through the majority of uses in ancient Greek literature via the Bauer's lexicon on my shelf, I cannot find a single example that refers specifically or contextually to "other gods").
What's clear is that you are not very knowledgable about this topic, and that you are cherry-picking examples, and reading into them, to fit your preconceptions.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, I am the only one here who has provided any evidence. You've provided none at all. So I am not sure who you think you're fooling.
I get that many people think it is the most efficient means to achieve the desired result. But that is really irrelevant to me, because my desired result is different than yours: my goal is to achieve the highest level of freedom for all. Only if you think the government should have such complete control over society, if you believe that this is necessary or wise because people cannot be trusted on their own to make decisions in their own best interest over the long term. I reject such notions. Just because the government funds science doesn't mean that corporations and private organizations can't fund it. Sure. But that private organziations can do it does mean that the government doesn't have to.
And you still haven't even explained why they bothered WRITING the commerce clause, since it is, according to your argument, irrelevant. This is the most obvious problem with your argument, and I don't blame you for not addressing it, because there's no reasonable answer. The only authority on the constitutionality of a given action is the judicial branch, most importantly the Supreme Court. Nope. That too is a common, false, misconception. Indeed, no less than Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter explicitly denied this notion, saying, "the ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it." You are conflating two different concepts: whether something is unconstitutional, and what the prevailing judicial interpretation is. They are not the same thing. Ideally they are the same, but often, they are not.
Was "separate but equal" constitutional before Brown v. Board of Education, then suddenly became unconstitutional? Of course not. If it was unconstitutional afterward, it was unconstitutional before, too. The Constitution didn't change. All that changed was how the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution, but that is not the same thing as "constitutionality." Of course if you have your nose stuck in 1780's political pamphlets you'd believe that the Supreme Court did not have the power to determine the constitutionality of legislation The Constitution necessarily gives the Supreme Court the authority to review laws for constitutionality, under Section 2. I know many people disagree, but they, too, are incorrect. No Child Left Behind is just as much, if not more, a violation of my rights under the Constitution You don't even have standing to challenge non-religious spending as a taxpayer. That is, of course, irrelevant to any point I made. You are again conflating two different concepts, in a similar manner as before: whether something is constitutional is completely separate from whether something is, or can be, challenged in court as such. There's also nothing unconstitutional about time/place/manner restrictions on public speech that are content-neutral. The problem with "Free Speech Zones" as implemented is that they are not content-neutral. Well, sort of. There may be other problems other than a lack of neutrality as to content, but content is the most important one. There must be an important government interest, that interest must be served by the restrictions, the restrictions must be narrowly tailored, and there must be left open ample alternative means of communicating the message.
For the Democratic National Convention in Boston in 2004, where the Zone was far away from the convention, such that participants in the protest and the convention could not even see or hear each other, which violated the fourth test, and perhaps the third as well.
Hamilton's argument makes no sense whatsoever, for that reason.
And in addition, since Madison actually wrote the Tenth Amendment, and wrote the defense of his position in the Federalist Papers which were the most influential document in the ratification of the Constitution, his interpretation is far more valuable than anyone else's.
But as James Madison said, this is all unconstitutional.
No Child Left Behind is just as much, if not more, a violation of my rights under the Constitution as anything else Bush is accused of doing, whether it is "warrantless wiretapping" or "free speech zones." The Constitution and its authors are quite clear.
The bad news for science is where there IS funding. Science should be independent of government as much as possible.
It's stories like this that drive people to vote for Ron Paul.
I think it's quite a big leap from "talking flame" to "creator of the entire universe". I don't care. That is entirely beside the point, which is whether God claims, in the Bible, that he is the one and only. Whether you believe it was God is irrelevant; whether the Bible claims it is, is the only point that matters. If you want to come back to the topic, feel free.
False. You are confusing "evidence" and "proof." It absolutely is evidence. It absolutely is not proof. You do believe you are more than a head in a jar. That doesn't mean you don't accept the possibility you're wrong... We seem to be using different definitions. I'm using a strict definition of belief (since we're talking epistemology) - if I truely believe something, I can't think that I could be wrong at the same time. Again, that's false. You are confusing "belief" with "knowledge." There is nothing in philosophy, including in the field of epistemology, that implies or states that one cannot think they could be wrong about a belief. Everyone does it, including you, no matter how much you deny it. NOT taking things on faith is irrational. Again, we're using the words differently. We all make assumptions about things just to get through the day, but that's not the way most people use the word "faith". Shrug. It is what the word actually means. If you have the same attachments to people you know are fictionalNo - the resulting sensations and images could just as easily come from a simulation (or even a dream), so that isn't evidence either way.
Intolerance is not about religion. It's about humanity, and ideologies, and associations, and perceived threats. The more a group feels threatened by an idea, the more likely they are to be intolerant. Welcome to earth. As far as I can tell, when a person believes something and a doubt appears, their mind has to either accept that the belief is merely an assumption or get rid of the doubt. All you're saying is the truism that our minds attempt to rationally manage apparently conflicting thoughts. Yes, of course. If we believe gravity always pulls things down, and then we see a counterexample, then normally, either our belief is adjusted (either to include the counterexample, or to allow for the possbility of it), or the counterexample is explained away. And psychologically it's far harder to accept uncertainty than to find a way to block the doubt with a rationalization. Speak for yourself. That depends on many factors. Which would explain why the arguments of the religious seem so odd to skeptics (and often people of other religions). And people who are not religious, as demonstrated time and again. You have not even begun to make the case that this happens more with religious people than others, unless one counts assertion as making a case, and I don't.
Wave your arms around. There. Satisfied? You do believe you are more than a head in a jar. Everyone does. That doesn't mean you don't accept the possibility you're wrong, but you take it as an article of faith, because you cannot practically function otherwise. No, I don't. Yes, you do. I function perfectly well knowing that this could all be an illusion. Yes, but BELIEVING that it is not. If I can grow attached to people that I know are fictional, why is is so hard to believe that I can have feelings for people that may possibly be fictional? If you have the same attachments to people you know are fictional (although in fact you don't know that, but that's not the point) as to people you believe are not, then you have serious psychological problems. Only literally mentally ill people do that. Why do you care about my beliefs, since they do not threaten you? Your beliefs may affect how you vote Everyone's do, including yours. So what? and you also spread the idea that taking things on faith is acceptable It is. Everyone does it, including you, no matter how much you deny it. NOT taking things on faith is irrational. Both of these things directly affect me. No moreso than everyone else's beliefs affect you. And I don't mean "everyone with beliefs," of course. Because everyone has beliefs. Everyone has faith, accepts things on faith, and operates under faith. It's been that way in the U.S. since shortly after the Pilgrims got here
That you are more than just a head in a jar imagining the universe is based on faith. Do you believe that, too, is irrational?
Yes, there isn't any evidence either way (which is the while point of using that concept in philosophy).
No, that's not true. There is plenty of evidence. It isn't scientific evidence, but there is also no scientific evidence that scientific evidence can be trusted. There is no PROOF either way, but plenty of evidence.
Similarly, it is not irrational to believe in something for which there is no scientific proof. That is obviously self-refuting, since there is no scientific proof that scientific proof is meaningful. Saying it is irrational to believe in a world that all our senses tells us exists, for which we have no reason to doubt, is nonsense.
Why? As long as people understand that they can't really know whether it's true or not, it doesn't matter what they choose to believe because it doesn't make a practical difference.
First, no one chooses to believe anything. Ever. Right now, believe that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it. I'll wait. :-)
What does happen is that we can choose to try to convince ourselves to believe something, but that's not the same thing. Maybe I got dumped by my girlfriend, so I try to tell myself that I am better off without her. Or maybe I think the Bible says the Earth was created in six actual days, and my religion is very important to me, so I try to look for ways to make that believable. Maybe I will succeed. But I don't just choose to believe it. I can't. No one can.
Second -- and this point feeds off the first -- what we believe affects us. You do believe you are more than a head in a jar. Everyone does. That doesn't mean you don't accept the possibility you're wrong, but you take it as an article of faith, because you cannot practically function otherwise. Have you ever worried or been concerned about anything that happens to you, or your family? Ever cared about someone else, had feelings about them? That is because you believe this world and your loved ones exist, despite your inability to prove it, despite your intellectual recognition that it may all be a dream.
On the other hand, suppose you meet Alice and Bob, who both say that they believe that we're all brains in jars, based on faith and revelations (or whatever else you feel supports religious beliefs), and our brains are being supported by "Makers" - would you believe them?
Not without reason to believe them beyond their mere words, no.
What if Alice says that the dream given to her by the Makers tells her that our simulated reality is a nursery to teach us to be socially mature, so we should form a global communistic society, prove our worth, and thus be allowed to join the real world. Bob says that that we're just here to be toyed with, so a hedonistic lifestyle is fine even if it leads to early death, because none of it really matters.
I assume you would find their beliefs ridiculous, and even dangerous (given the things they advocate). What's the real difference between Alice and Bob's belief in the Makers and a religious person's belief in God?
I would only find their beliefs dangerous if they were actually threatening to others. Beyond that, I don't care. And my religious beliefs never threaten anyone. I cannot tell from what you say here whether their beliefs would threaten others in any way. If not, then, why do I care? Why do you care about my beliefs, since they do not threaten you?
It is so common now that it doesn't require any group, let alone fanfare or special attention.
Right - now that life primarily revolves around secular pursuits that's true, but when religion is the center of public life it doesn't tend to be that way.
False. It's been that way in the U.S. since shortly after the Pilgrims
So far 2008 is shaping up similarly, although there's still chance for a third party to emerge, if the nominees of either are not well-served. For example, if Hillary is the candidate, we might see a lot of left-wing voters go for the Greens. If Giuliani is picked, then we will see -- almost overnight -- a new political party formed that will cater to social conservatives. Moreover much of the campaigning (some of it apparently openly *by* the news media) appears to be negative, leaving me at least with the feeling that people were less likely to vote for the party they wanted to win any given vote, but rather the side they would rather not see in power. Sure, but that happens in countries with more parties, too. It happened in Canada and France and Australia, to significant degrees. It also appears that the two parties resist any attempt to reform any elements of the current system that might reduce their own influence and position, but that really is a general impression. Yes, I addressed this a bit in my last post.
Now, that said, there are some roadblocks to other parties. And I fight to remove them where they exist. For example, I have spread the word about, and donated money to, Open Debates, which is a group that fights the illegal collusion by the R and D parties to block other candidates from participating in the general election debates (four are planned for later this year). And in state legislatures, you often have the two parties colluding to exclude other parties (such as in "top two primaries" which mean only two candidates get to the general election, and extremely strict filing requirements, making it only large party organizations can get candidates on the ballot in the first place).
However, these blockades, while bad, are a very small part of the overall picture, which is that a large majority of people prefer to pick candidates from the two parties.
There is no way this refers to mortals or angels. Angels are ranked between men and celestials in this hierarchy. Please stop making yourself look foolish by saying "there is no way" when, in fact, it is what the word means. I am not an expert on everything, but I can read and analyze the Greek texts with some basic proficiency, enough to be able to compare word usages. So when someone says a word cannot mean a certain thing, I can look to find if it is ever used that way. And, in fact, it is used that way, often.
In fact, there is no evidence that the word used here, "doxas," ever refers primarily to a specific group of beings in a hierarchy. It is used to refer to all kinds of heavenly beings.
For example, 1 Corinthians 15:42-44: So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. This is quite obviously talking about mortals, and it is the same word: doxa.
It refers to cherubim in LXX Ezekiel 10:4 and Hebrews 9:5. It refers to Moses' face in 2 Corinthians 3:7.
The word is general. You don't know what you are talking about. You're the one with the preconception, I'm just reading the bible for what it is. No, in fact, you're not. If you were, then you would not have falsely claimed that God doesn't say he is the only one. You also wouldn't have falsely claimed that "doxa" cannot refer to both humans and angels. You told me that when other gods are mentioned, there are clear indications that they are false gods No, I did not. I wrote, in response to you saying "he specifically names other gods when telling people to worship only him:" Yes, and the clear implication is that those "other gods" are "false gods." That does not mean they are called false in every case, only that the whole context clearly implies that.
So apparently most of your last post, and all of your anger now, is stemming from your lack of reading comprehension. You gave me deuteronomy 4, where there are sporadic indications that the other gods aren't real Yes. Which proves you wrong when you claimed "god doesn't claim to be the only god."
First, there are many mentions that there is only one God, and that others are false. I already gave you some (despite your incorrect claim that none exist). And all other statements must be taken in that context.
Second, your claim that God would not be jealous if they did not exist is nonsense. God is jealous of the time and attention that people give to these false gods, whether they exist or not. Almost your entire post is based on that one illogical assumption, that God can only be jealous if those other gods exist.
Finally, as to 2 Peter 2:10-11, why do you assume "celestial beings" refers to "other gods"? The word "doxas" can refer to any of a number of things, including angels, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, God the Father, and even of Christians who have died. I don't know which it is referring to here, but to assume it means "other gods" is clearly unwarranted by the text or by other existing usage (indeed, looking through the majority of uses in ancient Greek literature via the Bauer's lexicon on my shelf, I cannot find a single example that refers specifically or contextually to "other gods").
What's clear is that you are not very knowledgable about this topic, and that you are cherry-picking examples, and reading into them, to fit your preconceptions.