The argument of human infallibility, attempting to masquerade as an argument from the infallibility of God.
Step 1. God is infallible. Ok so far! Step 2. A human mind has an infallible capability to even remotely comprehend how God actually did things. Oops! Step 3. Even assuming a human mind can comprehend, that comprehension can be infallibly rendered into any inherently imperfect human language. Oops! Step 4. Even assuming it is possible to infallibly utter it in human language, the initial scribes were infallible in writing it. Oops! Step 5. Even assuming it was originally written infallibly, those initial versions were infallibly copied. You know what? I'll be generous and allow this one:) Step 6. Those assumed infallible copies in the long-dead language Aramaic were infallibly translated by humans into the long-dead language Latin, and repeatedly infallibly retranslated by humans all the way to English. Oops!
Just as side note I'm going to take a wild guess here and guess that blahplusplus believes the King James Version to be the one and only infallible translation into English. All the other English translation are obviously erroneous where they do not precisely match the King James Version.
But the biggest one is Step 7 where blahplusplus presumes HIMSELF to have a perfect and infallible comprehension of the bible, an authority on the meaning and interpretation of the bible, an infallible authority on which sections are literal and which are figurative or symbolic or allegorical. And best of all where blahplusplus proclaims himself infallible despite the fact that the MAJORITY of Christians reject his interpretation.
You know, the exact same thing many in the Church did when they imprisoned Galileo and presumed themselves infallible in declaring certain passages of the Bible to be literal and presuming they had an infallible understanding of them, and used the infallibility argument quoting passages of the Bible to declare "God's infallible Truth" that the Earth does not move.
The biggest difference between then and now is that back then they were actually arguing from a majority mainstream interpretation of the Bible. Today blahplusplus is arguing from a minority discredited interpretation of the Bible. But that doesn't really matter because blahplusplus has achieved a perfect complete and infallible understanding of God, and a perfect complete and infallible understanding of the Bible.
The infallibility argument: blahplusplus is infallible, therefore Evolution Is False.
However, some of the common theme in your response is that I somehow approve of violence.
I did not intend to assert any position for you. You said these Mohammed images were not a free speech issue, and you tried to support that by equating it to German Holocaust denial laws. I agree with that comparison in that they are both perfect examples of free speech issues. The German laws are wrong. However that leaves me very unclear what your position actually is. All I know is that you have some unknown disagreement with the "free speech" side here and that you have some unclear support for the side actively opposing the images.
In a direct conversation there is immediate feedback along the way. Due to my uncertainty of your position and the long round trip time of posts I stuffed in an overbroad scattershot of related comments. There was no intended accusation. I was actually hoping you would already agree with most of what I wrote and that we could quickly move on with whatever parts you found significant.
Looking back I see my "sword" talk came across wrong. I had drifted from free speech to the broader relationship between government and religion and I was using "sword" in a symbolic sense. It was my error to use that symbolism without first giving the background for it. I use it to mean anything done by government, even when it does not directly involve violence. Government legitimately deals with someone who breaks your leg or picks your pocket, but government cannot force people into heaven at the point of a sword. It is self defeating to even try. Government should not meddle in religion, and religion should not try to use the force of government.
my goal was that both sides should respect each other so that there is no violence.
I am hearing a problem there.
I hear you saying people shouldn't to draw Mohammad (or otherwise insult) so that there will be no violence. It implies violence if people do draw Mohammad. Perhaps not an approval of violence, but it does imply violence in that situation. It is implicitly placing the blame for that violence on the person speaking peacefully.
I pretty much prefer mutual respect to violence on any given day.
And again you phrased it as two alternatives, either don't disrespect me/us/them/whoever or I/we/them/whoever will kill you. Maybe you didn't intend it that way, but your post is at best extremely ambiguous. I'm not making accusations, but I am finding it very awkward to reply when your post still isn't addressing the core issue.
I am hoping you will explicitly agree that offensive or insulting speech does not justify a violent response. Furthermore I am hoping you will explicitly agree that such speech does not justify the implicit threat of violence authorized by criminal law, armed police forcibly arresting and imprisoning the speaker. And I am hoping that you will explicitly agree that is true even when an image of Mohammed is involved.
If a first person's speech is offensive or insulting, and lets say it does include an image of Mohammed, and a second person attempts to respond with violence or makes a credible threat of violence, do you agree that the first person goes free and the second person is to be criminally imprisoned? Do you agree that killing that second person is appropriate and justified self defense?
In my last post I tried to say the respect we need is respect for people's lives and respect for each other's freedom. If we have that respect then there no violence. With that respect people coexist peacefully, even when they disagree. People coexist peacefully, regardless of what they believe. People coexist peacefully, even if someone says something false. People coexist peacefully, even if someone says something stupid. People coexist peacefully, even if someone says something offensive. People coexist peacefully, even when speech is grossly insulting.
Have you looked at some of the pictures on the facebook page, freedom of speech or not, they are mostl
I don't think that it can be understood by civilized people. Only barbarians can understand killing someone over s cartoon.
I'd say pre-Holocaust-Germany was civilized by any reasonable definition. Nearly three quarters of Americans want to criminalize flag burning, and a disturbingly sizable minority of Americans are supportive of things not far different from killing over cartoons.
Sadly, it is all too easy to understand. Humans are irrational superstitious herd animals, subject to all sorts of psychological biases and shortcuts. People do what they believe is the "right" thing to do, but the definition of right and wrong can be radically defined by ideology. There is also a strong inclination to use an outside authority to define what is right, or to accept surrounding herd behavior and herd expectations to define what is right and wrong.
In this case we have the Quran very explicitly forbidding images of Mohammad. The logic becomes very simple. If you accept the Quran is the word of God then God forbids images of Mohammad. God is by definition the ultimate authority on morality, what God wants is by definition good and right. God is by definition infallible. And of course infallibility by definition defeats any effort at reasoning. And don't forget it doesn't matter if something is obviously wrong or illogical, God's ways are mysterious. God's methods and reasons are beyond human comprehension. And that gets vastly multiplied when there is a herd norm implicitly asserting that such behavior is right and good. And of course it falls into a n enemy model. "We" are being attacked by some evil enemy, God is being attacked by some evil enemy, and once the roles of "good guys" and "bad guys" are applied there is a powerful psychology of shortcutting and rationalizing everything on the "good guys" side as being right and good, and mentally shortcutting rationalizing everything on the "bad guys" side as being wrong and bad.
In fact human psychology is frighteningly susceptible to outside authority or expectations. Take a look at the famous Milgram_experiment. People will generally follow the expectations of any apparent authority or social norm, nevermind an ultimate God authority.
And for the record, I do not hesitate to admit I am an ignorant irrational herd animal. However I have this bad habit of suspecting I may be slightly less ignorant than average, slightly less irrational than average, and slightly less herd oriented than average:)
If I say a few people butchered a family say christian or hindu or muslim in my street and ban anyone from discussing it in my street, would it seem reasonable?
He explicitly said denying the Holocaust should be legal. What could possibly have been running through your mind when you wrote that ridiculous question? Your post is written as if he was supporting the German Holocaust-denial laws, when he explicitly opposed them.
His entire post was defending freedom of speech, and explicitly defending the freedom of speech of denialists. People can be misinformed, people can be idiots, and people can get sucked into some abhorrent ideology leading them to believe absurdities. And whether people they are merely misinformed, or stupid, or deluded by abhorrent ideology, they have the freedom to say false or offensive things. And of course other people have the exact same freedom of speech to call them misinformed or idiots or deluded.
If someone denies America's slave history, or denies the moon landing, or denies the Holocaust, at best they have been grossly misinformed by those who taught them that denialism. And at worst they are idiots sucked into some abhorrent ideology. Such people do have freedom of speech, and the proper freedom of speech response is to ignore them or insult them or ridicule them. Engaging them in productive rational discussion is also a valid option, but it is usually a waste of time. People who engage in that level of denialism are rarely capable of engaging in productive discussion of the issue. They are generally actively blind to any facts or logic that contradict their denialism. Any facts or logic that contradict their denialism can't get into their brain because it all just gets filtered out as more proof of the grand evil conspiracy.
Reasonable and rational people can deny the Holocaust, but only if they have been terribly misinformed by people who fabricated an ideological conspiracy theory.
Whether someone is denying the Holocaust or drawing a picture of Mohammad-as-monkey, the person peacefully speaking is at worst an offensive idiot. It is the person who responds with force or violence who is the criminal.
Denying the Holocaust is idiocy. So lets reject the word "ok".
and should in fact be encouraged
Of course idiocy should not be "encouraged". So lets reject the word "encouraged".
in order to preserver freedom of speach
If we drop the words "ok" and "encouraged", and we instead talk of "legally protected", then yes. Absolutely.
It doesn't matter if it's a drawing of Mohammad-as-a-monkey, or a pornographic drawing of children, or an idiot spouting Holocaust denial. Just because something is offensive is not a valid justification to respond with violence.
And by the way, one half of my family tree was exterminated in the Holocaust. The people who did it are DEAD, and I say the German people need to stop using their guilt complex as a justification for criminalizing offensive speech.
I like to think of myself as an educated person, a muslim who grew up in a western society, learning values of both.
Ok, but it seems you were mis-taught or misunderstood or misinterpreted "freedom of speech".
Denying holocast in Germany and a few other countries is a crime.
True.
It offends the victims
Exactly!!! It is speech that OFFENDS!
it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
This is precisely what freedom of speech is about!
One side of my family was exterminated in the Holocaust. The people who did it are dead and buried, but unfortunately most Germans still carry around a guilt complex over that fact. It is necessary and justified for militarily-derived law to trample rather carelessly on the standard liberties of a free society during occupation and reconstruction. It was necessary and justified for militarily-derived law to trample carelessly on things like free speech in purging the Nazis. However that is hardly an appropriate model of law for a modern democratic free civil society Germany.
My message to Germans is that that do not get to carve out some random exception to freedom of speech just because one particular piece of idiotic speech happens to hit a guilt nerve.
Take this as a lesson on what freedom of speech actually means. One side of my family was exterminated in the Holocaust, and I am sitting here saying the Germany law is wrong. One side of my family was exterminated in the Holocaust, and I am sitting here defending the freedom of speech of holocaust deniers.
Just because their speech OFFENDS does not justify violence.
That is what freedom of speech means. It means that people who commit violence are criminals. People who get angry and commit violence are criminals. People who get offended and commit violence are criminals. People who commit violence do not get to blame some innocent speaker who "made" them angry. People who commit violence do not get to blame some innocent speaker for "offending" them. No matter how offensive I find the letter "J", I am not justified in committing violence against you just because I got OFFENDED at your speech containing the letter "J". Anyone can claim offense at anything. Anyone could commit violence against anyone with an "offensive" justification.
Now more to what the article is about Mohammed and his images. Problem here from a muslim perspective is not freedom of speech.
Whether it is speech that insults Mohammed, or a drawing, we are discussing nothing more than speech-that-offends. That is EXACTLY freedom of speech.
What you are actually saying is that the "Muslim perspective" does not understand freedom of speech, or that the "Muslim perspective" feels entitled to violate freedom of speech. Either way it doesn't alter the fact that this is about freedom of speech.
Muslim's need to understand western values and respect them and west need to understand the Islamic faith and respect it.
That sounds great, so long as we can agree on a few things.
(1) First and foremost, you must accept equal terms in both directions. You cannot expect anything you are unwilling to live up to yourself.
The rules and expectations on me towards you and Islam need to be identical to the rules and expectations upon you towards me and my religion, no matter what religion it is. This is a pretty obvious requirement for any fair mutual agreement, but as you'll see this puts serious limitations on what is reasonable or even possible.
(2) Respecting a religion means respecting the freedom of others to believe and follow that religion.
If I follow some silly religion that says George Bush is God's Prophet, you are free to say my religion is wrong. You are free to say my religion is stupid. You are free to insult George Bush. You want "respect" for Islam, but you cannot demand any standard you are unwilling to live up to yourself towards someone else's religion which you find idiotic. People can peacefully ins
If you rescued one of your children from someone victimizing them and videotaping it would you be happy just having them back in safety? Or would you want to stop people from leering over your underage child?
Obviously the number one priority is getting them back safely. However I find it extremely peculiar that you somehow completely missed the second priority of putting them in prison, you know, where they won't be able to victimize another child.
People that seek this out are just as responsible as the people making the content.
Ayup, people who sit at home and collect images of arson are just as guilty as people who commit arson. That's why we criminalized images of arson. Oh wait.
People often say that it doesn't lead to more child exploitation. But can you really say that when you look at the pornography on your computer, you don't want to do it?
Sounds to me like you did just say that about yourself.
And by golly, you're right! When I saw that two-girls-one-cup video I just couldn't wait to run into the kitchen and start eating my own shit.
I always find it bizarre when people pull out that backwards supply and demand argument.
I have a question for you. What do you think would happen if child abuse and child porn were treated the same way as arson and images of arson? What do you think would happen if law enforcement redirected all of their effort to pursuing and prosecuting people who commit the crime of abusing children? And most particularly, you tell me what happens under supply-and-demand logic if all the law enforcement image databases were flooded onto the internet for free?
You tell me. Given an effectively infinite free and legal supply, would that increase or obliterate the incentive to abuse children for production?
Maybe I'm missing something, but if first priority truly is reduce this actual abuse of children, then supply and demand reasoning actually dictates flooding the supply of existing images.
My point though is that people were being irrational and lived in a different place for 30 years just because of the fear of a possible earthquake represented by some expert which never happened.
Irrational? If you're in your mid 20's and you're choosing a permanent home, you're looking at about a half century given typical life expectancy. The best science puts the odds of a major quake at higher than 1-in-3 in that time frame. Given a choice of two places to live that are otherwise comparable, it is perfectly rational to choose the place without the earthquake risk.
I wish more people exhibited that sort of rationality. I think it would be a good thing if we had fewer people living at the base of active volcanoes or living below sea level in hurricane zones. I find it particularly hard to feel sympathy for people who build glorious homes overlooking the ocean, and then start throwing a shitfit 5, 10, or 20 years later as the eroding cliffside inches up to their back door. If people with too much money want to build disposable homes on eroding land I won't try to stop them. However the only interest I have in helping them would be to set up a time lapse camera and post the video on Youtube while the cliffside keeps eating away and pulls down the house.
There are various risks no matter where you live, but it is completely rational to consider those factors and it is completely rational to make an effort minimize those risks. If there's a diamond mine at the base of a volcano then it may indeed be completely rational to build a home there to work in that mine. But if you have kids and they start moving out and buying their own homes, they should seriously consider a neighborhood with a less picturesque view of the crater.
Fashion design must be a marginal business, with very little profit and those poor, poor innovators living in cardboard boxes and eating cat food to stay alive.
Have you seen those hors d'oeuvres they pass around? I think it's French for 'cat food'.
somehow wearing *some* clothes that set *certain* fashion trends several years ago can be chic again. I'm not informed enough to state the precise algorithm
Well, if you do work out the algorithm, you can patent it.
I would compromise by making software patents have a very short life.
Some people say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west. Be reasonable, compromise. The sun rises in the middle.
We'll accept patents on math, logic, mental steps, thought crime, but they'll only run half as long.
If you write your own software, you'll only violate half as many patents. Your software is only half as illegal. And we'll only sue you for half as many millions of dollars. You'll still be completely bankrupt, but the bankruptcy court only needs to erase half as many imaginary dollars of unplayable damages.
And just to add a cherry on top, when the pledge of allegiance was written it didn't include any mention of God. It wasn't until the 1950's that the idiots in congress decided to unconstitutionally re-write the pledge and shove God in where He didn't belong.
I'm not sure if you fully caught sstamps's position (he was the post above yours).
His position, my position, the US Court System's position, is two key parts: (1) Students have the freedom to (non disruptive) prayer in school, (2) Government and school officials are strictly prohibited from promoting or suppressing student prayer.
Need I point out that it is effectively impossible to prohibit students from engaging is silent prayer during school? Unless of course you have thought police with brain scanners:)
Secondly, we all need to get along. Reasonable mutual accommodation is a Good Idea. In my opinion trying to wage a war against reasonable and non disruptive prayer by students would be a Rather Bad Idea. If some kid wants to pray to Zeus between classes or quietly in class just before a test, or if six kids sit together during lunch in group prayer for Dionysus to bless their meal, I think it would be rather counter productive to send in the stormtroopers.
You were taught that the Founding Fathers wanted religion separated from government. You were taught that religion should have minimal involvement with society at large. Where did you learn this?
For some strange reason Separation is best known from Jefferson's writings, but James Madison is actually the primary author of the Bill of Rights and by far best available authority on this issue. Here are a few choice Madison quotes:
"total separation of the church from the state" (1819 letter to Robert Walsh) "perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters" (1822 letter to Edward Livingston) "line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government" (1832 letter Rev. Jasper Adams Spring) "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" (1811 letter to Baptist Churches) "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." (Detached Memoranda circa 1817)
And that last quote totally trashes people who try to argue a "one way wall" that was only intended to protect religion from government. That last one is quite explicit that the separation is also intended to protect the government against encroachment by religion.
Madison wrote quite a lot on specific things that were unconstitutional, far to much to quote here. If anything Madison laid out an even stricter separation than is currently applied.
established state religion
The earlier poster used that phrase badly, but that sort of interpretation is nonsensical even without looking to secondary sources for intent. The text of the First Amendment itself is nonsensical under that sort of interpretation:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
If you try to interpret it as a state religion, the second half is nonsensical. The second half would declare that congress cannot prohibit exercise of the religion that it couldn't have established in the first half! Doh!
It's not really Separation of Church and State. The more accurate phrase is Separation of Religion and Government, as Madison often put it. 'Religion' is clearer and more accurate than 'church'. The second half "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" only makes sense if it is referring to religion in a generalized sense. The government cannot officially establish anything of a religious nature, nor prohibit the exercise of general religious stuff. First half, second half. That interpretation works.
George Washington, one of those "Founding Fathers" we here so much about, did not have a "keep that church away from government" attitude so often attributed.
I don't recall seeing Washington directly address the subject. The fact that he wanted more (and more diverse) chaplains for the army is compatible with the current application of Separation of Church and State. If anyone has any links to Washington directly addressing the subject I'll love to read what he had to say. But in the mean time, an absence of commentary from Washington merely directs us back to what we do have. And what we do have is overwhelming documentation from both Jefferson and Madison that explicitly confirm Separation of Religion and Government, and that is intended to be a two-way wall protecting both from each other.
It is very very simple:
Students have the right to (non disruptively) pray in school. Teachers and other government officials are strictly prohibited from promoting or suppressing prayer by students.
The only person Separation restricts, the only person who would oppose Separation, is someone who trying to abuse the powers of governmen
May I suggest a compromise? Tell me if you think this is reasonable:
(1) Students do have the right to pray in school, so long as they do so non-disruptively.
(2) The constitution guarantees an individual right to religious freedom. (2a) That means freedom from the government interference in our religious lives. (2b) That means the government can neither suppress nor promote religious practice, including prayer. (2c) Public school officials are part of the government, and it would be a violations of students' rights for school officials to use their governmental position and their governmental powers for the purpose of suppressing or promoting prayer by students.
That's my proposed compromise. (1) Students have the right to pray if they wish, and (2) school officials cannot abuse their position to promote or suppress student prayer.
Do you consider that reasonable?
I am going to take a leap of faith and assume you accept that as reasonable. If I'm wrong just let me know. And at this point I'm going to tell you that it is no compromise at all. That position is in fact a complete victory for one side in this legal fight, and a complete defeat for the other side. That position is in fact the current rule being enforced by the courts. That rule is in fact the position of the ACLU. That position is in fact what Separation of Church and State means, it is exactly how Separation of Church and State works.
In case you found that last paragraph surprising, I'll explain what has been going on. There is a very careful legal line you have to examine in order to judge a situation. The question is whether there is some teacher or other government official involved who is acting to promote or suppress prayer by students. That is a very precise detail that very often gets glossed over or entirely omitted when these stories go flying around the internet or publicized in activist newsletters. Heck, even the best news agencies often fail to include sufficient information in a story to truly be sure what is going on. But this issue is especially bad when it comes to the people who would like to promote prayer. The people opposed to Separation of Church and State. They either don't understand the legal rule, or they don't want to understand the rule. They feel prayer is great, and and they feel promoting prayer is a good thing. When there is a lawsuit against school officials abusing their powers to promote prayer, they don't see the line getting crossed. They don't see a lawsuit targeting the abuse of government powers. They tend to see a lawsuit that is "against prayer". When they describe the case they completely overlook the issue of use-of-government-powers. When they describe the case they describe it as an attack on religion, an attack against prayer, they describe it as a lawsuit trying to deny students the right to pray. And that is in fact the exact opposite of what is going on.
It is extremely easy to misrepresent or misinterpret a school prayer case unless you go directly to the court documents in the case, preferably the final court ruling.
cases are things where a student wishes to lead other students in a prayer before a school event. Or have a moment of silence during which they could pray.
The "separation of church and state" thinking would ban students from doing these things, even when the state had no control over the prayer choices.
It depends upon the exact circumstances. In many cases prayer is fine.
If a student is sitting in the locker room before a game, or sitting in the audience, they are perfectly free to engage in individual prayer. Non-disruptive prayer of course, no screaming while doing a naked dance around a fire:)
If a group of students in the locker room or audience want to pray together, they are perfectly free to do so. If they use some sort of prayer leader, that would be perfectly legal student lead prayer.
Now lets look to an actual problem case. A school principal stands u
I was in the military... Im an athesist, and I used to go to military services all the time... got you away from the drills for a few hours a week, and usually got us coffee and doughnuts, which we wernt allowed normally.
It would be interesting to argue that in itself constitutes a constitutional issue. As you pointed out the government was providing so much special favor for religion that even atheists were compelled to attend religious services. You should demand equal rights and equal treatment for atheists and others who do not wish to attend services, coffee doughnuts and equal time off from drills:)
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.
If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence. How small a contribution from each member of Congs wd suffice for the purpose? How just wd it be in its principle? How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience? Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Govt
Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the daily devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality?
If any single person could be considered the best authority on the meaning of the Bill Of Rights that person would unquestionably be it's primary author, James Madison. He wrote Detached Memoranda explicitly answering some of your questions.
What about when congress opens its session with a prayer?
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative ... The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles
Sorry, but prayer led by military chaplain in a military-funded institution i.e. chapel is obviously establishment of a state religion.
Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy
Madison said both violated the Establishment Clause, and should not stand as precedent for similar activities. He described these two cases as "de minimis", basically meaning that they are relatively minor violations and that he had more important issues to deal with. Nonetheless it clearly demonstrates the sweeping intent of the Establishment Clause.
The theocrat-wannabes keep trying to reject "Separation Of Church And State" as some irrelevant invalid thing dreamt up by just Thomas Jefferson, but James Madison said the same thing:
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.
Jefferson is indeed responsible for the particular phrase "Separation Of Church And State", but the principle behind that phrase was hardly some figment of Jefferson's imagination. Some anti-Separationists try to claim it was intended to be some sort of "One Way Wall" only intended to protect Religion from government, but the Madison quote above is quite explicit that it is also intended to be a wall protecting government from "encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies", protecting the State again
People who think laws can and should be forcibly imposed upon others based upon their personal interpretation of their chosen religion. Laws to impose their religious beliefs upon other people or to establish government favor for their religious beliefs above others. Laws that are ultimately backed by the force of government and the force of armed men with government badges.
Whether it is armed men forcing women back into a burning building to die because they ran out without proper head coverings, or a law directing public schools to enforce the Islamic 5 times a day prayer schedule, or a law directing public schools to hold students once in the morning for a "moment of silence" with the intent to promote Christan prayer or even to promote generic prayer, it is the same thing.
Anyone attempting to hijack the force of government to establish favor or enforcement for their religious beliefs is a talibannabee, and they need to be treated as such.
To be honest I was aiming for +Funny. I'm not sure whether to be amused or depressed that my commentary on the news media was immediately modded +Informative +Interesting and +Insightful.
Welcome to the Daily Show, where the most +Informative +Interesting and +Insightful news coverage in America airs on a channel that was supposed to be +Funny.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah yes, the old argument from infallibility.
The argument of human infallibility, attempting to masquerade as an argument from the infallibility of God.
Step 1. God is infallible. :)
Ok so far!
Step 2. A human mind has an infallible capability to even remotely comprehend how God actually did things.
Oops!
Step 3. Even assuming a human mind can comprehend, that comprehension can be infallibly rendered into any inherently imperfect human language.
Oops!
Step 4. Even assuming it is possible to infallibly utter it in human language, the initial scribes were infallible in writing it.
Oops!
Step 5. Even assuming it was originally written infallibly, those initial versions were infallibly copied.
You know what? I'll be generous and allow this one
Step 6. Those assumed infallible copies in the long-dead language Aramaic were infallibly translated by humans into the long-dead language Latin, and repeatedly infallibly retranslated by humans all the way to English.
Oops!
Just as side note I'm going to take a wild guess here and guess that blahplusplus believes the King James Version to be the one and only infallible translation into English. All the other English translation are obviously erroneous where they do not precisely match the King James Version.
But the biggest one is Step 7 where blahplusplus presumes HIMSELF to have a perfect and infallible comprehension of the bible, an authority on the meaning and interpretation of the bible, an infallible authority on which sections are literal and which are figurative or symbolic or allegorical. And best of all where blahplusplus proclaims himself infallible despite the fact that the MAJORITY of Christians reject his interpretation.
You know, the exact same thing many in the Church did when they imprisoned Galileo and presumed themselves infallible in declaring certain passages of the Bible to be literal and presuming they had an infallible understanding of them, and used the infallibility argument quoting passages of the Bible to declare "God's infallible Truth" that the Earth does not move.
The biggest difference between then and now is that back then they were actually arguing from a majority mainstream interpretation of the Bible. Today blahplusplus is arguing from a minority discredited interpretation of the Bible. But that doesn't really matter because blahplusplus has achieved a perfect complete and infallible understanding of God, and a perfect complete and infallible understanding of the Bible.
The infallibility argument:
blahplusplus is infallible, therefore Evolution Is False.
-
However, some of the common theme in your response is that I somehow approve of violence.
I did not intend to assert any position for you. You said these Mohammed images were not a free speech issue, and you tried to support that by equating it to German Holocaust denial laws. I agree with that comparison in that they are both perfect examples of free speech issues. The German laws are wrong. However that leaves me very unclear what your position actually is. All I know is that you have some unknown disagreement with the "free speech" side here and that you have some unclear support for the side actively opposing the images.
In a direct conversation there is immediate feedback along the way. Due to my uncertainty of your position and the long round trip time of posts I stuffed in an overbroad scattershot of related comments. There was no intended accusation. I was actually hoping you would already agree with most of what I wrote and that we could quickly move on with whatever parts you found significant.
Looking back I see my "sword" talk came across wrong. I had drifted from free speech to the broader relationship between government and religion and I was using "sword" in a symbolic sense. It was my error to use that symbolism without first giving the background for it. I use it to mean anything done by government, even when it does not directly involve violence. Government legitimately deals with someone who breaks your leg or picks your pocket, but government cannot force people into heaven at the point of a sword. It is self defeating to even try. Government should not meddle in religion, and religion should not try to use the force of government.
my goal was that both sides should respect each other so that there is no violence.
I am hearing a problem there.
I hear you saying people shouldn't to draw Mohammad (or otherwise insult) so that there will be no violence. It implies violence if people do draw Mohammad. Perhaps not an approval of violence, but it does imply violence in that situation. It is implicitly placing the blame for that violence on the person speaking peacefully.
I pretty much prefer mutual respect to violence on any given day.
And again you phrased it as two alternatives, either don't disrespect me/us/them/whoever or I/we/them/whoever will kill you. Maybe you didn't intend it that way, but your post is at best extremely ambiguous. I'm not making accusations, but I am finding it very awkward to reply when your post still isn't addressing the core issue.
I am hoping you will explicitly agree that offensive or insulting speech does not justify a violent response. Furthermore I am hoping you will explicitly agree that such speech does not justify the implicit threat of violence authorized by criminal law, armed police forcibly arresting and imprisoning the speaker. And I am hoping that you will explicitly agree that is true even when an image of Mohammed is involved.
If a first person's speech is offensive or insulting, and lets say it does include an image of Mohammed, and a second person attempts to respond with violence or makes a credible threat of violence, do you agree that the first person goes free and the second person is to be criminally imprisoned? Do you agree that killing that second person is appropriate and justified self defense?
In my last post I tried to say the respect we need is respect for people's lives and respect for each other's freedom. If we have that respect then there no violence. With that respect people coexist peacefully, even when they disagree. People coexist peacefully, regardless of what they believe. People coexist peacefully, even if someone says something false. People coexist peacefully, even if someone says something stupid. People coexist peacefully, even if someone says something offensive. People coexist peacefully, even when speech is grossly insulting.
Have you looked at some of the pictures on the facebook page, freedom of speech or not, they are mostl
I don't think that it can be understood by civilized people. Only barbarians can understand killing someone over s cartoon.
I'd say pre-Holocaust-Germany was civilized by any reasonable definition. Nearly three quarters of Americans want to criminalize flag burning, and a disturbingly sizable minority of Americans are supportive of things not far different from killing over cartoons.
Sadly, it is all too easy to understand. Humans are irrational superstitious herd animals, subject to all sorts of psychological biases and shortcuts. People do what they believe is the "right" thing to do, but the definition of right and wrong can be radically defined by ideology. There is also a strong inclination to use an outside authority to define what is right, or to accept surrounding herd behavior and herd expectations to define what is right and wrong.
In this case we have the Quran very explicitly forbidding images of Mohammad. The logic becomes very simple. If you accept the Quran is the word of God then God forbids images of Mohammad. God is by definition the ultimate authority on morality, what God wants is by definition good and right. God is by definition infallible. And of course infallibility by definition defeats any effort at reasoning. And don't forget it doesn't matter if something is obviously wrong or illogical, God's ways are mysterious. God's methods and reasons are beyond human comprehension. And that gets vastly multiplied when there is a herd norm implicitly asserting that such behavior is right and good. And of course it falls into a n enemy model. "We" are being attacked by some evil enemy, God is being attacked by some evil enemy, and once the roles of "good guys" and "bad guys" are applied there is a powerful psychology of shortcutting and rationalizing everything on the "good guys" side as being right and good, and mentally shortcutting rationalizing everything on the "bad guys" side as being wrong and bad.
In fact human psychology is frighteningly susceptible to outside authority or expectations. Take a look at the famous Milgram_experiment. People will generally follow the expectations of any apparent authority or social norm, nevermind an ultimate God authority.
And for the record, I do not hesitate to admit I am an ignorant irrational herd animal. However I have this bad habit of suspecting I may be slightly less ignorant than average, slightly less irrational than average, and slightly less herd oriented than average :)
-
What a bizarre post.
If I say a few people butchered a family say christian or hindu or muslim in my street and ban anyone from discussing it in my street, would it seem reasonable?
He explicitly said denying the Holocaust should be legal.
What could possibly have been running through your mind when you wrote that ridiculous question? Your post is written as if he was supporting the German Holocaust-denial laws, when he explicitly opposed them.
His entire post was defending freedom of speech, and explicitly defending the freedom of speech of denialists. People can be misinformed, people can be idiots, and people can get sucked into some abhorrent ideology leading them to believe absurdities. And whether people they are merely misinformed, or stupid, or deluded by abhorrent ideology, they have the freedom to say false or offensive things. And of course other people have the exact same freedom of speech to call them misinformed or idiots or deluded.
If someone denies America's slave history, or denies the moon landing, or denies the Holocaust, at best they have been grossly misinformed by those who taught them that denialism. And at worst they are idiots sucked into some abhorrent ideology. Such people do have freedom of speech, and the proper freedom of speech response is to ignore them or insult them or ridicule them. Engaging them in productive rational discussion is also a valid option, but it is usually a waste of time. People who engage in that level of denialism are rarely capable of engaging in productive discussion of the issue. They are generally actively blind to any facts or logic that contradict their denialism. Any facts or logic that contradict their denialism can't get into their brain because it all just gets filtered out as more proof of the grand evil conspiracy.
Reasonable and rational people can deny the Holocaust, but only if they have been terribly misinformed by people who fabricated an ideological conspiracy theory.
Whether someone is denying the Holocaust or drawing a picture of Mohammad-as-monkey, the person peacefully speaking is at worst an offensive idiot. It is the person who responds with force or violence who is the criminal.
-
Oh, so you think that denying the holocaust is ok
Denying the Holocaust is idiocy. So lets reject the word "ok".
and should in fact be encouraged
Of course idiocy should not be "encouraged". So lets reject the word "encouraged".
in order to preserver freedom of speach
If we drop the words "ok" and "encouraged", and we instead talk of "legally protected", then yes. Absolutely.
It doesn't matter if it's a drawing of Mohammad-as-a-monkey, or a pornographic drawing of children, or an idiot spouting Holocaust denial. Just because something is offensive is not a valid justification to respond with violence.
And by the way, one half of my family tree was exterminated in the Holocaust. The people who did it are DEAD, and I say the German people need to stop using their guilt complex as a justification for criminalizing offensive speech.
-
I like to think of myself as an educated person, a muslim who grew up in a western society, learning values of both.
Ok, but it seems you were mis-taught or misunderstood or misinterpreted "freedom of speech".
Denying holocast in Germany and a few other countries is a crime.
True.
It offends the victims
Exactly!!!
It is speech that OFFENDS!
it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
This is precisely what freedom of speech is about!
One side of my family was exterminated in the Holocaust. The people who did it are dead and buried, but unfortunately most Germans still carry around a guilt complex over that fact. It is necessary and justified for militarily-derived law to trample rather carelessly on the standard liberties of a free society during occupation and reconstruction. It was necessary and justified for militarily-derived law to trample carelessly on things like free speech in purging the Nazis. However that is hardly an appropriate model of law for a modern democratic free civil society Germany.
My message to Germans is that that do not get to carve out some random exception to freedom of speech just because one particular piece of idiotic speech happens to hit a guilt nerve.
Take this as a lesson on what freedom of speech actually means. One side of my family was exterminated in the Holocaust, and I am sitting here saying the Germany law is wrong. One side of my family was exterminated in the Holocaust, and I am sitting here defending the freedom of speech of holocaust deniers.
Just because their speech OFFENDS does not justify violence.
That is what freedom of speech means. It means that people who commit violence are criminals. People who get angry and commit violence are criminals. People who get offended and commit violence are criminals. People who commit violence do not get to blame some innocent speaker who "made" them angry. People who commit violence do not get to blame some innocent speaker for "offending" them. No matter how offensive I find the letter "J", I am not justified in committing violence against you just because I got OFFENDED at your speech containing the letter "J". Anyone can claim offense at anything. Anyone could commit violence against anyone with an "offensive" justification.
Now more to what the article is about Mohammed and his images. Problem here from a muslim perspective is not freedom of speech.
Whether it is speech that insults Mohammed, or a drawing, we are discussing nothing more than speech-that-offends. That is EXACTLY freedom of speech.
What you are actually saying is that the "Muslim perspective" does not understand freedom of speech, or that the "Muslim perspective" feels entitled to violate freedom of speech. Either way it doesn't alter the fact that this is about freedom of speech.
Muslim's need to understand western values and respect them and west need to understand the Islamic faith and respect it.
That sounds great, so long as we can agree on a few things.
(1) First and foremost, you must accept equal terms in both directions. You cannot expect anything you are unwilling to live up to yourself.
The rules and expectations on me towards you and Islam need to be identical to the rules and expectations upon you towards me and my religion, no matter what religion it is. This is a pretty obvious requirement for any fair mutual agreement, but as you'll see this puts serious limitations on what is reasonable or even possible.
(2) Respecting a religion means respecting the freedom of others to believe and follow that religion.
If I follow some silly religion that says George Bush is God's Prophet, you are free to say my religion is wrong. You are free to say my religion is stupid. You are free to insult George Bush. You want "respect" for Islam, but you cannot demand any standard you are unwilling to live up to yourself towards someone else's religion which you find idiotic. People can peacefully ins
If you rescued one of your children from someone victimizing them and videotaping it would you be happy just having them back in safety? Or would you want to stop people from leering over your underage child?
Obviously the number one priority is getting them back safely. However I find it extremely peculiar that you somehow completely missed the second priority of putting them in prison, you know, where they won't be able to victimize another child.
People that seek this out are just as responsible as the people making the content.
Ayup, people who sit at home and collect images of arson are just as guilty as people who commit arson. That's why we criminalized images of arson. Oh wait.
-
People often say that it doesn't lead to more child exploitation. But can you really say that when you look at the pornography on your computer, you don't want to do it?
Sounds to me like you did just say that about yourself.
And by golly, you're right! When I saw that two-girls-one-cup video I just couldn't wait to run into the kitchen and start eating my own shit.
-
I always find it bizarre when people pull out that backwards supply and demand argument.
I have a question for you. What do you think would happen if child abuse and child porn were treated the same way as arson and images of arson? What do you think would happen if law enforcement redirected all of their effort to pursuing and prosecuting people who commit the crime of abusing children? And most particularly, you tell me what happens under supply-and-demand logic if all the law enforcement image databases were flooded onto the internet for free?
You tell me. Given an effectively infinite free and legal supply, would that increase or obliterate the incentive to abuse children for production?
Maybe I'm missing something, but if first priority truly is reduce this actual abuse of children, then supply and demand reasoning actually dictates flooding the supply of existing images.
-
My point though is that people were being irrational and lived in a different place for 30 years just because of the fear of a possible earthquake represented by some expert which never happened.
Irrational? If you're in your mid 20's and you're choosing a permanent home, you're looking at about a half century given typical life expectancy. The best science puts the odds of a major quake at higher than 1-in-3 in that time frame. Given a choice of two places to live that are otherwise comparable, it is perfectly rational to choose the place without the earthquake risk.
I wish more people exhibited that sort of rationality. I think it would be a good thing if we had fewer people living at the base of active volcanoes or living below sea level in hurricane zones. I find it particularly hard to feel sympathy for people who build glorious homes overlooking the ocean, and then start throwing a shitfit 5, 10, or 20 years later as the eroding cliffside inches up to their back door. If people with too much money want to build disposable homes on eroding land I won't try to stop them. However the only interest I have in helping them would be to set up a time lapse camera and post the video on Youtube while the cliffside keeps eating away and pulls down the house.
There are various risks no matter where you live, but it is completely rational to consider those factors and it is completely rational to make an effort minimize those risks. If there's a diamond mine at the base of a volcano then it may indeed be completely rational to build a home there to work in that mine. But if you have kids and they start moving out and buying their own homes, they should seriously consider a neighborhood with a less picturesque view of the crater.
-
Fashion design must be a marginal business, with very little profit and those poor, poor innovators living in cardboard boxes and eating cat food to stay alive.
Have you seen those hors d'oeuvres they pass around?
I think it's French for 'cat food'.
-
somehow wearing *some* clothes that set *certain* fashion trends several years ago can be chic again. I'm not informed enough to state the precise algorithm
Well, if you do work out the algorithm, you can patent it.
-
I would compromise by making software patents have a very short life.
Some people say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west.
Be reasonable, compromise. The sun rises in the middle.
We'll accept patents on math, logic, mental steps, thought crime, but they'll only run half as long.
If you write your own software, you'll only violate half as many patents. Your software is only half as illegal. And we'll only sue you for half as many millions of dollars. You'll still be completely bankrupt, but the bankruptcy court only needs to erase half as many imaginary dollars of unplayable damages.
-
does this version of glibc.x86_64 make my butt look big?
Nope, your glibc.x86_64 is great.
It's your fat ass that makes your butt look big.
-
Lost is, quite possibly, the most overrated show that has ever been on television.
Hmmm, I dunno. That's kinda like trying to pick who came out last in the Special Olympics.
-
I for one welcome our new sentient subject line overlords.
-
I like using the Caesar quote for Separation of Church and State too.
You might appreciate Pslam 19, lines 1-4 and Romans 1 lines 18-20
a.k.a. science is the study of God's Truth, so shut the fuck up on evolution.
-
Nice.
And just to add a cherry on top, when the pledge of allegiance was written it didn't include any mention of God. It wasn't until the 1950's that the idiots in congress decided to unconstitutionally re-write the pledge and shove God in where He didn't belong.
-
I'm not sure if you fully caught sstamps's position (he was the post above yours).
His position, my position, the US Court System's position, is two key parts:
(1) Students have the freedom to (non disruptive) prayer in school,
(2) Government and school officials are strictly prohibited from promoting or suppressing student prayer.
Need I point out that it is effectively impossible to prohibit students from engaging is silent prayer during school? Unless of course you have thought police with brain scanners :)
Secondly, we all need to get along. Reasonable mutual accommodation is a Good Idea. In my opinion trying to wage a war against reasonable and non disruptive prayer by students would be a Rather Bad Idea. If some kid wants to pray to Zeus between classes or quietly in class just before a test, or if six kids sit together during lunch in group prayer for Dionysus to bless their meal, I think it would be rather counter productive to send in the stormtroopers.
-
You were taught that the Founding Fathers wanted religion separated from government. You were taught that religion should have minimal involvement with society at large. Where did you learn this?
For some strange reason Separation is best known from Jefferson's writings, but James Madison is actually the primary author of the Bill of Rights and by far best available authority on this issue. Here are a few choice Madison quotes:
"total separation of the church from the state" (1819 letter to Robert Walsh)
"perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters" (1822 letter to Edward Livingston)
"line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government" (1832 letter Rev. Jasper Adams Spring)
"practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" (1811 letter to Baptist Churches)
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." (Detached Memoranda circa 1817)
And that last quote totally trashes people who try to argue a "one way wall" that was only intended to protect religion from government. That last one is quite explicit that the separation is also intended to protect the government against encroachment by religion.
Madison wrote quite a lot on specific things that were unconstitutional, far to much to quote here. If anything Madison laid out an even stricter separation than is currently applied.
established state religion
The earlier poster used that phrase badly, but that sort of interpretation is nonsensical even without looking to secondary sources for intent. The text of the First Amendment itself is nonsensical under that sort of interpretation:
If you try to interpret it as a state religion, the second half is nonsensical. The second half would declare that congress cannot prohibit exercise of the religion that it couldn't have established in the first half! Doh!
It's not really Separation of Church and State.
The more accurate phrase is Separation of Religion and Government, as Madison often put it. 'Religion' is clearer and more accurate than 'church'. The second half "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" only makes sense if it is referring to religion in a generalized sense. The government cannot officially establish anything of a religious nature, nor prohibit the exercise of general religious stuff. First half, second half. That interpretation works.
George Washington, one of those "Founding Fathers" we here so much about, did not have a "keep that church away from government" attitude so often attributed.
I don't recall seeing Washington directly address the subject. The fact that he wanted more (and more diverse) chaplains for the army is compatible with the current application of Separation of Church and State. If anyone has any links to Washington directly addressing the subject I'll love to read what he had to say. But in the mean time, an absence of commentary from Washington merely directs us back to what we do have. And what we do have is overwhelming documentation from both Jefferson and Madison that explicitly confirm Separation of Religion and Government, and that is intended to be a two-way wall protecting both from each other.
It is very very simple:
Students have the right to (non disruptively) pray in school.
Teachers and other government officials are strictly prohibited from promoting or suppressing prayer by students.
The only person Separation restricts, the only person who would oppose Separation, is someone who trying to abuse the powers of governmen
May I suggest a compromise? Tell me if you think this is reasonable:
(1) Students do have the right to pray in school, so long as they do so non-disruptively.
(2) The constitution guarantees an individual right to religious freedom.
(2a) That means freedom from the government interference in our religious lives.
(2b) That means the government can neither suppress nor promote religious practice, including prayer.
(2c) Public school officials are part of the government, and it would be a violations of students' rights for school officials to use their governmental position and their governmental powers for the purpose of suppressing or promoting prayer by students.
That's my proposed compromise. (1) Students have the right to pray if they wish, and (2) school officials cannot abuse their position to promote or suppress student prayer.
Do you consider that reasonable?
I am going to take a leap of faith and assume you accept that as reasonable. If I'm wrong just let me know. And at this point I'm going to tell you that it is no compromise at all. That position is in fact a complete victory for one side in this legal fight, and a complete defeat for the other side. That position is in fact the current rule being enforced by the courts. That rule is in fact the position of the ACLU. That position is in fact what Separation of Church and State means, it is exactly how Separation of Church and State works.
In case you found that last paragraph surprising, I'll explain what has been going on. There is a very careful legal line you have to examine in order to judge a situation. The question is whether there is some teacher or other government official involved who is acting to promote or suppress prayer by students. That is a very precise detail that very often gets glossed over or entirely omitted when these stories go flying around the internet or publicized in activist newsletters. Heck, even the best news agencies often fail to include sufficient information in a story to truly be sure what is going on. But this issue is especially bad when it comes to the people who would like to promote prayer. The people opposed to Separation of Church and State. They either don't understand the legal rule, or they don't want to understand the rule. They feel prayer is great, and and they feel promoting prayer is a good thing. When there is a lawsuit against school officials abusing their powers to promote prayer, they don't see the line getting crossed. They don't see a lawsuit targeting the abuse of government powers. They tend to see a lawsuit that is "against prayer". When they describe the case they completely overlook the issue of use-of-government-powers. When they describe the case they describe it as an attack on religion, an attack against prayer, they describe it as a lawsuit trying to deny students the right to pray. And that is in fact the exact opposite of what is going on.
It is extremely easy to misrepresent or misinterpret a school prayer case unless you go directly to the court documents in the case, preferably the final court ruling.
cases are things where a student wishes to lead other students in a prayer before a school event. Or have a moment of silence during which they could pray.
The "separation of church and state" thinking would ban students from doing these things, even when the state had no control over the prayer choices.
It depends upon the exact circumstances. In many cases prayer is fine.
If a student is sitting in the locker room before a game, or sitting in the audience, they are perfectly free to engage in individual prayer. Non-disruptive prayer of course, no screaming while doing a naked dance around a fire :)
If a group of students in the locker room or audience want to pray together, they are perfectly free to do so. If they use some sort of prayer leader, that would be perfectly legal student lead prayer.
Now lets look to an actual problem case. A school principal stands u
I was in the military... Im an athesist, and I used to go to military services all the time... got you away from the drills for a few hours a week, and usually got us coffee and doughnuts, which we wernt allowed normally.
It would be interesting to argue that in itself constitutes a constitutional issue. As you pointed out the government was providing so much special favor for religion that even atheists were compelled to attend religious services. You should demand equal rights and equal treatment for atheists and others who do not wish to attend services, coffee doughnuts and equal time off from drills :)
-
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.
If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence. How small a contribution from each member of Congs wd suffice for the purpose? How just wd it be in its principle? How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience? Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Govt
Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the daily devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality?
If any single person could be considered the best authority on the meaning of the Bill Of Rights that person would unquestionably be it's primary author, James Madison. He wrote Detached Memoranda explicitly answering some of your questions.
What about when congress opens its session with a prayer?
Sorry, but prayer led by military chaplain in a military-funded institution i.e. chapel is obviously establishment of a state religion.
Madison said both violated the Establishment Clause, and should not stand as precedent for similar activities. He described these two cases as "de minimis", basically meaning that they are relatively minor violations and that he had more important issues to deal with. Nonetheless it clearly demonstrates the sweeping intent of the Establishment Clause.
The theocrat-wannabes keep trying to reject "Separation Of Church And State" as some irrelevant invalid thing dreamt up by just Thomas Jefferson, but James Madison said the same thing:
Jefferson is indeed responsible for the particular phrase "Separation Of Church And State", but the principle behind that phrase was hardly some figment of Jefferson's imagination. Some anti-Separationists try to claim it was intended to be some sort of "One Way Wall" only intended to protect Religion from government, but the Madison quote above is quite explicit that it is also intended to be a wall protecting government from "encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies", protecting the State again
I call them Talibannabees. Taliban wannabees.
People who think laws can and should be forcibly imposed upon others based upon their personal interpretation of their chosen religion. Laws to impose their religious beliefs upon other people or to establish government favor for their religious beliefs above others. Laws that are ultimately backed by the force of government and the force of armed men with government badges.
Whether it is armed men forcing women back into a burning building to die because they ran out without proper head coverings, or a law directing public schools to enforce the Islamic 5 times a day prayer schedule, or a law directing public schools to hold students once in the morning for a "moment of silence" with the intent to promote Christan prayer or even to promote generic prayer, it is the same thing.
Anyone attempting to hijack the force of government to establish favor or enforcement for their religious beliefs is a talibannabee, and they need to be treated as such.
-
To be honest I was aiming for +Funny. I'm not sure whether to be amused or depressed that my commentary on the news media was immediately modded +Informative +Interesting and +Insightful.
Welcome to the Daily Show, where the most +Informative +Interesting and +Insightful news coverage in America airs on a channel that was supposed to be +Funny.
-