ESP is such an extraordinary claim that it requires equally extraordinary evidence in its support for it to be seriously considered as fact.
Carl Segan coined the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" as a legitimate way for him to temper his own bias towards believing claims that wanted to be true, specifically regarding evidence of alien life. It is legitimate if it is a way to increase one's objectivity and reduce one's own bias.
However, it is abused by many self-professed "skeptics" as a way to amplify their own biases by placing immense burdens of proof on claims which they don't wish to consider to be true. This is anti-objective and anti-intellectual. It's perhaps best to abandon that "extraordinary" test altogether and require a consistent and objective standard of evidence.
"I think the argument can be made that religion has absolutely nothing to do with our morality."
A study of history makes mincemeat of that argument.
"People have used the bible as a reason to justify many things our society today considers immoral.."
That's a straw man. No sane person has ever claimed that the bible has never been used to justify immoral behavior. Everything available is used to justify immoral behavior.
"If my father stoned me to death for straying from my faith how many people in his church would congratulate him for doing what God demanded in the Bible?"
Maybe you're thinking of the Koran, there is nothing even remotely similar to such a demand in the Bible.
"Religion didn't give me my moral code."
What do you think about killing babies? (Forget the unborn for now, let's say three-month-old babies.) 2,500 years ago, there was practically nowhere on the planet you could go to find people who even hesitated at the thought of killing their child if they didn't want it for whatever reason. Half of the planet was also ritually sacrificing children and babies. The only places where it was illegal to kill a baby at that time were in Judah and in some Germanic tribes. We even have a letter sent by Alexander the Great back to his pregnant wife instructing, "if it's a boy, keep it; if it's a girl, discard it." There is greater than a 99.99% chance that whoever your and my ancestors were back then, they had no qualms about killing children. This was the near-universal morality until a religious shift happened -- Christianity (which was strictly against infanticide, abortion, and other things which were unquestioned as acceptable in most of Europe, like adultery) spread into Europe and eventually into the Roman empire, causing them to change their laws. For example the Roman Empire outlawed child sacrifice, but more tellingly the practice had started dying out on its own since then. By the time that all of Europe was Christian, the killing of children and babies not only stopped, but began to become an abominable thing to them. A few hundred years later, the missionary age began. The most permanent and significant changes the Christian missions made around the world, more so than actually converting people to Christianity, was stopping the practices of child sacrifice and other child killing. The spread of Christian-based law by the British Empire, nearly wiped out those practices in places like India where there were once rampant.
So I ask you, why are you morally opposed to killing babies? Is it just based upon your own innate reason and compassion? And if you had been born 2,500 years ago you would have been the lone opposer to such practices? I'm sure we'd all like to think that of ourselves, but I think it would be delusional. Or did you learn it from your society, who learned it from the Christian religion?
If anyone doubts the truth of this matter for a second, one only has to look at abortion. The U.S. began transforming into a secular society in the late 40's. In just 25 years it was made legal to kill a child in the womb. Today it is a serious crime to kill a newborn for any reason, but it is no crime at all to kill the same child an hour earlier in the womb. This is unique in all of human history. Societies have outlawed infanticide and abortion, and societies have permitted infanticide and abortion, and one policy may be moral, and the other immoral, but at least their both logically consistent. Our current collective moral opinion, that infanticide is horrible, and abortion is okay, is nothing short of schizophrenic. And it would be extremely naive to imagine a society that would keep straddling that fence forever. It has to move in one direction or the other.
In the Iliad, Zeus is the God of gods. All other gods tremble at his feet, sometimes literally. It's not a coincidence that this relationship is portrayed in much the same was as the relationship between God and angels in the explicitly monotheistic ancient texts.
Zeus (or Jove/Jupiter) signified the Spiritual of God (the part of consciousness centered on thought) that was manifest to mankind and gave rise to all man's spiritual powers, which are the other gods. Before the historic period, the myths speak of an earlier age, as do all the important sacred texts. In this "golden age" Zeus' father Cronos (or Saturn) ruled, who represented the Celestial of God (the part of consciousness centered on love), which at that time is what was manifest to mankind and gave rise to the powers of his mind at that time. The transition from the one age to the other is in nearly all traditions marked by the Flood.
Next, Why would life ever evolve beyond the algae stage in the first place? Algae has everything it needs. Of course, algae can mutate, but into what? I could see it being able to mutate so that it survives close to the equator than it does near the poles, but other than that, there's really not a whole lot of improvement you can do for something that floats around and turns light into food. Anything added to the equation takes away from it's perfect efficiency. How could you possibly make algae better?
This is the giant hole in the middle of neodarwinism. Neodarwinism claims that 1) all current life forms evolved from bacteria-like microbes, and 2) evolution is driven by random mutation and natural selection, thus changing organisms in the direction of greater survivability and more successful reproduction. Yet the best survivors and most successful reproducers on the planet or bacteria. They survive in places where there is no sunlight, where acidic or temperature conditions make most or all other life impossible. There are more of them in a shovelful of dirt than there are of us on the planet. There are more of them INSIDE one of us than there are of us on the planet. And the further away on the evolutionary tree you move from bacteria, the WORSE the organisms become at survival and reproduction. So how the progression of evolution is explained, to the satisfaction of some, by a force that points in the OPPOSITE direction of the actual gradient of change is a mystery to me. It seems to be the rejection of reason in favor of faith in the theories of the scientific establishment.
God did it, no need to study it. Hense the dark ages.
Your understanding of history is almost as good as your spelling.;-) It is commonly said that modern science began with Newton; and Newton was one of the most religious men of his time. Genuine religion (or for that matter, genuine philosophy, such as that of Socrates or Confucius) leads to humility before the vastness of the mind of God, and therefore before the vastness of Truth in comparison to our own understanding, and thus a familiarity with the vastness of our own ignorance. The knowledge and acceptance of our own ignorance is what leads to discovery. In the modern age, where there are many atheistic scientists, the true perspective that we know virtually nothing tends to get replaced (not by everyone, but generally) by the false one that we know almost everything. Therefore, for example, we called atoms "atoms" although it turned out they weren't; we called elementary particles "elementary particles" although it turned out they weren't; and some of today's physicists search for the one fundamental particle, the "god particle," under the delusion that we just now happen to be arriving at the totality of knowledge of physics. Quantum physicist assign "randomness" to behavior that we can't explain otherwise. Even string theorist assume in their theories that strings are fundamental particles, and that their explanation will be final and there will be no further causes. One of the more disgusting examples, in my view, is the labeling of the majority of the DNA molecule "junk DNA," simply because we are ignorant of its purpose.
In saying you're a geek, I assume you're a pretty intelligent fellow who uses reason to form his view of the universe. I assume you don't follow crowds, that you evaluate products you buy on their merits, and that, at least sometime in your life, you've reasoned out who would win in a battle between two fantasy characters.
How is it, then, that you make a special exemption for your god? How do you reconcile the inherent illogic of religion with the rest of your life?
Saying there's an inherent illogic of religion is like saying there's an inherent illogic of math. The opposite is in fact true. We have God-given capacity for reason which lets us perceive the truth of maxims of logic and math. These are things that all math and science are based upon, for which proof is impossible. We know them only because they are self-evident to us. We perceive them directly. This could be called "faith" or it could be called the strongest proof of all. (It is necessarily the strongest proof of all, because the next-strongest proof, mathematical proof relies upon it for all its fundamental givens.) It is the same capacity for perception of truth, for fundamental knowledge, that is the basis for the recognition of Divine Truth in its various forms, especially in the sacred scriptures of various religions. Different people are capable of perceiving different types of it, and different aspects of it is contained in different religions. Most people are receptive to at least some form of it.
However, for "geeks," we have a disadvantage in that, being clever, we also tend to have a certain pride in our own intelligence. It's a pretty high barrier to have the intellectual honesty to recognize that those I had considered idiots, and who in truth are much simpler in their thinking, were far more correct in what they believed than I was. At least for me, it was nothing short of humiliating to come to that conclusion. But my allegiance has always been, and always will be, to the pursuit of Truth.
Anyway, I don't know what inherent illogic you see in a omnipotent and omniscient God. Geeks, more than anyone, should be capable of understanding the intricacies of the meanings of those terms, and seeing beyond the confines of time-space to reconcile them with the concept of free will. If you want some good geek theology, look no further than here: http://www.theisticscience.org/books/dlw/dlw.html
If this is proven to be fact ( and i dont think this really *proves* anything. Its still theory ), how is this going to sit with the religions of the world that truly think we are the only ones 'god' created?
Why do atheists always seem to think this about religions??? I know of no religion or religious person, myself included, that holds to some religious doctrine that the Earth is the only inhabited planet. It would be pretty difficult to infer a position on the subject from the Bible, Koran, Vedas, or any other scripture I'm aware of.
One of Christianity's most influential theologians in the 18th century, Emanuel Swedenborg, a renowned scientist who in his 50's had a major religious experience, after which he claimed to regularly speak and interact with spirits in heaven and hell, also claimed to have spoken with spirits from other planets, both in this solar system and others.
You're right. A million for violating My Beloved Bill of Rights is ridiculous. I think a more reasonable figure would be the entire gross worth of both the Bush and Cheney families, as well as all assets and accounts receivable of AT&T. I might consider accepting such a paltry sum if it came with tearful, prostrate apologies from all concerned.
Since we're on the topic of dead Americans, I come from a military family. My kin and I have served, sacrificed, bled and died for the rights and freedoms we have in this county, and we did it before the damn GI Bill came into being. When someone dares to even touch those rights, we don't think we should be given money. We think those responsible should be made to face us in combat.
How much are our rights really worth? So far, for my family, two Worlds Wars, Three Police Actions and still counting...
I certainly admire your family's service to your country. But please bear with me here. Let's say you found Osama bin Laden's phone number, and you decided to call him up to tell him what a sonofabitch he is. The NSA detects a call to Osama and records it, even though they can see it originated in the US. They send the recording to the CIA, where analysts listen to it and concur that Osama is indeed a sonofabitch, and proceed to the next call. Please explain which of your precious rights were violated. The only remotely plausible one I can think of would be the right to be free from "unreasonable searches". However the duty of the executive branch, and the NSA in particular, is to eavesdrop on the enemy. While you are clearly not the enemy, hearing your end of the conversation is part of their necessary and reasonable duties, by which they, like you, serve and protect this country. Do you really believe it is unreasonable for military intelligence to eavesdrop on our enemies when they are communicating with someone inside the US? If not, which of your rights was violated?
The judiciary is the final check on whether a law is constitutional or not.
You need to read the Constitution.
They also have the power to interpret how laws are to be enforced
You need to read the Constitution.
The fact that you're a Bush supporter, and believe the judiciary has no power whatsoever is very telling.
I believe the judiciary has the power given it by the Constitution and no other. A belief that Jefferson, for example, shared, and went to his grave shouting to people like you who wished to turn the judiciary into the new monarchy.
Yes, my respect for the Constitution is a big reason why I'm a Bush supporter. He is one of the few in Washington who understands the scope of the crisis that has come from destroying the constitutional form of government, and he can therefore be counted on to nominate SC justices who likewise respect and follow the Constitution.
If the lawsuits that "will bankrupt this [telephone] companies" are filed by enemies abroad, then I suspect that this wouldn't be an issue. However, these lawsuits are being filed by native-born Americans. So, that begs the question: Why are we not following Due Process for a native-born American, if we're only requiring this warrantless wiretap for spying on enemies abroad?
"Due Process" is the standard which must be adhered to when depriving an American of his life, liberty or property. It is therefore relevant to criminal prosecutions. It is irrelevant to gathering military intelligence. Foreign terrorists organizations have members and associates in the United States. The military intelligence community has a duty to spy on these individuals. I don't know if any are citizens or native-born Americans, but if they are associated with the foreign terrorist organization, they are legitimate targets. However, if criminal charges were ever brought against any of these individuals, none of this military intelligence would be admissible, because that's where "due process" comes into play.
There are problems beyond the slippery slope with constant surveillance. And that people like you are so willing to allow them to do whatever they want "in the name of security," is just sad.
Er, I've never advocated constant surveillance, or blanket or non-targeted surveillance, or the NSA or CIA doing "whatever they want." I only advocate that the spy agencies have the power to spy on foreign terrorist organizations, just as they do foreign governments, wherever they are operating, without involvement of the judicial branch.
The parent poster never used the term arbitrary, nor implied it, you added that to support your own argument. The courts do indeed have the power to strike down a law if it is unconstitutional or overly broad, etc.; however it must be brought before the court by someone with proper standing, i.e. someone who has been harmed by or prosecuted under said law. To claim that the courts do not have this power is not only wrong, but easily refuted by over a century of case law.
The OP simply said "strike it down" without qualification. What the courts can do legitimately (must do) is decide cases based on the law, the highest law being the Constitution. So, if it's not qualified in terms of preferring the higher law to the lower law, no, the court cannot simply "strike down laws". They can only apply the laws as written. Anything else is an abuse.
To claim that the courts do not have this power is not only wrong, but easily refuted by over a century of case law.
If you're looking at the last century or more of case law, you're looking at a whole lot of practice that has nothing to do with the constitutional legitimate power of the court.
The problem at hand with the FISA issue is that the wiretaps are being used on Americans, located in America. It is not the cases of purely foreign wiretaps that people have issue with, it is the unsupervised use of them against NON-foreigners that is the problem. And the fact that the administration knowingly and willingly sidestepped mandatory FISA regulations early on in the process? Are they to be left completely unaccountable for that? You seem like a reasonable person who accepts the rule of law, however you also seem to be turning a blind eye to the fact that the very laws and checks you are advocating and believe in have already been breached. Also, the justification for expansion of powers along the lines of "we've stopped/will stop lots of crimes but we can't tell you about any of them" is hardly an acceptable reason for a government supposedly of and for the people.
If constitutional laws or checks have been breached, I am against it, but I do not believe that to be so. Particularly, I do not believe the FISA law to be constitutional in most applications. It is a legislated redistribution of constitutional war powers from the executive to the judicial branch. I don't know whether the president quite shares that view, but to the degree that he does, he has the sworn duty to refuse to execute that law. For the constitutional system of checks and balances to work, each of the three branches has the independent duty to uphold the constitution, and refuse to carry out the unconstitutional actions of the other branches.
Do you disagree that a system of checks and balances cannot properly function if one side is completely cloaked in secrecy?
I think that's a reasonable argument. That is why the Congress has select committees that review the classified functioning of the intelligence agencies they've established by law, such as the CIA and the NSA.
Jason posted Would you like the next administration to have unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping capabilities?
you responded Yes, the next administration should have "unsupervised" warrant-less wiretapping capabilities of our foreign adversaries.
Pretty subtle, except that this debate is based around the fact that Americans (as represented by the EFF) are suing ATT/Verizon. Not foreign adversaries. Americans. That's the crux of the issue. American citizens claim that they have been monitored by the US government without due process being followed. If true, that is almost certainly illegal & unconstitutional, despite the Administration's claims of privilege or national security. If it is not, I feel that Congress needs to address whatever legal loophole allows such actions. Others have stated they feel the same. You have avoided voicing your opinion on the matter, choosing instead to weigh in on an orthogonal issue. Which is no more relevant to the discussion at hand than my pizza topping preferences.
The NSA has the legitimate power to spy on our foreign adversaries whether or not that involves hearing the conversations of American citizens at the same time or not. Americans are suing, suggesting this is a violation of the law, but it is not a violation of the law, because the targets are foreign terrorist organizations, which the Constitution gives the executive branch power to conduct warfare against. The concept of "due process" does not apply, because this has nothing to do with criminal prosecutions of Americans. No American's life, liberty, or property has been deprived. Spying on foreign adversaries is not an orthogonal issue -- it is the activity in question, which happens to include listening to some Americans (or at least people residing in America).
So in your scenario, a warrant would not be necessary as long as those targeted were Foreign Powers*.
The only requirement then is for the Attorney General to make certification of the requirements - communication between foreign powers where no US parties would be involved - and present it to the House and Senate.
*Foreign Powers covered in the FISA are defined in 50 U.S.C. 1801(a)(1),(2),(3): (1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States; (2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons; (3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments
That would be fine if they updated the definition of Foreign Powers. The executive branch has the legitimate power and duty to pursue war-like activities against foreign enemy terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaeda. However the definition in the law you provided excludes such organizations. That is the problem.
If you KNOW they are spy, then deport them from the country.
Why? The point is to gather intelligence on the enemy.
The problem is laws like this are used to survey people you "may think might be" enemies.
No, it's used to listen in on conversations amongst networks of terrorists and their associates. Some of their associates will not be terrorists, so you won't learn anything valuable from them. It's not about the innocence or guilt of any particular individual; it's about intelligence gathering. It's a basic fundamental activity in defending any nation. All developed nations do it and have a duty to do it. There's nothing different or unusual about the way that the US does it. Aside from being more technologically advanced than most, and having greater resources than most, there is nothing that distinguishes the activities of the US spy agencies from any other country's. There is no country in the world, where if the spy agency is tracking an enemy into the country, they will turn off their tracking equipment because he's in their country now and to continue tracking him would violate his rights.
And yes, Canada has a "spy agency," but I have yet to read about them violating peoples rights.
I suppose Canada's spy agency gets a person's written permission before they start spying on him. And, of course, warrants from judges.
If a company illegally gives information (hypothetically about me) to the government, as part of an illegal plan. Not only should I be able to sue their pants off (to the point where I can pay not only for my kids' college education through to 5 PHDs, but also afford to pay to have an OC-3 line run right to my house) but they should be brought up on criminal charges.
Based on what damages? I'm just curious. If you found out that AT&T helped the NSA listen to your phone calls, would that cause you $1 million in emotional damage or something?
Yes, non-citizens are generally afforded the same legal protections.
However, as the NSA is not conducting criminal investigations, that is entirely irrelevant. If you think a foreign enemy agent in America shouldn't be spied on without a warrant, you need to stop watching CNN. Their garbage is spewing out of your brain.
Any Bush supporters out there? Ok, asking for a Bush supporter on Slashdot is probably like walking into a Microsoft board meeting and asking how many people run Linux.;-)
Yes, I'm a Bush supporter. Also, Linux sux.;-)
Still, every time this subject comes up, I ask the same series of question and I have yet to get a reply from any Bush supporters (even when there are Bush supporters replying to the topic). The question is: Would you like the next administration to have unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping capabilities? What if the administration was run by Hillary Clinton? Would you trust her to use it properly and not abuse it.
Yes, the next administration should have "unsupervised" warrant-less wiretapping capabilities of our foreign adversaries. It's a basic constitutional power as commander-in-chief. Would Hillary abuse it? It would probably take her all of 20 minutes to start wiretapping Republican congressmen if she thought she could get away with it. But if she did, someone would hopefully inform on her, and she would get impeached. But the legitimate power to spy on our foreign enemies without involvement of the judiciary is fundamental to the office, and I wouldn't change that, no matter who the president was.
Even if you ignore any current abuses of the system (as I'm sure Bush supporters do) and assume that Bush just has our best interests at heart, you can't say the same about the next administration. Or the one after that. To give any branch of government unchecked power is extremely dangerous. It's not a matter of *will* it be abused, but *when will* it be abused. That's why the Constitution set up 3 houses of power (Congress, President, Courts) and gave them the ability to check each other's power. (e.g. Congress can make a law, President can veto it, Congress can override the veto, Courts can strike it down, Congress can pass it as a Constitutional Amendment.) Unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping is unconstitutional and the only way it's being pushed forward is through major FUD. (Americans *WILL DIE* if you don't let us do whatever we want to do!!!!)
Yes, the checks and balances in the Constitution are essential. But making up new ones that aren't in the Constitution is less constructive. (For example, in what you said, the courts do NOT have the legitimate power to arbitrarily strike down a law.) Besides shared powers, which are many, there are other powers which are isolated within a single branch. One of those is the power to command the military, including military intelligence, which is vested in the president. The check on this power is in the legislature. They established the NSA, the CIA, and the military branches themselves, and the rules under which they operate. In its daily operation, the president has sole command of these operations, including spying operations, but the legislature can yearly adjust funding, as well as modify various regulations which govern these organizations. No where in this balance of power is the judiciary involved. For them to take over any part of this power, or for the legislature to attempt to transfer any of this power to them, is an abuse of the Constitution.
No company should surrender private communications to the government without a warrant. And if they do, the public can sued them.
So if the Japanese had discussed the attack on Pearl Harbor amongst themselves but over AT&T phone lines, you're arguing that AT&T should have conspired with the Japanese to keep the attack secret? There's no kind of warrant that applies to foreign enemy powers. Warrants are for criminal prosecutions. Also warrants are issued by judges, and judges are constitutionally excluded from issues involving the waging of war.
But when the ruling had to be renewed in the spring, another judge saw the operations differently. This judge, who McConnell did not identify, decided that the government needed a warrant to monitor a conversation between foreigners when the signal traveled on a wire in the U.S. communications network.
This is insane. Besides the fact that no sane individual would come to that conclusion, no one but the legislature has the legitimate power to make that decision. The administration has sworn a duty to disregard unconstitutional declarations of judges on this or any other court. If this administration won't stand up to that responsibility, I can't imagine any other administration will in this day and age.
There's a reason it takes over 200 hours to assemble what you need to get a wiretap warrant. Due proccess is meant to insure that honest people have privacy preserved, and that the resources we have are being focused on those who really are potentially criminial.
The problem is that this isn't being required for prosecuting criminals; it's being required for spying on enemies abroad.
Not all drugs are actually as addictive as the authorities would like you to believe. I regularly take amphetamines -- on prescription, for ADD. I don't take them every day, and I don't abuse them by staying up for days at a time. Heroin and the other opiates are actually similar -- addictiveness varies person to person, and is dependent on dose, usage pattern, and most interestingly the environment the person is in.
Taking amphetamines for ADD, or opiates for pain, is totally dissimilar to taking the same drugs for "recreational" effect. The rate you have to increase dosage to maintain the recreational effect is much higher than the rate you have to increase to maintain the therapeutic effect. Recreational users therefore typically are soon using dosages far above the limit for prescription use, which means a much higher dependence level as well.
The resolution of the human eye is relatively minute (it's usually not measured in MP, but I think the best equivelence was quoted around 15 MP at any given time).
It's not usually measured in pixel count because pixel count is an entirely irrelevant concept to eye resolution. The angular resolution of the eye is extremely high at the center of the image, and falls off extremely rapidly in a very steep bell curve. So unlike a monitor, the number of pixels across the eye's vision does not correlate at all to the maximum angular resolution of the eye.
Slashdot Mirror
Carl Segan coined the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" as a legitimate way for him to temper his own bias towards believing claims that wanted to be true, specifically regarding evidence of alien life. It is legitimate if it is a way to increase one's objectivity and reduce one's own bias.
However, it is abused by many self-professed "skeptics" as a way to amplify their own biases by placing immense burdens of proof on claims which they don't wish to consider to be true. This is anti-objective and anti-intellectual. It's perhaps best to abandon that "extraordinary" test altogether and require a consistent and objective standard of evidence.
"I think the argument can be made that religion has absolutely nothing to do with our morality."
A study of history makes mincemeat of that argument.
"People have used the bible as a reason to justify many things our society today considers immoral.."
That's a straw man. No sane person has ever claimed that the bible has never been used to justify immoral behavior. Everything available is used to justify immoral behavior.
"If my father stoned me to death for straying from my faith how many people in his church would congratulate him for doing what God demanded in the Bible?"
Maybe you're thinking of the Koran, there is nothing even remotely similar to such a demand in the Bible.
"Religion didn't give me my moral code."
What do you think about killing babies? (Forget the unborn for now, let's say three-month-old babies.) 2,500 years ago, there was practically nowhere on the planet you could go to find people who even hesitated at the thought of killing their child if they didn't want it for whatever reason. Half of the planet was also ritually sacrificing children and babies. The only places where it was illegal to kill a baby at that time were in Judah and in some Germanic tribes. We even have a letter sent by Alexander the Great back to his pregnant wife instructing, "if it's a boy, keep it; if it's a girl, discard it." There is greater than a 99.99% chance that whoever your and my ancestors were back then, they had no qualms about killing children. This was the near-universal morality until a religious shift happened -- Christianity (which was strictly against infanticide, abortion, and other things which were unquestioned as acceptable in most of Europe, like adultery) spread into Europe and eventually into the Roman empire, causing them to change their laws. For example the Roman Empire outlawed child sacrifice, but more tellingly the practice had started dying out on its own since then. By the time that all of Europe was Christian, the killing of children and babies not only stopped, but began to become an abominable thing to them. A few hundred years later, the missionary age began. The most permanent and significant changes the Christian missions made around the world, more so than actually converting people to Christianity, was stopping the practices of child sacrifice and other child killing. The spread of Christian-based law by the British Empire, nearly wiped out those practices in places like India where there were once rampant.
So I ask you, why are you morally opposed to killing babies? Is it just based upon your own innate reason and compassion? And if you had been born 2,500 years ago you would have been the lone opposer to such practices? I'm sure we'd all like to think that of ourselves, but I think it would be delusional. Or did you learn it from your society, who learned it from the Christian religion?
If anyone doubts the truth of this matter for a second, one only has to look at abortion. The U.S. began transforming into a secular society in the late 40's. In just 25 years it was made legal to kill a child in the womb. Today it is a serious crime to kill a newborn for any reason, but it is no crime at all to kill the same child an hour earlier in the womb. This is unique in all of human history. Societies have outlawed infanticide and abortion, and societies have permitted infanticide and abortion, and one policy may be moral, and the other immoral, but at least their both logically consistent. Our current collective moral opinion, that infanticide is horrible, and abortion is okay, is nothing short of schizophrenic. And it would be extremely naive to imagine a society that would keep straddling that fence forever. It has to move in one direction or the other.
Unless Jesus was Zeus incarnate.
In the Iliad, Zeus is the God of gods. All other gods tremble at his feet, sometimes literally. It's not a coincidence that this relationship is portrayed in much the same was as the relationship between God and angels in the explicitly monotheistic ancient texts.
Zeus (or Jove/Jupiter) signified the Spiritual of God (the part of consciousness centered on thought) that was manifest to mankind and gave rise to all man's spiritual powers, which are the other gods. Before the historic period, the myths speak of an earlier age, as do all the important sacred texts. In this "golden age" Zeus' father Cronos (or Saturn) ruled, who represented the Celestial of God (the part of consciousness centered on love), which at that time is what was manifest to mankind and gave rise to the powers of his mind at that time. The transition from the one age to the other is in nearly all traditions marked by the Flood.
This is the giant hole in the middle of neodarwinism. Neodarwinism claims that 1) all current life forms evolved from bacteria-like microbes, and 2) evolution is driven by random mutation and natural selection, thus changing organisms in the direction of greater survivability and more successful reproduction. Yet the best survivors and most successful reproducers on the planet or bacteria. They survive in places where there is no sunlight, where acidic or temperature conditions make most or all other life impossible. There are more of them in a shovelful of dirt than there are of us on the planet. There are more of them INSIDE one of us than there are of us on the planet. And the further away on the evolutionary tree you move from bacteria, the WORSE the organisms become at survival and reproduction. So how the progression of evolution is explained, to the satisfaction of some, by a force that points in the OPPOSITE direction of the actual gradient of change is a mystery to me. It seems to be the rejection of reason in favor of faith in the theories of the scientific establishment.
Your understanding of history is almost as good as your spelling.
It is commonly said that modern science began with Newton; and Newton was one of the most religious men of his time.
Genuine religion (or for that matter, genuine philosophy, such as that of Socrates or Confucius) leads to humility before the vastness of the mind of God, and therefore before the vastness of Truth in comparison to our own understanding, and thus a familiarity with the vastness of our own ignorance. The knowledge and acceptance of our own ignorance is what leads to discovery. In the modern age, where there are many atheistic scientists, the true perspective that we know virtually nothing tends to get replaced (not by everyone, but generally) by the false one that we know almost everything. Therefore, for example, we called atoms "atoms" although it turned out they weren't; we called elementary particles "elementary particles" although it turned out they weren't; and some of today's physicists search for the one fundamental particle, the "god particle," under the delusion that we just now happen to be arriving at the totality of knowledge of physics. Quantum physicist assign "randomness" to behavior that we can't explain otherwise. Even string theorist assume in their theories that strings are fundamental particles, and that their explanation will be final and there will be no further causes. One of the more disgusting examples, in my view, is the labeling of the majority of the DNA molecule "junk DNA," simply because we are ignorant of its purpose.
Saying there's an inherent illogic of religion is like saying there's an inherent illogic of math. The opposite is in fact true. We have God-given capacity for reason which lets us perceive the truth of maxims of logic and math. These are things that all math and science are based upon, for which proof is impossible. We know them only because they are self-evident to us. We perceive them directly. This could be called "faith" or it could be called the strongest proof of all. (It is necessarily the strongest proof of all, because the next-strongest proof, mathematical proof relies upon it for all its fundamental givens.) It is the same capacity for perception of truth, for fundamental knowledge, that is the basis for the recognition of Divine Truth in its various forms, especially in the sacred scriptures of various religions. Different people are capable of perceiving different types of it, and different aspects of it is contained in different religions. Most people are receptive to at least some form of it.
However, for "geeks," we have a disadvantage in that, being clever, we also tend to have a certain pride in our own intelligence. It's a pretty high barrier to have the intellectual honesty to recognize that those I had considered idiots, and who in truth are much simpler in their thinking, were far more correct in what they believed than I was. At least for me, it was nothing short of humiliating to come to that conclusion. But my allegiance has always been, and always will be, to the pursuit of Truth.
Anyway, I don't know what inherent illogic you see in a omnipotent and omniscient God. Geeks, more than anyone, should be capable of understanding the intricacies of the meanings of those terms, and seeing beyond the confines of time-space to reconcile them with the concept of free will. If you want some good geek theology, look no further than here: http://www.theisticscience.org/books/dlw/dlw.html
Why do atheists always seem to think this about religions??? I know of no religion or religious person, myself included, that holds to some religious doctrine that the Earth is the only inhabited planet. It would be pretty difficult to infer a position on the subject from the Bible, Koran, Vedas, or any other scripture I'm aware of.
One of Christianity's most influential theologians in the 18th century, Emanuel Swedenborg, a renowned scientist who in his 50's had a major religious experience, after which he claimed to regularly speak and interact with spirits in heaven and hell, also claimed to have spoken with spirits from other planets, both in this solar system and others.
I certainly admire your family's service to your country. But please bear with me here. Let's say you found Osama bin Laden's phone number, and you decided to call him up to tell him what a sonofabitch he is. The NSA detects a call to Osama and records it, even though they can see it originated in the US. They send the recording to the CIA, where analysts listen to it and concur that Osama is indeed a sonofabitch, and proceed to the next call. Please explain which of your precious rights were violated. The only remotely plausible one I can think of would be the right to be free from "unreasonable searches". However the duty of the executive branch, and the NSA in particular, is to eavesdrop on the enemy. While you are clearly not the enemy, hearing your end of the conversation is part of their necessary and reasonable duties, by which they, like you, serve and protect this country. Do you really believe it is unreasonable for military intelligence to eavesdrop on our enemies when they are communicating with someone inside the US? If not, which of your rights was violated?
You need to read the Constitution.
You need to read the Constitution.
I believe the judiciary has the power given it by the Constitution and no other. A belief that Jefferson, for example, shared, and went to his grave shouting to people like you who wished to turn the judiciary into the new monarchy.
Yes, my respect for the Constitution is a big reason why I'm a Bush supporter. He is one of the few in Washington who understands the scope of the crisis that has come from destroying the constitutional form of government, and he can therefore be counted on to nominate SC justices who likewise respect and follow the Constitution.
"Due Process" is the standard which must be adhered to when depriving an American of his life, liberty or property. It is therefore relevant to criminal prosecutions. It is irrelevant to gathering military intelligence. Foreign terrorists organizations have members and associates in the United States. The military intelligence community has a duty to spy on these individuals. I don't know if any are citizens or native-born Americans, but if they are associated with the foreign terrorist organization, they are legitimate targets. However, if criminal charges were ever brought against any of these individuals, none of this military intelligence would be admissible, because that's where "due process" comes into play.
Er, I've never advocated constant surveillance, or blanket or non-targeted surveillance, or the NSA or CIA doing "whatever they want." I only advocate that the spy agencies have the power to spy on foreign terrorist organizations, just as they do foreign governments, wherever they are operating, without involvement of the judicial branch.
The OP simply said "strike it down" without qualification. What the courts can do legitimately (must do) is decide cases based on the law, the highest law being the Constitution. So, if it's not qualified in terms of preferring the higher law to the lower law, no, the court cannot simply "strike down laws". They can only apply the laws as written. Anything else is an abuse.
If you're looking at the last century or more of case law, you're looking at a whole lot of practice that has nothing to do with the constitutional legitimate power of the court.
If constitutional laws or checks have been breached, I am against it, but I do not believe that to be so. Particularly, I do not believe the FISA law to be constitutional in most applications. It is a legislated redistribution of constitutional war powers from the executive to the judicial branch. I don't know whether the president quite shares that view, but to the degree that he does, he has the sworn duty to refuse to execute that law. For the constitutional system of checks and balances to work, each of the three branches has the independent duty to uphold the constitution, and refuse to carry out the unconstitutional actions of the other branches.
I think that's a reasonable argument. That is why the Congress has select committees that review the classified functioning of the intelligence agencies they've established by law, such as the CIA and the NSA.
The NSA has the legitimate power to spy on our foreign adversaries whether or not that involves hearing the conversations of American citizens at the same time or not. Americans are suing, suggesting this is a violation of the law, but it is not a violation of the law, because the targets are foreign terrorist organizations, which the Constitution gives the executive branch power to conduct warfare against. The concept of "due process" does not apply, because this has nothing to do with criminal prosecutions of Americans. No American's life, liberty, or property has been deprived. Spying on foreign adversaries is not an orthogonal issue -- it is the activity in question, which happens to include listening to some Americans (or at least people residing in America).
That would be fine if they updated the definition of Foreign Powers. The executive branch has the legitimate power and duty to pursue war-like activities against foreign enemy terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaeda. However the definition in the law you provided excludes such organizations. That is the problem.
Why? The point is to gather intelligence on the enemy.
No, it's used to listen in on conversations amongst networks of terrorists and their associates. Some of their associates will not be terrorists, so you won't learn anything valuable from them. It's not about the innocence or guilt of any particular individual; it's about intelligence gathering. It's a basic fundamental activity in defending any nation. All developed nations do it and have a duty to do it. There's nothing different or unusual about the way that the US does it. Aside from being more technologically advanced than most, and having greater resources than most, there is nothing that distinguishes the activities of the US spy agencies from any other country's. There is no country in the world, where if the spy agency is tracking an enemy into the country, they will turn off their tracking equipment because he's in their country now and to continue tracking him would violate his rights.
I suppose Canada's spy agency gets a person's written permission before they start spying on him. And, of course, warrants from judges.
Based on what damages? I'm just curious. If you found out that AT&T helped the NSA listen to your phone calls, would that cause you $1 million in emotional damage or something?
Yes, non-citizens are generally afforded the same legal protections.
However, as the NSA is not conducting criminal investigations, that is entirely irrelevant. If you think a foreign enemy agent in America shouldn't be spied on without a warrant, you need to stop watching CNN. Their garbage is spewing out of your brain.
Yes, I'm a Bush supporter. Also, Linux sux.
Yes, the next administration should have "unsupervised" warrant-less wiretapping capabilities of our foreign adversaries. It's a basic constitutional power as commander-in-chief. Would Hillary abuse it? It would probably take her all of 20 minutes to start wiretapping Republican congressmen if she thought she could get away with it. But if she did, someone would hopefully inform on her, and she would get impeached. But the legitimate power to spy on our foreign enemies without involvement of the judiciary is fundamental to the office, and I wouldn't change that, no matter who the president was.
Yes, the checks and balances in the Constitution are essential. But making up new ones that aren't in the Constitution is less constructive. (For example, in what you said, the courts do NOT have the legitimate power to arbitrarily strike down a law.) Besides shared powers, which are many, there are other powers which are isolated within a single branch. One of those is the power to command the military, including military intelligence, which is vested in the president. The check on this power is in the legislature. They established the NSA, the CIA, and the military branches themselves, and the rules under which they operate. In its daily operation, the president has sole command of these operations, including spying operations, but the legislature can yearly adjust funding, as well as modify various regulations which govern these organizations. No where in this balance of power is the judiciary involved. For them to take over any part of this power, or for the legislature to attempt to transfer any of this power to them, is an abuse of the Constitution.
So if the Japanese had discussed the attack on Pearl Harbor amongst themselves but over AT&T phone lines, you're arguing that AT&T should have conspired with the Japanese to keep the attack secret? There's no kind of warrant that applies to foreign enemy powers. Warrants are for criminal prosecutions. Also warrants are issued by judges, and judges are constitutionally excluded from issues involving the waging of war.
What he said was that they monitored less than 100 people inside the US. I think it's unlikely that those people include any US citizens.
This is insane. Besides the fact that no sane individual would come to that conclusion, no one but the legislature has the legitimate power to make that decision. The administration has sworn a duty to disregard unconstitutional declarations of judges on this or any other court. If this administration won't stand up to that responsibility, I can't imagine any other administration will in this day and age.
The problem is that this isn't being required for prosecuting criminals; it's being required for spying on enemies abroad.
Taking amphetamines for ADD, or opiates for pain, is totally dissimilar to taking the same drugs for "recreational" effect. The rate you have to increase dosage to maintain the recreational effect is much higher than the rate you have to increase to maintain the therapeutic effect. Recreational users therefore typically are soon using dosages far above the limit for prescription use, which means a much higher dependence level as well.
It's not usually measured in pixel count because pixel count is an entirely irrelevant concept to eye resolution. The angular resolution of the eye is extremely high at the center of the image, and falls off extremely rapidly in a very steep bell curve. So unlike a monitor, the number of pixels across the eye's vision does not correlate at all to the maximum angular resolution of the eye.