 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/11/2011 12:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:43:59 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>>> Have you read the first amendment to the US Constitution?
>>
>>> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>>> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>>> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
>>> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
>>
>>> Now tell me how a declaration of a National Day of Prayer by the
>>> executive branch is (a) Congress establishing a law respecting the
>>> establishment of religion, or (b) prohibits the free exercise thereof.
>>
>> I think that you are falling into interpreting literally the words
>> rather than wanting to understand the meaning of the text. Or, more
>> precisely, you are arguing "it doesn't explicitly prohibit this, hence
>> it allows it".
>>
>> The sentiment of the text is quite clearly the same as with most other
>> constitutions in most other countries: The government shall not endorse
>> nor prohibit religions.
>>
>> If you are trying to argue "but hey, it literally only says that the
>> government shall not *establish* religions, it doesn't say anything
>> about the government endorsing *already established* religions" you are
>> deliberately distorting the meaning of the text by arguing over
>> semantics.
>
> How much have you actually studied US constitutional law and the US
> constitution?
>
> Moreover, it appears you haven't actually read the decision from the
> federal judge (which I referenced), where she says that her ruling SHOULD
> NOT be taken to mean that the President shouldn't observe the NDoP until
> all appeals have been exhausted.
>
> You do know what an "injunction" is, yes? There isn't one based on that
> ruling.
>
>>> The way I read it, it actually encourages and promotes the free
>>> exercise of religion, including the right of one *not* to participate.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. It only says that the government must not endorse nor
>> prohibit religions. Where exactly do you see the "promotes the free
>> exercise of religion" part? The government must *allow* it. It doesn't
>> say it should *promote* it.
>>
>> Sheesh, I can't believe a Finn must teach you your own constitution.
>> (Ok, I don't know if you are a citizen of the US, but I'm assuming you
>> are.)
>
> That was uncalled for. I *could* respond in a similar spirit and say
> that you're not teaching me about the US constitution, only your
> ignorance of it, but I won't do that.
>
> Yes, I'm a US citizen, and I've spent some time (more than most citizens,
> in fact) learning about the constitution and understanding its meaning -
> a meaning that doesn't cherrypick the parts that are relevant to my own
> point of view.
>
> I consider myself pretty non-religious, and yes, I get annoyed with
> things like courthouses posting the 10 Commandments. That's a little
> different than the President saying "if you believe in prayer, then pray,
> and here's a day for it". I don't care if it's Obama or Bush saying
> that. For those who want to pray, knock yourselves out. I'm not likely
> to join you in doing so, and as long as you don't try to make me pray or
> make those who don't want to do so, hey, that's cool.
>
> Jim
The problem with this is that its the **same** excuse that is used by
nearly every city council, and other government body, for ***actually***
violating the constitution, by having an opening prayer, then babbling
about how it just wasn't convenient for them to find a Buddhist that
day, or some such, to "flesh out" the roster and make it non-Christian
specific. Oh, and of course, they ***never ever*** open without it, so
it very much supports religion in general, even when they play lip
service to being "fair" about which one of the, maybe 3, they will
bother/allow to open the meeting.
Sorry, but Warp is dead right. The government promoting a day of prayer
does not **in any way** imply anything other than an endorsement of
religion in general, and too often, given the words of those who do such
promotion, defend doing so, and get elected on the principle of the
"Christian nation" BS, a *specific* one. Its kind of like how federal
money gets spent on "faith based initiatives", yet, somehow, 99.9% of
all the initiatives getting funded are Christian ones, even when other
groups present alternatives, or worse, alternatives that are not "known"
to lie, cheat, steal, or fail to provide the things they claim they need
the money for (not that we would know, in many cases, since they are
often sub-groups of bigger groups, and only the "government" money needs
to be accounted for). The 0.1% is pure, 100%, lip service to the
principle, and mean jack shit with respect to the idea that the
government isn't "endorsing" something.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Seen at least one statement to the effect that "tree" isn't an accurate
> description at all, but rather the complex braiding you see at a river
> delta. It might split off in totally different directions at some
> points, but a lot of stuff close together is prone to flow back and
> forth between channels, maybe even "drifting" back together, when
> previously separate (though, so far we don't see any obvious examples of
> that).
It's quite probable that many species divided (usually geographically)
into two isolated groups and started to drift genetically apart from each
other but then joined again before they drifted too much, and the gene pool
got intermixed once again, stopping the speciation that was happening.
(I don't know if there are concrete examples of this.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/11/2011 5:53 AM, Paul Fuller wrote:
> Replying to Invisible but some comments on what Darren kicked off about
> fingers.
>
> On 8/01/2011 5:05 AM, Darren New wrote:
> >
> > I remember reading somewhere that there's a gene that controls how many
> > fingers you have *and* something about the reproductive system, so any
> > mutation in that gene tends to keep you from reproducing for entirely
> > unrelated reasons. Hence the reason why everything from fish to bats to
> > birds to people have five finger bones.
> >
>
> On 11/01/2011 8:54 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>
>> I suspect what it boils down so is that there's no specific reason why
>> some number other than 5 would be an advantage, so it hasn't changed.
>> (This of course doesn't rule out random "neutral" changes I suppose...)
>>
>
> Given the enormous range of limb variations it is surprising that the
> number 5 is so common. Sure some of the digits might be fused or reduced
> to almost nothing.
>
> However I don't think it is true that *all* tetrapods have 5 digits.
>
> Snakes are tetrapods. While some snakes have vestigial hind legs, I
> don't know that they actually have digits. Most snakes have no remaining
> legs to speak of - maybe a bump where the legs might have been but no
> identifiable limbs and certainly no digits.
>
> Similar with whale hind limbs I think. Some species have vestigial
> pelvis and hind limbs. Usually within their bodies. Occasionally some
> individuals have some protrusion. Maybe digits are present during
> development of the foetus but as far as I know there are not actual
> digits by the time they are born. Could be wrong on that but in any case
> they are well on the path to losing them altogether.
>
> The limb changes here might start out as 'the limb genes are still there
> but the gene(s) controlling their size, placement, function etc cause
> them to get smaller, relocated or stop working'. Given enough time
> though, genes that generate something that is irrelevant tend to
> accumulate changes and either become 'broken' or can be co-opted for
> something else.
>
> Then going the other way there are animals with more than 5 digits on
> one or more limbs. Some people for instance - see 'polydactylism'. Some
> of the pictures out there are fake but it is a real condition. Most
> common is 6 fingers or toes instead of 5. It may be a quite harmless
> single gene mutation or part of a more severe complex. As far as I know
> the milder form doesn't render the individual prematurely dead or
> infertile.
>
> There is a breed or at least a population of 'polydactyl cats' that have
> more than the usual number of toes on their front legs, back legs or
> both. They even apparently can be more dextrous than normal so that
> might confer an advantage in some ways but there may be some
> disadvantages as well. Again, I don't think that the genetic change that
> causes this is fatal. It certainly does not prevent development from egg
> to adult because these cats are real.
>
Its a single point mutation in a stop Cordon, which causes the
"paw/hand/foot" to go Index, second, third, pinkie, extra (woops), Stop,
now make the thumb. Since its specific to those digits, in this case, it
doesn't effect anything else.
Oh, and in the case of snakes, during very early development, as I
understand it, they do form limbs, but then those are reabsorbed, before
they form fully, the "code" turning off, and other code scavenging the
remains for other purposes.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Yes, I'm a US citizen, and I've spent some time (more than most citizens,
> in fact) learning about the constitution and understanding its meaning -
> a meaning that doesn't cherrypick the parts that are relevant to my own
> point of view.
> I consider myself pretty non-religious, and yes, I get annoyed with
> things like courthouses posting the 10 Commandments. That's a little
> different than the President saying "if you believe in prayer, then pray,
> and here's a day for it". I don't care if it's Obama or Bush saying
> that. For those who want to pray, knock yourselves out. I'm not likely
> to join you in doing so, and as long as you don't try to make me pray or
> make those who don't want to do so, hey, that's cool.
Well, look at it like this: You (and by that I mean the USA) have
basically two options:
1) Keep the government separate and completely neutral with respect to
religion, taking no stance on it whatsoever (as long as they don't break
the law, of course), like any other civilized country.
2) Keep arguing about the wording of your constitution, and the government
proclaiming religious events, and praying before state senate meetings, and
causing all kinds of controversy and legal battles over the matter.
Which one of the two choices seems more practical in the long run?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/11/2011 1:08 PM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> Seen at least one statement to the effect that "tree" isn't an accurate
>> description at all, but rather the complex braiding you see at a river
>> delta. It might split off in totally different directions at some
>> points, but a lot of stuff close together is prone to flow back and
>> forth between channels, maybe even "drifting" back together, when
>> previously separate (though, so far we don't see any obvious examples of
>> that).
>
> It's quite probable that many species divided (usually geographically)
> into two isolated groups and started to drift genetically apart from each
> other but then joined again before they drifted too much, and the gene pool
> got intermixed once again, stopping the speciation that was happening.
> (I don't know if there are concrete examples of this.)
>
Hmm. Human and Neanderthal, at least from the genetics data? But, yeah,
it would be hard to pin down unless you had a case like that, where
there where clear markers that couldn't arise otherwise, in some
sub-group of the survivor, while the main group those markers came from
went extinct. In most cases, the result would homogenize the gene pool,
erasing, over time, any evidence.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:19:00 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Yes, I'm a US citizen, and I've spent some time (more than most
>> citizens, in fact) learning about the constitution and understanding
>> its meaning - a meaning that doesn't cherrypick the parts that are
>> relevant to my own point of view.
>
>> I consider myself pretty non-religious, and yes, I get annoyed with
>> things like courthouses posting the 10 Commandments. That's a little
>> different than the President saying "if you believe in prayer, then
>> pray, and here's a day for it". I don't care if it's Obama or Bush
>> saying that. For those who want to pray, knock yourselves out. I'm
>> not likely to join you in doing so, and as long as you don't try to
>> make me pray or make those who don't want to do so, hey, that's cool.
>
> Well, look at it like this: You (and by that I mean the USA) have
> basically two options:
>
> 1) Keep the government separate and completely neutral with respect to
> religion, taking no stance on it whatsoever (as long as they don't break
> the law, of course), like any other civilized country.
Declaring a national day of prayer does not have the government taking a
stance on religion. Just like a declaration of a National Day of
Twinkies doesn't mean that everyone should go out and buy Twinkies if
they don't want to.
"Shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion" does not
mean that it prohibits people who work in government from ever talking
about religion.
> 2) Keep arguing about the wording of your constitution, and the
> government
> proclaiming religious events, and praying before state senate meetings,
> and causing all kinds of controversy and legal battles over the matter.
>
> Which one of the two choices seems more practical in the long run?
It's not really a matter of practicality, it's a matter of law. Sadly,
the two don't always go hand in hand.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:08:49 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The problem with this is that its the **same** excuse that is used by
> nearly every city council, and other government body, for ***actually***
> violating the constitution, by having an opening prayer, then babbling
> about how it just wasn't convenient for them to find a Buddhist that
> day, or some such, to "flesh out" the roster and make it non-Christian
> specific. Oh, and of course, they ***never ever*** open without it, so
> it very much supports religion in general, even when they play lip
> service to being "fair" about which one of the, maybe 3, they will
> bother/allow to open the meeting.
I don't entirely disagree with what you've said above. Having a prayer
of any sort during government proceedings is a problem for me.
But that's not what we're talking about here.
> Sorry, but Warp is dead right.
I respectfully disagree. But hey, we can do that.
> The government promoting a day of prayer
> does not **in any way** imply anything other than an endorsement of
> religion in general,
Which in and of itself does not violate the the constitution.
Acknowledging that some people are religions is different from saying
"You must pray on this day, and if you don't, you're going to jail".
From a historical context, that's what the founders were dealing with:
In England, there was a state-sponsored religion, and practicing
protestants were legally barred from practicing their own non-state-
sanctioned religion.
> and too often, given the words of those who do such
> promotion, defend doing so, and get elected on the principle of the
> "Christian nation" BS, a *specific* one. Its kind of like how federal
> money gets spent on "faith based initiatives", yet, somehow, 99.9% of
> all the initiatives getting funded are Christian ones, even when other
> groups present alternatives, or worse, alternatives that are not "known"
> to lie, cheat, steal, or fail to provide the things they claim they need
> the money for (not that we would know, in many cases, since they are
> often sub-groups of bigger groups, and only the "government" money needs
> to be accounted for). The 0.1% is pure, 100%, lip service to the
> principle, and mean jack shit with respect to the idea that the
> government isn't "endorsing" something.
And those things should be dealt with individually. That doesn't
inherently make the NDoP a bad thing or a violation of the US
Constitution. Again, this is something entirely different than the
subject at hand.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/01/2011 7:14 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
> Oh, and in the case of snakes, during very early development, as I
> understand it, they do form limbs, but then those are reabsorbed, before
> they form fully, the "code" turning off, and other code scavenging the
> remains for other purposes.
>
Well yes. During early development you and I formed gills but before
they were fully formed they were reabsorbed or scavenged for other purposes.
You wouldn't say that all tetrapods possess gills today though would you?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > 1) Keep the government separate and completely neutral with respect to
> > religion, taking no stance on it whatsoever (as long as they don't break
> > the law, of course), like any other civilized country.
> Declaring a national day of prayer does not have the government taking a
> stance on religion.
Of course it is. It's an implicit encouragement from the government for
people to follow a religious custom.
> "Shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion" does not
> mean that it prohibits people who work in government from ever talking
> about religion.
Of course they are free to do whatever they want, but not officially
on behalf of the government. The government has certain responsibilities
and duties towards their citizens.
When the president speaks to the country on a televised official ceremony,
that's quite different from the president talking with a friend.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paul Fuller <pgf### [at] optusnetcomau> wrote:
> On 12/01/2011 7:14 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> >
> > Oh, and in the case of snakes, during very early development, as I
> > understand it, they do form limbs, but then those are reabsorbed, before
> > they form fully, the "code" turning off, and other code scavenging the
> > remains for other purposes.
> >
> Well yes. During early development you and I formed gills but before
> they were fully formed they were reabsorbed or scavenged for other purposes.
> You wouldn't say that all tetrapods possess gills today though would you?
AFAIK snakes have vestigial limbs (usually quite obvious when looking
at their skeletons).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
