 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Article 6 of the United States constitution says the following:
"[...] but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification
to any office or public trust under the United States."
Article 6 of the North Carolina constitution states the following:
"The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. [...]"
The contradiction could not be clearer.
Could someone explain to me how this is *possible*? Does nobody in the
United States actually enforce the constitution and make sure that the
member states follow it?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/2012 7:45 AM, Warp wrote:
>
> Could someone explain to me how this is *possible*? Does nobody in the
> United States actually enforce the constitution and make sure that the
> member states follow it?
>
My understanding is that enforcing this would be a matter of
constitutional interpretation, and would thus fall under the judicial
branch. Thus for the judicial branch to rule the clause in the North
Carolina constitution invalid, a case would actually need to be brought
to the court. So long as North Caroline doesn't bother to enforce that
clause, that's unlikely to happen, so the clause remains. It's an
artifact of the way that the US system has more in place to enforce a
consistent execution of the law via reactive mechanisms, rather than a
consistent letter of the law via proactive mechanisms.
When similar clauses have been challenged in recent times, they've been
declared unconstitutional (often on grounds of the first and 14th
amendments instead of the 6th).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:45:28 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Could someone explain to me how this is *possible*? Does nobody in the
> United States actually enforce the constitution and make sure that the
> member states follow it?
Any law can be passed, it's up to someone who wouldn't meet the criteria
to challenge it in court.
And yes, there are people who challenge laws like this as a matter of
course - FFRF has a track record of doing so - but in order to bring an
action, they have to have standing to do so (or be representing someone
who does). They can't just say "this violates the constitution so we'll
challenge it" if they're not a resident of the state in question with the
intention of running for an office that has this requirement.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> Any law can be passed, it's up to someone who wouldn't meet the criteria
> to challenge it in court.
But I thought the whole idea of a constitution is that anticonstitutional
laws can *not* be passed.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/2012 9:36 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:45:28 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> Could someone explain to me how this is *possible*? Does nobody in the
>> United States actually enforce the constitution and make sure that the
>> member states follow it?
>
> Any law can be passed, it's up to someone who wouldn't meet the criteria
> to challenge it in court.
>
> And yes, there are people who challenge laws like this as a matter of
> course - FFRF has a track record of doing so - but in order to bring an
> action, they have to have standing to do so (or be representing someone
> who does). They can't just say "this violates the constitution so we'll
> challenge it" if they're not a resident of the state in question with the
> intention of running for an office that has this requirement.
>
> Jim
>
Because, being a citizen and/or resident of the state, for some damn
reason, doesn't qualify you as "having standing". Its this sort of BS
that allows them to get by with a lot of shitty stuff, including the
recent decision in one state to vote in a "right to work" law, in such a
way that, supposedly, it can't be just shot down via a referendum (i.e.,
private citizens are not allowed to present a bill, which targets the
removal of the law). And, of course, this was in direct retaliation
against unions, who had tried, and failed, to put through a law which
would have protected their rights, and, in the process, killed a list of
other laws already on the books, which already undermined their ability
to negotiate. Now.. no one gets to, basically, negotiate, and any thing
the unions do get, and, as in the case of health insurance here in my
state, with a similar law, have to pay for, ends up coming out of the
pocket of the union, even if only one person in the entire store is in
it, and there are 150 employees, all of them getting the "same" union
paid insurance. (Well, I think the store puts in some money, since they
recently shafted us $5 a week, then gave us a pitiful 10 cent raise to
compensate, over, "We imagine the cost will go up, so, you need to pay
some of it out of your pocket!" Because, you know, the $25 co-pay for
just seeing a damn doctor wasn't screwing us enough...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/2012 9:45 AM, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Any law can be passed, it's up to someone who wouldn't meet the criteria
>> to challenge it in court.
>
> But I thought the whole idea of a constitution is that anticonstitutional
> laws can *not* be passed.
>
Sadly, no. It just, in theory, unless someone appointed idiots and
assholes to SCOTUS (but that would never happen...) means that they can
do so, but it will be shot down. Usually the cases are borderline, so
some careful consideration needs to be taken. All too often, and
especially recently, with the, "You won't let us impose
theocracy/oligarchy/dictatorships!", wackos panicking over how small
their movement has gotten, and the appearance of the "wrong color"
president, its gotten far more common, and way more blatant.
Mostly though, some of those laws have been around for a bloody long
time, an they just never got enforced. State constitutions, city
ordinances, etc., are all a bit like some people's basements/attics. A
lot of stuff gets shoved into a corner, and since no one ever bothers to
go in and clean them out (or, more to the point, the people allowed to
are too busy cluttering it with more junk to crawl through what is
already there), it all just sort of stays in there until some idiot
notices it, tries to apply it to some situation, and gets sued over
doing so.
Personally, I think every state, and even the fed, should have a group
specifically designated to rummage through these basements and figure
out what shouldn't be in there, or propose legislation to replace things
that are currently covered by like 50 overlapping bits of incomplete
gibberish, if for no other reason that to bloody simplify the whole
thing. But.. you just know, if someone proposed this, all the nuts would
crawl out of the woodwork, and object that either, "We should keep
that!", or, "Why isn't that being enforced." It would be like watching
an episode of 'Hoarders'.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:45:12 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Any law can be passed, it's up to someone who wouldn't meet the
>> criteria to challenge it in court.
>
> But I thought the whole idea of a constitution is that
> anticonstitutional laws can *not* be passed.
No - at least not in the US - laws are passed and then are challenged as
to whether or not they are constitutional. Lawmakers don't judge the
constitutionality of laws they write (though ideally they should create
laws with an awareness of the constitution) - the judicial branch is
responsible for making that evaluation, and they only do so on laws that
have been passed.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:45:58 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Because, being a citizen and/or resident of the state, for some damn
> reason, doesn't qualify you as "having standing".
Well, no, it depends on whether or not you can demonstrate that you are
harmed by that law. That's one of the questions before SCOTUS with the
Prop 8 case out of California - do those who appealed even have standing
to appeal? General wisdom is no, they don't, because they're not harmed
by Judge Walker's ruling.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 12.12.2012 18:45, schrieb Warp:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Any law can be passed, it's up to someone who wouldn't meet the criteria
>> to challenge it in court.
>
> But I thought the whole idea of a constitution is that anticonstitutional
> laws can *not* be passed.
Well, I guess it's a matter of taste, whether a constitution should
prevent *passing* an anticonstitutional law, or whether it should
prevent *enforcing* such a law.
It seems that Europe favors the former flavor, whether America favors
the latter.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler <nob### [at] nowherenet> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that enforcing this would be a matter of
> constitutional interpretation, and would thus fall under the judicial
> branch. Thus for the judicial branch to rule the clause in the North
> Carolina constitution invalid, a case would actually need to be brought
> to the court. So long as North Caroline doesn't bother to enforce that
> clause, that's unlikely to happen, so the clause remains.
Yes, it's a very odd system IMO. Funny thing is, we kids brought up in the US
are led to believe, early on in school, that 'bad laws don't get passed' (to put
it simply.) Only *much* later does the reality of the situation sink in, that an
individual state can pass just about any law, bad or good--AND put it into
practice. Then, only if it's *challenged" by someone or some group afterward,
does it go up the legal-chain-of-command (possibly all the way to the Supreme
Court--*if* it decides to hear the case) to decide on the law's actual
constitutionality. The subtlety here is whether it's 'constitutional' or not. If
the law happens to be really bad--but still constitutional, per the Supreme
Court's thinking--then chances are it will remain on the books. The SC decides
these cases based ONLY on whether or not the law violates the constitution in
some way. In essence, a technical argument. And the SC members are certainly
fallible--that's how slavery in the US remained 'legal' for a long time. The
'interpretation' of the constitution is what it's all about, and seems to
'change with the wind' over time.
BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or de-criminalizing
the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a seemingly-overarching Federal
law. It's a current example of this State-vs-Federal system that we have. If no
one in California challenges it, then I'm *guessing* it will remain valid. I'm
not sure if the Federal government itself can summarily strike it down simply
because it differs from the 'higher' law.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:21:48 -0500, Kenneth wrote:
> BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or
> de-criminalizing the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a
> seemingly-overarching Federal law.
Was there a law in CA passed about this? I only heard of the ones in CO
and WA....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:21:48 -0500, Kenneth wrote:
>
> > BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or
> > de-criminalizing the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a
> > seemingly-overarching Federal law.
>
> Was there a law in CA passed about this? I only heard of the ones in CO
> and WA....
>
Yep, it just happened last week, I believe. The interesting thing about
California's version (don't know about the CO and MA versions) is that CA plans
to do this with all the legal 'niceties'--taxing it like cigarettes, etc. In
other words, putting a well-thought-out 'system' in place for its regulated
sale. It will be interesting to find out if these various state laws actually
push the Federal government to change or modify it's current (and, IMO,
draconian) laws regarding marijuana. (Or, conversely, to come down on these new
laws with two big feet!) Right now in the US, there are just too many
'zero-tolerance' State and Federal laws on the books, about many things. (And,
alas, supported by many people.) The US needs to lighten up a bit! ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:49:59 -0500, Kenneth wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:21:48 -0500, Kenneth wrote:
>>
>> > BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or
>> > de-criminalizing the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a
>> > seemingly-overarching Federal law.
>>
>> Was there a law in CA passed about this? I only heard of the ones in
>> CO and WA....
>>
>>
> Yep, it just happened last week, I believe. The interesting thing about
> California's version (don't know about the CO and MA versions) is that
> CA plans to do this with all the legal 'niceties'--taxing it like
> cigarettes, etc. In other words, putting a well-thought-out 'system' in
> place for its regulated sale. It will be interesting to find out if
> these various state laws actually push the Federal government to change
> or modify it's current (and, IMO, draconian) laws regarding marijuana.
> (Or, conversely, to come down on these new laws with two big feet!)
> Right now in the US, there are just too many 'zero-tolerance' State and
> Federal laws on the books, about many things. (And, alas, supported by
> many people.) The US needs to lighten up a bit! ;-)
Heh, I've thought so for years. Are you familiar with Randy Cassingham
and "This is TRUE"? He regularly does essays/stories on zero tolerance
gone awry, and combines a good bit of humour in tacking the subject.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Heh, I've thought so for years. Are you familiar with Randy Cassingham
> and "This is TRUE"? He regularly does essays/stories on zero tolerance
> gone awry, and combines a good bit of humour in tacking the subject.
>
Nope, but I'll take a look. We *need* some humor in the US these days!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/2012 3:49 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:21:48 -0500, Kenneth wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or
>>> de-criminalizing the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a
>>> seemingly-overarching Federal law.
>>
>> Was there a law in CA passed about this? I only heard of the ones in CO
>> and WA....
>>
>
> Yep, it just happened last week, I believe. The interesting thing about
> California's version (don't know about the CO and MA versions) is that CA plans
> to do this with all the legal 'niceties'--taxing it like cigarettes, etc. In
> other words, putting a well-thought-out 'system' in place for its regulated
> sale. It will be interesting to find out if these various state laws actually
> push the Federal government to change or modify it's current (and, IMO,
> draconian) laws regarding marijuana. (Or, conversely, to come down on these new
> laws with two big feet!) Right now in the US, there are just too many
> 'zero-tolerance' State and Federal laws on the books, about many things. (And,
> alas, supported by many people.) The US needs to lighten up a bit! ;-)
>
>
Actually, every state could pass such a law, and technically, the fed
could still ignore it, because of how it is "classified" in the drug
list. The only way to change that would be to, in effect, pass a federal
referendum, or something like that (I am not quite sure how it works),
which would "reclassify" it as a less dangerous drug.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/2012 10:19 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:45:12 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> Any law can be passed, it's up to someone who wouldn't meet the
>>> criteria to challenge it in court.
>>
>> But I thought the whole idea of a constitution is that
>> anticonstitutional laws can *not* be passed.
>
> No - at least not in the US - laws are passed and then are challenged as
> to whether or not they are constitutional. Lawmakers don't judge the
> constitutionality of laws they write (though ideally they should create
> laws with an awareness of the constitution) - the judicial branch is
> responsible for making that evaluation, and they only do so on laws that
> have been passed.
>
> Jim
>
This, of course, would imply actually knowing what is in the
constitution, which is kind of hard, when you get senators claiming
things are in it that are not, other things are not, which are, and
confusing it with other documents (declaration of independence, being
one, though.. I think there was one moron suggesting that the Magna
Carta was a founding document, if not actually part of the constitution
a while back too.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/2012 10:21 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:45:58 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Because, being a citizen and/or resident of the state, for some damn
>> reason, doesn't qualify you as "having standing".
>
> Well, no, it depends on whether or not you can demonstrate that you are
> harmed by that law. That's one of the questions before SCOTUS with the
> Prop 8 case out of California - do those who appealed even have standing
> to appeal? General wisdom is no, they don't, because they're not harmed
> by Judge Walker's ruling.
>
> Jim
>
Uh, yeah.. And, they get to define what ever the F "harm" is, and isn't,
more or less.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >
> This, of course, would imply actually knowing what is in the
> constitution, which is kind of hard, when you get senators claiming
> things are in it that are not, other things are not, which are, and
> confusing it with other documents (declaration of independence, being
> one, though.. I think there was one moron suggesting that the Magna
> Carta was a founding document, if not actually part of the constitution
> a while back too.)
Funny!
To our great chagrin, there is no 'intelligence test' for US politicians. ANY
idiot can be one. The Congress has more than it's fair share of 'em. It's the
only institution I can think of where a 'worker' doesn't actually have to know
anything to work there. He just has to get elected. Find enough like-minded (or
similarly brain-dead) folks to vote for you, and your in.
Ah, democracy--what a concept.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:43:41 -0500, Kenneth wrote:
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>> Heh, I've thought so for years. Are you familiar with Randy Cassingham
>> and "This is TRUE"? He regularly does essays/stories on zero tolerance
>> gone awry, and combines a good bit of humour in tacking the subject.
>>
>>
> Nope, but I'll take a look. We *need* some humor in the US these days!
I've been a paid subscriber for years after a friend gifted a
subscription to me. There's a free edition as well.
One of the best things about it is the "honorary unsubscribe" - stories
about people who have generally made a very significant impact that
everyone mostly forgot about or never knew about.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:01:02 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> This, of course, would imply actually knowing what is in the
> constitution,
> which is kind of hard, when you get senators claiming things are in it
> that are not, other things are not, which are, and confusing it with
> other documents (declaration of independence, being one, though.. I
> think there was one moron suggesting that the Magna Carta was a founding
> document, if not actually part of the constitution a while back too.)
Yep.
Interpreting the constitution is easy, but applying it isn't easy in all
cases. I disagree with SCOTUS about the meaning of the second amendment,
for example - IMHO it starts with the reason why the right to bear arms
shall not be infringed (because a well armed militia is necessary), and
the current interpretations take the second part but throw out (again,
IMHO) the first.
On the flip side, the courts tend to agree about the establishment
clause, but many religious individuals (generally those who want prayer
in schools, public government meetings, etc) seem to feel very strongly
that it doesn't apply to Christianity. And they're wrong (and the courts
agree on that in general).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:02:47 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 10:21 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:45:58 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> Because, being a citizen and/or resident of the state, for some damn
>>> reason, doesn't qualify you as "having standing".
>>
>> Well, no, it depends on whether or not you can demonstrate that you are
>> harmed by that law. That's one of the questions before SCOTUS with the
>> Prop 8 case out of California - do those who appealed even have
>> standing to appeal? General wisdom is no, they don't, because they're
>> not harmed by Judge Walker's ruling.
>>
>> Jim
>>
> Uh, yeah.. And, they get to define what ever the F "harm" is, and isn't,
> more or less.
Well, no, they don't. "Harm" is not defined as "devaluing my
marriage" (because that's not actually demonstrable). It has to be
something tangible or monetary - the same sorts of things you can claim
for damages (or claim damages for). For example, breaking someone's legs
is harmful, and they can sue you for damages.
Marriage licenses aren't a zero sum game, though. Because a gay couple
gets married doesn't mean that one less straight couple can. They don't
"consume" one of a finite number of licenses available.
So actually in the Prop 8 case, one of the first things SCOTUS has done
is asked the two opposing sides to explain why the prop 8 supporters do
or don't have standing. One theory I've heard is that they had standing
to sue over the process being followed - but the process was followed,
and Prop 8 resulted in a law that was put in place. The referendum
process worked. The law put in place to implement Prop 8, however, was
found to be unconstitutional, and only the state (not the Prop 8
proponents) has standing to appeal the law that was implemented - and
they chose not to. The case should have ended there.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kenneth <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> To our great chagrin, there is no 'intelligence test' for US politicians. ANY
> idiot can be one.
That's how democracy works, and how it should work, as long as those
politicians are *chosen by the people* (rather than appointed by other
politicians).
If people choose idiots to govern them, they can only blame themselves.
A completely different question is if those idiots got there by means
other than by having been voted by the people. That's *not* democracy
anymore.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/13/2012 7:03 AM, Warp wrote:
> Kenneth <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> To our great chagrin, there is no 'intelligence test' for US politicians. ANY
>> idiot can be one.
>
> That's how democracy works, and how it should work, as long as those
> politicians are *chosen by the people* (rather than appointed by other
> politicians).
>
> If people choose idiots to govern them, they can only blame themselves.
>
> A completely different question is if those idiots got there by means
> other than by having been voted by the people. That's *not* democracy
> anymore.
>
Ah.. like redistricting/changing laws, to make it harder to vote, and/or
register to vote, breaking unions, which are the #1 contributor to the
only opposition of the right wing, who also spend lots, and lots, of
time undermining education (resulting in ignorance of the masses), and
funding things like Alec, and Fox News, where they feed total bullshit
to the public. Those sorts of anti-democratic things, perhaps?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/2012 9:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:02:47 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> On 12/12/2012 10:21 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:45:58 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Because, being a citizen and/or resident of the state, for some damn
>>>> reason, doesn't qualify you as "having standing".
>>>
>>> Well, no, it depends on whether or not you can demonstrate that you are
>>> harmed by that law. That's one of the questions before SCOTUS with the
>>> Prop 8 case out of California - do those who appealed even have
>>> standing to appeal? General wisdom is no, they don't, because they're
>>> not harmed by Judge Walker's ruling.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>> Uh, yeah.. And, they get to define what ever the F "harm" is, and isn't,
>> more or less.
>
> Well, no, they don't. "Harm" is not defined as "devaluing my
> marriage" (because that's not actually demonstrable). It has to be
> something tangible or monetary - the same sorts of things you can claim
> for damages (or claim damages for). For example, breaking someone's legs
> is harmful, and they can sue you for damages.
>
You are assuming that they only use those criteria. Nearly all of the
people on SCOTUS right now lean right, and more than a few of their
rulings, and even some of their public statements, show a clear bias in
favor of the idea that, "Things that make me uncomfortable due to my
faith constitute harms."
> Marriage licenses aren't a zero sum game, though. Because a gay couple
> gets married doesn't mean that one less straight couple can. They don't
> "consume" one of a finite number of licenses available.
>
> So actually in the Prop 8 case, one of the first things SCOTUS has done
> is asked the two opposing sides to explain why the prop 8 supporters do
> or don't have standing. One theory I've heard is that they had standing
> to sue over the process being followed - but the process was followed,
> and Prop 8 resulted in a law that was put in place. The referendum
> process worked. The law put in place to implement Prop 8, however, was
> found to be unconstitutional, and only the state (not the Prop 8
> proponents) has standing to appeal the law that was implemented - and
> they chose not to. The case should have ended there.
>
> Jim
>
Bull. The people with standing are the ones effected. By banning such a
thing, you *are* effecting the people that would otherwise have been
able to marry, and now can't. So, its not the damn state that is the
only one with "standing". The same idiot BS is going on with these
"right to work" laws. Are you going to honestly tell me that being paid
poverty wages, not getting more than 30 hours (or maybe not even 20, in
some of the worst cases), and having to take welfare to mark up the
difference isn't "harming" anyone? So, why the $#%$%#@ is it legal to
put such a law into place, such that this is the end result (and has
been, in every single state that passes them), in such a way that you
can't either vote it, via referendum, out of existence, and/or sue the
state over it, and how the fuck is it "constitutional"?
Welcome to the real world, where you can ignore reality, in favor of
claiming that no harm has happened, and therefor no "standing" exists,
or worse, that some sort of undefinable, nebulous, "harm" is happening,
and therefor it had to be passed, and, as such, you *still* have no
standing to appose it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:14:38 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Well, no, they don't. "Harm" is not defined as "devaluing my marriage"
>> (because that's not actually demonstrable). It has to be something
>> tangible or monetary - the same sorts of things you can claim for
>> damages (or claim damages for). For example, breaking someone's legs
>> is harmful, and they can sue you for damages.
>>
> You are assuming that they only use those criteria. Nearly all of the
> people on SCOTUS right now lean right, and more than a few of their
> rulings, and even some of their public statements, show a clear bias in
> favor of the idea that, "Things that make me uncomfortable due to my
> faith constitute harms."
I can't remember seeing any case that made it to SCOTUS where an
unquantifiable "harm" was used to define "harm". Do you know of one?
> Bull. The people with standing are the ones effected. By banning such a
> thing, you *are* effecting the people that would otherwise have been
> able to marry, and now can't.
Yes, exactly. But they're not the ones bringing the case - people who
are supporting Prop 8 (ie, in favor of denying rights) are the ones
claiming standing, but they don't have standing because they cannot
demonstrate a quantifiable harm that denying someone else rights causes
them.
> So, its not the damn state that is the
> only one with "standing". The same idiot BS is going on with these
> "right to work" laws. Are you going to honestly tell me that being paid
> poverty wages, not getting more than 30 hours (or maybe not even 20, in
> some of the worst cases), and having to take welfare to mark up the
> difference isn't "harming" anyone?
I never said that. But that's not the question, Patrick - it's about
people claiming something as "harm" that isn't quantifiable to them
personally claiming nevertheless to have standing. They don't, and even
SCOTUS would have a hard time making the case that they do. Scalia will /
try/, of course, but the court is split pretty evenly and a couple swing
back and forth. Just look at how ACA passed SCOTUS.
> So, why the $#%$%#@ is it legal to
> put such a law into place, such that this is the end result (and has
> been, in every single state that passes them), in such a way that you
> can't either vote it, via referendum, out of existence, and/or sue the
> state over it, and how the fuck is it "constitutional"?
Unconstitutional laws are passed all the time. The legislature /should/,
I agree, make sure they are, but the legislature also isn't made up
exclusively of lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers. The courts are
supposed to provide the checks & balances for laws that are
unconstitutional being passed. It generally works.
> Welcome to the real world, where you can ignore reality, in favor of
> claiming that no harm has happened, and therefor no "standing" exists,
> or worse, that some sort of undefinable, nebulous, "harm" is happening,
> and therefor it had to be passed, and, as such, you *still* have no
> standing to appose it.
Again, you're missing my point. We're on the same side of this, and
you're violently agreeing with me without (apparently) noticing it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/13/2012 2:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:14:38 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>>> Well, no, they don't. "Harm" is not defined as "devaluing my marriage"
>>> (because that's not actually demonstrable). It has to be something
>>> tangible or monetary - the same sorts of things you can claim for
>>> damages (or claim damages for). For example, breaking someone's legs
>>> is harmful, and they can sue you for damages.
>>>
>> You are assuming that they only use those criteria. Nearly all of the
>> people on SCOTUS right now lean right, and more than a few of their
>> rulings, and even some of their public statements, show a clear bias in
>> favor of the idea that, "Things that make me uncomfortable due to my
>> faith constitute harms."
>
> I can't remember seeing any case that made it to SCOTUS where an
> unquantifiable "harm" was used to define "harm". Do you know of one?
>
Oh, no, not specifically, but then, that is the point, isn't it. If you
need a cause, you can find one. Its not impossible that there can be
"real harms" to some people, both if/and if not, a law stands. Its also
possible to pull things out of your ass, which you claim represent
dangers. Its the statements made latter that make it really clear what
they where actually thinking, and why they did it, and, while so far,
all of the cases have been fairly borderline, and it is hard to say if a
line was really crossed, again, looking at their opinions, their public
statements, and at least in one case, the ranting gibberish one put out
as his "apposing opinion to the decision", at the very least, suggest a
really horrible result, should the balance shift even more in favor of
certain sorts of people on the court (something Romney would have,
almost certainly, have either done, or been pressured by his so called
'base' into doing.)
>> Bull. The people with standing are the ones effected. By banning such a
>> thing, you *are* effecting the people that would otherwise have been
>> able to marry, and now can't.
>
> Yes, exactly. But they're not the ones bringing the case - people who
> are supporting Prop 8 (ie, in favor of denying rights) are the ones
> claiming standing, but they don't have standing because they cannot
> demonstrate a quantifiable harm that denying someone else rights causes
> them.
>
Uh.. Ok, sorry, guess I missed your point. All the stupidity that has
been going on the last, almost 12+ years, makes it hard to keep track of
which idiocies stood, and which ones might have been shot down. I guess
I lost track of what exactly went on with that one (especially given
that a mess of other states have, since, been promoting the same stupid
crap, on the basis that it was successful in California).
>> So, why the $#%$%#@ is it legal to
>> put such a law into place, such that this is the end result (and has
>> been, in every single state that passes them), in such a way that you
>> can't either vote it, via referendum, out of existence, and/or sue the
>> state over it, and how the fuck is it "constitutional"?
>
> Unconstitutional laws are passed all the time. The legislature /should/,
> I agree, make sure they are, but the legislature also isn't made up
> exclusively of lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.
Sadly, we are lucky, sometimes, if the legislature, it seems, isn't made
up of cast members from the movie Idiocracy, on some subjects. But,
yeah, while a religious test is just out (it would remove about 80% of
the idiots right there, if you could just test for which ones thing
environmental issues don't exist, because god wouldn't allow them, and
creationism was sound...), but... why the hell is it illegal to have a,
"Do you even know anything about US history, the constitution, or.. how
to write your own damn name, for that matter?"? I mean, would it be too
much to ask that they could pass a GED, at minimum, without falling
asleep, or paying someone else to take the test for them?
> The courts are
> supposed to provide the checks & balances for laws that are
> unconstitutional being passed. It generally works.
>
Sadly, and this is what annoys me with SCOTUS is.. its not entirely
clear how, or even if, you could fire one of them, if they did overstep
their own limits, and did something unconstitutional themselves, like
allowing something to stand that actually is unconstitutional. It is,
after all, an "appointed" position, and who gets appointed depends
entirely upon when one of them dies and/or retires, and who happens to
be in the White House. Imagine Romney, and his "tea party" wackos, or
someone actually crazy, not just unable to, apparently, think without
consulting the current party leadership (I thought we got past that BS
with Bush Jr...), had the opportunity to do that, especially given the
somewhat.. questionable views of some of the people already there (not
to mention their refusal to do what any other judge, in any other
position, would do, and recuse themselves, when their own wife is on the
comity/group pushing something under constitutional examination, as in
fact happened with, I think Scalia?).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> and lots, of time undermining education
I have never understood what the goal is with that. What possible good can
it do to anybody to limit education?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> "The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
> First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. [...]"
Btw, I love how it doesn't actually *define* what "Almighty God" means.
Which "God" would that be, exactly? Can I define it?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/12/2012 2:23 PM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> and lots, of time undermining education
>
> I have never understood what the goal is with that. What possible good can
> it do to anybody to limit education?
>
Educated people know their rights and are more likely to question their
leaders. So if the leaders can keep them badly educated there is less
chance of them revolting.
My tuppence worth.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:23:15 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> and lots, of time undermining education
>
> I have never understood what the goal is with that. What possible good
> can it do to anybody to limit education?
Ignorance helps religious belief flourish.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 19:25:00 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> I can't remember seeing any case that made it to SCOTUS where an
>> unquantifiable "harm" was used to define "harm". Do you know of one?
>>
> Oh, no, not specifically, but then, that is the point, isn't it. If you
> need a cause, you can find one. Its not impossible that there can be
> "real harms" to some people, both if/and if not, a law stands. Its also
> possible to pull things out of your ass, which you claim represent
> dangers. Its the statements made latter that make it really clear what
> they where actually thinking, and why they did it, and, while so far,
> all of the cases have been fairly borderline, and it is hard to say if a
> line was really crossed, again, looking at their opinions, their public
> statements, and at least in one case, the ranting gibberish one put out
> as his "apposing opinion to the decision", at the very least, suggest a
> really horrible result, should the balance shift even more in favor of
> certain sorts of people on the court (something Romney would have,
> almost certainly, have either done, or been pressured by his so called
> 'base' into doing.)
It's been my experience that this is why the law needs something that's
quantifiable in some way. I can't sue you because you hurt my feelings,
but I can sue you if you defame me in a way that causes me monetary
damage (such as loss of work, for example).
>> Yes, exactly. But they're not the ones bringing the case - people who
>> are supporting Prop 8 (ie, in favor of denying rights) are the ones
>> claiming standing, but they don't have standing because they cannot
>> demonstrate a quantifiable harm that denying someone else rights causes
>> them.
>>
> Uh.. Ok, sorry, guess I missed your point. All the stupidity that has
> been going on the last, almost 12+ years, makes it hard to keep track of
> which idiocies stood, and which ones might have been shot down. I guess
> I lost track of what exactly went on with that one (especially given
> that a mess of other states have, since, been promoting the same stupid
> crap, on the basis that it was successful in California).
Prop 8 was a weird one, because usually laws put forth something
affirmative when it comes to rights (when they're related to rights).
Prop 8 was the opposite, so it gets confusing to talk about, because a
"yes" on 8 meant "no" to marriage rights. People screwed around with the
wording to make it purposefully confusing (IMHO), and that in and of
itself should IMHO be illegal.
The "idiot in a hurry" shouldn't look at a law and interpret it to mean
the opposite of what it does mean.
>>> So, why the $#%$%#@ is it legal to put such a law into place, such
>>> that this is the end result (and has been, in every single state that
>>> passes them), in such a way that you can't either vote it, via
>>> referendum, out of existence, and/or sue the state over it, and how
>>> the fuck is it "constitutional"?
>>
>> Unconstitutional laws are passed all the time. The legislature
>> /should/,
>> I agree, make sure they are, but the legislature also isn't made up
>> exclusively of lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.
> Sadly, we are lucky, sometimes, if the legislature, it seems, isn't made
> up of cast members from the movie Idiocracy, on some subjects. But,
> yeah, while a religious test is just out (it would remove about 80% of
> the idiots right there, if you could just test for which ones thing
> environmental issues don't exist, because god wouldn't allow them, and
> creationism was sound...), but... why the hell is it illegal to have a,
> "Do you even know anything about US history, the constitution, or.. how
> to write your own damn name, for that matter?"? I mean, would it be too
> much to ask that they could pass a GED, at minimum, without falling
> asleep, or paying someone else to take the test for them?
Well, a religious test is not supposed to apply, but sadly it seems that
the majority of voters seem to think that if you're not Christian, you
shouldn't run. Hell, there are still places in the US where if you're an
atheist, you can't testify in court (so I've heard).
>> The courts are
>> supposed to provide the checks & balances for laws that are
>> unconstitutional being passed. It generally works.
>>
> Sadly, and this is what annoys me with SCOTUS is.. its not entirely
> clear how, or even if, you could fire one of them, if they did overstep
> their own limits, and did something unconstitutional themselves, like
> allowing something to stand that actually is unconstitutional.
From my understanding, there is no way to fire a sitting judge on SCOTUS.
By definition, they can't do something unconstitutional, because they get
to decide how the constitution is interpreted. Even if the majority said
"uh, no, you got it wrong", the supreme court justices seem to have an
immunity to that kind of criticism. I don't think an individual citizen
could even sue to have one removed from the bench.
> It is,
> after all, an "appointed" position, and who gets appointed depends
> entirely upon when one of them dies and/or retires, and who happens to
> be in the White House. Imagine Romney, and his "tea party" wackos, or
> someone actually crazy, not just unable to, apparently, think without
> consulting the current party leadership (I thought we got past that BS
> with Bush Jr...), had the opportunity to do that, especially given the
> somewhat.. questionable views of some of the people already there (not
> to mention their refusal to do what any other judge, in any other
> position, would do, and recuse themselves, when their own wife is on the
> comity/group pushing something under constitutional examination, as in
> fact happened with, I think Scalia?).
That was Thomas, and was related to the ACA case last session.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/14/2012 10:42 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:23:15 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> and lots, of time undermining education
>>
>> I have never understood what the goal is with that. What possible good
>> can it do to anybody to limit education?
>
> Ignorance helps religious belief flourish.
>
> Jim
>
And, of course, you can combine yours, and Stephens. Ignorant people
will believe your religion, and follow your guidance, without rebelling,
allowing you to acquire, use, and propagate political power, without
opposition, or even, if you are clever, the dupes realizing that
everything you are doing is actually making their lives worse, not better.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/14/2012 10:49 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, a religious test is not supposed to apply, but sadly it seems that
> the majority of voters seem to think that if you're not Christian, you
> shouldn't run. Hell, there are still places in the US where if you're an
> atheist, you can't testify in court (so I've heard).
>
Well, not sure about the later, though, I would suspect that, in some
places, the courts might arrange things so that they didn't anyway..
But, yeah, unfortunately, the majority of people can't seem to make the
connection between, "90% of the people running for office claim to be
Christian.", and, "A lot of those people running for office are
dangerous, only in it for themselves, don't care about the public, are
corrupt, or maybe even, nuts.", and that, thus, the ****last**** thing,
if it is at all, that should be used to make such a decision is, "The
guy claims to believe in Jesus!" Gives me a headache. Or, maybe that has
something to do with the indention in my desk, from the odd motion my
head makes, every time I watch this bullshit in political campaigns?
Still, again, where is the, "Does this guy even know how much 2+2
equals, or that its not the same thing as PI, despite what ever their
favorite book says.", not a criteria? :p
> From my understanding, there is no way to fire a sitting judge on SCOTUS.
> By definition, they can't do something unconstitutional, because they get
> to decide how the constitution is interpreted. Even if the majority said
> "uh, no, you got it wrong", the supreme court justices seem to have an
> immunity to that kind of criticism. I don't think an individual citizen
> could even sue to have one removed from the bench.
>
Yeah, which is about what I get out of it. Very scary, if you ask me. I
don't comprehend how the heck that got overlooked, or even if it was, or
if some assumption was made about how they could be, but was never
directly stated. All I do know is that, by such a standard of
"permanent" and "unassailable" position, you create two problems:
1. A party/group could, as conservatives have been trying to do, and
have even said they intend to do, promote people there who could
undermine the spirit of the constitution, by interpreting it the way the
"party" thinks it should be.
2. That could backfire, and, for all intents and purposes, the justices
could, themselves, maneuver matters, such that they hold the real power.
It would require they act via proxies, but.. since they interpret the
constitution, if the right laws got fiddled into it, and passed as
"constitutional", by them, its possible, if a long shot.
It really doesn't matter though if they control the government, or if
they simply act according to the principles of some minority party, the
result is the same. The constitution, and new laws, get "interpreted"
through the lens of people who have no interest in serving the
constitution, instead of just using it to their own ends. And, that is
**not** acceptable.
> That was Thomas, and was related to the ACA case last session.
>
> Jim
>
Ah, right, Scalia is the "other" mostly right winger. I knew it was one
of the two.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/14/2012 6:24 AM, Warp wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> "The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
>
>> First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. [...]"
>
> Btw, I love how it doesn't actually *define* what "Almighty God" means.
>
> Which "God" would that be, exactly? Can I define it?
>
Well, its El-Ohim. Uh, I mean Yahweh. Oh, wait, no.. Allah? Er. Jesus,
yeah, that one..
Definitely not any of the others though, its just obvious isn't it?
Though, in practice, if pushed on it, it is either a) Any old god, or b)
a non-specific, non-religious, statement, which just reflects tradition,
or something else non-sectarian, well.. unless your a damn atheist, in
which case, uh... let me have my lawyer get back to you...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 6:24 AM, Warp wrote:
> > Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >> "The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
> >
> >> First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. [...]"
> >
> > Btw, I love how it doesn't actually *define* what "Almighty God" means.
> >
> > Which "God" would that be, exactly? Can I define it?
> >
> Well, its El-Ohim. Uh, I mean Yahweh. Oh, wait, no.. Allah? Er. Jesus,
> yeah, that one..
> Definitely not any of the others though, its just obvious isn't it?
> Though, in practice, if pushed on it, it is either a) Any old god, or b)
> a non-specific, non-religious, statement, which just reflects tradition,
> or something else non-sectarian, well.. unless your a damn atheist, in
> which case, uh... let me have my lawyer get back to you...
If I get to define it, then I would have some suggestions:
- Freedom. (Ok, would be more like a religion than a "god", but anyway...)
- The Universe. (And not in the pantheistic sense. In the materialistic
sense.)
- The Sun. (After all, it's the giver of life...)
- Evolution. (What created us.)
- Society. (The giver of all morals. Although evolution also qualifies when
you get down to it.)
- The Unknown. (Where our universe came from. Favorite source of arguments
for gods and religions.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:41:06 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 10:49 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, a religious test is not supposed to apply, but sadly it seems
>> that the majority of voters seem to think that if you're not Christian,
>> you shouldn't run. Hell, there are still places in the US where if
>> you're an atheist, you can't testify in court (so I've heard).
>>
> Well, not sure about the later, though, I would suspect that, in some
> places, the courts might arrange things so that they didn't anyway..
I think I might've misremembered, it was that in one of the southern
states (Alabama, perhaps) it was post-2000 before they could.
> But, yeah, unfortunately, the majority of people can't seem to make the
> connection between, "90% of the people running for office claim to be
> Christian.", and, "A lot of those people running for office are
> dangerous, only in it for themselves, don't care about the public, are
> corrupt, or maybe even, nuts.", and that, thus, the ****last**** thing,
> if it is at all, that should be used to make such a decision is, "The
> guy claims to believe in Jesus!" Gives me a headache. Or, maybe that has
> something to do with the indention in my desk, from the odd motion my
> head makes, every time I watch this bullshit in political campaigns?
What gives me a headache is watching politicians demonstrate their
beliefs and ignorance - belief in the Christian god, ignorance about
things that actually affect the planet (climate change, etc.) - and their
pride in both.
> Still, again, where is the, "Does this guy even know how much 2+2
> equals, or that its not the same thing as PI, despite what ever their
> favorite book says.", not a criteria? :p
I'd like to see some sort of minimum bar set, but there is the question
of what constitutes the minimum bar. It can't (nor should be) the need
for a degree, as there are a lot of very smart people who don't hold
degress, and a lot of truly stupid people who do.
>> From my understanding, there is no way to fire a sitting judge on
>> SCOTUS.
>> By definition, they can't do something unconstitutional, because they
>> get to decide how the constitution is interpreted. Even if the
>> majority said "uh, no, you got it wrong", the supreme court justices
>> seem to have an immunity to that kind of criticism. I don't think an
>> individual citizen could even sue to have one removed from the bench.
>>
> Yeah, which is about what I get out of it. Very scary, if you ask me. I
> don't comprehend how the heck that got overlooked, or even if it was, or
> if some assumption was made about how they could be, but was never
> directly stated. All I do know is that, by such a standard of
> "permanent" and "unassailable" position, you create two problems:
I think the assumption was that those who were appointed as judges would
be party-neutral and would just interpret the law without putting a spin
on it. I don't think the founding fathers foresaw the complexity of
modern law very well (not that that's a "fault" per se, telling the
future is very a tricky business).
> 1. A party/group could, as conservatives have been trying to do, and
> have even said they intend to do, promote people there who could
> undermine the spirit of the constitution, by interpreting it the way the
> "party" thinks it should be.
Yup. Though I think those on the right might well say the same about
those on the left as well - that, for example, my interpretation of the
second amendment undermines the spirit of individual freedom in the
constitution.
>
> 2. That could backfire, and, for all intents and purposes, the justices
> could, themselves, maneuver matters, such that they hold the real power.
> It would require they act via proxies, but.. since they interpret the
> constitution, if the right laws got fiddled into it, and passed as
> "constitutional", by them, its possible, if a long shot.
I think that's perhaps a longshot at best. It's why you have
confirmation hearings and the like - someone up for a position on the
high court would have to essentially fake an entire career, and that kind
of outright lying just isn't sustainable.
> It really doesn't matter though if they control the government, or if
> they simply act according to the principles of some minority party, the
> result is the same. The constitution, and new laws, get "interpreted"
> through the lens of people who have no interest in serving the
> constitution, instead of just using it to their own ends. And, that is
> **not** acceptable.
Agreed.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/15/2012 9:45 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I think that's perhaps a longshot at best. It's why you have
> confirmation hearings and the like - someone up for a position on the
> high court would have to essentially fake an entire career, and that kind
> of outright lying just isn't sustainable.
>
Yeah, eventually you end up having to try to convince people that are
not gullible enough, or closely mixed up in the propaganda enough, to
completely fail to go, "What the fuck did he/she just say?!", when they
run. Its why Palin types manage to successfully get as far as
governorships, then people go, "Where did this nut come from.", when
running for.. oh, VP, or something, where more people are paying attention.
But, on some level, they do understand this. They just claim, or
actually think, or something, that its some vast liberal conspiracy,
which needs to be fixed by killing unions, and rearranging maps, so that
their votes count, and other people's don't. Wouldn't be bloody
surprised, at this point, if Wisconsin went much more very very bad for
them, they wouldn't try claiming redistrict it as part of Canada, to
avoid having it effect their next election campaign. lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/15/2012 12:30 AM, Warp wrote:
> If I get to define it, then I would have some suggestions:
>
> - Freedom. (Ok, would be more like a religion than a "god", but anyway...)
> - The Universe. (And not in the pantheistic sense. In the materialistic
> sense.)
> - The Sun. (After all, it's the giver of life...)
> - Evolution. (What created us.)
> - Society. (The giver of all morals. Although evolution also qualifies when
> you get down to it.)
> - The Unknown. (Where our universe came from. Favorite source of arguments
> for gods and religions.)
>
Well, now, see... None of those things have magic powers, include an
afterlife, or even vaguely refer to sound theological concepts, so,
sorry, you're not qualified. Same way even if you read every book of
apologistics in existence, you would have still a) not read the one that
qualifies you to speak of the matter, or b) like.. didn't read them all
properly, or something. Yeah, that's it. You didn't read them right, so
you're not qualified. ;)
Only the people with "deep" theological views get to do that. You know,
the ones that are indistinguishable from everyone else's, in practice,
but are really, really, you know, so deep they are actually different,
even though not one thing such an expert ever comes up with is
indistinguishable from what the moron on the street claims makes it all
true.
There is actually a word for this sort of BS, someone came up with,
where you say something that sound neat, proposes to provide a great
explanation, but which, on anything at all like real examination, has
about as much depth as a two panel stick figure cartoon, which says, "It
is so.", in one panel, and, to which the other character is supposed to
state, "Oh, I get it!", in the other, without, like.. any of the
information you would presume lies between:
Deepitees.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Well, now, see... None of those things have magic powers, include an
> afterlife, or even vaguely refer to sound theological concepts, so,
> sorry, you're not qualified. Same way even if you read every book of
> apologistics in existence, you would have still a) not read the one that
> qualifies you to speak of the matter, or b) like.. didn't read them all
> properly, or something. Yeah, that's it. You didn't read them right, so
> you're not qualified. ;)
How could I even follow a constitutional law that doesn't even explain
what it means?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/16/2012 12:37 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Well, now, see... None of those things have magic powers, include an
>> afterlife, or even vaguely refer to sound theological concepts, so,
>> sorry, you're not qualified. Same way even if you read every book of
>> apologistics in existence, you would have still a) not read the one that
>> qualifies you to speak of the matter, or b) like.. didn't read them all
>> properly, or something. Yeah, that's it. You didn't read them right, so
>> you're not qualified. ;)
>
> How could I even follow a constitutional law that doesn't even explain
> what it means?
>
lol Well, the point of the above is that this is precisely how "Biblical
law" seems to work. So, given the reason some of them object to liberal
interpretations of the constitution, I can only assume its how they
think "it" should work too. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-12-14 09:23, Warp a écrit :
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> and lots, of time undermining education
>
> I have never understood what the goal is with that. What possible good can
> it do to anybody to limit education?
>
"From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear
to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore
to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine
were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy
and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. ... But it was
also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the
destruction - indeed, in some sense was the destruction - of a
hierarchical society. ... the most obvious and perhaps the most
important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once
became general, wealth would confer no distinction. ... But in practice
such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and
security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who
are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn
to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would
sooner or later realise that the privileged minority had no function,
and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society
was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. ... Ignorance is
Strength"
- G. Orwell. 1984.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > How could I even follow a constitutional law that doesn't even explain
> > what it means?
> >
> lol Well, the point of the above is that this is precisely how "Biblical
> law" seems to work. So, given the reason some of them object to liberal
> interpretations of the constitution, I can only assume its how they
> think "it" should work too. ;)
If you think about it, that constitutional law not defining what it means
by "Almighty God" could hypothetically create an even worse situation than
just accepting anybody regardless of their world view, including atheists.
Let's assume for a moment that not only is Christianity true, but that
particular view is also true that only those who have the Christian faith
should be leaders, as electing a non-believer into power would make God
angry and could potentially cause misfortune to the country. Now, in this
context, which one of these is potentially more "dangerous"?
a) Accepting into office someone who does not have belief in gods (iow. an
atheist), or
b) accepting into office someone who does believe in an "Almighty God",
which happens to be the "wrong" god?
After all, someone on category b) could well proclaim something like
"yes, I believe in the existence of Almighty God, the creator of the
universe and everything", but that "god" would be, for example, Brahma,
the creator god of Hinduism.
So which would make the Christian god angrier, someone who has no belief
in gods, or someone who worships an idol, the god of the wrong religion?
Since "Almight God" is not defined, it could be anything.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:40:06 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Now, in this context, which one of these is potentially more
> "dangerous"?
>
> a) Accepting into office someone who does not have belief in gods (iow.
> an
> atheist), or
>
> b) accepting into office someone who does believe in an "Almighty God",
> which happens to be the "wrong" god?
Neither would be "more" dangerous to someone who holds a particular
belief - because one who believes in the wrong deity might as well be an
atheist for all a believer in the "right" god thinks. Both are
heretical, and getting it wrong by believing in a god that "doesn't
exist" or just not believing are functionally equivalent to that mindset.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/12/2012 3:40 PM, Warp wrote:
> If you think about it, that constitutional law not defining what it means
> by "Almighty God" could hypothetically create an even worse situation than
> just accepting anybody regardless of their world view, including atheists.
Strange how the Pilgrim Fathers fled England to The Netherlands then
North America in search of religious tolerance. They certainly found it
and their descendants are as tolerant as their persecutors were.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 17.12.2012 22:08, schrieb Stephen:
> On 17/12/2012 3:40 PM, Warp wrote:
>> If you think about it, that constitutional law not defining what it means
>> by "Almighty God" could hypothetically create an even worse situation
>> than
>> just accepting anybody regardless of their world view, including
>> atheists.
>
> Strange how the Pilgrim Fathers fled England to The Netherlands then
> North America in search of religious tolerance. They certainly found it
> and their descendants are as tolerant as their persecutors were.
The truth is that they never sought religious tolerance in the first
place - they had always strived for their own rules to be law.
Unfortunately for them those rules contradicted the Church of England's,
so they did suffer from religiously-motivated oppression, and this
indeed happened to be the one factor that drove them to America. But
that's about it.
It's an all too common misconception that every person subject to
oppression and fighting against it is automatically a warrior for tolerance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:08:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 17/12/2012 3:40 PM, Warp wrote:
>> If you think about it, that constitutional law not defining what it
>> means by "Almighty God" could hypothetically create an even worse
>> situation than just accepting anybody regardless of their world view,
>> including atheists.
>
> Strange how the Pilgrim Fathers fled England to The Netherlands then
> North America in search of religious tolerance. They certainly found it
> and their descendants are as tolerant as their persecutors were.
Indeed, that's an irony that isn't lost on many of us over here.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/12/2012 9:52 PM, clipka wrote:
>
> The truth is that they never sought religious tolerance in the first
> place - they had always strived for their own rules to be law.
> Unfortunately for them those rules contradicted the Church of England's,
> so they did suffer from religiously-motivated oppression, and this
> indeed happened to be the one factor that drove them to America. But
> that's about it.
>
You are correct of course but it is received wisdom that it is true. And
IMNSHO England was well rid of them. I only wish that they had taken the
Scottish Presbyterians with them.
> It's an all too common misconception that every person subject to
> oppression and fighting against it is automatically a warrior for
> tolerance.
Now that is very true. For an example you only have to look at a certain
state in the middle East, founded after WWII.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:40:06 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > Now, in this context, which one of these is potentially more
> > "dangerous"?
> >
> > a) Accepting into office someone who does not have belief in gods (iow.
> > an
> > atheist), or
> >
> > b) accepting into office someone who does believe in an "Almighty God",
> > which happens to be the "wrong" god?
> Neither would be "more" dangerous to someone who holds a particular
> belief - because one who believes in the wrong deity might as well be an
> atheist for all a believer in the "right" god thinks. Both are
> heretical, and getting it wrong by believing in a god that "doesn't
> exist" or just not believing are functionally equivalent to that mindset.
But worshipping idols and false gods is specifically stated in the Bible
as an abhorrent thing in the eyes of God.
An atheist is committing only one major "sin": Not believing in the One
True God. A hinduist is committing two: Not only does he not believe in
the One True God, in addition he worships false gods, which is abhorrent.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:12:29 -0500, Warp wrote:
>> Neither would be "more" dangerous to someone who holds a particular
>> belief - because one who believes in the wrong deity might as well be
>> an atheist for all a believer in the "right" god thinks. Both are
>> heretical, and getting it wrong by believing in a god that "doesn't
>> exist" or just not believing are functionally equivalent to that
>> mindset.
>
> But worshipping idols and false gods is specifically stated in the Bible
> as an abhorrent thing in the eyes of God.
That's only relevant to those who believe that particular mythology is
true.
> An atheist is committing only one major "sin": Not believing in the One
> True God. A hinduist is committing two: Not only does he not believe in
> the One True God, in addition he worships false gods, which is
> abhorrent.
And for the majority of mainstream Christianity, both are "punished" in
the same way - so I don't see that you could say one is worse than the
other....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > An atheist is committing only one major "sin": Not believing in the One
> > True God. A hinduist is committing two: Not only does he not believe in
> > the One True God, in addition he worships false gods, which is
> > abhorrent.
> And for the majority of mainstream Christianity, both are "punished" in
> the same way - so I don't see that you could say one is worse than the
> other....
Well, there's this widespread theology among many Christians (especially
the evangelical ones) that if a nation commits enough sin and wickedness
against God, then God will punish that nation. Therefore the less sin that
the nation commits, the better.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
