Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #701  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:29 AM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
{...} accepting your claim that the Halal and kosher meals are not inherently any more expensive (something I doubt given that gourmets use kosher salt regardless of their religion, {...}
Umm, could you enlighten us on your understanding of the differences between kosher salt and, hehehe, non kosher salt?

Bonus points if you can explain the difference between a kosher and a regular dill pickle!

CMC fnord!
  #702  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:12 AM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 12,825
kimstu you are a saint. I don't know how you have the patience to do this. Watching you debate SlackerInc is like watching that video of the men trying to return a serve from Serena.
  #703  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:30 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,633
You mean this one?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qQou4r2JKYM

Why, thank you! I do model my game after Fedís, but really: you are too kind.
  #704  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:33 AM
carrps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
No. It's not. It's as if Kimstu just returned a volley to the deep third of the court, you wound up, and whiffed completely on it. The ball is sitting against the fence behind you, bouncing slowly, while everyone watching with even the slightest knowledge of the game, is watching you try and convince yourself you just scored a point.
Thumbs up.
  #705  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:54 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Now, as for the 14th Amendment prohibiting, say, inmate-meals discrimination based on religion: Not seeing it. Prisoners may be treated differently based on their conduct, and if refusing to accept Christ is considered damaging or disruptive conduct (as in a country with an established religion and no specified right to freedom of religion it might well be), then AFAICT it would be completely valid to put pressure on prisoners to change their behavior.

Nonsense. If this were so, it could apply right now to any philosophical belief that does not involve the supernatural. Prisoners could be punished with inferior food* for refusing to accept the validity of the Laffer curve, or for advocating reparations for slavery.

And if this is actually a thing (who knows what kind of interesting factoid you may come up with next), then it means we need protection of philosophical beliefs more broadly, not a protection narrowly tailored to religion. Rules about establishment and free exercise of religion qua religion are bullshit.

But any such rule should not require others to give special treatment to those with certain philosophical views. It should be about the free expression of opinions, and secondarily the free exercise of actions and rituals only insofar as anyone else could be allowed to do the same thing for “shits ‘n’ giggles” as you like to say.

I think a new rule is unnecessary, though, because punishing someone for “refusing to accept” something is inherently an impingement on their right to free speech and expression.

Of course, it’s weird that we are even having this debate around prison inmates, who do not have full rights under the First Amendment. They cannot for instance claim a right to “peaceably assemble”.

————
*Interesting BTW that you seem now to have implicitly accepted this part of my argument, that regular prisoner meals are in fact of inferior quality compared to kosher or Halal ones.
  #706  
Old 09-16-2019, 02:17 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,851
SlackerInc, just to get everyone on the same page, are you in agreement with this previously stated claim, and if not, could you explain why you disagree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
Just to be clear, you acknowledge that the establishment-of-religion measures that I mentioned are constitutionally perfectly permissible once the Establishment Clause is gone, right? If not, what do you think would stop them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Nonsense. If this were so, it could apply right now to any philosophical belief that does not involve the supernatural.
Well, no, because we've got a constitutional framework that forbids the government to privilege one set of beliefs over another. But if we've got no constitutional Establishment Clause and thus no barrier to a state establishment of religion, then a resulting Christian-theocratic government could well involve privileging a particular set of beliefs over others: that's kind of what theocratic governments do.

We're on rather tenuous ground in this discussion because IANAL and NAY, so neither of us has the expert knowledge required to state for certain what this drastically modified hypothetical situation of removing constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion would involve as knock-on effects. However, if you remain unconvinced about the "punishment" scenario, it's easy to come up with other theocratic justifications for, say, differential treatment of Christian vs. non-Christian prison inmates in such a society.

How about: the breaking of bread among Christians is on some level a sacred rite, the government supports the state's intrinsic Christian mission in this regard by supplying special "Christian feast" food for the meals of Christian prisoners, any prisoner who accepts Christianity is eligible to participate in these Christian feasts, the rest of you heathens eat whatever we give you? What if anything do you imagine would legally prevent the imposition of such a discriminatory policy on perfectly constitutional religious grounds?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
And if this is actually a thing (who knows what kind of interesting factoid you may come up with next), then it means we need protection of philosophical beliefs more broadly, not a protection narrowly tailored to religion. Rules about establishment and free exercise of religion qua religion are bullshit.
Hmmm. How are you going to articulate that "protection of philosophical beliefs" in such a way as to exclude, say, school boards decreeing the teaching of flat-earthism or "Natural Law" or any other "philosophical belief" that the local community advocates?

I mean, in our current system that's taken care of (although not without periodic appeals to the courts) because it's easy to demonstrate that any such dogma, seriously advocated, gets its impetus from being part of a religious belief system. And the Establishment Clause blows the whistle on the government promoting religious belief systems. But take away the Establishment Clause, and what's your justification then?

Or is that one of the issues on which you propose to "fight prayer and Creationism in schools district by district, and vote with our feet"? AFAICT, absent the Establishment Clause that basically means "lose a lot of legal battles and have to physically retreat to the comparatively small number of jurisdictions where advocates of rigorously rational scientific thought are a demographic majority". Hurray for freedom.

Turns out it's not quite as easy as you thought to pin down the constitutional framework of "how a government of any modern, advanced country ought to work", huh? Maybe we need to consult a few 230-year-old men in powdered wigs. (While of course I don't condone the "Founding Fathers'" obsolete views on race and gender, or hairstyles for that matter, I think they did a hell of a lot better job establishing a charter of basic civil liberties than either you or I are likely to be able to.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
*Interesting BTW that you seem now to have implicitly accepted this part of my argument, that regular prisoner meals are in fact of inferior quality compared to kosher or Halal ones.
That's an erroneous interpretation on your part. I don't actually know anything about the quality of kosher/halal prison fare as opposed to the regular kind, though I'm happy to look at a cite about it if you've got one.

My hypothetical example involved a Christian-theocratic government giving a minority group of non-Christian prisoners intentionally inferior meals as a form of (permitted) religious discrimination, but I did not intend that to imply that I think kosher/halal prison meals provided for the minority of observant Jewish or Muslim inmates in our current system are either inferior or superior to the ones provided for the rest of the majority-Christian inmate population.


(Everybody else: )

Last edited by Kimstu; 09-16-2019 at 02:18 PM.
  #707  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:09 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 12,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You mean this one?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qQou4r2JKYM

Why, thank you! I do model my game after Fedís, but really: you are too kind.
You're saying you play at Federer's level? Bwahahahaha.

For the amusement of others, here's the story on men trying to return Serena's serves.

Here's the video.
  #708  
Old 09-16-2019, 04:48 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,633
Oh dear. SMH

The guys in that video are clearly not even amateur tennis players. They look like they don’t even know how to hold a racquet properly, and they are just clowning around anyway. To cite that as evidence of anything is pretty sad.
  #709  
Old 09-16-2019, 04:58 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,633
Kimstu, can you cite cases in advanced Western countries without Establishment Clauses where these dire scenarios come to pass? Frankly, I think the American fetishization of “religious freedom” is more a weakness than a strength.
  #710  
Old 09-16-2019, 05:24 PM
Not Carlson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Japan
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Oh dear. SMH

The guys in that video are clearly not even amateur tennis players. They look like they donít even know how to hold a racquet properly, and they are just clowning around anyway. To cite that as evidence of anything is pretty sad.
I'm pretty sure that's the point.
  #711  
Old 09-16-2019, 05:26 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Kimstu, can you cite cases in advanced Western countries without Establishment Clauses where these dire scenarios come to pass?
I'll be happy to address that question, but could you first please answer the one I've asked you a couple of times now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
Just to be clear, you acknowledge that the establishment-of-religion measures that I mentioned are constitutionally perfectly permissible once the Establishment Clause is gone, right? If not, what do you think would stop them?
  #712  
Old 09-16-2019, 06:15 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,633
I’d like to hope that democracy stops them. If it doesn’t, I don’t know how robust a document not supported by the population is ultimately going to be, especially in our modern environment where the courts are heavily politicized like everything else.

ETA: Besides which, as I have already said, I believe that other provisions of the First Amendment and 14th Amendment do apply. We need to protect people from being punished for their ideology, regardless of whether it is based in religion.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 09-16-2019 at 06:18 PM.
  #713  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:20 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Iíd like to hope that democracy stops them.
Well, it would certainly slow them down at, say, the level of complete takeover of the federal government. But without specific constitutional protections for religious freedom, what's to stop the establishment of theocracy at the local or state level?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
If it doesnít, I donít know how robust a document not supported by the population is ultimately going to be, especially in our modern environment where the courts are heavily politicized like everything else.
Irrespective of the Constitution's imperfections, though, it does provide a mechanism through the First Amendment whereby people can't use the government to force their own religion on other people, and can't deny other people the right to practice their religion, outside of certain narrowly defined limits. People always continue trying to violate those constitutional restrictions, of course, but the courts obeying a clear mandate to protect religious freedom keep stopping them.

You've provided absolutely nothing in the way of evidence or plausible arguments to suggest that there would be less abuse of freedom of religion in a state which did not explicitly protect that freedom than in one that does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
ETA: Besides which, as I have already said, I believe that other provisions of the First Amendment and 14th Amendment do apply.
How do those other provisions prevent the establishment of a religion by the government, whether at the federal, state or local level, in the absence of constitutional prohibitions against it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
We need to protect people from being punished for their ideology, regardless of whether it is based in religion.
I already asked you how you would distinguish that kind of protection from, say, school boards attempting to embed anti-scientific "ideology" in a curriculum, and I don't believe you've answered the question.

Your determination to have a "purified" Constitution that doesn't even mention religion is leading you to propose a disastrously ill-thought-out system with huge opportunities for oppression. I think you'd look back from such a system on your own folly in discarding explicit protections for freedom of religion because you were miffed that religiously observant prison inmates got special kosher/halal meals when other inmates didn't, and kick yourself quite hard for it.
  #714  
Old 09-17-2019, 12:03 AM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,470
There would be absolutely nothing to stop enacting a theocracy if that provision were removed from the constitution. Hell, it's an ongoing fight to keep a certain party from establishing such a theocracy with the provision still in the constitution!
  #715  
Old 09-17-2019, 12:35 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,633
I don’t fundamentally think religion deserves this level of recognition. To me, it is nothing more than “a weird and nonsensical thing people believe in”. A throwback to primitive times when we didn’t have scientific inquiry and the priesthood maintained social control. We need to get past literally being reverent of such antiquated poppycock.
  #716  
Old 09-17-2019, 02:46 AM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I donít fundamentally think religion deserves this level of recognition. To me, it is nothing more than ďa weird and nonsensical thing people believe inĒ. A throwback to primitive times when we didnít have scientific inquiry and the priesthood maintained social control. We need to get past literally being reverent of such antiquated poppycock.

First off, your view of religion is not very nuanced and it is, to be blunt, quite ill-informed if not actually misinformed. Not all religions posit a deity.

Next, if you actually feel strongly about something which is in our constitution, you can agitate to have it removed.

But wouldn't that mean you would be advocating for not following the basic law of the country as it is now?
  #717  
Old 09-17-2019, 03:25 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
First off, your view of religion is not very nuanced and it is, to be blunt, quite ill-informed if not actually misinformed. Not all religions posit a deity.

Next, if you actually feel strongly about something which is in our constitution, you can agitate to have it removed.

But wouldn't that mean you would be advocating for not following the basic law of the country as it is now?
Too lazy to look but I have a gut feeling that if the conversation was Christianity & Guns youíd be singing a completely different tune.
  #718  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:01 AM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,470
Huh?
  #719  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:36 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,801
"Gut feeling" - the thing you express when you're talking out your ass.
  #720  
Old 09-17-2019, 08:41 AM
Not Carlson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Japan
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Too lazy ... gut feeling ...
Annoyed, it appears that this thread has evolved into an intricate discussion of US law and the protection of civil liberties, in which Kimtsu seems to be admirably filling the role of fighting ignorance, and SlackerInc seems to be admirably playing the role of SlackerInc — potentially providing a source of education for any lurkers and browsers who stumble into this thread, thereby increasing its value immensely.

I, however, am but a simple man with simple questions.
I am sure you feel that No.2 has been answered already by the article you linked to (a point on which we are not in agreement).
The other questions, however are not answered by the article, and so I would appreciate your response.
Please provide honest answers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Carlson View Post
Some quickie questions you might want to ask yourself:

1) Considering Omar has been the focus of so much news, and the focus of so many attacks of late, why do you think this story hasn't gained more traction in the mainstream media?
Not juicy enough? Conspiratorial coverup? Disinterest in the private lives of public figures?

2) Does Omar actually have a brother named Elmi?

3) Does Elmi now have US citizenship?

4) If Elmi were her brother, wouldn't he already be eligible for US citizenship?

5) What, if anything, do you mean by "among other things"? And If you don't actually have anything else to suggest, why did you feel the need to vaguely imply other nefarious deeds?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/il...marry-brother/
If you feel uncomfortable answering these questions on a public message board, that’s OK.
After all, my initial invitation was for you to ask yourself these questions, so if you can at least do that, I think it will be an exercise of some small value.

Last edited by Not Carlson; 09-17-2019 at 08:42 AM.
  #721  
Old 09-17-2019, 08:52 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,633
I readily admit my views on religion are not nuanced. I don’t believe the topic calls for such nuance. I apply nuance to my analysis of many other subjects, much to the chagrin of many people here.
  #722  
Old 09-17-2019, 09:00 AM
Not Carlson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Japan
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I readily admit my views on religion are not nuanced. I donít believe the topic calls for such nuance. I apply nuance to my analysis of many other subjects, much to the chagrin of many people here.
I don't think a lack of nuance on religion has anything to do with bein a doofus.
  #723  
Old 09-17-2019, 12:15 PM
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Carlson View Post
Annoyed, it appears that this thread has evolved into an intricate discussion of US law and the protection of civil liberties, in which Kimtsu seems to be admirably filling the role of fighting ignorance, and SlackerInc seems to be admirably playing the role of SlackerInc ó potentially providing a source of education for any lurkers and browsers who stumble into this thread, thereby increasing its value immensely.</snip>
SlackerInc is playing Robin to Kimstu's Batman. I'm firmly convinced that the real reason that Batman took on a sidekick is so that he could explain the plot of the comic to the slower readers.
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #724  
Old 09-17-2019, 05:16 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I donít fundamentally think religion deserves this level of recognition. To me, it is nothing more than ďa weird and nonsensical thing people believe inĒ.
But omitting the issue of religion entirely in a national constitution because you personally despise religion is rather like somebody deciding not to put a roof on his house because he hates rain.

The thing you're trying to ignore is an extremely powerful and pervasive phenomenon that has always had a huge influence on the conditions of the world you live in. Choosing to simply disregard it because you think it's not worthy of your notice is only going to cause shitloads of trouble for you and everybody else.
  #725  
Old 09-17-2019, 05:20 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,633
It’s just a thing people believe without justification, like “everything happens for a reason”, or “you can do anything you set your mind to if you believe in yourself”. It doesn’t deserve a special category.
  #726  
Old 09-17-2019, 05:31 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Itís just a thing people believe without justification, like ďeverything happens for a reasonĒ, or ďyou can do anything you set your mind to if you believe in yourselfĒ. It doesnít deserve a special category.
But if you don't give religion a special category on which government is officially neutral, how are you going to protect individual freedom of belief/ideology without allowing all sorts of irrational beliefs/ideologies to get officially entangled with government activities? I believe I've asked you that a couple of times already in recent posts.
  #727  
Old 09-17-2019, 06:27 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
But if you don't give religion a special category on which government is officially neutral, how are you going to protect individual freedom of belief/ideology without allowing all sorts of irrational beliefs/ideologies to get officially entangled with government activities? I believe I've asked you that a couple of times already in recent posts.

Asked and answered: the same way you protect peopleís right to believe in Austrian economics or in the efficacy of ďunschoolingĒ. We donít need, and I donít want, a special category for religion.
  #728  
Old 09-17-2019, 07:50 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Asked and answered: the same way you protect people’s right to believe in Austrian economics or in the efficacy of “unschooling”. We don’t need, and I don’t want, a special category for religion.
That's actually not an answer to my question. How do you propose to protect individual freedom of belief/ideology---whether on religious matters or anything else---without allowing all sorts of irrational beliefs/ideologies to get officially entangled with government activities?

The example I gave previously was of school boards trying to impose sectarian beliefs on public school curricula and activities. For instance, suppose a democratically elected majority of school board members, holding constitutionally permitted personal beliefs in favor of creationist doctrine, votes to require schools to teach creationism in science classes. Under the Constitution as it currently exists, they are not allowed to implement this decision because it is easily demonstrated in a court challenge that creationist doctrine forms part of a religious belief system, and the First Amendment clause forbidding government establishment of religion makes it unconstitutional to proselytize for a religious belief system in public schools.

How will you be able to block such actions if you remove from the Constitution all prohibitions against government entanglement with religion?

SlackerInc, I'm getting the very strong impression that you have not a vestige of a clue how to prevent such abuses of freedom of belief without explicitly addressing the concept of religious faith. You keep baselessly reiterating that "we don't need" to assign a "special category" to religion in the Constitution, while stubbornly ignoring the realistic practical reasons why we do need to.

Last edited by Kimstu; 09-17-2019 at 07:54 PM.
  #729  
Old 09-17-2019, 08:26 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,633
Your preferred system would block people from teaching creationism but not from teaching Austrian economics, which is also hooey, just like creationism. So maybe the answer is just to do what you need to do in local politics: influence the school board, or run for it yourself.

It’s pretty clear that the reason to have this constitutional protection for religious freedom is not to prevent schools from teaching children nonsense. It’s actually because you believe that people’s own individual brands of nonsense should be their right to believe without being taught a different brand of nonsense. And I don’t give two shits about that.
  #730  
Old 09-17-2019, 08:46 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,470
I think I've been unfair to The Slack One here. Now that I've thought about his ideal society, I can see how it can benefit me. Let's say I'm hankering for a nice meal at a great restaurant that's all the rage lately. I go there and order what I'm told is the best thing they serve. The server presents to me what can only be described as abominable. I demand to see the chef. The chef comes out and tells me I have no appreciation for fine cuisine. I kill him on the spot.
There's no government to set laws. There aren't any courts to which I would agree to try me for killing the chef. No problem!
  #731  
Old 09-17-2019, 09:19 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Your preferred system would block people from teaching creationism but not from teaching Austrian economics, which is also hooey, just like creationism.
Although I'm no adherent of the Austrian school, it's ludicrous to claim that its particular level of hooeyness is just like the hooeyness of creationism.

Austrian economics is a heavily flawed model of a very complicated and poorly understood set of social-science phenomena that nonetheless correctly reflects most of their basic facts, such as the existence of markets, supply and demand, etc. Creationism considered as science, on the other hand, is a completely incoherent, non-predictive, thoroughly falsified model of a quite well-understood set of natural science phenomena that gets most of their basic facts totally wrong.

Trying to pretend that the damage done to the cause of education by teaching Austrian economics as economics is in any way comparable to the damage done by teaching creationism as science just emphasizes how totally unworkable your proposed constitutional reform would be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
So maybe the answer is just to do what you need to do in local politics: influence the school board, or run for it yourself.
Exactly as I said: your foolish puritanism about not allowing the Constitution to mention religion would result in more imposition of religious bigotry and obscurantism, not less. And you don't have a clue what could be done about it except the feeble suggestion of attempting to persuade the bigots and obscurantists pretty please not to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
Itís pretty clear that the reason to have this constitutional protection for religious freedom is not to prevent schools from teaching children nonsense. Itís actually because you believe that peopleís own individual brands of nonsense should be their right to believe without being taught a different brand of nonsense.
It's both (bearing in mind that the category of "individual brands of nonsense" also includes personal faith in the nonexistence of deities or other supernatural entities). Which is why defenders of religious freedom are successful in using this constitutional protection to prevent schools from teaching children nonsense under the name of science.

Yeah, I think I'll stick with the system that's actually reasonably effective in defending governmental secularism and freedom of individual belief, rather than your proposed "reform" that essentially says "Let the religious bigots take over, as long as the official foundation of our laws is preserved from the contamination of explicitly mentioning religion".

In fact, SlackerInc, your argument is so stupid that it makes you sound rather like a not-very-bright fundamentalist pretending to be an atheist for purposes of rhetorical persuasion. "I've got it, brethren! We'll say we despise religion so much that we don't think the Constitution should even mention religion, thus inspiring the godless heathens to remove constitutional protections for religious freedom and separation of church and state! And then, Commandments in every courtroom, Bibles in every science class, one man and one woman on every marriage license! Glory, glory hallelujah!"
  #732  
Old 09-17-2019, 10:49 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
I think I've been unfair to The Slack One here. Now that I've thought about his ideal society, I can see how it can benefit me. Let's say I'm hankering for a nice meal at a great restaurant that's all the rage lately. I go there and order what I'm told is the best thing they serve. The server presents to me what can only be described as abominable. I demand to see the chef. The chef comes out and tells me I have no appreciation for fine cuisine. I kill him on the spot.
There's no government to set laws. There aren't any courts to which I would agree to try me for killing the chef. No problem!

You take me for an anarchist? That’s pretty funny, considering that I have a staunchly anarchist friend and he half-jokingly calls me the most “statist” person he knows. I’m for all kinds of “nanny state” stuff like Michael Bloomberg‘s ban on large sodas and Beto’s gun confiscation plan. I would even ideally like to ban the sale of baby formula over the counter without a prescription, although I know that’s not going to happen anytime soon.

There are plenty of progressive and very non-anarchistic countries in the West with no equivalent religion clauses in their constitutions, yet they manage to avoid theocracy somehow.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 09-17-2019 at 10:53 PM.
  #733  
Old 09-17-2019, 11:12 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,470
Ah, so you're a moron in addition to a hypocrite. Color me unsurprised.
  #734  
Old 09-17-2019, 11:45 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,633
Moron? Okay, standard insult, whatever.

Hypocrite, though? About what?
  #735  
Old 09-18-2019, 12:27 AM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,470
I take it you're still driving on them thar gubmint roads. I take it police are still patrolling your neighborhood. I take it the local fire department would respond if your home were to be on fire. The list goes on.
  #736  
Old 09-18-2019, 12:35 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,633
What the fuck are you on about? Not only am I not an anarchist, I’m not remotely a libertarian and in fact I really despise that philosophy. I am for activist government and high taxes on the rich. Are you confusing me with some other poster or something?
  #737  
Old 09-18-2019, 01:55 AM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is online now
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,470
Nope. I'm confusing the content of your posts with the content of your posts.
  #738  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:21 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I would even ideally like to ban the sale of baby formula over the counter without a prescription, although I know thatís not going to happen anytime soon.
What the hell?
  #739  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:24 AM
Folacin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: North of the River
Posts: 3,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
What the hell?
I assume he's deep into the 'breast is best' party. To which I'll post this Slate article, arguing that that isn't always true (which surprised me, TBH).

Last edited by Folacin; 09-18-2019 at 08:28 AM.
  #740  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:28 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Folacin View Post
I assume he's deep into the 'breast is best' party. To which I'll post this Slate article, arguing that that isn't always true (which surprised me, TBH).
He's deep into something.
  #741  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:29 AM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
What the hell?
The anti-formula movement has gotten prominent backing.
  #742  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:31 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
The anti-formula movement has gotten prominent backing.
That article doesn't make much sense. Are New Yorkers prevented from going to Costco and buying 50 containers of formula?
  #743  
Old 09-18-2019, 12:04 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,633
I like Slate, but I think I will trust the official policy statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics:

https://pediatrics.aappublications.o...ent/129/3/e827
Quote:
It has been calculated that more than 900 infant lives per year may be saved in the United States if 90% of mothers exclusively breastfed for 6 months.24 In the 42 developing countries in which 90% of the world’s childhood deaths occur, exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months and weaning after 1 year is the most effective intervention, with the potential of preventing more than 1 million infant deaths per year, equal to preventing 13% of the world’s childhood mortality.25

So the impact of formula feeding of the US is certainly much smaller than on the developing world, but I still assume those 900 mothers would like their babies back. (ETA: Tens of thousands of mothers, actually, since that is 900 deaths per year.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
The anti-formula movement has gotten prominent backing.

Bloomberg FTW! Love that guy.

Once again, this shows how nonsensical Monty’s claims are—which you’ll notice are not backed up by actual linked citations from my posts, because he can’t cite something that doesn’t exist.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 09-18-2019 at 12:07 PM.
  #744  
Old 09-18-2019, 02:12 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So the impact of formula feeding of the US is certainly much smaller than on the developing world, but I still assume those 900 mothers would like their babies back. (ETA: Tens of thousands of mothers, actually, since that is 900 deaths per year.)
Wow! Think how many lives would be saved if we banned guns! Glad you are on board!
  #745  
Old 09-18-2019, 05:45 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Wow! Think how many lives would be saved if we banned guns! Glad you are on board!



It looks like you are being sarcastic because you assume for some reason that I am against gun control? I guess you havenít been reading my posts in the Elections forum:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&postcount=125

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&postcount=155

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&postcount=200

No matter how long I post here and make myself crystal clear, many of you continue to think I am some kind of doctrinaire conservative for whatever reason.
  #746  
Old 09-18-2019, 06:01 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,633
(Even if you didn’t read the posts in the Elections forum, it might have been a tiny clue that I said just upthread that I thought Mike Bloomberg—a big gun control advocate—was awesome.)

Last edited by SlackerInc; 09-18-2019 at 06:01 PM.
  #747  
Old 09-18-2019, 06:17 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post


It looks like you are being sarcastic because you assume for some reason that I am against gun control?
Sorry, I have no idea what positions you hold on anything other than giving human trafficking victims rides. That's pretty much all I need to know.

Oh, and also that you believe black people are inherently less intelligent than white people. (If that's not you, then I apologize).
  #748  
Old 09-18-2019, 06:39 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,633
If you have no idea, where did the gun thing come from?
  #749  
Old 09-18-2019, 06:53 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
If you have no idea, where did the gun thing come from?
Let's go with this:

1) You are for banning guns - glad to have you on board

2) You were against banning guns, but since you think banning formula saves lives, you must think banning other things that kill people saves lives - glad to have you on board

edited to add:

3) Banning formula is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, so your opinion is stupid.


You pick.

Last edited by manson1972; 09-18-2019 at 06:54 PM.
  #750  
Old 09-18-2019, 07:18 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,633
None of those answer my question, and (2) is actively stupid. Whatever...
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017