100%. Everyone is a moron about something.
Or maybe that belief is my moronic thing?!?!?
Well that just stomped the shit outta some ignorance. But now I have to wonder, if pi is very close to but not really 22/7, is it still useful for calculating solar system-sized elipses? Does NASA still use it for calculating the paths of satelites like Voyager?
Which didn’t have jack-shit to do with Christianity or the Bible, as your link demonstrates. It’s a bullshit calumny intended (but entirely groundlessly) to depict Christians as stupider than they actually are, as you foolishly tried to do. I seriously believe that you are not ‘smarter than a (home-schooled fundy Christian) 5th grader’. That’s what the evidence indicates.
NASA never used that. The approximation is only good to 2 decimal places, which is only good enough to miss entirely or crash into the planet you’re aiming to orbit. It’s good enough for a 5th grader (mentioned in my previous post) to get the right answer on his homework, and that’s about it.
Nowadays pretty much any scientific calculator will have a built-in value for pi that’s way more accurate than 22/7.
It’s impossible to find the exact value for pi (if by “find” you mean something like “give a numerical value for in standard decimal notation”), but it’s easy to get a value that’s as accurate as needed for any particular practical application.
Running it through my calculator, it’s about 2 parts per thousand. Your local water quality authorities demand far better than that on the contaminants in your tap water. If NASA had ever used 22/7 as the approximation of π, we’d have a lot more dead ‘heroes’. Even the Soviets didn’t produce heroes at that rate. I bet they never used 22/7, either.
The two verses are interpreted as referring to different things. 5 is about doing good and witnessing, which one ought’a do; 6 is about showing off “look at me, how saintly I am”, which one ought not to do.
It’s like the difference between trying to spell properly and yelling “luk hau gud i spel!”
I am curious what you believe the statement means, not because I disagree, necessarily, but because you are not clear in what you are claiming.
The opening is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .”
In this case, the word respecting is equal to “in respect to” or “in regards to.” So, Congress is prohibited from making a law that establishes a religion.
It does not mean that Congress is prohibited from making any law in respect to religion (otherwise the phrase “an establishment of” would be redundant). To the extent that the Supreme Court has ruled that “entanglements” (Madison’s word that does not appear in the Constitution) are prohibited, those rulings are the result of successive rulings on other matters, invoking the separate words of Madison and Jefferson, that did not make it into the Constitution.
The only Constitutional prohibition is against the establishment, (that is the creation of or the official recognition of), (a) religion.
I think that the SCOTUS has tended to followed the right path (with the occasional misstep) and I would like to see “In God we trust” removed from money, the restoration of the first motto, E Pluribus Unum, as the sole motto of the U.S., and similar separations. However, a claim that all such actions, as well as additional prohibitions against hiring church organized social groups to carry out welfare programs or the denial of funds to students of parochial schools, are explicitly barred by the Constitution is not actually found in the words of the First Amendment. They may or may not be logical extensions, but they are not explicit in the Amendment.
You are confused. I’ve never said that is all the amendment does, please point to where I said that. See, I already said I knew where your confusion lay, you believed me to be making some sort of strict textualist argument, I wasn’t.
I was pointing out that while there are concepts that have been built up around two hundred years of interpreting what the first amendment means, none of those is as powerful as the clear cut text itself. In cases where the clear cut text is obviously applicable, it’s asinine to focus on any other issue.
I’ve literally wasted 3-4 posts with you because you smelled some sort of blood because you thought someone was making an argument they never were, so consider this the end of our discussion on the matter.
Well, it took more than 1/3 to re-elect Obama, so what did you expect?
H. L. Mencken: “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”
What Christians see so many antichrists?
Educated ones?
The word antichrist (which never appears in the Book of Revelation), was used a few times in the Johanine letters to refer to anyone who opposed the spirit of Christ. It was never used in the New Testament to refer to any specific individual, particularly not in reference to some future ruler of the world who would lead the world to perdition. That is a creation of later peoples inventing boogeymen to make the End Times scary.
Considering Obama either an antichrist or the antichrist is silly, in any case, but imagining that there is some single Antichrist predicted in the bible is an indication that one is not particularly educated in regard to biblical eschatology, (or the Epistles of John).
I didn’t know that. However, John Mace pointed this out in post 126. My question now is where does one draw the line between boasting and spreading the good word?
This is a very typical Clothahump post. It suggests no intelligence and conveys no information except that Clothahump dislikes Obama.
Can you elucidate? Do you agree with OP that the people he describes are moronic? Where do you stand on UFO’s, AGW, Anti-Christs? Do you have any opinion about anything worth expressing?
That comes from your repeated insistence that SOCAS is essentially a social construct, while the First itself is about not having an official government religion. I trust you don’t need cites for your own damn posts. :dubious:
I don’t think that’s it. I think at least some of them think this separation of church and state thing was an interesting experiment, but it failed (which doesn’t surprise them in the least) and we’re an amoral and horrible country, and we need religion to bring us back to the right path. And of course “religion” means “Christianity.”
In other words, it’s not that they think the lack of an established religion is an oversight. They may think it’s a liberal plot, but they know the historical basis; they just think the lesson people (or liberals) took from that was wrong.
I … can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not.
(And if you say “nope, totally serious” I won’t know if that’s sarcasm or not.)
I suspect (and informal observations on the Internet support this) extremeness is generally a better predictor of belief in conspiracy theories than any particular “side.”
ETA: That siad, I can understand why young people are more likely to be suspicious of fluoridation: they (we?) weren’t around to see what a difference it made.
I’m not convinced Martin is expressing personal opposition (at least, not unshakable personal opposition) to actually separating church and State, or saying that the jurisprudence that accomplish that is wrong, only that it’s not what the text of the Constitution says.
I don’t think so either, never did. It’s still puzzling to me how he can come to that view, but perhaps not so puzzling when you consider he apparently thinks the Constitution has some magical powers of self-implementation, not requiring human intervention at all, so all the violations of it we’ve seen over the generations are therefore not violations at all since they couldn’t have happened if they were.
No one is a greater fool than someone who proclaims themselves done with a conversation, especially a conversation with an idiot, who then jumps back in. So sadly it is now my part to play the fool and reengage with you.
I never said SOCAS was a social construct, and it is insulting that you would say that as only a blithering idiot would say such a thing. Tipping is a social construct, Free Parking is a social construct, the umbrella term “separation of church and state” as I’m using it at least covers a multitude of legal decisions, laws and etc that have the full force of law. No to school prayer is not a social construct, it’s the law.
I now see that like a child on his first trip to the museum you need a tour guide, as your own mind cannot take you down its halls and through its exhibits without a guiding hand. That will force me to engage in the mundane practice of creating a numbered list so that you may understand in slowly delivered packets what I am saying:
- When the Constitution’s Bill of Rights was written, the first amendment prohibited the establishment of religion by the government. In England, they had the Church of England. Its head was the monarch, it was a state church. In Scotland they had the same deal with the same monarch and a different church structure but again, a state church. America said no to that. It also prohibited any law interfering with the free practice of religion.
As has become obvious to all countries in the world, no matter how clearly worded a constitution must be interpreted. While unclear as to exactly how this role would be filled initially, we fell to a position where primarily the Supreme Court is the final “interpreter” of our constitution. (But at least initially the President also took a vanguard role in using the veto to strike down laws based on his opinion of their unconstitutionality.) This necessary interpretive function also means that the constitution instead of being static, is a living document. As interpretations change over time.
-
What is covered by “make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is not immediately clear as to how far such a prohibition extends. Several different wordings of the clause were argued about for some time, Madison’s opinion was that the Federal government should not establish a national religion nor should it enforce the observation of a religion or compel men to worship in any way contrary to their own conscience. However, that is not the wording that was agreed upon and written into the constitution. What we do know, without a doubt is that the wording as passed explicitly prohibited the establishment of a religion by the Federal government.
-
From the earliest, there was an espoused concept that there must be a “wall of separation between Church and State” but this was just an espoused concept by some American leaders. That phrase had no force of law whatsoever. As evidence, note the repeated intermeshing of early Federal activity with religion. The Congress was opened by a chaplain who gave a Christian prayer, for example.
Most issues that would even call this clause of the constitution into question were largely unaddressed until the latter half of the 19th century, as the entirety of the bill of rights was recognized as a limitation on Federal power and the Federal government in earlier times did not regularly act in areas or legislate in areas in which this issue would even substantially arise. So, you had a concept mentioned in some treaties and advocated in various places by public figures that we had a separation of church and state. What was meant by this is not clear. What we always did have however, and what we clearly did not have, was a prohibition on the establishment of a state religion by the Federal government or any clear concept of what this more vague “separation of church and state” concept entailed. What we know it didn’t cover were things like religious iconography on public works, or religious figures giving prayers before Houses of Congress.
- After the 14th Amendment was passed, over time a series of court cases has incorporated most of the bill of rights down to the State level. In Reynolds v. U.S. (1878) the court recognized the concept of the “separation of church and state” quite explicitly at the Federal level. In Reynolds the court also specifically quoted Jefferson’s famous separation phrase from many years before in its decision, as evidence of the intent of the men who helped fashion our government.
At this late date in 1878, we yet again see the concept of “separation of church and state” going strong. However, it is still not clear its scope. We know from Reynolds then, with the court basing its opinion heavily on historical English common law and the writings of Thomas Jefferson, that the first amendment protects freedom of conscience, but not freedom of action based on religious belief. Thus the government cannot tell you what to believe but it can punish you for your actions, regardless of whether those beliefs are inspired by genuinely held religious belief.
So that was clear in 1878, but many things were not clear at all. Was it constitutional at this point to make school children recite a pledge that included the words “under God” in it? (Probably, the establishment clause was yet to be incorporated.) Was it constitutional for the Federal government to erect monuments etched in the form of the Ten Commandments? (Most likely, such monuments are known from that time and were not widely protested.)
- Over time cases started to crop up dealing with citizens claiming various state laws were unconstitutional. It wasn’t fully effected until the 1940s that the establishment clause was incorporated at the state level by decisions of the Supreme Court. Interestingly the Supreme Court in its case that fully incorporated the establishment clause, Everson v. Board of Education (1947) encapsulates perfectly our argument.
In Everson, a school district in New Jersey reimbursed parents of school children who used public fare-charging buses to get to school instead of regular school buses. This reimbursement was available to public school children as well as parochial school children. A taxpayer sued New Jersey, on the grounds that it was an impermissible establishment of religion for the State to reimburse students traveling to a parochial school.
When this case made it to the Supreme Court, our famous phrase comes up yet again, in very strong terms. The court states that there is a “wall of separation between church and state” and that it must be a high wall, that no penetrations of the wall no matter how small must be allowed.
So what concept is being laid out here? Specifically that the establishment clause, as part of a living constitution must also be understood to prohibit government entanglement with religion in any form as that itself is a form of establishment. This “understanding” or “naturally evolving corollary” of the establishment clause can conveniently be called a general “separation of church and state.” But there is but one problem with that legal concept of separation of church and state. No one can definitively or easily say “what exactly is a penetration of that wall.” How many of you would think reimbursing the parents of parochial students for riding a public bus to school would represent a penetration of the wall?
I’m willing to guess at least a few people who have read this post up to this point would respond that they certainly consider such a scheme a penetration of the wall of separation.
But here, the same Supreme Court that for the first time in our history most strongly described a “wall of separation”–what had heretofore been a poorly fleshed out idea, went and said they did not consider reimbursing parochial school children’s parents for bus fare to be a violation of that very wall.
- That is the bad thing about the concept of “separation of church and state” (SOCAS). It’s bad in that it has evolved or is a “corollary” to the establishment clause, bad in the sense it is unclear (not that it is undesirable.) Because it is not clearly written, and because it could be vast in scope, its boundaries are unknown. That means we as a society will evolve in out personal views on this issue. For example, no one is really picking too much of a fuss over the fact that the money says “In God We Trust.” People have made a fuss over the fact that school children are taught, all over the country, to say a Pledge that includes the words “under god.” But the courts have never ruled that to be unconstitutional as long as the children are not forced to stand or forced to recite the pledge. But the courts have said school directed prayer is unconstitutional, even if the students who wish to not participate are not forced, the very act by the school comprises a state sponsorship of religion regardless as to whether or not participation is mandatory.
You stupidly talk of “violations of the establishment clause” and my bringing them up as if I’m saying, “well it’s been violated so it doesn’t exist.” This is an argument too stupid for most people to even imagine, yet it flows forth easily from your mouth. It entirely misses the point, I’m not pointing out “violations.” I’m pointing out that we have a living constitution, and that at one point in time it was entirely valid to force children to participate in prayer in school. I’m not saying that proves the establishment clause doesn’t exist. I’m saying that its corollary, SOCAS, has an indefinite scope. Since it is indefinite it is only through the natural evolution of our judiciary and society that we flesh out its boundaries.
Finally, through much meandering we now reach the final point. SOCAS is a strong, valid, legal concept. But it has indefinite boundaries and is probably never going to be truly fleshed out as our conceptions and the conceptions of our judiciary will be ever changing. But interestingly, in the entire history of the United States from the time Madison put pen to paper, it has been understood that while the establishment clause means more than what it explicitly says, that what it explicitly says is beyond any doubt. Meaning–that it is without a doubt not permissible to establish a state religion. The moment the establishment clause was incorporated that innate concept applied to the States as well. SOCAS is a corollary to the establishment clause. SOCAS is a nice catch all term for everything we’ve determined as a society (as represented by our judiciary) “must follow” from the establishment clause. But the one thing we’ve never needed to flesh out, never needed interpreted, is that the government could not establish a state religion (and it also uncontroversially applied to the States the moment we incorporated the amendment at the State level.)
The original point I made, that you stupidly, blindly failed to see, was that there is no reason to bring up the contentious uncertainly defined SOCAS corollary to the establishment clause in this scenario. It is necessary to delve into SOCAS arguments, various court rulings and precedent when you’re arguing about the pledge of allegiance or team prayers before a football game or valedictorian prayers or what have you. Those are more complex issues that you have to rely on a long history of elaborate court cases to come to a learned opinion on. But for cases of government literally seeking to establish a religion, none of that is necessary. Because that is not prohibited by a “corollary” to the establishment clause, but by the plain text of the establishment clause itself. It is prohibited by a concept simple and so clearly and uncontroversially understood that it predates basically all jurisprudence about the wider concept of “SOCAS” and has almost never been seriously challenged by the legislative branch.
That may be true of some people, but in my experience a lot of people will argue that the Founding Fathers really intended for this to be a Christian Nation; our Constitution and laws were originally founded on Christianity/the Bible/the Ten Commandments; and all this “separation of church and state” nonsense is recent subversion of the Way Things Ought to Be dreamed up by godless liberals back in the 60’s or some such.
Hey, Martin? The longer an explanation takes, the less likely it is to be valid, ya know?
Cool story though, bro.