Can you explain to me why it’s a “big no-no”? I’m really not clear on why this is such a problem.
:rolleyes:
Scott, as long as you’re at it, how about a response to my last post directed at you, and Monstre’s? Have you grasped the distinction between describing a function of the office, and advocating obedience to the man holding the office? 'Cause your paraphrase has done me wrong, and hurt my feelings to boot.
As long as I’m here, I’ll give you a hint on the sandbag thing: it was a snarky aside, a jibe at Bush. I’m sure that was your understanding, as well.
Oh, so I used hyperbole in paraphrasing you. Big deal. This isn’t a country song. 
Okay, fine. If you want to keep throwing out your assertion that what Bush did is in violation of the Constitution despite being shown several times that it is not and that I should just take your word for it because it’s bullshit and you call it like you see it or whatever, then :rolleyes: yourself. I guess that’s what I get for trying to engage you in honest debate.
Scott WINS!
Actually, I won a debate with Bricker that endorsement of prayer does miss the point. However, I can not be said to have won the debate as a whole because while I believe I have covered every angle, you believe I have not, and any useful definition of winning would include the other side conceding the point, which you have not done. Thus, no, Scott doesn’t win.
However, I am at a loss to see why you do not concede. After all, the idea that I have not shown that what he has done is in violation would seem to rest on either your not having read the first two pages of this thread, having an argument you have not shown, or your simply not wanting to see the facts. Personally, I am going with the idea that you have not read the first two pages, since I do not see how you debunked what I said there.
How about I just side with 43 Presidents, 2 centuries of precedents, 108 Supreme Court Justices…all of which evidently don’t know jack shit compared to the all-knowing Scott Plaid!
And I’ve read the thread, you haven’t convinced me of shit. You think you are right, I don’t. The only thing you have “won” is to get Bricker to admit he wasn’t as familiar with Buddism as he thought he was. Big fucking deal.
No.
What you won was an agreement that I was wrong concerning Buddhism and prayer. I should have realized that context was not your strong suit, and carefully delineated what I was conceding. So to set the record straight: With respect to the contention that Buddhism involves prayer, and only with respect to that contention: Scott, you were right, and I was wrong.
As to the broader picture – that the President’s proclamation is violative of the Constitution… the final authority on what the Constitution says is not Scott, or even me (sadly, that, because I would be EXCELLENT at the job) but the Supreme Court. That Court has indicated through various rulings that the President’s actions do NOT violate the Constitution.
Only of few of whom were non-Christian, or were thought to be, not to mention the fact society was different then. So yeah, they are going to see violation of church and state as not being a big deal. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Oh, and if you disagree that endorsement of prayer isn’t a violation, why not give a reason, rather then an appeal to authority?
[QUOTE=Scott Plaid]
Oh, so I used hyperbole in paraphrasing you. Big deal./QUOTE]
When you do that, you are not arguing against the argument your opponent made, you are arguing against the argument you wish your opponent had made. Hard to win points (or minds) that way. You master debater, you.
That doesn’t make it right and it certainly doesn’t mean we shouldn’t complain about it. Religious folk should be outraged as well. I’ll never understand that.
Not even that. I’m very familiar with Buddhism – at least with Theravada Buddhism. What I missed was the commonly-understood definition of prayer to require communication or supplication. I had always take prayer to include a meditative state, but was convinced by Dio and Scott that this was not how the word is understood.
Yes, but my argument was that rule against endorsement of prayer was violated rests on the facts you acknowledged about Buddhism.
And as I have said, every single Supreme court ruling that violates the first amendment, violates the first amendment. Period. Care to show how they don’t? Warning: This could get ugly.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
BECAUSE APPEAL TO AUTHORITY IS VALID in this case. There IS an authoritive source for interpretation of the Constitution.
Legal argument ALWAYS consists of citation to authority. An appeal to authority is a fallacy if:
[ul]
[li]the authority is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,[/li][li]experts in the field disagree on this issue.[/li][li]the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious[/li][li]the authority is misquoted[/li][/ul]
See here.
I’m afraid I don’t accept that.
They don’t because the meaning of the phrase “establishment of religion” is unclear. I say that the President proclaiming a national day of prayer does not constitute an “establishment of religion” and thus does not offend the First Amendment. Even if Buddhists do not pray.
It already has.
Hint: “The Supreme Court has violated the Constitution because I said they did -prove that I am wrong” is not a valid argument.
Put it this way - would you agree that the Supreme Court making things up that are not in the Constitution - like “National Days of Prayer and Remembrance is OK” - is an example of judicial activism, and ought to be condemned?
Regards,
Shodan
Hell, let’s keep it simple.
That doesn’t stop the President from doing anything. It clearly says “Congress shall make no law.” Well, they didn’t make a law. The President made a proclamation. Where does the First Amendment forbid that?
How so? I said that it endorses religions that involve prayer over those that don’t. Not an “establishment of religion”, but a endorsement. That rests on the fact I have shown there is a religion that does not include prayer.