Did you happen to read my post 104? Because there, I directly address the case law. The case law, mind you, actually directly quoted in the letter in the OP.
So far, the silence in response to that post has been deafening.
Enough silliness, Czar.
- Do you believe that the US justice system is entitled to tell Jews that a non-religious symbol is really religious, and Jews should just accept that and let the U.S. government give us Government Approved Judaism?
- Or do you (finally) understand that any judges who ruled it was a religious symbol (if they actually existed, as Malthus has pointed out…) were wrong, and as such you support new, correct verdicts which would overturn previous judges’ errors?
1, or 2?
I am saying you are making an “argument from ignorance” - meaning, you are elevating your own (incorrect in this case) opinion into a general statement of what the thing means.
You disagree, which is fair enough; but your disagreement is not based on any actual facts, other that what you “know” to be true. Or at least, you have cited none.
Again, you are arguing about what “people” think. That isn’t actually an argument. You are assuming that “people” think what you think.
I know card forcing when I see it. I never stipulated the first, and the second has nothing to do with the problem at hand. The subject is whether the monument comes into conflict with the Establishment Clause, or as Really Not All That Bright pointed out:
Besides the seven logos I showed that used the Star of David to unambiguously refer to the Jewish religion?
shrug You explain to me why these interfaith councils use the Star of David to represent Judaism.
In general,cases no, of course not. But to anybody who has a clue on the issue, you’re wrong, ignorant, and your errors are based on your wilfull ignorance. It’s just kinda funny to see an ignorant, cocksure gentile trying to tell Jews what our symbols really mean.
The humor may be lost on you.
Um… no. It’s evidence of a misconception held by people who don’t know what they’re talking about. Lots of people believe Obama s a Kenyan Muslim. That makes it true about as much as gentiles’ error on Jewish symbolism changes what Jews actually believe.
Oy, this thread is meshugaas.
That isn’t how language or symbols work. For example, Mormons want to be referred to like this:
But that’s not how it’s done in America because that isn’t how words are defined. Language works by our collective agreement on what things mean, history be damned. They aren’t put to the affected people for vote. So while your historic arguments are interesting, they don’t change how the Star of David is used in America today. For other examples of this phenomenom see:
The swastika
“V for victory”
The Bellamy Salute
Not only did you stipulate the first, you’ve maintained that view, refused to retract it, and of course it’s quotable as you posted it in this thread. Evidently you realize it’s indefensible when not couched in weasel words. So noted. The second, whether or not the (alleged and still uncited-by-you) verdicts on whether or not the Magen David is a religious symbol has “nothing to do” with a court case hinging on whether or not the Magen David is a religious symbol?
You’ve actually just argued that the issue is whether or not using a religious symbol violated the Establishment Clause… and then you argued that whether or not it’s actually a religious symbol and (alleged) precedents are wrong, well, all that has nothing to do with whether it’s a religious symbol that violated the Establishment Clause. It’s a good sign that your argument is bullshit if you can’t go more than a few words without contradicting yourself.
That corner you’ve painted yourself into sure is cozy.
Then quote me saying it.
Ironic, as that’s the point that you’re aggressively missing. Of course the history doesn’t change how it’s used now. And how it’s used now is as a secular symbol. As has been repeatedly explain to you by the unanimous consensus of the Jews to post in this thread. Yes, regardless of what ignorant gentiles believe, Jews actually know what our own symbols represent. People who disagree don’t change the symbols’ meaning. People who disagree are, simply, wrong. That’s what disagreein’ with facts gets ya.
Your failure to comprehend that appears to be willful.
Your ignorance on linguistics seems to exceed your ignorance on Judaism. Languages are only defined by informants who are native speakers of that language. Americans won’t be polled to find out the denotation or connotation of a Swahili phrase. And gentiles won’t be polled as authorities (by anybody who has a clue) on what Jews believe. That you don’t understand that gentiles can’t re-define what Jews believe, just because they’re in the majority? It’s… well, par for the course. Wish I could say I was surprised.
No, the number of people who are mistaken about Jewish symbolism does not determine whether or not they’re right. It just determines what number of people are wrong. Sorry to break it to ya’. Good use of the Bandwagon Fallacy though.
This is absurd. Just admit error and actually fix your position. If you cleave to a common dodge that’s seen on the Dope, you’ll argue that sure the semantic value of your statement and my paraphrase are identical, but you used weasel words so no backseez and I’ve got cooties. To avoid such silliness, I’ll just provide your quote with my paraphrases in bolded brackets.
[the US justice system is entitled to tell Jews that a non-religious symbol is really religious,]
[Jews should just accept that and let the U.S. government give us Government Approved Judaism].
Fuck’s sake, just admit error graciously and modify your position. Nobody will think less of you, but maintaining your error, and writing autocontradictory nonsense all over this thread, is hardly a strong debating tactic.
Why is it on numerous interfaith logos?
I just addressed that in my previous post:
They can’t redefine what they believe, but they sure can redefine what their symbols mean. Communication is strictly a majority rules system. If 99% of Americans decided tomorrow that the Star of David meant “Bananas are sold here” then that’s what it would mean. If I wanted to sell bananas, I could put a Star of David over my door and people would know I have bananas for sale, and if I wanted to buy bananas, then I’d go looking for the Star of David.
For fuck’s sake, stick to putting words into your own mouth, and keep the fuck out of mine.
“I said that he killed her with malice aforethought, I never said it was Murder One. Stop distorting my words, you distorting distorter!”
It’s true, saying that what you said isn’t what you said makes it change, and since you tried to sugarcoat your position, its semantic value doesn’t count.
Quite a cozy little corner, eh?
I’ve edited this post to put Czarcasm’s actual post in quote boxes and your comments outside the quote boxes. Even with the bolding this did look like you were putting words in his mouth.
Calm down and/or take it to the Pit.
Is this how the phrase “when you’re in a deep hole, stop digging” came to be?
Note to others: the emboldened words are not mine, and do not accurately reflect what I actually wrote. I do not hold the disgusting opinions they represent, and I resent the implication that they do.
OK. You have now provided your interpretation of what you believe that Czarcasm means.
Once is enough. Stick to responding to what he has actually posted. (Unless you are trying to demonstrate the error of the courts by doing exactly what you accuse them of–laying meaning on words and symbols with which the authors or owners disagree.)
[ /Moderating ]
Shouldn’t have escalated from FinnAgain’s post. I apologize for that.