The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

Myths are simply ways of people expalining their worldview to themselves and to others. One person's myth is often another person's deeply held belief.

...and no myths should be taught in school. Education should consist of the imparting of facts, as well as teaching children how to think in logical ways.

If you believe that a school should teach children that the world was created a few thousand years ago in six literal twenty-four hour days, complete with talking snake and magic tree, fine. If someone else wants to teach children that the world and everything in it came from Lord Brahma's body, fine. But a secular state shouldn't be funding the teaching of either of those fairy tales. If you want to tell your children lies and claim they are unquestionable truths, do it in your own time and your own dime.

For example, people are quite entitled to believe in the myth that abiogenesis / Spontaneous Evolution occurred ... and any other myths that flow from this.

Yeah, and other myths like gravity and relativity.

If your argument boils down to you calling science a myth and therefore no more valid than the nonsense in your holy book, that's fine with me, because it's an argument that ultimately can't win.

You have no right to determine what is taught / not taught to my children. As a parent, I have that right in relation to my children ...

Correct. I have no intention of telling you what not to teach your children. The point I keep making, and which you keep ignoring, is that I don't agree with my taxes being used to finance your mythology.

If I choose a religous school for my chidren, because of the intolerance and disrespect shown to me and my beliefs on this thread ... then I'm quite entitled to do so ...

...and I'm entitled to expect you to pay for it yourself.

... and as a taxpayer, I'm quite entitled to expect a religion/irreligion neutral state to fund the education of my children to the very same extent as it funds the education of your children ...

Stop making the teaching of religious dogma and the absence of the teaching of religious dogma equivalents. They're not.

...and it shouldn't be a condition of such education that me or my children must deny our faith just like you or your children shouldn't be forced to deny or suppress your atheism either.

So far, you're the only person who has suggested that it should. You've had that straw man pointed out to you so many times that it's a wonder you haven't been struck down by your own god for lying.

Oh wait, that's not a wonder at all.

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

I said no such thing ... but now that you mention it, I haven't seen anybody dissociating themselves from what SW had to say.

I've had this out with you before. You cannot infer how someone thinks from what they don't put in a post. If everyone reading a post had to post if they did or didn't agree, boards would be unusable.

J C wrote: »

I directed my comments to SW and his/her supporters ... and if the cap fits you may wear it ... and if it doesn't you don't have to wear it. The choice is up to you.

You have done this for anyone in disagreement with you, not just "SW and his/her supporters" (whoever they might be).

J C wrote: »

If state funding is to go towards the support of irreligion ... then equality demands that state support should also go to religion.

What? Why is state funding going to the support of irreligion all of a sudden? It is going to schools. Schools where religion may be taught as a subject and may be brought up where relevant to the subject at hand (English, History, Geography, etc.), but should not be mandatory and should not replace other subjects at any time for any reason.

J C wrote: »

If schools are to be set up and supported by the state that are anti-religion to the point of banning religious expression within them ... then equality of treatment demands that religiously-tolerant schools should also be supported by any state that is truly neutral on matters of religion/irreligion.

Nowhere did I so much as imply this. Religious expression should not be banned, but if a teacher is trying to teach maths and a child is interrupting her to say that Tommy is going to burn in hell because he's an atheist, that child should get the same punishment as any child would for wasting class time. You could say that that is suppressing religious expression, but I think it is fair to do in instances like this.

J C wrote: »

We live in a liberal secular democracy respectful and supportive of religious equality and diversity ... not some kind of anti-religious atheistic state (like North Korea or a latter-day version of Stalin's Russia) where religion and religious people are suppressed by the state.

No we don't. We live in a conservative, Catholic-supportive, democratic repulic, tolerant of other religions and disrespectful to those holding minority views. I agree we don't live in an anti-religious state, but honestly think you've strayed mile off topic here.

I think the problems we're having here J C is that you jump to the binary opposite instead of allowing for the grey areas that exist in life. When I say
"People shouldn't be forced to eat toffee cake on Thursdays." You seem to think I'm saying
"People shouldn't ever be allowed to eat cake." when in fact what I'm saying is
"People should be free to eat whatever flavour cake they wish, whenever they want and be free to not eat cake at all."

Absolam

There is no cake.

bumper234

Hmmmmmmmmm....cake

robindch

J C wrote: »

.. but why am I surprised ...

JC - you've entirely failed to take part in a debate here -- ignoring repeated, pointed questions from oscarBravo, for example.

This isn't the high standard of discussion that usually takes place in A+A, so at this point, your options are: (a) start discussing this topic like a mature adult; or (b) you will be restricted to posting here in the "specious nonsense" thread only; or (c) you may be carded at the moderators' discretion.

This is not, as I must point out, silencing your views in any way, but simply a matter of doing something to keep the forum standard where it should be.

Brian Shanahan

PopePalpatine wrote: »

J C, where did you get your definition of "liberal secularism" from?

Where the sun shineth not, probably.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

He lied (by implication and omission) about the location of the cemetary. If he had pointed out that the cemetary was in Luxemburg, then his point would have fallen apart.

Ardmacha asked the question as to who owned the cemetery? ... and it does turn out to be the US Government, all-be-it on Luxembourg soil.
... and as we have established since, that religious symbols, including Christian Crosses are allowed to be engraved on headstones in US Government Cemeteries on US soil as well as actual crosses, like the Cross of Sacrifice in Arlington ... it is your point (that religious symbols cannot be placed on US public / government property) that has actually fallen apart.

In addition, could I also point out that even if Ardmacha was mistaken in a post (and he wasn't in that one), calling him a liar is going way beyond anything you would have evidence for ... and is un-parliamentary language, as has already been pointed out by Robin, as I recall, here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89512991&postcount=100

J C

ardmacha wrote: »

I did not lie, nor imply that this was in the US. I searched for a US military cemetery, found a nice pic and asked who owned it and you provided the answer.

There is a certain hypocrisy in the funding, whatever about the technicalities of ownership, of a particular style of memorial in one place and then losing the plot when a similar style of memorial is placed elsewhere. My point was the hypocrisy, not the legality.

Two very fair points.
... your second point also raises the interesting question as to why the US Government pays for crosses to be used as headstones overseas and 'tombstones' back home??

https://www.google.ie/search?q=us+cemeteries&client=firefox-a&hs=cjm&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PNItU5-rIuK47QbpsoCwBg&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1338&bih=666&dpr=0.9#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=CtWXDC5CMMaCXM%253A%3B3oCMKFyuti65KM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252F1%252F1a%252FLuxembourg_American_Cemetery.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FLuxembourg_American_Cemetery_and_Memorial%3B800%3B543

https://www.google.ie/search?q=us+cemeteries&client=firefox-a&hs=cjm&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PNItU5-rIuK47QbpsoCwBg&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1338&bih=666&dpr=0.9#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=DFXOvfFC85PBOM%253A%3BcGyhQttWfEZ3PM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252Fe%252Fe6%252FManila_American_Cemetery_and_Memorial.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FManila_American_Cemetery_and_Memorial%3B750%3B593

... even in Secular France
https://www.google.ie/search?q=us+cemeteries&client=firefox-a&hs=cjm&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PNItU5-rIuK47QbpsoCwBg&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1338&bih=666&dpr=0.9#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=si22C-H4CLjsZM%253A%3B1m23brnPzVYUmM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.battlefieldsww2.50megs.com%252FUScem01.JPG%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.battlefieldsww2.50megs.com%252Fnormandy_american_cemetery.htm%3B384%3B288

https://www.google.ie/search?q=us+cemeteries&client=firefox-a&hs=cjm&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PNItU5-rIuK47QbpsoCwBg&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1338&bih=666&dpr=0.9#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=ls_rACvIibfesM%253A%3BmR0rht_JVGU4NM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.d-daytoursnormandy.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2013%252F05%252FSt-James-US-Cemetery.-Memorial-Day-26-May-2013.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.d-daytoursnormandy.com%252Fcategory%252Fd-day-cemeteries%252F%3B960%3B720

... and here are the tombstones (all-be-it with religious symbols engraved) at home:-
https://www.google.ie/search?q=us+cemeteries&client=firefox-a&hs=cjm&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PNItU5-rIuK47QbpsoCwBg&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1338&bih=666&dpr=0.9#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=62zmNKOAgxgswM%253A%3BqBfZ7AKAgzrxQM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.interment.net%252Fdata%252Fus%252Fsd%252Fmeade%252Fblacknat%252Fcemetery.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.interment.net%252Fdata%252Fus%252Fsd%252Fmeade%252Fblacknat%252Fcemetery.htm%3B600%3B450

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

Ardmacha asked the question as to who owned the cemetery?

The Grand Duchy of Luxemburg owns the land. The American Battle Monuments Commision got a free lease of the land in perpetuity from the Luxemburgesch government (probably in gratitude for the US effort in liberating Luxemburg during two wars).

Now JC will you please stop this nonsensical posturing, it is making you look even more stupid to be arguing another case which has been proven to be wrong. It is so bad that even the original poster of the picture can't even bring himself to defend his case, just pretend that he never meant to question the fact I pointed out.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The Grand Duchy of Luxemburg owns the land. The American Battle Monuments Commision got a free lease of the land in perpetuity from the Luxemburgesch government (probably in gratitude for the US effort in liberating Luxemburg during two wars).

Now JC will you please stop this nonsensical posturing, it is making you look even more stupid to be arguing another case which has been proven to be wrong. It is so bad that even the original poster of the picture can't even bring himself to defend his case, just pretend that he never meant to question the fact I pointed out.

The free lease in perpetuity grants beneficial ownership of the lands to the The American Battle Monuments Commision, which is an agency of the US Government ... ... and they therefore have total control over what happens on the property ... and this agency of the US Government have not only allowed crosses to be erected, they have also paid for them as well ... which was the basic point being made by Ardmacha.

As it turns out, Ardmacha was correct in his posting ... but whether or not he was correct, you shouldn't have called him a liar, as this is un-parliamentary language and 'name calling', that shouldn't be used in polite debate.

J C

smacl wrote: »

God didn't Create 'assholes' ... some Human Beings abuse their free-will ... to behave as 'assholes'!!!:)

... and it's not only Atheists who can sometimes be 'assholes' ... there are usually no shortage of candidates for that particular descriptor!!!:eek:

Delirium

US government don't own the land however you try to spin it. The Grand Duchy are still the legal owners of the land. And that still doesn't alter the fact that the cemetary is located in a foreign country.

J C

SW wrote: »

US government don't own the land however you try to spin it. The Grand Duchy are still the legal owners of the land. And that still doesn't alter the fact that the cemetary is located in a foreign country.

A Lease in Perpetuity grants beneficial ownership, and total control over the property to The American Battle Monuments Commision, which is an agency of the US Government.

The basic point being claimed was that the US government was constitutionally bound to not allow religious symbols on its property ... and Ardmacha posted a picture of a cemetery under the control of an agency of the US Goverment that completely contradicted the claim.
... and it has subsequently been shown that the use of religious symbols is also allowed on US public property on lands within the US itself as well, like for example, in Arlington National Cemetery.

... and to add insult to injury, Brian proceeded to call Ardmacha a liar ... when, at worst, he might have been mistaken ... and at best (as it turned out) Ardmacha was perfectly correct.

... why is 'sorry' the hardest word ... for you guys to say??

shruikan2553

If we want to treat all religions and none equaly we will need a monument for everything, christians, jews, muslims, atheists, scientologists etc etc. How small do we make them so we can fit in the others while leaving room for any new religions?

smacl

J C wrote: »

A Lease in Perpetuity grants beneficial ownership, and total control over the property to The American Battle Monuments Commision, which is an agency of the US Government.

The basic point being claimed was that the US government was constitutionally bound to not allow religious symbols on its property ... and Ardmacha posted a picture of a cemetery under the control of the US Goverment that completely contradicted the claim.
... and it has subsequently been shown that use of religious symbols is allowed on US public property on lands within the US itself as well, like, for example, in Arlington National Cemetery.

The Americans have similar control of Guantanamo bay, but they don't follow the letter of US law their either. American jurisprudence is limited to American soil.

J C

smacl wrote: »

The Americans have similar control of Guantanamo bay, but they don't follow the letter of US law their either. American jurisprudence is limited to American soil.

That particular piece of arcane law doesn't justify calling Ardmacha a liar ... and Arlington Cemetary also allows religious symbols on gravestones ... and it's definitely on American soil.

J C

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If we want to treat all religions and none equaly we will need a monument for everything, christians, jews, muslims, atheists, scientologists etc etc. How small do we make them so we can fit in the others while leaving room for any new religions?

Where there is a will, there is a way.
In most situations, permanent monuments is not what is being looked for anyway ... just tolerance for religion (and none) being expressed in public ... which is something that true pluralism and freedom of religion (as distinct from freedom from religion) ... demands.:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

A Lease in Perpetuity grants beneficial ownership, and total control over the property to The American Battle Monuments Commision, which is an agency of the US Government.

Which doesn't contradict the point that Luxembourg still own the land.

The basic point being claimed was that the US government was constitutionally bound to not allow religious symbols on its property ... and Ardmacha posted a picture of a cemetery under the control of an agency of the US Goverment that completely contradicted the claim.
... and it has subsequently been shown that use of religious symbols is allowed on US public property on lands within the US itself as well, like, for example, in Arlington National Cemetery.

... and to add insult to injury, Brian proceeded to call Ardmacha a liar ... when, at worst, he might have been mistaken ... and at best (as it turned out) Ardmacha was perfectly correct.

... why is 'sorry' the hardest word ... for you guys to say??

The discussion was about the separation of church and state as per the US Constitution. A document that applies to the United States of America, not Luxembourg. One can only presume that ardmacha posted the cemetary image in err or an attempt to mislead others about cemetary policy in state owned cemetaries in the US.

J C

SW wrote: »

Which doesn't contradict the point that Luxembourg still own the land.


The discussion was about the separation of church and state as per the US Constitution. A document that applies to the United States of America, not Luxembourg.

The First amendmant to the US Constitution says nothing about the so-called 'separation of church and state' (which is, by definition, an anti-Christian idea designed to prevent churches ... and only churches, receiving benefits enjoyed by all other private organisations from the state) ... The First Amendment simply says the following:-

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This is quite clearly a charter of rights for the free public expression of all kinds of ideas, and especially religious ones (as it mentions religion specifically).
The requirement to make no law respecting an establishment of religion is immediately followed by the requirement to make no law prohibiting the free exercise (of religion).
Combined with the other rights of freedom of speech and the freedom to peacably assemble (in public) grants all of the rights required to freely and reasonably express one's religion in public in the US.
The First Amendment is therefore fully supportive of freedom of religion (and its reasonable public expression).

SW wrote: »

One can only presume that ardmacha posted the cemetary image in err or an attempt to mislead others about cemetary policy in state owned cemetaries in the US.

The presumption, where a posting is incorrect is that the poster is in error or they have an invalid interpretation of the facts (unless there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary).
Ardmacha actually made a truthful and very supportive posting for his stated position ... that has been subsequently found to be substantively correct.

If everybody calls everybody else a liar ... polite discussion becomes impossible.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The First amendmant to the US Constitution says nothing about the so-called 'separation of church and state' (which is, by definition, an anti-Christian idea) ... it simply says the following:-

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This is quite clearly a charter of rights for the free public expression of all kinds of ideas, and especially religious ones (as it mentions religion specifically).
The requirement to make no law respecting an establishment of religion is immediately balance by the requirement to make no law prohibiting the free exercise (of religion).
Combined with the next rights of freedom of speech and the freedom to peacably assemble (in public) grants all of the rights required to freely and reasonably express one's religion in public in the US.
The First Amendment is therefore fully supportive of freedom of relgion (and its public expression).

The text you quoted clearly says the state (i.e. government) shall make no law respecting or prohibiting religion (this being 'church' that I referred to).

This is a clearly the separation of church and state I referred to.

J C

SW wrote: »

The text you quoted clearly says the state (i.e. government) shall make no law respecting or prohibiting religion (this being 'church' that I referred to).

This is a clearly the separation of church and state I referred to.

Religion is a much wider concept than the Christian Church ... it certainly encompasses all of the other religions of the world and possibly the 'religion' of irreligion, for example, Atheistic Humanism, as well.

... and the text says that the state shall not favour (or dis-favour) any religion ... the doctrine of the separation of Church and State (especially where there isn't an Established State Church) implies the isolation of all Christian Churches for 'separation' from the state thereby implying that Christian Churches ... and only Christian Churches, should be prevented from receiving benefits enjoyed by all other private organisations from the state.

The 'Separation of Church and State' may be relevant where there is a State Established Church in situ ... but this doesn't apply to America, where it is specifically banned under the First Amendment.

Delirium

you're the only one referring to Christianity with regard to the separation of church and state. This clearly shows you have little to no understanding on the concept.

J C

SW wrote: »

you're the only one referring to Christianity with regard to the separation of church and state. This clearly shows you have little to no understanding on the concept.

The use of the word 'Church' in the concept does imply Christianity ... and only Christianity.
The concept is either erroneously stated ... in which case a better descriptor (of what is to be separated from the state) should be used ...
... or it isn't erroneous ... and the concept does mean 'what it says on the tin' ... the isolation of all Christian Churches for 'separation' from the state thereby implying that Christian Churches ... and only Christian Churches, should be prevented from receiving benefits enjoyed by all other private organisations from the state ... in which case, it would be in contravention of equality legislation and the First Amendment.

Corkfeen

J C wrote: »

Religion is a much wider concept than the Christian Church ... it certainly encompasses all of the other religions of the world and possibly the 'religion' of irreligion as well.

... and the text says that the state shall not favour (or dis-favour) any religion ... the doctrine of separation of Church and State implies the isolation of the Christian Church for 'separation' from the state thereby implying that Christian Churches ... and only Christian Churches, should be prevented from receiving benefits enjoyed by all other private organisations from the state.

The 'Separation of Church and State' may be relevant where there is a State Established Church ... but this doesn't apply to America

The phrasing 'separation of church and state' is more of a colloquialism. Since Christianity in various forms would be the most popular religion in the US, this is the phrasing that's used. It's not specifically targetting Christianity,it's merely saying that no religion should receive any form of a special status from the state. Nobody on this forum is calling for just one branch of religion to fall under separation of Church and state. You're being pedantic and go to this weird narrative where the world is ganging up on Christianity.

J C

Corkfeen wrote: »

The phrasing 'separation of church and state' is more of a colloquialism. Since Christianity in various forms would be the most popular religion in the US, this is the phrasing that's used. It's not specifically targetting Christianity,it's merely saying that no religion should receive any form of a special status from the state. Nobody on this forum is calling for just one branch of religion to fall under separation of Church and state. You're being pedantic and go to this weird narrative where the world is ganging up on Christianity.

I'm not being in the least pedantic ... as this is a very serious concept that is being asked to be applied by the state ... and the precise use of language is essential in such circumstances.

People promoting this concept should mean what they say ... and say exactly what they mean.

This is not some kind of 'colloquialism' ... its being presented as a legal principle before which the American Constitution and the laws of the United States (and other countries) should bend in order to implement it.

I'm taking it at face value as the naked advocacy of discrimination by the state against Christian Churches.
This is the only possible meaning in a place like America, where there isn't an Established Church in postion (that could be dis-established or 'separated' from the State).

smacl

J C wrote: »

That particular piece of arcane law doesn't justify calling Ardmacha a liar ... and Arlington Cemetary also allows religious symbols on gravestones ... and it's definitely on American soil.

I didn't call anyone a liar, nor make any comment on Arlington cemetery. I merely pointed out that how Americans behave on their own soil when governed by their own laws is different from how they behave abroad. The cemetery in Luxembourg is not typical of an American military cemetery.

Turtwig

It's not discrimination against Christians Churches.

the U.S. Supreme Court decision Everson v. Board of Education, : wikipedia wrote:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach

Corkfeen

J C wrote: »

I'm not being in the least pedantic ... as this is a very serious concept that is being asked to be applied by the state ... and the precise use of language is essential in such circumstances.

People promoting this concept should mean what they say ... and say exactly what they mean.

This is not some kind of 'colloquialism' ... its being presented as a legal principle before which the American Constitution and the laws of the United States (and other countries) should bend and vindicate.

I'm taking it at face value as the naked advocacy of discrimination by the state against Christian Churches.
This is the only possible meaning in a place like America, where there isn't an Established Church in postion (that could be dis-established or 'separated' from the State).

Breaking the first amendment is viewed in terms of what is written in the US constitution,it is not in terms of colloquialisms.

J C

smacl wrote: »

I didn't call anyone a liar, nor make any comment on Arlington cemetery. I merely pointed out that how Americans behave on their own soil when governed by their own laws is different from how they behave abroad. The cemetery in Luxembourg is not typical of an American military cemetery.

I didn't say you called anybody a liar ... that 'distinction' lies with Brian ... I was merely pointing out that your posting didn't justify Brian calling Ardmacha a liar.

... and the cemetery in Luxembourg is typical of all US Cemeteries overseas ... where crosses are the predominant grave marker.

J C

Jernal wrote: »

It's not discrimination against Christians Churches.

Originally Posted by the U.S. Supreme Court decision Everson v. Board of Education, : wikipedia
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.

The First Amendment is very precise on what isn't allowed (the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof).

There is no mention of a church there ... and that is the way it should be if the intention is to not discriminate between different religions and none.

The use of the phrase 'separation of church and state' is objectively referring to the separation/disavantaging of Christianity by the state ... or possibly the dis-establisment of an Established Church, in a state where one exists.

Both concepts are alien to American Constitutional Law.