ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 28th January 2013, 08:10 PM   #121
jj
grumpy old skeptic
 
jj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 21,383
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Theconstitution ends "in the year of our lord."
That's the date, mate. That's one of the lamest attempts on record.
__________________
The Power to Quit
jj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 08:11 PM   #122
jj
grumpy old skeptic
 
jj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 21,383
Originally Posted by monty1 View Post
My opinion is that they should nearly destroy it before they can eliminate the rot within it, then maybe the US can grow up, throw out it's ugly style of capitalism, and fit in with the modern world.
So you're in with the right-wing Alinskyist strategy then?
__________________
The Power to Quit
jj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 08:40 PM   #123
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,336
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
I'm confused, I thought one of the points of civic responsibility was to speak out against bad legislation before it's passed. Are you suggesting we wait first to see if it passes before we speak out against it?
I'm just saying I'd be worried more if this type of legislation regularly made it that far.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 08:51 PM   #124
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 56,604
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
I'm just saying I'd be worried more if this type of legislation regularly made it that far.
I don't think it has anything to do with being worried. When idiotic legislation is suggested I think it wrong to assume it could never pass. And bear in mind we are talking about AZ, they are quite adept at passing idiotic legislation.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 09:08 PM   #125
eeyore1954
Illuminator
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,934
Originally Posted by jj View Post
That's the date, mate. That's one of the lamest attempts on record.
It was a little lame but the beginning of the Declaration of Independence is not.
The founding fathers included god in many things. I am not saying someone should have to recite that pledge. But while I think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have really stood the test of time well I don't view them as infallible and unchangeable

Last edited by eeyore1954; 28th January 2013 at 09:11 PM.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 09:10 PM   #126
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 56,604
BTW: This is what happens when people don't speak out against bad legislation. The spike is when most people were not aware that the GOP was working very hard to take away a woman's reproductive rights. Thanks to the elections and the idiotic rhetoric from GOP candidates the people were made aware and made their voices heard. After Roe v Wade I would not have thought that was even possible.

__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 11:02 PM   #127
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 18,926
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Mao
and Obama.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 11:09 PM   #128
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 18,926
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
The founding fathers included god in many things.
Well, the phrases they used were "Nature's God" and "Creator". Such terminology was not accidental and really does differentiate their usage of the word "god" from what is usually meant in the Christian context today.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2013, 12:59 AM   #129
jj
grumpy old skeptic
 
jj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 21,383
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
It was a little lame but the beginning of the Declaration of Independence is not.
Ok, and that says exactly what. Quote it, please.

"Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" if I recall correctly. That doesn't exactly map to YHWH the way you want it to, now, does it?
__________________
The Power to Quit
jj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2013, 03:52 AM   #130
eeyore1954
Illuminator
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,934
Originally Posted by jj View Post
Ok, and that says exactly what. Quote it, please.

"Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" if I recall correctly. That doesn't exactly map to YHWH the way you want it to, now, does it?
I think that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, does map pretty well.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2013, 04:18 AM   #131
jj
grumpy old skeptic
 
jj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 21,383
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
I think that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, does map pretty well.
So, my mom what?
__________________
The Power to Quit
jj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2013, 07:00 AM   #132
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 56,604
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
I think that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, does map pretty well.
Where in the Bible, or anywhere else, does YHWH state that humans have inalienable rights? How come for around two thousand years after Abraham no one spoke of inalienable rights? How come for much of that time people believed that only kings had rights? Why were people tortured during the inquisitions if people believed in inalienable rights? Why is slavery condoned in the bible? Why is the punishment for so many things death if people have an inalienable right to life? In the Bible adulterers and fornicators are to be killed. In the Bible god instructs the Israelite to kill people who work on the Sabbath. God orders the killing of children. Where are these inalienable rights? I've read the Bible cover to cover. I served a mission and I graduated seminary, I see nothing from YHWH about inalienable rights. Other than having the word "creator" It doesn't map at all.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.

Last edited by RandFan; 29th January 2013 at 07:02 AM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2013, 08:09 AM   #133
eeyore1954
Illuminator
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,934
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Where in the Bible, or anywhere else, does YHWH state that humans have inalienable rights? How come for around two thousand years after Abraham no one spoke of inalienable rights? How come for much of that time people believed that only kings had rights? Why were people tortured during the inquisitions if people believed in inalienable rights? Why is slavery condoned in the bible? Why is the punishment for so many things death if people have an inalienable right to life? In the Bible adulterers and fornicators are to be killed. In the Bible god instructs the Israelite to kill people who work on the Sabbath. God orders the killing of children. Where are these inalienable rights? I've read the Bible cover to cover. I served a mission and I graduated seminary, I see nothing from YHWH about inalienable rights. Other than having the word "creator" It doesn't map at all.
Maybe i misunderstand what maps well is supposed to mean.
What maps well to me is the idea that the "founding fathers" thought a creator should be mentioned in the Declaration of Independence much like the people who crafted this bill also believe God should be mentioned. The bill does not say so help me YHWH or so help me Jesus or so help me any particular god just as no particular god was mentioned 200+ years ago.

I do not agree that graduates should have to speak any type of oath or allegiance to receive there diploma but I don't believe what they are asking for is a sign of "Constitution hating ".
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2013, 08:24 AM   #134
RenaissanceBiker
Eats shoots and leaves.
 
RenaissanceBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,088
Originally Posted by TimCallahan View Post
One thing I can't fathom is what believers think they will get out of forcing unbelievers to take an oath that will remain meaningless to them - other than making a statement of dominance, that is.
It's purely political grandstanding. Enforcement is impossible. Are schools required to check a box on a form indicating that a student recited the pledge before issuing a diploma? Can a student later be prosecuted for violating the pledge?
__________________
"Truth does not contradict truth." - St. Augustine
"Faith often contradicts faith. Therefore faith is not an indication of truth." - RenaissanceBiker
RenaissanceBiker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2013, 08:34 AM   #135
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,766
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
I don't know if I agree they are against the Constitution as a whole. At least not as the writers intended. The constitution ends "in the year of our lord." The Declaration of Independence says
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,"
I'm unsure what these two bits are meant to support. It sounds like you're making the "Christian nation" argument which as nothing to do with the legality of forcing people to make oaths.

At any rate, the Declaration of Independence has no legal meaning at all. The Constitution similarly uses the conventional English names for days of the week which were based on Norse gods. Would it follow that it would be legal for a state to make someone swear an oath "by Odin" or "by Thor" without an option to simply give an affirmation?


Quote:
Did anyone suggest yet in this thread that the uphold the constitution part is aimed non citizens, AKA undocumented , aka illegal aliens? I suspect it is.
I see no evidence to support that idea. It sounds like they want all high school graduates to have taken their oath. If their intention was only to require illegals to take this oath, this is a very poorly written law.
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons
JoeTheJuggler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2013, 08:40 AM   #136
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,766
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
I do not agree that graduates should have to speak any type of oath or allegiance to receive there diploma but I don't believe what they are asking for is a sign of "Constitution hating ".
Fair enough. I prefer the more conventional term "unconstitutional". If the authors of this proposed law don't reject the Constitution (or at least the First Amendment), they are either ignorant of what is says or have a terribly flawed misunderstanding of what it means.

In fact, I've been using the phrase "wrong and unconstitutional" because I believe this proposed law is both.

I also don't think it will ever become law, but it's certainly political fodder in assessing a movement within the Republican Party. I suspect the people who proposed this law are counting on more of their electorate being in favor of it (despite the legal problems) than opposed to it.
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons
JoeTheJuggler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2013, 08:46 AM   #137
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,766
Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker View Post
Enforcement is impossible. Are schools required to check a box on a form indicating that a student recited the pledge before issuing a diploma? Can a student later be prosecuted for violating the pledge?
The principal or head teacher would have to sign a document indicating that the student has recited the oath. The proposed law would make this a requirement for high school graduation.

At any rate, enforcement won't be an issue because even if this ever passes into law (it probably won't) it won't survive an injunction motion as part of a lawsuit challenging the legality of the law, and it inevitably won't survive such a lawsuit. In other words, it will never be effective law--at least not as written.

If it's amended to include an affirmation option, it might go into force, but I doubt even that. I see conflicting motives even within the same ideological base. The same people who might support this kind of thing are also strongly anti-government intrusion into personal lives. I can't see a Tea Bagger (either of conservative or libertarian stripe) supporting a requirement to recite any thing like an oath of allegiance.
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons
JoeTheJuggler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2013, 08:53 AM   #138
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,766
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
I think that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, does map pretty well.
I think the point is that you are equating theism with Deism. [ETA: Perhaps if the oath required text such as "so help me Creator who may no longer exist and has no involvement whatsoever in human activities"!]

But again, the Declaration of Independence has no legal import.

<tangent>

It was a post hoc philosophical/religious justification for using violence.

It also committed one of the biggest blunders in argumentation one can make: the assertion that the premise of your entire argument is "self evident".

Also, the whole "inalienable rights" thing is contradictory as it's worded. (If the rights really are inalienable, then why the need to cast off the rule of a tyrant? In fact, how could tyranny even be possible if rights are divinely endowed and inalienable?) </>
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 29th January 2013 at 08:54 AM.
JoeTheJuggler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2013, 11:01 AM   #139
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 56,604
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
What maps well to me is the idea that the "founding fathers" thought a creator should be mentioned in the Declaration of Independence much like the people who crafted this bill also believe God should be mentioned.
I'm sorry but I don't accept that a single point of comparison has any significant meaning.

Quote:
The bill does not say so help me YHWH or so help me Jesus or so help me any particular god just as no particular god was mentioned 200+ years ago.
For the founders the "creator" included nature. Given the light of the times, what they meant by creator and what is meant by this oath simply do not relate. At that time there were no organized and outspoken atheists. The animistic notion of gods was still the prime explanation for human existence. Thankfully the founders chose not to use the word "god" but instead chose "creator".

Quote:
I do not agree that graduates should have to speak any type of oath or allegiance to receive there diploma but I don't believe what they are asking for is a sign of "Constitution hating ".
It most certainly is counter to the concept of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion has little meaning if one cannot be free to not believe in religion. Freedom of religion is freedom of conscience. And I think we should make clear that the founders were expressing their opinion that rights are natural and not that there is a god. They did not demand that everyone agree that there is a god. They did not require that any one should take an oath to god. On the contrary, they said, "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

If public officials are not required to swear an oath to god then I would think that the founders would not be in favor of requiring private citizens to take one.

No, I have to say, I find it completely counter to the founders intentions.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.

Last edited by RandFan; 29th January 2013 at 11:17 AM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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 On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:02 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.