Topic: stupidity (Read 4641 times)

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #40 on:** December 15, 2005, 03:40:13 PM »

Thats a common fallacy. We are a repubic not a demmocracy.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #41 on:** December 15, 2005, 03:40:29 PM »

Thats a common fallacy. We are a repubic not a demmocracy.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #42 on:** December 15, 2005, 04:29:44 PM »

Don't be pedantic (I'm using the kindest word possible to describe your response). Of course we are a republic, and you can be sure that everyone who reads this thread is likely to know that, too. Such a petty 'clarification' would only be helpful if it mattered somehow to the question.

If we were to be even more precise, we'd point out that we have a constitutional republic, which means that part that says 'nor prohibit the free expression thereof' can't legitimately be ignored, even by the minority.

Seriously, AH, that was pathetic. Did you really that you were furthering the conversation?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #43 on:** December 15, 2005, 04:31:07 PM »

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pedantic

dark territory · « **Reply #44 on:** December 15, 2005, 04:34:53 PM »

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #45 on:** December 15, 2005, 04:49:14 PM »

It's not political to me, either. I sincerely think that the move to eliminate public references to theism is akin to cutting off one's nose to spite their face. If the rationale were to be employed to its logical end, it would mean gutting the whole balance we have in this country where the majority rules within boundaries respecting the minority. Already we have the judicial branch throwing that on it's butt. It's all well and good when the minority served is THEM but once the principle is set, the minority could be somebody else, later on, and then they'll rue the day.

To counter the very predictable and often cited argument that THEY are making that same point... "How would you feel if it were Muslims..." *gag* How would I feel? I've got a thick skin, I'd say more power to them, it is a REPUBLIC after all, and so long as my rights remain protected (there are no laws respecting my sensibilities, or ought not be), good luck to them. I will attempt to persuade enough people so that I will again be in the majority.

That's the right balance. That's the way to go. The other way is the path to tyranny, though maybe not tomorrow, or in a decade, but inevitable, nonetheless. Well, unless common sense and adherence to the rule of law is re-claimed.

dark territory · « **Reply #46 on:** December 15, 2005, 07:51:33 PM »

Ragnar · « **Reply #47 on:** December 16, 2005, 10:06:18 AM »

All of you are really missing the point by a wide margin. I just posted this, but it seems you all missed it. We are talking about PUBLIC PROPERTY. If they put a nativity scene in front of a government building, then they have to allow every group annoyed by it to put up their own display. You need to have neon evolution fish, totem poles, buddha statues, shiva statues. and by the way worshippers of shiva like to leave sacrifices at her feet. I'm sure all the Christians who work at city hall would love the stench of rotting meat as they enter work. Don't forget the upside down crosses and pentagrams for the satan worshippers. I don't know what wiccans would want to display, but I'm sure they could come up with something erotic enough to offend every christian on this board. Then you'd have some groups complaining that their display isn't prominent enough and that some other group's stuff is too big, and on and on to the point of insanity. This is what you are advocating by wanting nativity scenes in front of city hall.

The only rational policy is to display nothing at all.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #48 on:** December 16, 2005, 10:42:18 AM »

"All of you are really missing the point by a wide margin."

I don't think so. Speaking for myself, I think you missed my rebuttal.

"I just posted this, but it seems you all missed it. We are talking about PUBLIC PROPERTY."

Exactly. And that policy has been enforced by citing 'congress shall make no law establishing...' However, you are willfully ignoring the next part which says "nor prohibit the free expression thereof." If the one applies to PUBLIC PROPERTY so too does the OTHER.

"If they put a nativity scene in front of a government building, then they have to allow every group annoyed by it to put up their own display."

No, they don't. I think you must have missed my post. The Constitution does not protect sensibilities. Did you read my post? If so, and you still think your point has merit, then I suggest that you show 'every group annoyed' has the same and equal rights. Minority groups are protected in some ways from the majority, but not at the expense of the majority's rights to manifest itself within limits.

"This is what you are advocating by wanting nativity scenes in front of city hall."

Absolutely not. I know that by virtue of some SC rulings that is the case, but it need not be that way at all. If the SC and the rest of the public would pay attention to the next clause in the first amendment that says "nor prohibit the free expression thereof" then local communities could erect displays that they see fit, and not all the other ones.

"The only rational policy is to display nothing at all."

No. See, you went and did exactly what I said would be absurd to do. Here are your two arguments right now:

1. "But if someone has a problem with it then it should be taken down."
2. "If they put a nativity scene in front of a government building, then they have to allow every group annoyed by it to put up their own display." + "The only rational policy is to display nothing at all."

That reasoning is shown to be absurdly and profoundly flawed and hypocritical at best by the fact that it cannot actually be applied. For example, in relation to #1, I am a someone, I would have a problem with it being taken down, therefore by your reasoning it should be put back up.

In regards to #2, I do believe that if you displayed nothing at all, I would be in a group annoyed. So, since I'm in a group annoyed, a display should go back up.

Everyone is a 'somebody' and everyone is in a 'group annoyed.' Not everyone can get their way, even by displaying nothing or by displaying everything. There is just no logical rational way for that to work completely through and through. You have to arbitrarily stop the madness somewhere, or it will just go back and forth, if x, then y. If y, then x, ad nauseum. (In fact, you do stop the madness arbitrarily- right where it suits you).

What we need is a mechanism for pleasing the most people as possible, within reason, and protecting the rights- not the sensibilities- of the minority positions.

Lo and behold, would you believe we have such a mechanism??!??!?!?

In fact, the really rational approach is for minority groups to grow a skin.

If they don't, they are going to set the stage for a day when a minority comes along and asserts itself, like Hitler's Nazi party, and law-abiding folk will be in a real pickle on how to handle it. It's all well and good while the minority getting all the love is YOUR minority. See my response to your predicted response in my first response to your response about what happens when there is a new majority.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #49 on:** December 16, 2005, 03:40:39 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

Don't be pedantic (I'm using the kindest word possible to describe your response). Of course we are a republic, and you can be sure that everyone who reads this thread is likely to know that, too. Such a petty 'clarification' would only be helpful if it mattered somehow to the question.

If we were to be even more precise, we'd point out that we have a constitutional republic, which means that part that says 'nor prohibit the free expression thereof' can't legitimately be ignored, even by the minority.

Seriously, AH, that was pathetic. Did you really that you were furthering the conversation?

Sorry about the three post. It was either a) coputer error or b) system error.

A Republic and Democracy are way two different things. In a democracy people have direct control of their goverment. In a Republic people vote on their leaders, these leaders then control the goverment and in theory things should be done faster. In a constitutional Republic the rules are the same except there are limits to the power of the elected leaders.

Copernicus · « **Reply #50 on:** December 16, 2005, 04:23:03 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

Exactly. And that policy has been enforced by citing 'congress shall make no law establishing...' However, you are willfully ignoring the next part which says "nor prohibit the free expression thereof." If the one applies to PUBLIC PROPERTY so too does the OTHER.

Johnny, your argument that the government must allow religious displays on public property because it is prohibited from interfering with religion is sheer nonsense. The Supreme Court seems to have a better grasp of the wording than you do. They have ordered religious displays off of public property. The action of putting them up in the first place violated the Establishment Clause. No amount of obfuscation can cover up that fact.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #51 on:** December 16, 2005, 04:34:04 PM »

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #52 on:** December 16, 2005, 05:44:19 PM »

""Exactly. And that policy has been enforced by citing 'congress shall make no law establishing...' However, you are willfully ignoring the next part which says "nor prohibit the free expression thereof." If the one applies to PUBLIC PROPERTY so too does the OTHER.""

"Johnny, your argument that the government must allow religious displays on public property because it is prohibited from interfering with religion is sheer nonsense."

There are two parts to this. First of all, I am not arguing that the government must allow religious displays on public property. That is only the particular context we are discussing. You haven't seen me say anything about wanting there to be religious displays, have you?

My argument boils down to: "Dear Skeptic, do not cut off your nose in order to spite your face."

Well, also:

"Grow up, and grow a skin."

"The Supreme Court seems to have a better grasp of the wording than you do."

lol. Actually, what you mean to say is "I happen to like the SC's opinion right now."

"They have ordered religious displays off of public property. The action of putting them up in the first place violated the Establishment Clause. No amount of obfuscation can cover up that fact."

The problem with this reasoning is that it is utterly and absolutely inane. No amount of obfuscation can cover up the very clear sentence, which reads:

"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."

Now, is it really your opinion that of all these clauses, the only one that does not apply to public property is 'or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' ?

You claim to possess, along with the SC, a superior grasp of the 'wording.' Why don't you tell me precisely where it says between the word 'religion' and 'or' where a distinction is made between what happens on public and private property.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #53 on:** December 16, 2005, 05:57:35 PM »

I will now take an opportunity to clarify my position.

I don't particularly care what displays, if any, are put up on public property. Truly, as a grown man, I'm a little beyond "OMG, a representation of 'x'! I'm going to call in the lawyers!"

What I do care about is efforts that actually only serve to undermine the robustness of our democratic society. Our appreciation for the rule of law, and our ability to force ourselves to follow that law and not divorce ourselves from simple grammar and vocabulary when it comes to that law, is what makes everything tick. If some town somewhere wants to put up a nativity, and they go through the steps to do it, more power to them. If push comes to shove, and it requires some sort of legislative vote, and they do it- good for them.

The rights of the minority ought be protected, and they are, but there is no protection against being offended, and if there were, it would boil down immediatley into absurdity, and at what price?

Take the situation in my local town, where Dan "The Man" Barker came riding into town because a ten commandment monument in a public park offended some folk. The city thought it was pretty silly, but to end the problem, they simply sold part of the park to a private entity. So then the monument was on private property, not public. Was Mr. Barker and his easily offended cohorts satisfied? H-ll no. They sued, arguing that a city could not sell land to a private party [insert all sorts of nonsense here argued along with it], and initially won.

So, that's a fine thing, isn't it? Because a handful of thin-skins were offended, precedent was on its way to be created that would have denied the right to transact real estate. Because a small minority couldn't stand to see the 10 Commandments on either public OR private land, a national precedent would have been created that would have hampered the rights of everyone else simply to transfer property between two parties.

Fortunately, some court somewhere stepped in, saw that the lower courts must have been drunk out of their minds, and over turned the thing.

My concern is not political: The actual tactics on the ground are such that in order to separate 'church and state' the very fabric of our republic is being strained.

And if the right to transact real property does not constitute part of the fabric of our country, I don't know what does.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #54 on:** December 16, 2005, 06:04:12 PM »

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/16/patriot.act/

""We are a democracy -- let's have checks and balances," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, in an impassioned speech."

Hey AH, I guess even Senator Leahy doesn't know what kind of government we have in this country.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #55 on:** December 19, 2005, 03:39:34 PM »

Reminds me of the title of this thread. Stupidity. But then again I am not going as far as to say I don't have stupidity either. There are things we are all stupid at. For sntjohnny it's science. For me it's typing errors.

Copernicus · « **Reply #56 on:** December 19, 2005, 08:15:21 PM »

Sntjohnny, as far as I can tell, your position boils down to the claim that nativity scenes cannot be removed from public property because the act of removing them would be an act of prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Is that a reasonable description of your position?

dark territory · « **Reply #57 on:** January 14, 2006, 08:23:51 PM »

The Sasquatch · « **Reply #58 on:** January 17, 2006, 02:27:00 PM »

I just wanted to pop in and address this:

Quote

And as for always being made the bad guy, come on! The English were the stock bad guys in Holywood movies for decades.

That's because you Brits ARE evil. I thought that was obvious.

Author Topic: stupidity (Read 4641 times)