Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Blinn · 06-28-2002, 06:32 PM

1. Ask her why she believes the majority ruling in this case is wrong. (this assumes she has read the ruling, which, 99.9% of people commenting on this, probably have not - I hope you have). Then hold her to that.

2. This comes from the ruling - ask her if, hypothetically, had the Congress, in 1954, enacted "under no God" into the pledge, if she would believe that was a disapproval of religion.

Those two questions will pin her. For you reference, read the ruling <a href="http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/newdowus62602opn.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>

Hold her to the ruling though... don't let her take you on a tangent. This is about a court striking down a 1954 enactment adding "under God" when the Constitution explcitly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Read the ruling and then hold her argument to that ruling.

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Zetek ]

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Zetek ]</p>

Spazmatic · 06-29-2002, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Sure there is, when both sides of a debate it recognize it. It doesn't come up often, but it does happen. Besides, reread what I said, I didn't say it was a slam dunk argument. I said that it should be a slam dunk argument, if the participants confined themselves to the constitution. Of course, I labeled the statement as my own opinion.

We have different definitions then. ;-) Mine has a universal quantifier over all people. There are always times you can convince certain people... But a slam dunk argument would bring utter peace to that issue for all eternity by my definition (which might be a bit of a stretch).

But, my belief in the infinite relativity of everything kinda kills that possibility.

Lady MacDuff · 06-29-2002, 01:03 PM

Thanks all for the good angles and advice. While I may not be able to "slam dunk" my way to changing the world, I may just be able to sway my sister's opinion somewhat, or at least stun her into shutting up for a minute so I can get a word in edgewise (believe me, that is no easy task!).

Thanks again.

Faun_Otter · 06-29-2002, 03:27 PM

Here is some general help with logical debate and spotting propaganda (As in "Fox News") - try thse links:

<a href="http://home1.gte.net/rad/13myths/propanalysis.txt" target="_blank">http://home1.gte.net/rad/13myths/propanalysis.txt</a>

<a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/" target="_blank">http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/</a>

<a href="http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm" target="_blank">http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm</a>

On a more specific note, I have found it useful to ask people confused by this ruling:

Would you support the pledge if it said "one straight nation" or "One white nation" or "one male nation" ? These three examples demonstrate the flaw in inserting "under God" Your sister's arguments can then be mirrored back as racist, sexist or homophobic. There is no essential difference between excluding gays, blacks, women or atheists from full citizenship by insertion of an exclusionary and unconstitutional phrase in the pledge of allegiance.

Faun

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-28-2002, 06:32 PM	#11
Blinn Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,162	1. Ask her why she believes the majority ruling in this case is wrong. (this assumes she has read the ruling, which, 99.9% of people commenting on this, probably have not - I hope you have). Then hold her to that. 2. This comes from the ruling - ask her if, hypothetically, had the Congress, in 1954, enacted "under no God" into the pledge, if she would believe that was a disapproval of religion. Those two questions will pin her. For you reference, read the ruling <a href="http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/newdowus62602opn.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> Hold her to the ruling though... don't let her take you on a tangent. This is about a court striking down a 1954 enactment adding "under God" when the Constitution explcitly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Read the ruling and then hold her argument to that ruling. [ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Zetek ] [ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Zetek ]</p>

06-29-2002, 01:03 PM	#13
Lady MacDuff Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 180	Thanks all for the good angles and advice. While I may not be able to "slam dunk" my way to changing the world, I may just be able to sway my sister's opinion somewhat, or at least stun her into shutting up for a minute so I can get a word in edgewise (believe me, that is no easy task!). Thanks again.

06-29-2002, 03:27 PM	#14
Faun_Otter Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 6	Here is some general help with logical debate and spotting propaganda (As in "Fox News") - try thse links: <a href="http://home1.gte.net/rad/13myths/propanalysis.txt" target="_blank">http://home1.gte.net/rad/13myths/propanalysis.txt</a> <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/" target="_blank">http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/</a> <a href="http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm" target="_blank">http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm</a> On a more specific note, I have found it useful to ask people confused by this ruling: Would you support the pledge if it said "one straight nation" or "One white nation" or "one male nation" ? These three examples demonstrate the flaw in inserting "under God" Your sister's arguments can then be mirrored back as racist, sexist or homophobic. There is no essential difference between excluding gays, blacks, women or atheists from full citizenship by insertion of an exclusionary and unconstitutional phrase in the pledge of allegiance. Faun

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.