Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dk · 10-13-2002, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DigitalChicken:


Where do you come up with these fantasies?

Incorrect again. When I say, "The only petition that would make that legal would be one that would lead to a Constitutional amendment," I mean that a petition, regardless of how popular or how persuasive it might be, doesn't amount to a hill of !@#$ if its not constitutional. The "that" I refer to is Biblical instruction in schools.

So my statement is correct. A petition demanding biblical instruction in schools doesn't mean squat if end result is unconstitutional. However, a petition which eventually led to states and the congress into amending the Constitutional *would* amount to much more that "squat."

DC

Today, the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the constitution anyway they see fit. Where in the constitution does it say the Supreme Court can pick a president? Answer: Nowhere. That's why its wrong to enact social reforms through the judiciary, what one court giveth, another can just as easily taketh away.

Rusting Car Bumper · 10-14-2002, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk:

Today, the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the constitution anyway they see fit. Where in the constitution does it say the Supreme Court can pick a president? Answer: Nowhere. That's why its wrong to enact social reforms through the judiciary, what one court giveth, another can just as easily taketh away.

That's wonderful but it doesn't have anything to do with the comments I made and your misreading of them.

DC

dk · 10-14-2002, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DigitalChicken:


That's wonderful but it doesn't have anything to do with the comments I made and your misreading of them.

DC

Your statement was fallacious, you explained "..I think most atheists are against it because it is Unconstitutional." This simply is not a reason but an appeal to authority (argument to veneration )

Rusting Car Bumper · 10-14-2002, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk:
Your statement was fallacious, you explained "..I think most atheists are against it because it is Unconstitutional." This simply is not a reason but an appeal to authority (argument to veneration )

No. Its a statement of fact. Its a statement about the state of affairs in my head.

I think [meaning "I believe to be true"] most atheists are against it because its Unconstitutional."

I did not prescribe that others think the same way I do and I did not forward this as some sort of argument. Thus saying its an "appeal to authority" is simply incorrect. I was not forwarding an argument with a conclusion with regards to that particular segment you quoted.

DC

dk · 10-14-2002, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DigitalChicken:


No. Its a statement of fact. Its a statement about the state of affairs in my head.

I think [meaning "I believe to be true"] most atheists are against it because its Unconstitutional."

I did not prescribe that others think the same way I do and I did not forward this as some sort of argument. Thus saying its an "appeal to authority" is simply incorrect. I was not forwarding an argument with a conclusion with regards to that particular segment you quoted.

DC

Next year the Supreme Court might change their mind, and say vocal group prayer is constitutional in public school. At which time prayer in public schools would become constitutional. Do you really think atheists will suddenly change their mind about school prayer? I doubt it. So you�ve given a fallacious explanation. It would be correct to say "I think most atheists think school prayer is unconstitutional.".

Rusting Car Bumper · 10-14-2002, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk:


Next year the Supreme Court might change their mind, and say vocal group prayer is constitutional in public school. At which time prayer in public schools would become constitutional. Do you really think atheists will suddenly change their mind about school prayer?

We weren't talking about a "vocal group prayer." We were talking about a petition to invoke religous education in public schools. Speaking of comitting fallacies please don't rush to a hasty generalization.

By the way, in many cases a group prayer is legal now and Constitutional.

DC

Dark Jedi · 10-14-2002, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk:


Next year the Supreme Court might change their mind, and say vocal group prayer is constitutional in public school. At which time prayer in public schools would become constitutional. Do you really think atheists will suddenly change their mind about school prayer? I doubt it. So you�ve given a fallacious explanation. It would be correct to say "I think most atheists think school prayer is unconstitutional.".

There is a flaw in your reasoning. group prayer is allowed. It is allowed to be vocal.
It cannot be mandated or lead by a faculty member, and it cannot have a captive audience.

If prayer were outlawed in school, I most certainly would protest, as that is a clear violation of religious freedom.
So long as prayer is not forced on anyone, it is the realm of the individual's right. I will always fight for the individual's right.

Example: The reverend Fred Phelps. I support his right to protest as he does, so long as that protest does not infringe on the rights of others (he goes too far quite often)

I think it's deplorable, delusional, and disgusting, but I support his right to do it.

Just as I support my right to counter-protest him...

dk · 10-15-2002, 02:27 AM

Dark Jedi:There is a flaw in your reasoning. group prayer is allowed. It is allowed to be vocal.
It cannot be mandated or lead by a faculty member, and it cannot have a captive audience.
If prayer were outlawed in school, I most certainly would protest, as that is a clear violation of religious freedom.
So long as prayer is not forced on anyone, it is the realm of the individual's right. I will always fight for the individual's right.
dk: It�s fallacious to explain religious language in terms of the constitution, if the constitution is interpreted as a secular document.
----------------------------------
Dark Jedi: I think it's deplorable, delusional, and disgusting, but I support his right to do it. Just as I support my right to counter-protest him.. Fallacies confuse, so
dk: Here�s the problem. Religious language is censored in some areas of public school. Where religious language is censored, disinformation can�t be corrected by the offended groups. Using your example, a teacher in a current events class broadly lumps all fundamental Christians into the same pile, as deplorable delusional and disgusting like Phelps. Jerry Farewell can�t respond in the classroom because he�s been censored.

dk · 10-15-2002, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DigitalChicken:


We weren't talking about a "vocal group prayer." We were talking about a petition to invoke religous education in public schools. Speaking of comitting fallacies please don't rush to a hasty generalization.

By the way, in many cases a group prayer is legal now and Constitutional.

DC

So is school prayer constitutional or unconstitutional. To say, (I paraphrase) "Athiests oppose school prayer because its unconstitutional", is fallacous.

I think we agree.

Arrowman · 10-15-2002, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk:
It's fallacious to explain religious language in terms of the constitution, if the constitution is interpreted as a secular document.

Er - care to expand on this? I don't follow (and I doubt Dark Jedi does, either).

Quote:

So is school prayer constitutional or unconstitutional. To say, (I paraphrase) "Athiests oppose school prayer because its unconstitutional", is fallacous.
I think we agree.

So, the point which has been made (repeatedly) about the difference between organised (school-led) and individual prayer has gone completely over your head? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

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

10-15-2002, 02:27 AM	#28
dk Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Denver Posts: 1,774	Dark Jedi:There is a flaw in your reasoning. group prayer is allowed. It is allowed to be vocal. It cannot be mandated or lead by a faculty member, and it cannot have a captive audience. If prayer were outlawed in school, I most certainly would protest, as that is a clear violation of religious freedom. So long as prayer is not forced on anyone, it is the realm of the individual's right. I will always fight for the individual's right. dk: It�s fallacious to explain religious language in terms of the constitution, if the constitution is interpreted as a secular document. ---------------------------------- Dark Jedi: I think it's deplorable, delusional, and disgusting, but I support his right to do it. Just as I support my right to counter-protest him.. Fallacies confuse, so dk: Here�s the problem. Religious language is censored in some areas of public school. Where religious language is censored, disinformation can�t be corrected by the offended groups. Using your example, a teacher in a current events class broadly lumps all fundamental Christians into the same pile, as deplorable delusional and disgusting like Phelps. Jerry Farewell can�t respond in the classroom because he�s been censored.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.