Freethought & Rationalism Archive

3DChizl · 08-12-2002, 10:40 AM

It would be nice for someone to put togeather a strategy notebook on how to approach different situations. Your average person doesn't have a clear outlook on how to bring these things up in public without "outing" themselves.

I don't care if anyone knows I'm an atheist, but it would be a real issue with family members' co-workers.

Copernic · 08-12-2002, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bokonon:
[QB]But we are not going to do nothing unless we make our friends, our families, our co-workers, our neighbors, and whomever may listen aware of these concerns.
QB]

It's amazing how strong, conservative, religious Xtians can be swayed, if not brought into agreement with the 9th Circuit Court, at least be neutral on the subject. It starts by appealing to their fundamental aversion to gov't intrusion.

The conversation, in my experience, starts out with the particulars of faith and rolls into "...So we can agree that one's relationship with God is a highly personal one."

I would follow with... "So what role do you think a government agency should play in describing, for everyone, the nature of God and His relationship with each and every one of us? Do you have faith in your federal gov't to accurately describe your personal relationship with God?...Or is it only because you agree with this particular gov't statement that it's OK?"

This allows me to more or less point out that if, as a conservative Xtian, you are more concerned with maintaining principle, then you should support the 9th Circuit's decision. If however, your conscious is situationally-driven then, by all means..."

Just a weak rant on my part.

Defiant Heretic · 08-13-2002, 12:25 AM

In response to Alonzo's response to my response to the original topic:

Quote:

If you attack religion in your letter, you are turning 80% of the population against you and guaranteeing enough votes to pass any amendment.

I never intended to attack religion (not here anyway). The only ones I'm attacking are the politicians, whom I consider to be completely spineless when it comes to standing up for what's right. The letters I've sent so far have usually concentrated on how this country was founded to protect the rights of the minority.

Quote:

I think that crossing out "In God We Trust" from the money is a bad idea. Most people who see it will think of it as an attack on God -- an anti- religious statement.

I generally add a message of my own in order to clarify my position. Generally it's something short like "Support a Secular Nation" or "E. Pluribus Unum", but occasionally I copy the entire establishment clause in order to make my objection clear.

Quote:

If your "large percentage of the voters" is 50% or less, then you are telling those synchophants that they benefit more by supporting your opponents then they benefit by supporting you.

You're assuming that everyone cares strongly about this issue. If half of the voters base their votes on other issues, then that 20% becomes something the politicians have to worry about.

scombrid · 08-13-2002, 06:49 AM

There's a topic in RR&P today on the crap that passes as information on the internet. Why is it that the fundamentalists are the kings of crap?

<a href="http://www.wepledge.com/purpose.asp" target="_blank">Here</a> the AFA quoted Judge Reinhardt of the ninth circuit as saying in a decision on assisted suicide:

Quote:

"Those with strong moral or religious convictions...are not free to force their views, their religious convictions, or their philosophies on all of the members of the democratic society."

Of course they didn't provide any citation for the quote, no docket number, no plaintiff names, nothing. Fortunately I took some courses in environmental law and policy and remembered how to use Findlaw. Using the name Reinhardt and the keywords "assisted suicide" I got a small list of decisions from the 9th Circuit to read to find the quote. I found the actual quote <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/9th/9435534.html" target="_blank">here</a> about halfway through the long tedious document. This is a better example of dishonest quote mining than the creationists usually use.

Full paragraph with the quote in bold

Quote:

There is one final point we must emphasize. Some argue strongly that decisions regarding matters affecting life or death should not be made by the courts. Essentially, we agree with that proposition. In this case, by permitting the individual to exercise the right to choose we are following the constitutional mandate to take such decisions out of the hands of the government, both state and federal, and to put them where they rightly belong, in the hands of the people. We are allowing individuals to make the decisions that so profoundly affect their very existence -- and precluding the state from intruding excessively into that critical realm. The Constitution and the courts stand as a bulwark between individual freedom and arbitrary and intrusive governmental power. Under our constitutional system, neither the state nor the majority of the people in a state can impose its will upon the individual in a matter so highly "central to personal dignity and autonomy," Casey, 112 S.Ct. at 2807. Those who believe strongly that death must come without physician assistance are free to follow that creed, be they doctors or patients. They are not free, however, to force their views, their religious convictions, or their philosophies on all the other members of a democratic society, and to compel those whose values differ with theirs to die painful, protracted, and agonizing deaths.

Not only did they chop out important bits of the quote to take away context and shoehorn it to their agenda, they changed his words and called it a quote. Is that legal?

They changed "Those who believe strongly that death must come without physician assistance..." to "Those with strong moral or religious convictions...".

This seems to go beyond dishonest to illegal.

Not only that, after they mis-quote him to discredit him, they say this

Quote:

In other words, Judge Reinhardt thinks that people with strong moral and religious views should not be allowed to vote on matters such as assisted suicide

based on that mis-quote. Isn't that slanderous?

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: scombrid ]</p>

RichardMorey · 08-13-2002, 08:42 AM

Wow. Most of the time I try to give fundamentalists the benefit of the doubt, but this is just a bald-faced lie.

I am writing an article about these misrepresentations. Do you mind, scombrid, if I take advantage of your research use this? I'll name you when I cite it if you like.

RichardMorey · 08-13-2002, 08:54 AM

Reindhardt says in the same decision, "We also acknowledge that judicial acceptance of physician-assisted suicide would cause many sincere persons with strong moral or religious convictions great distress."

Then,several PAGES later, says the remainder of what they attributed to him.

RichardMorey · 08-13-2002, 09:27 AM

I sent the follwing letter to the man listed as the author of that page at wepledge.com.

To: afa@afa.net
Subject: Don Wildmon/Carpenter

As I'm sure you are aware, Exodus 20:16 commands, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

On the American Family Association website wepledge.com, you have done just that several times. At <a href="http://www.wepledge.com/purpose.asp," target="_blank">http://www.wepledge.com/purpose.asp,</a> in a letter signed in your name, it is claimed that Judge Reinhardt said:

"Those with strong moral or religious convictions...are not free to force their views, their religious convictions, or their philosophies on all of the members of the democratic society."

What the judge actually said was this:

�We also acknowledge that judicial acceptance of physician-assisted suicide would cause many sincere persons with strong moral or religious convictions great distress.� And then, several pages later, Reinhardt says: �Those who believe strongly that death must come without physician assistance are free to follow that creed, be they doctors or patients. They are not free, however, to force their views, their religious convictions, or their philosophies on all the other members of a democratic society, and to compel those whose values differ with theirs to die painful, protracted, and agonizing deaths.�

You have joined two sentences, separated by pages, together to make Judge Reinhardt appear to say something he did not say. Why not quote him accurately?
You then go on to infer from this gross misrepresentation that Reinhardt ruled "that the only people allowed to participate in our democracy should be those without "strong moral or religious convictions.""
He ruled nothing even remotely close to that. This is a lie.

Further down the page, you say that:
"Because of one atheist and two radical, liberal judges, in the future our children may not be able to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school! . . .all it will take is FIVE JUDGES of the Supreme Court voting to make it illegal for school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance! PERMANENTLY!! FOREVER!!"

This is also a misrepresentation. Newdow v. U.S. Congress, whether you agree with it or not, if it stands, did not make it illegal to say the pledge, even with "under God." It made it illegal for the government to 1. Take sides on a religious issue and 2. encourage children to affirm on position of a religious issue. Any schoolchild can recite the Pledge with "under God" in it if they like, just as they can pray if they like.

For an organization that prides itself in its integrity you have made some horrible misrepresentations. I encourage you to correct them at your first opportunity and issue a retraction on the main page of wepledge.com. Though, you may correctly guess that not many will take the time to find out the truth, you now know and it is your responsibility to do something about an inaccurate letter in your name.

May you have the integrity to admit you are wrong.

theyeti · 08-13-2002, 10:55 AM

Good letter! And nice research, scombrid. I knew just by looking at that quote that it was fishy.

In addition to the aforementioned dishonesty, I would also point out that the "radical liberal judge" who wrote the majority opinion is a Prespyterian (sp?) elder, a WWII vet, and a Nixon appointee. Trying to label him as a "liberal" is flat-out misleading.

theyeti

hezekiah jones · 08-13-2002, 11:42 AM

These idiots pull this type of shit all the time, and, as scombrid has demonstrated, it's often relatively easy to catch them on it.

Here's a letter I sent to Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel a few months ago:

Quote:

Dear Mr. Staver:

On January 15, 2002, under the heading "Supreme Court Justice Promotes Judicial Activism" you posted the following commentary on your website:

"Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer promoted his concept of judicial activism in a speech given at the New York University School of Law [given nearly three months ago, by the way]. In his speech, Justice Breyer stated that 'Literalist judges who emphasize language, history, tradition and precedent cannot justify their practices by claiming that is what the framers wanted.' This is an incredible statement by a Supreme Court Judge."

Incredible? Not really. What is incredible, however, is how you completely removed this phrase from its proper context. In fact, there is no period at the end of the phrase you lifted, but rather a comma, and the sentence goes on to read: "for the Framers did not say specifically what factors judges should emphasize when seeking to interpret the Constitution's open language." This is not "an incredible statement" at all. It's a fact, and a fact that has informed the debate surrounding the so-called doctrine of original intent for many, many decades.

You also fail to mention that appended to this particular sentence of Justice Breyer's is a footnoted reference to "Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution," by Jack Rakove, a Pulitzer Prize-winning law professor at Stanford University. You do understand that your omissions are quite an egregious breach of commonly accepted academic practice regarding citations, do you not?

You then proceed to pose the following presumably rhetorical question:

"If a judge interpreting the Constitution or a statute does not consider language, history, tradition or precedent, then what does a judge consider?"

Why not let Justice Breyer answer that question? He does, in the same speech from which you misleadingly lifted the quotation above:

"Judges can, and should, decide most cases, including constitutional cases, through the use of language, history, tradition, and precedent. Judges will often agree as to how these factors determine a provision's basic purpose and the result in a particular case. And where they differ, their differences are often differences of modest degree. Only a handful of constitutional issues - though an important handful -- are as open in respect to language, history, and basic purpose as those that I have described. And even in respect to those issues, judges must find answers within the limits set by the Constitution's language. Moreover, history, tradition, and precedent remain helpful, even if not determinative."

Did you miss that part? It makes me wonder whether you actually read the entire text of Justice Breyer's speech, which, incidentally, is available at the U.S. Supreme Court's official website. Unlike the publication you're flogging at the end of your "news item," you don't even have to pay for it.

You go on to remark, with a logic derived seemingly from your apparent deliberate misquoting:

"The only thing left is the judge's own personal opinion, which is cut free from the Constitution or the statutory language."

What are you suggesting here? That Justice Breyer decides Constitutional issues based entirely on his own personal opinion, utterly disregarding Constitutional "language, history, tradition, and precedent"? You know as well as I do that this is entirely preposterous. In fact, the substance of Justice Breyer's complete speech maintains the exact opposite of what you are attempting to make him say.

Interestingly, your context garbling is mirrored by several of your ideological allies, the most noteworthy (and comical) being Janet Folger, who writes, "In other words, Justice Breyer doesn't really hold the Constitution in high regard." Can she really be serious? I think she is - which speaks volumes for her credibility, and even more for her familiarity with Constitutional jurisprudence. Coincidentally, Folger's comment is based on exactly the same misapplied fragment of Justice Breyer's sentence that you have excised and posted on your own website. Coincidence?

Despite the laughable disingenuousness of your effort on this particular subject, I hope you keep up the good work, even in the face of your demonstrably woeful inability to perform even the most rudimentary research. There is always a shortage of unintentional comedy out there.

Regards,

Of course I received no response, but I hope you guys do.

Staver is one of the few people that can simultaneously gives attorneys and christians a bad name.

scombrid · 08-13-2002, 12:20 PM

Good letter RichardMorey. I posted that info with the intent of somebody using it. It would really be nice if somebody that lives out in the land of the 9th circuit could bring this sort of lieing to the attention of the courts. I doubt a justice sitting on the court of appeals condones this sort of "word play".

The reason that this sort of dishonesty bothers me so much is that the target audience of that partition will eat up every word as if it's <ahem> gospel truth. Only those of us that are already skeptical of the message will say "Hey, that doesn't sound quite right. And look, there's no source citation. Something's fishy."

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

08-12-2002, 10:40 AM	#21
3DChizl Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: West Virginia Posts: 160	It would be nice for someone to put togeather a strategy notebook on how to approach different situations. Your average person doesn't have a clear outlook on how to bring these things up in public without "outing" themselves. I don't care if anyone knows I'm an atheist, but it would be a real issue with family members' co-workers.

08-13-2002, 08:42 AM	#25
RichardMorey Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Missouri Posts: 112	Wow. Most of the time I try to give fundamentalists the benefit of the doubt, but this is just a bald-faced lie. I am writing an article about these misrepresentations. Do you mind, scombrid, if I take advantage of your research use this? I'll name you when I cite it if you like.

08-13-2002, 08:54 AM	#26
RichardMorey Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Missouri Posts: 112	Reindhardt says in the same decision, "We also acknowledge that judicial acceptance of physician-assisted suicide would cause many sincere persons with strong moral or religious convictions great distress." Then,several PAGES later, says the remainder of what they attributed to him.

08-13-2002, 09:27 AM	#27
RichardMorey Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Missouri Posts: 112	I sent the follwing letter to the man listed as the author of that page at wepledge.com. To: afa@afa.net Subject: Don Wildmon/Carpenter As I'm sure you are aware, Exodus 20:16 commands, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." On the American Family Association website wepledge.com, you have done just that several times. At <a href="http://www.wepledge.com/purpose.asp," target="_blank">http://www.wepledge.com/purpose.asp,</a> in a letter signed in your name, it is claimed that Judge Reinhardt said: "Those with strong moral or religious convictions...are not free to force their views, their religious convictions, or their philosophies on all of the members of the democratic society." What the judge actually said was this: �We also acknowledge that judicial acceptance of physician-assisted suicide would cause many sincere persons with strong moral or religious convictions great distress.� And then, several pages later, Reinhardt says: �Those who believe strongly that death must come without physician assistance are free to follow that creed, be they doctors or patients. They are not free, however, to force their views, their religious convictions, or their philosophies on all the other members of a democratic society, and to compel those whose values differ with theirs to die painful, protracted, and agonizing deaths.� You have joined two sentences, separated by pages, together to make Judge Reinhardt appear to say something he did not say. Why not quote him accurately? You then go on to infer from this gross misrepresentation that Reinhardt ruled "that the only people allowed to participate in our democracy should be those without "strong moral or religious convictions."" He ruled nothing even remotely close to that. This is a lie. Further down the page, you say that: "Because of one atheist and two radical, liberal judges, in the future our children may not be able to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school! . . .all it will take is FIVE JUDGES of the Supreme Court voting to make it illegal for school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance! PERMANENTLY!! FOREVER!!" This is also a misrepresentation. Newdow v. U.S. Congress, whether you agree with it or not, if it stands, did not make it illegal to say the pledge, even with "under God." It made it illegal for the government to 1. Take sides on a religious issue and 2. encourage children to affirm on position of a religious issue. Any schoolchild can recite the Pledge with "under God" in it if they like, just as they can pray if they like. For an organization that prides itself in its integrity you have made some horrible misrepresentations. I encourage you to correct them at your first opportunity and issue a retraction on the main page of wepledge.com. Though, you may correctly guess that not many will take the time to find out the truth, you now know and it is your responsibility to do something about an inaccurate letter in your name. May you have the integrity to admit you are wrong.

08-13-2002, 10:55 AM	#28
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	Good letter! And nice research, scombrid. I knew just by looking at that quote that it was fishy. In addition to the aforementioned dishonesty, I would also point out that the "radical liberal judge" who wrote the majority opinion is a Prespyterian (sp?) elder, a WWII vet, and a Nixon appointee. Trying to label him as a "liberal" is flat-out misleading. theyeti

08-13-2002, 12:20 PM	#30
scombrid Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Central Florida Posts: 2,759	Good letter RichardMorey. I posted that info with the intent of somebody using it. It would really be nice if somebody that lives out in the land of the 9th circuit could bring this sort of lieing to the attention of the courts. I doubt a justice sitting on the court of appeals condones this sort of "word play". The reason that this sort of dishonesty bothers me so much is that the target audience of that partition will eat up every word as if it's <ahem> gospel truth. Only those of us that are already skeptical of the message will say "Hey, that doesn't sound quite right. And look, there's no source citation. Something's fishy."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.