Alternative Constitutional systems

[Guest Paul]

Promising to back up your criticism, eh?  I appreciate your promise to do so without me having to drag it out of you.

Philosophers who didn't run for political office weren't espousing atheism either, champ. 

Have a look at this list of notable philosophers.

http://www.adherents.com/adh_phil.html

The earliest one identified as an atheist is Schopenhauer (1788-1860).

Your theory's all well and good--there's just no real evidence to support it.  In effect, you're trying to reshape the universe to conform to your beliefs.  Atheism was not a respectable intellectual position.  That is why it was both politically and socially untenable even in intellectual circles.

I also ignored the fact that aluminum cans didn't always have pop tops and the fact that helium can allow people to talk in high, squeaky voices.

It's up to you to point out the relevance of what I'm ignoring.  It's not like the Constitution is the only window into the worldview of the Framers, and the Worldview of the Framers is the topic.

Seems that way, does it?  Quote me.

So the United States didn't exist until 1787?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blconstday.htm

What moron was it that made the error that resulted in a bicentennial celebration in 1976?  What nation's flag did Washington fight under during the Revolutionary War?

http://www.williams.edu/resources/chapin/e...s/founding.html

It went one step further than that.  It declared independence.

And, just maybe, Jefferson was also a Templar and was a descendent of Jesus himself.  Why else would he praise Jesus' teachings to the extent he did while denying the miraculous?

"Guest," your post is positively bursting with oodles of unintended irony.

So far, you've got the "crippling flaw" that I ignore the secular nature of the text of the Constitution, though you haven't made any case as to why I should have mentioned it.

You followed that up with some rather fanciful musings apparently intended to build the case that atheism was fairly common among the truly intelligent of those latter days, but they couldn't afford to allow it to be known because it would hurt their political careers.

You forgot to mention, of course, that you don't have any real evidence supporting that view.

On that point you're right, but I think the fact that it would take years to understand the writings and actions of the Framers in their totality is a reasonable excuse for not bogging the discussion down into a morass of agnosticism.  Whatever else they wrote, the Framers put together the Declaration of Independence.  If you wish to claim that I'm putting too much focus on minor portions of that document, then make a case for that claim.  On the other hand, if you wish to claim that some particular aspect of writings of the time places new light on the DoI, then make a case for that.

And your claim that I refuse to look at the legal framework they actually left us is simply false.  We were given a framework that restricted the federal government as to religion while leaving state and local governments free to act in that realm.  I provided a quote from one of Jefferson's letters that illustrates that point in what I would call an unequivocal manner--and far from being steadfastly unwilling to discuss it, I'd love for somebody from your side to treat that issue.

I've had the impression they're ducking that one.

We can't just take it out of a dictionary. We have to look at history and meaning in their totality. That leaves the door open for revisionism, no doubt, but Bryan's method does the same thing to an even greater degree.

That's baloney.  I'm trying to get Paul to describe what he means by "secular world view."  It's not a good choice of terms for advocating separation of church and state, but I'd accept that explanation from him even though he ends up looking rather silly for painting the Deists as pro-church/state separation and theists as anti-church/state separation.

If you think I've revised history in any way, shape, or form, I expect you to give a specific example.

Contrrary to Bryan's bald assertion, there was a prevailing of one side over the other. The Framers considered putting "God" into the Constitution, and voted down those who proposed to do that.

Except I was talking about the Declaration of Independence, not about the Constitution ("Moreover, there was no prevailing of one side over the other. The two sides met on common ground; the theists signed the DoI because it expressed their point of view on the matter.").

Moreover, our illustrious "Guest" has made no move to establish theist/Deist groups in opposition on the god issue in the Constitution.  I don't think he could do it.

One side prevailed, and the losing side wasn't happy about it, but to their credit recognized the importance of founding a nation and agreed to support the Constitution. The claim that one side did not prevail is simply false.

What's false is calling false a claim made about the DoI by substituting a different situation respecting the Constitution.

It has nothing to do with the DoI, which is not a legally binding document under the laws of the United States. It never has been.

There's been a book published, IIRC, that makes the opposite case.  I've had trouble finding it just now, but the gist of it is that the DoI and other documents were declared founding documents (or some similar language) by an act of Congress.  A rather long time ago, as it happens.

You should be careful about making statements that may be flatly false.

The DoI predates our nation's founding and as such has no legal effect.

The DoI, in effect, appeals to inter (or perhaps super) national law in justifying the break with England.  You might not agree with the appeal, but it's there.

Courts refer to it sometimes as part of our cultural and national heritage, but it does not have the force of law today or at any time since the United States of America was founded. Bryan's fallacy here is in the false assumption that the Declaration of Independence is the official and legally binding foundation for anything under the jurisdiction of the USA. It is not.

Guest's flaw here is the straw man fallacy.

I don't refer to the Declaration of Independence as being legally binding.  I refer to it as an excellent measure of the worldview of the Framers.

Bryan then speculates about how long the secular purpose test has informed US law. I do not know of any time in our history when government under the US Constitution was allowed to base its laws on anything but secular purposes.

Add to that the fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

You'd be the sort of person to discern a secular purpose in designating chaplains, I expect.

In Section 9 of An Act to Provide for Calling Forth the Militia to Execute the Laws of the Union, Suppress Insurrection, etc., approved 18 April 1814, Congress declared: "Regimental chaplains in the militia which have been, or shall be, called into the service of the United States, shall receive the same monthly pay and rations as a captain of Infantry with the addition of forage for one horse."

There was a time when the federal courts stayed out of internal state issues (even when a state crushed fundamental human rights), but that ended with adoption of the 14th Amendment. The fact that Bryan is willing to return us to the system that allowed men to enslave and beat other men, sell their families, etc., at their pleasure says more about the lengths to which Bryan will go to try to shape the world into his vision (and the pathological indifference to human rights and human suffering in that vision) than it does about the world or the legal system today.

As I pointed out to Paul, the slaves were freed prior to passage of the 14th Amendment (see the 13th Amendment, or the Gettysburg Address if you like).  Apparently the slaves could be freed without the 14th Amendment.  But I'm just going by history and facts, unlike "Guest" so what do I know?

The secular purpose test certainly predates Lemon in 1971, since that case cites an earlier case citing the test.

Show us.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getc...l=403&invol=602

However, it must be remembered that these religious freedom cases began to emerge mainly after World War II. The mere absence of a stated principle in the case law does not mean that the principle did not exist in the law, but only that the courts had not found occasion to announce it explicitly.

May we at least see where the principle existed in the law, then?

No doubt a Constitutional scholar could shed more light on the issue, but to what end? The secular purpose test is part of our law, and it is necessary if we are to have any hope of living together as a religiously, culturally and ethnically diverse nation of 300 million people and growing. It's not enough to say that you favor a different system. You must be able to think through how that system would work. Bryan steadfastly refuses to do that, too.

Huh.  Repeating Paul's lie (and I'll grant Paul the moral benefit of the doubt in using the term to simply mean a false statement).

The system worked from 1776 through the Civil War period, prior to the 14th Amendment.  States could and did pass laws that touched religious issues--and the exercised enough restraint that Paul's side has so far been able to resist calling the first half of US existence a theocracy.

This demand that I describe how the system would work is just a silly piece of obfuscation.  Pick up a history book if you want to see how it worked.

This next part is just funny. Bryan wrote (see above): "And it does no good to dismiss the people as 'superstitious'; approximately half of all witch cases ended in acquittal, so the benighted pre-enlightenment masses were largely skeptical.  In many of the other cases there would have been evidence that the accused actually performed actions intended to bring ill to their neighbors.  The science of the day would have discerned cause and effect (science back then was just as capable of being wrong as modern science)."

What an incredible feat of mental gymnastics! Consider the breathtaking fallacies in just a few sentences:

Fallacy 1: Half of people accused of being witches were acquitted; therefore, the people of the time were skeptical, not superstitious. (If you don't get how ridiculous this is, don't even bother, because you don't get it.)

Another straw man from "Guest," as he transforms "largely skeptical" into "skeptical, not superstitious."

The evidence of the time indicates that judges and juries in witch trial cases heard the evidence and weighed it with an overall skeptical eye.

Consider the case of Anne Gunter.

In the end, the charade failed, and Anne Gunter passed into obscurity until Professor Sharpe, an authority on the history of witchcraft, revived her case.

His account shows that the Jacobeans were not as credulous as we suppose.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m099...321/ai_65130579

But of course all I've got is evidence presented by an expert.  Not a straw man fallacy combined with a fallacious appeal to ridicule as with "Guest."

Fallacy 2: If someone does something that could harm a neighbor, that makes a charge of witchery legitimate.

Another straw man.

It is a legitimate concern of a society if people are deliberately plotting actions that would harm their neighbors, whether or not the actions could be successful in principle.  One who picks up toy guns routinely and attempts to shoot people with them serves as an example.  His actions show him to be a danger to society based on his behavior.  The same holds true in principle for one who would attempt to kill somebody else's livestock through dubious means.

Another parallel would be conspiracy laws.  Is there any harm in merely plotting to murder someone?  Surely the crime is in the attempt, right?

Fallacy 3: Belief in witches can be compared to modern science.

That's not a fallacy.

People believed in witches because they observed cause and effect.  Person X curses horse G, horse G dies.  And typically it took a number of such instances for a witch (except in the case of witch panics) to acquire a reputation for attempting evil via magic.  They used the same principles that modern science uses, except they didn't test as rigorously and they did a poor job of communicating and sharing the results (the culture wasn't particularly literate).

Today, right now, it would be reasonable to test a person who seemed to have the ability to cause animals to get sick and die via putting a curse on them.  If the correspondence were consistent, it would be called a natural law eventually (the law of Broomhilda's cattle-cursing or something like that).

I'd finish this off with other points, but that pretty much says it. Bryan's central organizing principle is that he is right. End of story. And for him, it is the end of the story because that's where he stops.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you've proven it with the magic of fallacious reasoning, with particular reliance on straw man construction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Translation: "It's only a flesh wound!" Bryan, the writer wasted you. Let's address just a few points, putting Bryan's remarks "in quote."

"So far, you've got the 'crippling flaw' that I ignore the secular nature of the text of the Constitution, though you haven't made any case as to why I should have mentioned it." Because it is the supreme law of our country, and we're talking about legal rights and responsibilities. When someone makes a statement like Bryan's, it calls everything else he writes into question.

"So the United States didn't exist until 1787?" The USA, which is a law-based entity, and our legal system did not exist until that time. That is correct.

"What moron was it that made the error that resulted in a bicentennial celebration in 1976? What nation's flag did Washington fight under during the Revolutionary War?" It wasn't an error. We celebrate American independence. That doesn't mean that our legal framework was in place. The mere fact that a symbol was retained when the present government was formed is what doesn't mean much here. Our discussion is about our legal system, including religious rights. That framework did not exist until the Constitution was adopted and the USA was formed. That happened over a two-year period beginning in 1787, when the Constitution was drafted. We didn't become the USA until the states adopted the Constitution, and that didn't happen immediately. The first president took office in the spring of 1789. That is when the USA took its present legal form.

"And, just maybe, Jefferson was also a Templar and was a descendent of Jesus himself. Why else would he praise Jesus' teachings to the extent he did while denying the miraculous?" Because he lived in a culture where Jesus' teachings held sway. He was probably most familiar with them. I still quote the Bible, too, especially most of the parables, often in glowing terms. Does that make me a Christian?

"I'm trying to get Paul to describe what he means by 'secular world view.'" I described that clearly, writing that in a secular government human life concerns are paramount, as opposed to concerns about what happens to us after we die.

"And your claim that I refuse to look at the legal framework they actually left us is simply false. We were given a framework that restricted the federal government as to religion while leaving state and local governments free to act in that realm. " It isn't false. Guest correctly observes that the DoI is not a legally binding document under the laws of the USA. It couldn't be, because it predates the USA, and there's nothing in it that could be read as law. It's a case for separation from Britain, a manifesto, a declaration. That isn't written the same way as a legal document. It was a political and cultural document. As for the framework the framers gave us, that framework established a set of principles, one of which was religious liberty for everyone. That command was made applicable to the states via the 14th Amendment. I know you recognize that, except when it comes time to apply it. Then you don't.

"Except I was talking about the Declaration of Independence, not about the Constitution . . ." And that's the problem. Our laws flow from the Constitution, not the DoI.

This is funny, too: "There's been a book published, IIRC, that makes the opposite case. I've had trouble finding it just now, but the gist of it is that the DoI and other documents were declared founding documents (or some similar language) by an act of Congress. A rather long time ago, as it happens. You should be careful about making statements that may be flatly false." Yes, anyone should be careful about that. I've read enough Supreme Court cases to know what role the Constitution plays in our legal framework and what role the DoI plays. You let us know when you find that book.

"I don't refer to the Declaration of Independence as being legally binding. I refer to it as an excellent measure of the worldview of the Framers." The Constitution is also an excellent measure of the Framers' worldview, and specifically their worldview as it would apply to a formal system of government, which is what they were writing about at the time. That is not what they were writing about in the DoI. The difference is that the Constitution sets forth our nation's legal framework. The DoI does not.

"The system worked from 1776 through the Civil War period, prior to the 14th Amendment. " That depends what you mean by "worked." The USA "worked," too, but it was plagued by the evils of slavery, sexism, racism, genocide, etc., which the 14th Amendment helped to end --- but not for nearly a century did the nation take equal protection seriously enough for the Supreme Court to start enforcing it in a way that truly made certain groups of people equal. In 1776 the USA was almost entirely Christian. (That is if you don't count the Native Americans, which many people in that day didn't.) We couldn't live under that ethic today, with the influx of people from other religious traditions. So you can say the system "worked," but what that really means is that sometimes non-Christians put up and shut up. Is that the America you want, Bryan, or do you really want an America where everyone is equal, including in matters of religion? That's the fundamental question in this discussion. What's your answer? It's OK, you've already told us, but this time you might be more honest about your answer.

Guest is right. This is funny, and it's ridiculous. Bryan finishes off by defending his comparison of witchcraft trials to science. "People believed in witches because they observed cause and effect. Person X curses horse G, horse G dies. And typically it took a number of such instances for a witch (except in the case of witch panics) to acquire a reputation for attempting evil via magic. They used the same principles that modern science uses, except they didn't test as rigorously and they did a poor job of communicating and sharing the results (the culture wasn't particularly literate)."

Good grief. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. That's all science is about according to Bryan. They weren't observing cause and effect. They were selectively observing before and after, which is not the same thing. They didn't have a clue about scientific principles, and tragically with some people including our esteemed Bryan and his favorite teacher, some people still don't have a clue. So we get: Dinosaurs on Noah's ark. Evolution isn't science. I get it now. Let's have a chorus of "Gimmie That Old-Time Religion," and it will all seem OK. Arrrrrgggh.

There's no getting through to someone like this. Why did I bother?

[Guest Paul]

Did Mr. Paszkiewicz ever say this? Or just came up with it? curious...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. He said that teachers should be able to preach the Bible in public schools.

[Bryan]

Translation: "It's only a flesh wound!" Bryan, the writer wasted you. Let's address just a few points, putting Bryan's remarks "in quote."

I'm delighted whenever LaClair deigns to try to address a point.

"So far, you've got the 'crippling flaw' that I ignore the secular nature of the text of the Constitution, though you haven't made any case as to why I should have mentioned it." Because it is the supreme law of our country, and we're talking about legal rights and responsibilities.

No, we were talking about the foundation for legal rights and responsibilities, and the Framers clearly did not regard the Constitution as that foundation. The DoI makes that abundantly clear.

LaClair cannot afford to acknowledge that aspect of the DoI, since it stands to reason that LaClair will not be able to accept the logic of the DoI.

When someone makes a statement like Bryan's, it calls everything else he writes into question.

Yet Paul's example of my "statement" is actually a question rather than a statement.

When someone makes a statement like Paul's, it calls everything else he writes into question.

Seriously, Paul, didn't they teach you in law school to distinguish between a statement and a question?

"So the United States didn't exist until 1787?" The USA, which is a law-based entity, and our legal system did not exist until that time. That is correct.

So what would Paul call the nation that existed under the Articles of Confederation, other than what they called themselves? And how does he answer the next question?

"What moron was it that made the error that resulted in a bicentennial celebration in 1976?  What nation's flag did Washington fight under during the Revolutionary War?" It wasn't an error. We celebrate American independence.

"The commemoration of the Bicentennial of the United States of America went on for months and is remembered by people of the time as a major cultural event."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bicentennial

Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."

Turns out the Framers were wrong, according to Paul. Unless, I suppose, he interprets this article as a clairvoyant remark referring ultimately to the constitution that would follow years later.

That doesn't mean that our legal framework was in place.

We're always building our legal framework, so using that logic you could argue that today's United States isn't yesterday's United States.

You're engaged in sophistry, LaClair.

The mere fact that a symbol was retained when the present government was formed is what doesn't mean much here.

And the fact that the early flag clearly represented each of the separate states under one banner will no doubt be hand-waved by LaClair, as well as the reference to the "united States of America" in the Declaration of Independence.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Our discussion is about our legal system, including religious rights. That framework did not exist until the Constitution was adopted and the USA was formed.

The USA existed before the Constitution, as I've pointed out (Articles of Confederation).

This statement of Paul's brings all his other statements into question.

The Constitutional framework of law did not exist until after the Constitution was adopted, obviously, but as I've already pointed out, but the Constitution was never intended by the Framers to be the foundation for the law. Indeed, they saw the states as sovereign within a federalist framework; the Constitution is not a basis for the law; it is simply law. The basis rests elsewhere, and that basis is described in the Declaration of Independence.

That happened over a two-year period beginning in 1787, when the Constitution was drafted. We didn't become the USA until the states adopted the Constitution, and that didn't happen immediately.

Britain's American colonies broke with the mother country in 1776 and were recognized as the new nation of the United States of America following the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

1787, huh? Those Europeans are idiots!.

The first president took office in the spring of 1789. That is when the USA took its present legal form.

Huh. And here I though that many of the Amendments to the Constitution were added later.

This statement of LaClair's calls all of his other statements into question.

"And, just maybe, Jefferson was also a Templar and was a descendent of Jesus himself. Why else would he praise Jesus' teachings to the extent he did while denying the miraculous?" Because he lived in a culture where Jesus' teachings held sway. He was probably most familiar with them. I still quote the Bible, too, especially most of the parables, often in glowing terms. Does that make me a Christian?

rofl

It doesn't even make you a Templar, Paul. Apparently your parody detector went dead on you for a moment. I was playing on the writings of Baigent and Leigh (not the one from Texas).

And needless to say, this statement of Paul's calls all of his other statements into question.

"I'm trying to get Paul to describe what he means by 'secular world view.'" I described that clearly, writing that in a secular government human life concerns are paramount, as opposed to concerns about what happens to us after we die.

That isn't a clear explanation, since there's nothing in principle that prevents an religious institution from placing human life concerns over concerns about what happens to us after we die, and as I've pointed out one tenet does not a world view make.

Look it up, LaClair.

"And your claim that I refuse to look at the legal framework they actually left us is simply false. We were given a framework that restricted the federal government as to religion while leaving state and local governments free to act in that realm. " It isn't false.

It is false. He claimed that I refuse to look at the legal framework they actually left us. Your agreement in response doesn't even touch that issue.

Guest correctly observes that the DoI is not a legally binding document under the laws of the USA.

That's a questionable claim, since there is a plausible claim (published by a notable scholar) showing that the DoI was made part of our system of laws by Congress (I'm looking at the legal framework they left us).

It couldn't be, because it predates the USA, and there's nothing in it that could be read as law.

Wrong on both counts

The Congress could make the DoI into law today if it wished (and, as I understand it, they did so years ago--and I'm looking at the legal framework they left us)).

Also, the DoI makes a statement in recognition of law transcending British law. If the Declaration of Independence carries no legal weigh at all, then on what basis is the United States legally independent from Great Britain?

Again, LaClair is implicitly forced to admit that the DoI is a logical mess. He cannot take the document seriously, I would think.

Certainly he makes no effort to expand on his views concerning the document, standing pat as he does with the statement that it is not legally binding (God save the Queen).

It's a case for separation from Britain, a manifesto, a declaration. That isn't written the same way as a legal document. It was a political and cultural document.

1) How are "legal documents" written? Is there some law dictating their form?

2) Since it was a political and cultural document, are we legally bound under the laws of Great Britain?

As for the framework the framers gave us, that framework established a set of principles, one of which was religious liberty for everyone. That command was made applicable to the states via the 14th Amendment. I know you recognize that, except when it comes time to apply it. Then you don't.

There's no legal sense in expanding the First Amendment prohibition on Congress to each of the states, and Paul spins the text of the Amendment (and here I'm looking at the legal framework they left us):

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.

It doesn't say anything at all about providing religious liberty for everyone, does it? All it does is restrict the federal government from making laws that concern the establishment of religion (and I should note that I'm looking at the legal framework they left us).

Expanding that to the states should not mean anything different than what the law already says: Congress can't make such laws. The move of the court was to rewrite the law, in effect, to read "No government entity under federal authority, including state and local governments, shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Nobody voted on that rewrite. It was effected by imperial decree by unelected officials.

"Except I was talking about the Declaration of Independence, not about the Constitution . . ." And that's the problem. Our laws flow from the Constitution, not the DoI.

It's turtles all the way down, for Paul.

You can't have law that is the foundation for law, not in terms of philosophical basis. If LaClair is slow in realizing what the subject is, I apologize for not making it clearer to him.

Perhaps if he'd had a better understanding of what a "world view" is, we would not have come to this.

This is funny, too: "There's been a book published, IIRC, that makes the opposite case. I've had trouble finding it just now, but the gist of it is that the DoI and other documents were declared founding documents (or some similar language) by an act of Congress. A rather long time ago, as it happens. You should be careful about making statements that may be flatly false." Yes, anyone should be careful about that. I've read enough Supreme Court cases to know what role the Constitution plays in our legal framework and what role the DoI plays. You let us know when you find that book.

And the courts are never wrong, even when they contradict each other.

"I don't refer to the Declaration of Independence as being legally binding. I refer to it as an excellent measure of the worldview of the Framers." The Constitution is also an excellent measure of the Framers' worldview, and specifically their worldview as it would apply to a formal system of government, which is what they were writing about at the time. That is not what they were writing about in the DoI. The difference is that the Constitution sets forth our nation's legal framework. The DoI does not.

The Constitution does not set forth the philosophical foundation for the nation's laws.

The DoI does.

One is therefore better for assessing world view, especially if one knows what "world view" means.

"The system worked from 1776 through the Civil War period, prior to the 14th Amendment. " That depends what you mean by "worked." The USA "worked," too, but it was plagued by the evils of slavery, sexism, racism, genocide, etc., which the 14th Amendment helped to end --- but not for nearly a century did the nation take equal protection seriously enough for the Supreme Court to start enforcing it in a way that truly made certain groups of people equal.

Like I said, you'd be forced to truncate U.S. history, repudiating the achievement of the Framers that you had earlier lauded.

And even so, you're stuck with the fact that the 13th Amendment precedes the 14th Amendment--yet for some reason you want to give credit to the 14th Amendment for ending slavery.

Apparently, the government was capable of ending slavery prior to the 14th Amendment.

In 1776 the USA was almost entirely Christian. (That is if you don't count the Native Americans, which many people in that day didn't.)

They were considered sovereign in legal terms, though that didn't tend to apply in practice.

We couldn't live under that ethic today, with the influx of people from other religious traditions. So you can say the system "worked," but what that really means is that sometimes non-Christians put up and shut up. Is that the America you want, Bryan, or do you really want an America where everyone is equal, including in matters of religion?

Heh. LaClair is offering exactly the same product with a "New! Improved!" label on it. He's already admitted that the government will choose points at which a religion will not be allowed free exercise in terms of practice, and here he is selling it under "everyone is equal, including in matters of religion" and they don't have to "put up/shut up" regarding the default secular humanist religion that Paul favors for the U.S. government.

The laws should be applied equally, and the foundation for the law cannot accommodate conflicting world views (leads to chaos). There must be a consensus basis based in worldview. Deists and Christians had that, and Jews found the results acceptable, also (especially compared to alternatives).

If the people do not choose the philosophical foundation for their laws, then who is to do it? The sovereign courts, propelled by lawyerly puppetmasters? Or the legislature, under the direction of the people?

That's the fundamental question in this discussion. What's your answer? It's OK, you've already told us, but this time you might be more honest about your answer.

It is not logically possible, in principle, for me to be more honest about my answer. There is no possible world in which the answer could be more honest.

It's just LaClair resorting to his empty character attacks again.

Guest is right. This is funny, and it's ridiculous. Bryan finishes off by defending his comparison of witchcraft trials to science. "People believed in witches because they observed cause and effect. Person X curses horse G, horse G dies. And typically it took a number of such instances for a witch (except in the case of witch panics) to acquire a reputation for attempting evil via magic. They used the same principles that modern science uses, except they didn't test as rigorously and they did a poor job of communicating and sharing the results (the culture wasn't particularly literate)."

Good grief. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. That's all science is about according to Bryan.

lol

LaClair again illustrates that he doesn't understand science.

Science uses inductive logic in building its conclusions, Paul. Science can never prove causation. Science looks at correlations and assumes causation. That's exactly what the people you dismiss as "superstitious" did, and you would have done the same thing in their shoes.

They weren't observing cause and effect.

They were observing cause and effect exactly as we do today.

They were selectively observing before and after, which is not the same thing.

But that's exactly what science does all the time--yet LaClair can't see the comparison.

They didn't have a clue about scientific principles, and tragically with some people including our esteemed Bryan and his favorite teacher, some people still don't have a clue. So we get: Dinosaurs on Noah's ark. Evolution isn't science. I get it now. Let's have a chorus of "Gimmie That Old-Time Religion," and it will all seem OK. Arrrrrgggh.

There's no getting through to someone like this. Why did I bother?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because you're not trying to have a conversation with me. You're playing to audience/jury. Obvious, isn't it?

I figure sometimes you get nervous because you're afraid somebody will notice some of your numerous logical vulnerabilities, so you launch into a round of attacks and obfuscations because your experience as a lawyer has taught you that such techniques tend to be effective on the masses.

You and "Guest" are just applying fly logic.

"This crap is delicious!"

[Bryan]

Yes. He said that teachers should be able to preach the Bible in public schools.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Use of the term "preach" is LaClair's invention, I believe.

http://www.dranger.com/classtranscript.html

No doubt LaClair would argue that it's a fair paraphrase.

Typical sleazy lawyer technique.

[Guest Paul]

LaClair cannot afford to acknowledge that aspect of the DoI, since it stands to reason that LaClair will not be able to accept the logic of the DoI.

. . . (refer to the remainder of Brayn's post on your own if you like)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The words "their Creator" in the DoI do not have the force of law. Neither do the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution superseded the latter, and the former was never meant to establish law. The mere fact that some very intelligent men who lived in the late 18th century referred to a "Creator" does not mean that there is one.

I believe those three sentences address all of Bryan's "arguments."

[Guest Paul]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or however many sentences that was.

[Strife767]

Use of the term "preach" is LaClair's invention, I believe.

http://www.dranger.com/classtranscript.html

As usual, you're wrong.

No doubt LaClair would argue that it's a fair paraphrase.

Typical sleazy lawyer technique.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean telling the truth?

"Mom and Dad are trying to tell you that the Bible is God's word, and their lives are deeply rooted in faith... but yet the "smart" people - and I say that in quotations,

because they're not all really that smart - the teachers that you're exposed to from kindergarten through 12th grade, never once will you see them crack open a Bible, never once will you hear them quote it, never once hear a prayer uttered from their lips."

Paszkiewicz CLEARLY contrasts parents "tell[ing their children] that the Bible is God's word" (and that's preaching no matter how you try and slice it, buddy) with public school teachers not quoting from the Bible in class, also suggesting a contrast of intelligence with his smug "smart" comment. He is obviously in FAVOR of having teachers do the same as he described parents doing, and he described parents PREACHING.

[Guest Paul]

People believed in witches because they observed cause and effect. Person X curses horse G, horse G dies. And typically it took a number of such instances for a witch (except in the case of witch panics) to acquire a reputation for attempting evil via magic. They used the same principles that modern science uses, except they didn't test as rigorously and they did a poor job of communicating and sharing the results (the culture wasn't particularly literate).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Had a few minutes before starting trial prep this morning, so I just wanted to pick up on this little gem, above, from Bryan.

Let's make sure we have this straight: "People believed in witches because they observed cause and effect." Wow! Just like scientists! Gee, could it have anything to do with their fears? Their superstitions? Their distrust of some people in the community who might have conducted themselves a little differently? The trouble in their own lives or in the community? Weren't some people accused as witches without any previous reputation? Didn't hysteria build on itself in the worst witch-hunts? Is Bryan seriously suggesting an intellectual connection between science and the belief in witches? (By gar, he is.)

Bryan, don't you have the good sense to be ashamed of a statement like that? Tell you what, here's a reference to a famous film. Most people who know how silly your argument is will know where this is from. Do you?

(Silence as the crowd ponders)

"And therefore, she's . . ."

(A few moments more silence from the crowd, the suddenly the crowd erupts:)

"A witch!"

Oh, wait a minute, I see the connection now. Let me put myself back into the film.

"When people believed in witches, that belief was an operation of . . ."

(A little science, and then the crowd erupts:)

"Their brains!"

Ah, what satisfaction we get in resolving one of those challenging intellectual problems. Einstein would have been right at home.

[Guest Paul]

People believed in witches because they observed cause and effect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"And therefore, people who believed in witches were . . ."

(Silence as the crowd ponders, then the entire crowd erupts in the joyous union of discovery:)

"Scientists!"

Ah, the joy of scientific discovery.

[Bryan]

LaClair cannot afford to acknowledge that aspect of the DoI, since it stands to reason that LaClair will not be able to accept the logic of the DoI.

The words "their Creator" in the DoI do not have the force of law.

Have mantra, will repeat.

Keep dodging Paul: Do you accept the logic of the Declaration of Independence?

Neither do the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution superseded the latter, and the former was never meant to establish law.

Article XIII.

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/documents/ao...#article%20xiii

If that's not a law, then neither is the First Amendment.

The mere fact that some very intelligent men who lived in the late 18th century referred to a "Creator" does not mean that there is one.

Ah-ha. I must have argued that since the Framers referred to the "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence that therefore that Creator must exist.

Seriously, what's the point of saying that, Paul, other than to create a distraction or impute a straw man position to me?

There's another question for you to dodge, LaClair.

What does your son think about your cowardice in addressing my questions, BTW?

I believe those three sentences address all of Bryan's "arguments."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The lawyer falls flat on his face again, then. It seems reasonable to conclude from LaClair's final sentence that he takes the position that I argued along the lines that the reference to the Creator serves as a type of proof that the Creator exists in actuality.

Chalk up yet another fallacy for the bumbling NJ lawyer (straw man, along with a red herring and an incorrect statement about the Articles of Confederation).

[Bryan]

As usual, you're wrong.

So Paszkiewicz used the term "preach" in that context? Where?

You mean telling the truth?

I mean twisting words to promote a certain impression, as LaClair did. If you call that telling the truth, then your standard is low.

"Mom and Dad are trying to tell you that the Bible is God's word, and their lives are deeply rooted in faith... but yet the "smart" people - and I say that in quotations,

because they're not all really that smart - the teachers that you're exposed to from kindergarten through 12th grade, never once will you see them crack open a Bible, never once will you hear them quote it, never once hear a prayer uttered from their lips."

Paszkiewicz CLEARLY contrasts parents "tell[ing their children] that the Bible is God's word" (and that's preaching no matter how you try and slice it, buddy) with public school teachers not quoting from the Bible in class, also suggesting a contrast of intelligence with his smug "smart" comment. He is obviously in FAVOR of having teachers do the same as he described parents doing, and he described parents PREACHING.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You see what you want to see.

The contrast is between worldviews. Paszkiewicz described how the public school system undermines religious instruction in the home. It takes a leap of illogic (something that Strife remains sufficiently adept at despite his newfound familiarity with the concepts of logic) to get to the notion that Paszkiewicz advocated preaching the Bible in public schools in that passage.

[Bryan]

People believed in witches because they observed cause and effect. Person X curses horse G, horse G dies. And typically it took a number of such instances for a witch (except in the case of witch panics) to acquire a reputation for attempting evil via magic. They used the same principles that modern science uses, except they didn't test as rigorously and they did a poor job of communicating and sharing the results (the culture wasn't particularly literate).

Had a few minutes before starting trial prep this morning, so I just wanted to pick up on this little gem, above, from Bryan.

Let's make sure we have this straight: "People believed in witches because they observed cause and effect." Wow! Just like scientists!

Remember Phlogiston?

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0838824.html

Gee, could it have anything to do with their fears?

Doesn't science do its research based on fear sometimes? Look at all the hoopla about climate.

Something to do with fear, sure. On the other hand, magic-workers were common in that culture. People went to magic-workers to try to deal with various problems.

Salesmanship combined with a certain amount of success provided "scientific" evidence in favor of the abilities of the magic-workers. The law rarely came down on people for simply working magic, however. The foundation for witchcraft charges was called maleficium, which essentially means using magic for ill purposes.

Their superstitions?

They were superstitious just like you are. You believe things that are not true. So did they. Each of you has your reasons for belief, however. How do you excuse your false beliefs, Paul?

Their distrust of some people in the community who might have conducted themselves a little differently?

Sure. Not everyone claimed to be able to work magic, after all. And when those people made threats, such as cursing somebody's horse, and the horse dies--what were they supposed to think?

You'd have been right there suing the offending witch!

The trouble in their own lives or in the community? Weren't some people accused as witches without any previous reputation?

During witch panics, sure. As with the Salem trials, confessing witches probably found the results of accusing their accusers of witchcraft something of a salve to their woes.

It seem futile for you to try to suggest that I'm arguing that the people of that time were skeptical across the board. It wasn't the case then and it isn't the case now. People then were not much different from people now, and moderns tend to exaggerate superstitious nature of their early forbears. That's the point. If you want to argue against it, be my guest. Good luck finding evidence that isn't false and/or outdated.

Didn't hysteria build on itself in the worst witch-hunts? Is Bryan seriously suggesting an intellectual connection between science and the belief in witches? (By gar, he is.)

The belief in magic was dominant at the time, and magic didn't really mean what it means today. Magic was the "science" of the day. Healers would try herb X and see if it worked. If it worked they kept using it. That's a basic version of the scientific method, right there. Recall that Newton spend a good bit of time doing alchemy. He was just looking for a profitable natural law that could provide him with a bunch of gold. He wouldn't have thought of it as "magic" the way a LaClair would use the term.

A witch was primarily a worker of evil magic, secondarily one who subverted the order of society. The belief in magic was established on the basis of real-world experience--just not particularly rigorous real-world experience.

Bryan, don't you have the good sense to be ashamed of a statement like that?

I think I provided sufficient explanation to safely ensure that a reasonable person will not think the statement shameful.

The reader should note that LaClair has not addressed the argument that I have made. He has responded primarily with ridicule and questions intended to contribute toward that end.

As with so many other topics, he avoids the real issue., preferring again to play to the jury, trusting that they are as culturally bigoted as he.

[Bryan]

"And therefore, people who believed in witches were . . ."

(Silence as the crowd ponders, then the entire crowd erupts in the joyous union of discovery:)

"Scientists!"

Ah, the joy of scientific discovery.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I preferred the reply you did that maintained a bit of the surrounding context. Not that you addressed anything in that post other than what you quoted above; it's just convenient for me carry over the quotation to show how I provided a good explanation that you ignored.

[ElneClare]

"And therefore, people who believed in witches were . . ."

(Silence as the crowd ponders, then the entire crowd erupts in the joyous union of discovery:)

"Scientists!"

Ah, the joy of scientific discovery.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Scientists turn me into a Newt.

Well I got better.