Bryan

How is that supposed to address my argument, please? An explanation is due from you. The claim was that science was dismissed, not that science was made into a "faith" in the sense you're using the term. You're not allergic to staying on topic, are you? Hmmm. Strife is showing the symptoms of the ideological indoctrination he received in school, it seems. http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node8.html http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biolo..._Meth&Philo.pdf http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nat-epis.htm#H4 http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/p...ideology_of.htm (see VIII near the bottom for the last one ... full disclosure: I did find one wacko scientist who thinks that there is no faith at all behind his scientific beliefs. The man has deluded himself) Most who think they know better base their opinions on misunderstandings about science and epistemology--and you seem to be a case in point. A global flood is not impossible. You think it is, most likely, because you assume a relatively static height for the planet's mountain ranges and such. That is a faith-based assumption. Plus it begs the entire question of miracles to proclaim it impossible. Like God would have a tough time whipping up some extra water if he needed it.

Last reply to DingoDave until he figures out how to address the issue ... You should have paid closer attention to Paszkiewicz's lecture. Scientific evidence never deductively confirms a scientific claim. All scientific claims are probabilistic. What's more, the "laws" of nature are descriptive rather than prescriptive. I'll let you ponder the ramifications. I think in the context of his illustration, where he compared direct observation of water boiling to (what seems to have been) the idea of common descent (which is a theory that is being challenged, BTW), his statement appears quite reasonable. There is certainly a stronger epistemological justification for the boiling point of water than for common descent. Do you disagree? It's hard to see how you missed the point of what he was saying, IMO. In epistemic terms, it isn't a fact--and that's Paszkiewicz's point (and it's a good one). It may be suggested that teaching science as if it somehow bypasses its epistemic limitations constitutes an establishment of religion, BTW. Well, at least I don't need much to refute your pathetic arguments.

Tell him to cheer up. The Reformed Baptists will take him in. http://65.71.233.194/arbca/ Okay, now back to the topic. You had claimed that it was point of orthodoxy that belief in the inspiration of the Bible was required for salvation. When are you going to deal with your claim instead of trying to change the subject? Guess what's missing here: http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/g...things-save.php and here: http://www.equip.org/free/JAE100-2.pdf or any one of literally dozens of sites about salvation?

And France, Germany, Italy and the UK. Don't forget about them. No, actually the agents claimed that they felt pressure. Nice try at spinning the info, but I've seen it before. Agents uniformly denied pressure tactics from administration officials. The CIA has kept up a fairly steady flow of leaks, and the Justice Department is apparently so similarly corrupted that prosecutions cannot proceed. http://www.nysun.com/article/46407?page_no=2 If they're under such intense pressure then why do they end up submitting views that supposedly get squelched? Evidently the pressure wasn't strong enough to stop them. Why bother pressuring them for favorable reports when they can just squelch the ones they don't like? The 9-11 Commission was unable to substantiate this report. Intelligence personnel, under oath, denied that administration officials pressured them. Hey--maybe they lied under oath? Yes, since pressuring Hussein to step down in favor of a democratic government would have been an acceptable outcome--one that was made available to Hussein before the invasion, I might add. Uh, yeah--and don't forget that Bush and Rove were whispering in the ears of all the foreign intelligence agencies. Seriously, I doubt that Chalabi had any direct involvement in the intelligence gathering of foreign states. Feel free to offer evidence in support of your claim. Where did we get the plans for the nuclear bomb that was posted to the Internet? Did the UN determine that it was okay for Hussein to salt away some nuclear weapon plans for a rainy day, or what? Founded January 28, 1878, the Yale Daily News is the nation's oldest college daily newspaper. http://www.yaledailynews.com/aboutus But it's not just any student newspaper. It's Yale. Look, I provided a URL to Blix's final report. If you can't find support for your claims in that document directly, there's no point in citing an article written for a student newspaper. Apparently not. Except that I've also already mentioned that Hussein's regime consistently acted as though it had WMDs via a pattern of uncooperation and communication. Plus the weapons were never the sole rationale for ousting Hussein. They just constituted the best reason for acting quickly since he would not permit verification of his weapon capabilities. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al-samoud_2.htm

By the same logic, he dismissed Christianity since he admitted that it had a basis in faith. It is too vigorous a massage to the truth to claim that identifying the faith basis of scientific claims is tantamount to dismissing scientific claims. No, not remotely. Your position on this is easily reduced to absurdity by pointing out that it would cause Paszkiewicz to dismiss his own faith. Can you identify Paszkiewicz's alleged misunderstanding of science?

lol How is that supposed to burst my bubble? Do you think that they contradicted themselves or something? Tip: A statement of basic Baptist beliefs is not a statement of Christian orthodoxy as such. Moreover, individual SBC churches are not bound to accept the list of doctrines at the site. "The general theological perspective of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention is represented in the Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M). The BF&M was first drafted in 1925, then revised significantly in 1963 and again in 2000, with the latter revision being the subject of much controversy. The BF&M is not considered to be a creed along the lines of historic Christian creeds such as the Nicene Creed; members are not required to adhere to it nor are churches required to use it as their "Statement of Faith" or "Statement of Doctrine" (though many do in lieu of creating their own Statement). Despite the fact that the BF&M is not a "creed," missionaries who apply to serve through the various SBC missionary agencies must "affirm" that their practices, doctrine, and preaching are consistent with the BF&M; this affirmation has also been the subject of controversy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Bapt...fs_and_practice It's not like I didn't see it when I visited the site the first time, DD. I just happen to know enough about the denomination to be able to make proper sense out of it. You've still got a ways to go as to that. Apparently your Baptist upbringing never confronted you with a proper understanding of Christian "orthodoxy."

Paszkiewicz made a statement where he claimed his freedom of speech was violated? Citation?

Sure, but you were talking about orthodoxy, not Baptist doctrine. You can always change what you want to talk about, but I would advise any pretense that you're not changing your argument. lol Nice red herring question. Baptists (save for some splinter groups who use the name) do regard themselves as orthodox, but not because their denomination defines orthodoxy. <sniffle> It is somewhat upsetting that you posted so much so far off topic. Take some time out and think over whether you can stay on the topic of what Paszkiewicz said and whether or not you can justify your statements such as the one intimating that Paszkiewicz communicated to his students that they would go to hell if they did not accept the inspiration of the Bible. Once you are able to regain your focus we can have a conversation.

Your standards are apparently low indeed. Yeah--too bad the transcripts are so wildly different after the "part of the school day" portion. "Great Depression" became "race oppression" I'm guessing. Heh. More likely you've relied on an inferior transcript. Right. Because the people who think the Great Depression is "race oppression" are the ones who should be running things. That was hilarious. What did your community do about the other races during the Great Depression, BTW?

To the CIA falls the responsibility of compiling the collected intelligence of the other agencies (NIE). http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/index.htm http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...igence_Estimate You'd never know it from the NIE, either--and the CIA wasn't that widely split. There was high confidence that Iraq had illegal weapons, and there was concern about the lack of reliable human intelligence. Those two facts reconcile without difficulty. Well, you should offer a citation in support of that claim. The NIE included significant statements about minority views. You'd have to wonder about government officials who would break the law to publicize minority views on intelligence. What's the real motivation? Okay. So they should just ignore it when CIA officials break the law by leaking classified information. But Scooter Libby is fair game even if he didn't leak classified information. Gotcha. That makes all kinds of sense. You seem to be ignoring the fact the the intelligence services of our allies all agreed with the basic presumption that Iraq had WMDs. Your Bushco-colored glasses may have a hard time resolving that dilemma. Everyone except Dennis Kucinich, iirc. The UN security council was convinced but certain nations later found to be the most significant beneficiaries of OFF bribery opposed the strongest resolutions against Iraq. More than a coincidence? Again, UNMOVIC reported that Iraq failed to comply fully with inspections. Look it up. Also review the portion of the thread where I referenced the NYT story where the U.S. inadvertently published Iraq's nuclear bomb plans to the Internet (the UN complained loudly about that one). You can explain how a country can have a plan for a nuclear bomb but no nuclear program? French intelligence was also confident that Hussein probably had WMDs, and they had every reason (huge debt owed by Iraq for Mirage jets) to hope that Hussein's regime persisted. "In contrast, according to Blix, President Chirac had a healthy scepticism about intelligence. Although the French intelligence services were convinced WMD remained in Iraq, Chirac recognised that the intelligence services "sometimes intoxicate each other". His thinking "seemed to be dominated by the conviction that Iraq did not pose a threat that justified armed intervention". http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd77/77iraq.htm Wow--that's an impressive argument. Iraq was required to produce documentation of the destruction of their weapons. Large amounts of WMD were known to have existed but did not have their destruction documented as required by the ceasefire agreement to which Iraq was bound. You must completely ignore that evidence in order to disagree with me, I think. What is the most reasonable explanation for Iraq's failure to document the destruction of its known WMDs, given that the failure to comply with the terms of the ceasefire is exactly what perpetuated the sanctions regime on Iraq?

I have seen no persuasive evidence that he did so. Can you specify how the theory of evolution was dismissed (your term rather than Paszkiewicz's, I'm sure) by Paszkiewicz? If you were to do that, it would solve your problem of arguing minus evidence. By subscribing to the Biblical scheme of creation, he has dismissed the findings of astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists etc. whose findings all point to a very ancient universe, and who describe the process of star formation and planetary formation very convincingly. So you're trying to say that he dismisses science personally via his apparent beliefs or via his instruction of the class? If the former--how is that relevant? Suppose you were a solipsist who didn't even believe your students really exist, but you did an okay job of teaching them the appointed curriculum, in fact. Would you have done your job adequately in the existing universe. Could you attempt to be very specific about how Paszkiewicz contradicted the findings of science with his statements? Otherwise it's hard to see how your diatribe is relevant. Could you attempt to be very specific about how Paszkiewicz dismissed the findings of those disciplines in terms of class instruction? I don’t have the time to go into more details right now, so I hope that these examples will suffice. You didn't give any concrete examples from Paszkiewicz's teaching. Instead you took one apparent statement of belief (Noah's ark) and extrapolated like a madman. Sorry, but I don't see how Paszkiewicz's statements of personal belief are relevant if they do not constitute proselytizing (in the normal dictionary sense) or directly contradict the school curriculum. I think you chose an unfortunate strategy for making the case against Paszkiewicz. It's unlikely that you've done more research into those topics than I have. You chose an unfortunate subject on which to project condescension. The transcript I've been going by has it like this: "Now, my parents grew up and went to public schools, but they went prior to 1962, so teachers read the Bible, the teachers prayed, it was part of the school day, and in other words, just a very very different attitude, but that's also back a generation, back to totalitarianism, communism, following the Great Depression, and all that." http://www.dranger.com/classtranscript.html If it's supposed to be the same statement, then the two transcripts display a suspicious amount of variance. Can you refer us to the source of the transcript you're using? Well, actually you can be an orthodox Christian without accepting the divine inspiration of the Bible. Check this out, for example: http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.ht...tles_creed.html As for the central issue, it isn't whether or not you're inventing Christian doctrines (though making Bible inspiration a requirement of orthodoxy probably counts) but the fact that you seem to be claiming that Paszkiewicz specifically taught those doctrines to his class. Baptists do not dictate orthodoxy. The Southern Baptists (the largest Baptist denomination in the U.S. and the world), in particular, historically do not even have an explicit doctrinal statement to which member churches are bound. "Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches." http://www.sbc.net/bfm/default.asp That means, in essence, that they are reluctant as a denomination to try to pin down orthodoxy.

Do tell, "Guest." How do you intend to support your claim about my argument? lol That was pathetic. Let's use your criterion of violating a person's humanity as the limit of legal religious practice. Let's create for the sake of argument religion A, for which all its tenets respect a person's humanity (however you wish to define it. Let us create for the sake of argument religion B, for which all of its tenets violate a person's humanity. Let's put both religions into practice in community C, which practices the line of demarcation you have recommended (religious practice must not violate human dignity as you define it). 1) How can it be said that religion A and religion B are treated identically in that society (without special pleading)? 2) How is it that my argument supposedly collapses on itself in such a scenario? Face it, "Guest," your attack on my argument is based on wishful thinking. The attack is utterly incoherent. My position is that a religion that just happens to respect a person's dignity as you define it is implicitly endorsed by the society that uses that criterion. For the other religion, the reverse is true. That religion is saying that what you say is right is wrong (what society says is right is wrong, for purposes of the example). Unless you accomodate the religion, the society treats that religion as wrong--it cannot be seriously said that both religions are treated the same way by the civil authority.

If only you had the argument to back up your whining. Let's say you are correct. How do you stretch that position into the claim that all religions are treated equally (as Paul had claimed)? Isn't it completely obvious that religions that advocate something that conflicts with whatever rights you enumerate are not receiving equal treatment? Your response doesn't justify the claim that all religions are treated equally (duh). Try again?

The soft definition that most of you use for "proselytize" would result in absurdity unless special pleading is permitted (I've described the argument at this message board). Given that special pleading is a logical fallacy, I am not inclined to let it pass. And you're a couple of premisses and a logical inference short of an argument. If you truly want to see your American education system go to Hell in a hand basket, that would be a very effective way of achieving it. So, back before the 14th Amendment when states and local governments could mandate the inclusion of religious teaching in the schools the schools were on a course of steady decline? And the courts' application of the 14th Amendment to mandate local government neutrality on religion was the sole saving grace? And how do you explain the high achievements of American homeschooled children compared to their public school counterparts? "Researchers cannot tell whether the same children would perform better or worse academically in a classroom or at home. State testing data do not necessarily reflect all homeschoolers because not all comply with the testing requirement. Other testing efforts rely on volunteers. Keeping that caveat in mind, where testing data are available, homeschoolers do well. For example, in Alaska, the state's Alyeska Central School has tested its homeschooling children for several decades. As a group they usually score above average in any subject area and at all grade levels. The largest study to date, commissioned by the Home School Legal Defense Association, involved 12,000 students tested through the Bob Jones University testing services. The homeschooled children placed in the 62nd to the 91st percentile of national norms, depending on grade level and subject area (Rudner 1999). http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest151.html Could it be that you simply don't have any idea what you're talking about? One where I reasonably expect you to specify how Paszkiewicz undermined the science curriculum instead of just tossing out the names of a bunch of scientific disciplines for rhetorical effect. Hopefully I'll find you on the same planet. Otherwise, you're a waste of time. And, if pressed, you could give at least one example? If assertions can substitute for evidence, then you're doing a great job. You don’t think that Mr. P. has invented his own facts? Apart from the one statement of his that I am on record questioning, no. You might say I lack the belief that Paszkiewicz invented his own facts. -Dinosaurs on Noah’s ark? Was Paszkiewicz's statement about dinosaurs on the ark being taught to the children as a fact, or was it offered as his opinion on the matter? I think the context of the discussion makes it more likely the latter. I've no idea what you're talking about with that one. Have you ever considered quoting Paszkiewicz? That's a fairly standard explanation for observations of the world predating the existence of mankind in the context of the Hebrew scriptures. How is that making up one's own facts? Or maybe you're making up your own fact by claiming it is so? What's non-factual about that as an explanation for religious epistemology, other than the fact that your choice of words ("proving") lends itself to leading the audience into the fallacy of equivocation? "LaClaire: OK. How do you prove something like Noah's Ark happened, or that Adam and Eve existed; was there any observation that Adam and Eve were people, or... Teacher: I never said that my assumption isn't based on faith. http://www.dranger.com/classtranscript.html Indeed. Without offering some form of evidence you're just wasting time. That last supposed fact, in fact, seems to be your own creative invention, Dave. Maybe you should make yourself feel better by making up some more facts, dave.

Don't mistake your delusion for a fact. I've answered some utterly silly posts from persons posting as "Guest" and the three strikes rule for anonymous posters predates our conversations. "*anonymous guests warrant limited investment of my time where the posts commit serial error" Jan 1, 2007 http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40577 Get over yourself. You imagined the personal insult where you saw a policy. For what purpose might that have been other than an attempt to discredit your opponent by means other than addressing his argument? To put anonymous posters on notice that they are on a shorter leash than those willing to register and identify themselves (as in allowing for reconstruction of a posting history). I know that sounds crazy ... Think about what it's like to answer posts from quite a few persons taking the contrary position and perhaps you'll gain an appreciation for the policy. You also seem to overestimate my confidence in attaching anonymous posts to the name of the true author. I have neither the time nor the inclination to minutely examine the writing style to see if I can determine the author via literary criticism. You're being ridiculous. If you were in the habit of signing your posts at the bottom then it might have been a different story. My policy toward anonymous posts is reasonable, and it's not my fault that you posted anonymously. I claimed it explicitly in the post immediately following, well before your reply. Easy to miss that though, so no biggie. Well, good for you in making the attempt. I apologize for missing it--but my statement was in no way intended as a personal insult, regardless. Hardly relevant at all. But I notice that hasn't stopped you from going on about it either. I've regularly mentioned that I believe that the supposed Barton connection is irrelevant. Beyond that, it's of interest merely for showing the willingness of certain of my opponents to draw firm conclusions on weak evidence. That's an inductive attack on my opponent (circumstantial), of course, but that type of attack is not fallacious. It makes sense to show a favorable bias toward better arguments, and the tendency to provide good or bad arguments is a relevant consideration. Right now we could have been done with the Barton connection (my one-word treatment could have received a "no" in response and we'd be done with it). I think it fair to say that we both (and some others too) have gone on about it a bit much considering that neither sees any great significance to it. Uh--what do you think my point was in asking you pointedly whether or you thought it was relevant? I'm on record in regularly saying that it's not relevant (genetic fallacy). I just gave you the opportunity to join me on the record. Welcome aboard? Even if it's plausible, it's not relevant. The fact is that the evidence produced in favor of the link was poor. The mystery is why the persons alleging the link in the first place did not consider that type of evidence. 3) I still think that an indirect link is plausible, and even likely. I think that Barton's influence on the issue is probably greatly overestimated by those on your side (his formal attachment to policymakers notwithstanding), and if it were relevant to the current discussion it might be worth looking into. I think you overestimate the ability of the average high school history teacher, though I've conceded early on that Paszkiewicz did himself no favors in the (apparent) choosing of his source. As you note, it doesn't really have much to do with his central argument, however. I suppose I should have made some clear indication that I had shifted away from the Barton connection, and was instead addressing Paszkiewicz's flawed quotes more directly. Sorry. For my part, I'll allow that I could have read your position more charitably, since the lingering signs of Barton were offered parenthetically. You were graceful to offer an apology. No. That's me pointing out that Paszkiewicz's letter has faults of its own, independent of any such connection. That answer isn't satisfactory, but no matter. We seem to have reached an overall accord on this issue ("Parenthetically" refers to parenthesis). Non sequitur. Washington need not advocate church-state mixing in the specific realm of the public school in order for Paszkiewicz's position to receive support. The Indians were turning their children (judging from the context) over to Congress (pre-Constitution Congress, mind you) for education. Washington indicated that the government (Congress) would see to it that the children received a good education, and he pointedly referred to a particularly important part of their education (learning the religion of Jesus Christ). What that does, William, is show very clearly that Washington considered it important for children to be educated concerning the Christian religion. That does not square readily with the doctrines of strict separationists, who would bar the schools from the type of teaching advocated here by Washington. But if we misinterpret it to mean that Washington was advocating teaching religion in public schools, then it does. The argument doesn't need that step to be effective (an implicit false dilemma fallacy on your part). Add to this the alteration of the quote that makes it much easier to interpret that way, and further add that this is the very thing that Paszkiewicz has been accused of and is now trying to defend, and we have a pretty good indication that leading the reader to that false conclusion was the purpose of the quote. That's plausible, but it does not represent a charitable reading of what Paszkiewicz wrote. The principle of charitable reading is frequently underutilized in public debate, unfortunately (we're inclined against it, generally speaking). I'll accept your word that it isn't your position, but "public life" very probably refers to the public square, and it is a common position among secularists that the public square should be barren of religion. Have a look at this definition of "public square" and then read the relatively incoherent ACLU statement linked thereafter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_square http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/index.html Washington was proposing that employees of the federal government (Congress) would see to it that the children learned ("above all") the religion of Jesus Christ. The reasoning hinted at in Washington's statement, interestingly enough, plays into the justification for restricting religious practice to which Paul LaClair alluded in a separate argument; that is, policy enacted for the public good. Washington appears to indicate that learning the religion of Jesus Christ would constitute a public good for the Delaware Indians--yet the implications of this speech seem to warrant conscious avoidance from those on the secularist side. Unhinged? Well, maybe a little. Outrageous falsehoods do that to me sometimes. You seem to have forgotten to address the counterargument (in favor of repeating your conclusion). What part of that "central component" is not fairly summed up as either appeal to ridicule or appeal to incredulity? Your argument doesn't seem to live up to the promise of your summary. You're embarrassing yourself, William. My statement clearly concerns the tendency of somebody to jump to conclusions concerning the motivations for altering a quotation. My statement according perfectly with my other statement: Quotations should always be rendered as accurately as humanly possible. Where quotations are inaccurate because carelessness, the person doing the quoting is guilty of carelessness. Where the deliberate attempt to mislead is involved, the person doing the quoting is guilty of dishonesty. I haven't excused Paszkiewicz on either point. My position has been that of the agnostic--I don't know for certain that the Washington quotation is inaccurate (it's probably inaccurate, but there's room for reasonable doubt in my view), and I advise against guessing at Paszkiewicz's motives where the evidence is so scrawny. On the contrary, I promptly granted that the Jefferson quotation was misleading, but without guessing at the motives involved. That's not excusing the misuse of the quotation, it's simply showing restraint in drawing conclusions based on scarce evidence. That's the kind of reasoning that frequently leads to the conviction of innocent men.

No, they didn't. Both teams stated that Iraq was failing to cooperate fully with inspections. You tell me what sense there is in declaring no weapons of mass destruction when the nation under inspection isn't cooperating fully (the Blix team found missiles with a range far longer than Iraq was permitted--missiles that had been hidden from previous inspections). Where do people such crazy ideas such as the notion that the inspection teams cleared Iraq? "The first point, made in paragraph 8 of the report, is that the Commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items – whether from pre-1991 or later. I leave aside the Al Samoud 2 missile system, which we concluded was proscribed. As I have noted before, this does not necessarily mean that such items could not exist. They might – there remain long lists of items unaccounted for – but it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for." http://www.unmovic.org/ Evidence suggested that Iraq was being tipped off about the supposedly unannounced visits. Regardless, somehow you got the wrong idea about the reports that came from the inspections. Ever thought about the money trail between Iraq, France, Germany, and Russia? The next comment deserves to stand on its own. According to whom? The Baker group was selected and designated by Congress. http://www.usip.org/isg/about.html It wasn't really possible to take the report seriously, since it suggested that the US should seek help from Syria and Iran in stabilizing Iraq. And we should put the fox in charge of the hen house while we're at it. General Petraeus seems to disagree.

This is the rhetorical equivalent of you walking up to me after which you vomit all over the front of your own shirt, then self-assuredly saying ... "Refute that!" The US of A is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, though "democracy" in common parlance has come to mean a state that features democratic representation. True democracies promote the tyranny of the majority. Bush has a good argument that his actions in office have been constitutional--not the least of which is the string of high court victories in support of his executive actions. In the few instances where Bush has lost in court, he has changed his policy--yet for some reason that fact escapes your attempt at description. Don't forget to eat plenty before your next post.

Quite simply, the paucity of thought involved in your analysis.

... said the blind umpire. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ic=2898&st=580# What's wrong with introducing God and the Bible into the discussion (role of religion in public life)? And why did Paszkiewicz invite so much student interaction with his so-called "rant"? Strike two. I get a strike because you claim a few comments at the beginning of class constitute the context of the Sept 14 discussion? That's just ... weird. I wasn't being sarcastic, and I didn't accuse you of anything (review what I wrote--it could apply to anyone). And I get a strike? You're hilarious. FTM, I had replied to someone (you?) who wrote: "That's a claim for the truth of his religion, pure and simple." Some are using that as their notion of proselytizing. Could you be specific about where he made "specific claims that the Bible is true"? I'm pretty careful about avoiding fallacies. I'm pretty confident that you can't find an example where I committed the fallacy of the complex question. You're welcome to try. I guess while you're waiting you can suggest via innuendo that I committed a fallacy of the complex question. Two more strikes. ... said the blind umpire. That's an inference of yours, not an implication of mine. You'd do well to learn the difference. another for implying I would respond dishonestly to any actual charge. That makes six. Do you get a strike for ignoring the winking smiley? Or does the umpire turn a blind eye to those as a matter of policy? It looked to me as though I was disagreeing with the assertion that the case was not equivocal. Given that you won't define the term, it seems hard for you to argue otherwise. Strike seven. What's next - do I have to define "reasonable", "definition", and "term" for you? I don't see how that would necessarily help divine what you mean when you use the terms together. "Reasonable" might well beg the question if I'm right about the ultimate inconsistency of your position. Does a reasonable person accept a framework that contradicts itself via reduction to absurdity? If I did try to provide a reasonable definition of a religious belief, you'd just argue over each of the words in that definition as well. Nonsense. I'd simply recognize that you're trying to continue your dodging ways by employing inept satire. Should we be satisfied with answers that beg the question? http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/Be...e_Question.html It's a mental defect to object to an answer that fallaciously begs the question, eh? Either way, strike eight. God. Bible. Religious. How much greener could it be? Yours certainly couldn't be a more fallacious argument.

Calling the poster "Guest" when that's how the poster is identified in his post is ad hominem? Good luck explaining that one, "WilliamK" (oops--did I just commit another ad hom?). Did you wish to claim the anonymous post? And relevant? That will pass for a claim of authorship, I think. You have a funny way of showing it: Yes, it should. But even if you could fully discredit the claim that Paszkiewicz's source is Barton, (which you haven't, that connection remains plausible even if not satisfactorily proven) it doesn't do much to make Paszkiewicz look any better. Especially when you consider that Paszkiewicz's version of the Washington claim was the poorer of the two in that Paszkiewicz incorrectly presented as a direct quote something that was pretty clearly paraphrasing in Barton's version. Isn't that you suggesting the plausibility of the connection parenthetically? I suppose it could just be "Guest" doing that. "ringing endorsement of classroom proseletyzing that both Paszkiewicz and Barton portray it as" -"Guest" aka WillamK? "The intent of the founders was to limit the government’s encroachment into matters of conscience and religion, not to exclude any discussion of religion from public life." -Mr. Paszkiewicz Novel thought, basing it on what he wrote, eh? Ah. So it's not relevant that Washington plainly let on that among the most valuable things their children would learn in American schools was the religion of Jesus Christ? http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/W..._lf026.head.060 If you revisit the context, Washington made the statement concerning three children the Indians were sending to be educated. It's not about what's good for the Delaware Indians in general. It's about what the Indians should expect their children to learn after turning them over to the (early) Congress for education, emphasizing the great utility of the religion of Jesus Christ. Yes, it's a fair paraphrase, and you're sounding a bit unhinged in your protestations to the contrary. You quoted it, earlier: "Brothers: I am glad you have brought three of the Children of your principal Chiefs to be educated with us." Your argument seems to hang on the idea that "American schools" would be taken as the U.S. public school system prior to the ratification of the Constitution. It's hard to make sense of that notion. I don't think I'd jump to the conclusion that the quotation was deliberately altered. There are myriad ways a quotation can be altered, and in the case of speeches for which a written copy remains, the spoken speech may well have been at variance with the written one. Just ask John Kerry. "[D]espite all appearances" seems to drift into hyperbole, but I appreciate your willingness to retain an open mind. I intended exactly what you proposed. That you defended Paszkiewicz's use of inaccurate quotations. Quote me where I defended the use of inaccurate quotations. I state categorically that quotations should always be done as accurately as humanly possible. I'll defend Paszkiewicz's version of the speech to the Indians as a reasonable paraphrase that seems to capture Washington's intent (appreciating the historical context), but far short of excusing him for possibly having misquoted Washington (that isn't yet established), and for probably choosing a poor source for the quotations he used (even if most or all of them are perfectly accurate). It was clear enough for you to discern that, wasn't it? I like to grant my opponent the benefit of the doubt, so I was just taking my best guess so that you could affirm or deny--and affirm it you have. I still contend that to be the case, and further, that you have continued to do exactly that in this last post. Your claim to the contrary is false. To make that completely clear, on that one specific point, I AM calling you a liar. No innuendo needed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Apparently you don't need any evidence, either.

Hallelujah. And I'm sure that's very important when it comes time to address what Paszkiewicz wrote. It doesn't, nor does it really have anything to do with Paszkiewicz's argument in the post that kicked off this thread--which has been my point all along in dealing with the Barton-obsessed masses. Because so many are vigorously attacking him with such bad argumentation. Of course not. Only the ones I designate. Kidding. I don't agree that Paszkiewicz proselytized (though at least one of his statements wasn't sufficiently supported to stand as a statement of fact, as I have noted elsewhere). In a manner parallel to what Paszkiewicz did, yes. I disagree with the premise of your question. I don't think that pointing out the unsure epistemic foundation of science is parallel to calling a position "crap" (IOW I again question the premise of your question). Perhaps we should use the facts that you used to support that claim as an example of the principle of having one's own facts. I don't suppose you're willing to discuss the factual basis for your claims?

A Satanist couldn't take revenge by keying your car? For a lawyer, you have a great deal of trouble constructing a decent argument, Paul. Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that LaVey Satanists cannot simply take revenge by lobbing stinkbombs down your chimney or cutting the buds off of your rose bushes. They must do so with gratuitous violence or killing. How is than any less a restriction on the right of a Satanist to practice his religious as he pleases? You offer us no argument, Paul. Just the smug assurance that the argument collapses on itself. That's empty rhetoric on your part. What we have, instead, is special pleading on your part (restrictions on religious practice will not be considered restrictions on religious practice where violence or killing result (I took the liberty of omitting "gratuitous" since it disrespects the religious nature of the Satanists' would-be behavior)). Hopefully this very weak reply of yours is no reflection on your abilities as an attorney.

Broken links do not make the citation irrelevant. Harder to verify, maybe, but not irrelevant. So why did you skip commenting on the part where I engaged the pathetic content from your Wikipedia reference? Great. You can contact one or more of them and they can tell you what attacks bin Laden has organized and carried out since 9-11. Since you can't seem to come up with any yourself. Try reading one of Bush's speeches on the topic. He spells it out pretty clearly. You can read, correct? Here's a good place to start. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0020129-11.html You know that's a straw man. The issue, before you decided to dodge again, was the priority of capturing/killing bin Laden. The U.S. continues to work toward that goal, but not as one of the top priorities. How would President Strife have figured out Iraq's true capabilities? Phone call to Hussein? We were on the reliability of the CIA--remember? The first part that you ignored is related because you intimated that you would ignore Pakistan's sovereignty in your dogged hunt for bin Laden (bin Laden is a terrorist--remember?). The second part is only dimly related to terrorism, as you first brought up Democrat gains in the government supposedly being based on the Iraq War. I pointed out other factors such as border security (Mexico) and you brought up the Canadian border for some odd reason, apparently supposing that the only issue in the elections was terrorism/Iraq or some mysterious combination of the two. Huh. So they apparently couldn't have crossed from Mexico with similar ease. Is that what you're saying? Separate from the border as an issue with respect to Islamic terrorists, perhaps, but you had introduced the issue of presidential popularity ("Sorry--there is a reason his approval ratings went lower than Nixon's"). Bush's dip in popularity was due in no small part to his stance on illegal immigration (from Mexico, not Canada). Then why did you bring up presidential popularity?

Immigrants, both legal and illegal, do help keep labor costs low, and thus help keep prices down. On the other hand, illegals place a high demand on certain types of government services, such as federally mandated emergency healthcare. The problem occurs when the economy is unable to accommodate immigration. When there are not enough jobs to go around, or the illegals are taking jobs from citizens, then there's a real problem. There aren't many U.S. citizens willing to do farm labor. Yes, it's good to have enough immigration to fill lower-end jobs, but you're missing the point when you focus on the issue domestically. Trade is one of the keys to global prosperity, because trade partners can produce more efficiently than either partner individually. So-called "outsourcing" is simply part of that process.

Because if you fire everybody then you have to start from scratch. The CIA is chock full of lifetime government employees. It's staff positions in the government that hold a surprising amount of power in our system. The staffers stay year after year to a large degree, while the elected officials come and go--even faster now that term limits are in effect in some areas. Bush installed Porter Goss to try to clean things up, but the CIA was apparently too big for him to overhaul (Bush is probably at fault to at least some degree for weakening his resolve). On top of that, the big problem was having intel on the ground--and you can thank Jimmy Carter and the Democrat majorities from the 1970s for emasculating our human-based intelligence abilities. Saddam Hussein acted like a guy who had WMDs, in part because he felt it strengthened his position with his ME neighbors (like Iran)--and Saddam fully intended to produce WMDs when he got sanctions lifted. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/06/gos...tion/index.html You're talking silly. Bush has made a good effort to overhaul the CIA. If you expect more from the next president (regardless of party) you're fooling yourself (barring the prompting of catastrophe). Bush trusted the CIA, but the British had information to which the CIA was not privy. Is Bush supposed to completely ignore that? See, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, chum. On the one hand, Bush is supposed to trust the CIA, and on the other hand he's supposed to fire a bunch of 'em for incompetence. Make up your mind. Uh--right, and he's so clever that he somehow tricked all of the world's other major allied powers into agreeing with the (incompetent) CIA's assessment of Hussein's capabilities. Honestly, you've have to try in order to have a less coherent view of the world. The preponderance of evidence supported the idea that Iraq had WMDs. Intelligence is nearly always a mixed bag with evidence supporting multiple interpretations. Most likely you're doing what you accuse Bush of doing. You have a theory that you prefer (Bush incompetent/evil/whatever) and you make the evidence fit your view by ignoring what doesn't fit.