Bryan

Provide the context and let's see. Bush had very little effect on economic policy prior to the economic effects of the WTC attacks. Unemployment in the wake of those attacks rose as the economy stayed in a tailspin for at least a year (iirc). As Bush's policies (along with judicious handling of interest rates by the Fed) have been enacted, unemployment has decreased by a full percentage point. That's a strong argument for Bush's policies bringing unemployment way down. It's up to you to suggest why (specifically) that characterization isn't fair (and balanced!).

Thanks, Jim. That adds another nail to the coffin of those who have alleged on such flimsy evidence that Paszkiewicz drew his material from Barton. The site that I have suggested as the source attributes the quotation to the Rush missive rather than the letter to Thomson. That's pretty good evidence.

Is that supposed to be an argument? I believe I used the phrase "no real evidence" (bold emphasis added). No real evidence, correct. Except for those that do not? lol Who do you think you're kidding? So you insist upon the genetic fallacy, or what? All of the quotations that Barton uses are false, then? I was not the one who introduced the trivial matter of the alleged origin of the quotations. On the contrary, I have pointed out that the emphasis on the origin of the quotations constitutes a genetic fallacy, and moreover that the evidence produced to tie Paszkiewicz to Barton is thin indeed. I've also provided URLs to a far more likely origin for the quotations (I believe that all of the quotations are found at the site, in addition to the Delaware Indian address in the same form as used by Paszkiewicz). I've called it a dead end, and it is people like you who insist on making an issue of it, even while ironically accusing me of changing the subject. The evidence is against those who allege a Barton/Paszkiewicz link. Ignore the facts at your own peril. If Barton originated the quotations, then they must all be fabrications, no? Otherwise we could suppose that Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin originated at least some of the quotations. Others have already noted that many Web sites collect quotations touching the same or similar subject matter. As noted above, I provided the URL for one that seems a closer match than the Barton hypothesis--but some won't let go of the genetic fallacy despite the evidence. Barton really is irrelevant to what Paszkiewicz wrote--and I'd be delighted to focus on the argument presented by Paszkiewicz based on its own merits, if others in the thread can find their way to relinquishing the obsession with Barton. I'd hope for better, but I'm a realist. I know what public schoolteachers are like, on balance. As I said before: If you took a survey you'd probably find Paskiewicz right around the middle if not distinctly in the upper half. Who would you hire to replace the 50% of teachers you would fire? Your posts mark you as one who is in no position to judge the competence of others.

... thus demonstrating that you very probably didn't understand what I wrote (leaving open the possibility that you get it, but you obfuscate now rather than own up). Secretary Rice tried to draw the distinction between escalating (increasing) forces in Iraq in terms of number and escalating the conflict itself--two different things. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/11/rice-augmentation/ The opposition favors the term "escalation" for the troop increase since in the minds of certain sheeple it gives the idea of escalating the conflict itself (via the fallacy of equivocation). It shouldn't be too hard to understand, even for you.

Hey, why don't you pick up your new post without the benefit of context? "He also forgets that the schools at the time of the founding fathers were private schools. There were very few public schools at the time." -Steve Yes, he was defending what he did in class (I don't think I've argued otherwise), but the paucity or absence of public schools during the time of the framers isn't really relevant to that point. It's silly to suggest that Paszkiewiecz "forgets" about it. Well, you've got your facts messed up. The framers wanted the national government barred from establishing a religion. If they were agreed that government in general should not have any ability to legislate concerning religion then they would have made that explicit in the Constitution in such a way that the various established state religions of the time were ended with the adoption of the Constitution. Yet quotation from framers have been produced recognizing the ability of the states to establish a religion under the Constitution--but all we hear from the other side is "Barton!" "Out of context!" "Liars!" and the like. So, in your view the framers intended for the Constitution to bar city governments from legislating on religious matters? Seriously? Shouldn't you establish some ability of your own before assigning grades to others? Answer my former question. Maybe toleration and respect for others could come into play on that? That's easy to say, certainly, but you don't seem to have any real evidence to stack up against his argument, Steve. All you do is repeat your own dubious understanding of history and then declare that Paszkiewicz doesn't measure up.

1) The tech bubble from the Clinton years had gone into decline before Bush took office. That's a downward-trending economy. In essence, you're just picking the lowest unemployment number under Clinton and comparing it to the current numbers under Bush. That seems to qualify as either stupidity or cheating. http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/ChartVie...art&graph=unemp 2) Whatever the condition of the economy Bush inherited from Clinton, the 9-11 attacks severely damaged the US economy. That doesn't seem to factor into PatRat's calculations at all--though that could make sense if he thinks that Bush orchestrated the 9-11 attacks. Uh, yeah, thanks. Maybe you should get back to your Etch-a-Sketch.

"Guest," you don't know what you're talking about. There were some documents that were forged that had been considered as evidence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger. The CIA knew of that and the president was aware of that. However, British Intelligence assured our intelligence agencies that their information was not based on the forgeries. The CIA can't rubber stamp intelligence that they have not verified, so Bush's speech acknowledged the British as the source of the information. How do you count that as a lie without doing a triple backflip?

Anonymous guests qualify for the "three strikes" plan. Good luck, "Guest" If it's proven, it's still the genetic fallacy. I just thought it would be fun to examine the utter lack of reasoning presented in favor of the conclusion. If you had done as much research as I have done on this, you'd be aware that the version cited by Paszkiewicz was sourced to a published government document from earlier the early 20th century. Whether the quotation actually appears in that document I do not know--but incredulity isn't much of an argument against, is it? Given that the precise version used by Paszkiewicz is found in relative abundance on the Web (and not by Barton), this argues strongly that Barton was not the source. Yes, and? They're so similar that the latter must have been taken from the former? Gimme a break. http://www.eadshome.com/GeorgeWashington.htm *Sigh* Again with the straw man argument. Paszkiewicz argued that those key framers did not have the popular notion of church/state separation in mind; I expect that he would argue that he was not proselytizing. The version that Paszkiewicz used, while apparently not accurate, is a fair paraphrase of Washington. http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/W..._lf026.head.060 Just for fun, you should see if Barton ever used the version of the quotation that Paszkiewicz used. That technique ends up addressing Paskiewicz rather than Paszkiewicz's argument. It's an inductive ad hominem of dubious value in debating the issue that Paszkiewicz broached. So, whoever got the quotations wrong, they did it on purpose? Are you a psychic, or what? Defend what? Using inaccurate quotations? I haven't done that. How about you spell out what you think I'm defending, just to assure me that you intend no dishonest innuendo as part of an attack against me. lol Describe those key similarities anytime. All roads lead to Barton, it seems. I don't see why you're putting such effort into a genetic fallacy. The jig is up. Address the argument, or find something else constructive to do.

Oh, really. May I assume that fair-minded people give some consideration to evidence? What have you got? So name one that is distinctive of Barton--unless you can come up with two or more. So Parker has his suspicions confirmed by the evidenceless case made by "Kyle" @ PFAW? What's he doing teaching history at the university level if he allows his mind to be made up on zero real evidence? http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...pic=3727&st=40# As for the "AnotherHistory" blog, that guy only comments on the one Jefferson quotation. You might want to do your own research on what I've already written in this thread: http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...opic=3727&st=0# So why don't you show us some daylight instead of just asserting without evidence that I'm wrong about something? You really think that's better than going to skeptics who just jump to conclusions minus any substantial evidence? So, you don't have evidence but you feel comfortable launching personal attacks on me (first paragraph) and Paskiewicz (final paragraph). http://www.eadshome.com/Jefferson.htm You might also want to clue yourself in, DingoDave, to the fact that the genetic fallacy is, after all, a fallacy. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html

I'll bet if you tested history teachers across the nation, Paskiewicz would be solidly in the middle if not in the upper half. Yet that's what many have done with Paszkiewicz. And those people are creationists and holocaust deniers, you say? You can specify which? Can't Paszkiewicz have his own purpose for writing without running the post past you first for approval of the topic? Is that another creationist trick--ignoring the content and context of a post and projecting your own subject on top of it in order to proclaim it "irrelevant"? So how long have you been a creationist? Or are you a holocaust denier, instead? Brayton's no historian; he committed a good hanful of errors in his post. Lippard should have thought twice about citing him. Ah, so you bought the Paszkiewicz/Wallbuilder connection. What was the key evidence that established that connection, in your opinion?

So, you didn't understand what I wrote, or what?

That is, in fact, the content of what he said when fixed in the original context. In the context, he is simply making the point that there is reason for accepting the Bible apart from blind faith, which was the issue introduced by the student (LaClair, IIRC). It would be disingenuous to try to paint Paszkiewicz's purpose as proselytization when the context so plainly indicates that the facts to which he alludes (supported by an encyclopedic reference, no less) pertain to epistemology in general for purposes of comparison. Hopefully you won't just buy what lawyers, judges and lawmakers tell you without considering the merit (or lack thereof) of their arguments. It would be okay if Paszkiewicz said that some believe the Bible is true because of fulfilled prophecy, but only if he fails to give examples and/or makes sure that he is not seen as believing it himself? Is that the general idea? You rock. The student asked about belief in the Bible, specifically. Paszkiewicz gave an answer in that context that could have been given by a Jew, a Muslim or a Christian. I'd argue that the context supplies that idea. Taking Paszkiewicz's comments out of context makes him appear at fault. You are amply protected from appearing inconsistent by keeping your definition of "religious belief" out of view. If I should venture to charge you with inconsistency, just say that's not what you meant and the matter should be put to rest. Of course I disagree. I don't know what you mean by "reasonable definition of the term" since you don't have any inclination to define the term. I don't think there is any reasonable definition of the term that will protect hundreds (thousands) of U.S. teachers from charges like those brought against Paszkiewicz--and I'm not talking about advocates of the Bible or Christianity. Personally, I think your question of "what is a religious belief" is something of a debating trick. An attempt to shift the subject. And you can explain how explicitly defining the key idea in the debate distracts from the subject? If I were to place great emphasis on your unwillingness to define the key term and try to replace the discussion of constitutionality with a discussion of your debating tactics, then your suggestion would be reasonable. That's far from my intent. My intent is to show that the case against Paszkiewicz (as it has commonly been made) is a case of special pleading. Unless you're prepared to argue that Mr. P was not discussing religion, your question isn't relevant. Non sequitur, since I might find areas where you are very happy to see "religious beliefs" as you define them (if you're consistent) taught in the public school setting. That, of course, would bring us back to the criterion you use to find Paszkiewicz's speech unacceptable. Just because some cases may be arguable doesn't mean every case is. Agreed, but I haven't made that argument--have I? As an analogy, consider that green and yellow are unquestionably different colors, even if it's difficult to precisely divide green from yellow on the color spectrum. Why should I believe that it is obviously green in the first place? This is not one of those difficult cases. Oh, well then I simply shouldn't argue about it it, then. Verily, your technique of not defining green is a stroke of genius. Mr. P. was unambiguously discussing religious beliefs; his religious beliefs in particular. Based on the transcript, it seems clear that he repeatedly made truth claims about his religious beliefs. (I say "seems" to acknowledge that I don't know for a fact that the transcript is accurate.) You can argue that he was merely answering students' questions in a hypothetical way, but the posted transcript doesn't support you. It wasn't hypothetical. It was by example. If you committed any typos, none of them caught my eye. I realize this is the Internet, anyway. Message boards are not the place to obsess over spelling. Unless maybe one is paid to moderate.

Really? What's the evidence that he took the quotations from that source? It's got to be more than the fact that each quotation may be found there, right? That is, unless one (or more) of the quotations is distinctive of the Barton site? 1) This source ("Kyle"--no last name--from "People for the American Way") has not yet provided reasonable evidence to warrant a conclusion that Paszkiewicz used Barton as a source. 2) Regardless of #1, PFAW provides no substantive criticism of Barton's conclusions, instead preferring to tar him via name-calling ("skewed 'scholarship,'" guilt by (loose/looser/loosest) association with an Identity movement group). The foregoing statement is not made in the company of supporting evidence, unless we count the smear campaign against Barton--and no reasonable effort has been made to connect Barton to Paszkiewicz. And the conclusion is yet another smear made without the benefit of supporting evidence. The effort by "Kyle" to discredit Paszkiewicz indirectly through Barton is wholly laughable. "Kyle" provides no affirmative case for connecting the two apart from the fact that four quotations may be found used by both--but "Kyle" himself notes that one of the quotations is different between the two (the Washington address of the Delaware Indians). Shouldn't that be a clue that Paszkiewicz did not use Barton's work as his source? Don't let the evidence distract you from the conclusion you seek to draw, "Kyle." As already pointed out, however, the real point is that Paszkiewicz's thesis has not been challenged. The case stands on its own apart from the source (otherwise the critics are guilty of a genetic fallacy), but no attempt is made to address the argument itself.

Huh? What do you mean it doesn't exist? Just because the government took the Website down because of the nuclear weapon goof-up doesn't mean that the document doesn't exist. I've looked at the original (in Arabic) and, iirc, another translation that matched that of j veritas. http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murd...00604100727.asp You could look at the NYT account I linked for some corroboration, you know. Are you trying to be funny, offering a Wikepedia (the encycopedia anyone can edit!) entry to discredit TFR? It's a misguided effort in any case. The entry contains a complaint about some posters to TFR's Web site (the one who translated the document, you hope?), and an account of a lawsuit for allowing copyrighted material to be posted. Feel free to suggest how any of that is relevant. Seemingly it's just your way of justifying willful blindness to the evidence. Heh. Who said anything about American soil? Oh, that would be you. Because you need to try to narrow it down like in your desperation to make bin Laden out to be something of a threat. Bin Laden is so busy running that he can barely participate in a news release on an annual basis. But I guess you could come back and say that he's not filming them on American soil. That would sure show me. Face it: bin Laden is neutralized. That might change if Pakistan grants him some form of sanctuary. Otherwise al Qaida planning will be done primarily by leaders somewhat down the chain of command. And there you go jumping to conclusions. Who said anything about lying? Oh--that would be you again. I simply suggest that the CIA (FBI, according to the encyclopedia anyone can edit) could be wrong, as they apparently were (along with the intelligence services of each of our allies) about Hussein's stockpiles of WMD. Unless you think that Clinton appointed Tenet so that he could lie on the CIA's behalf to the Bush administration--or something similarly creative and outlandish? You could read? Okay, so if he hides in China we should send people to China to find him--regardless of how the Chinese react? You'll make a fine foreign policy guru one day. I see. You're so intelligent that you would have known that the CIA, British Intelligence, French Intelligence, Italian Intelligence, Russian Intelligence, etc. were wrong? Wow. Maybe I've been underestimating you. Sure they are. It just happens that we don't have millions of illegals crossing that border every year like we have on the southern border. The southern border is both a security risk and a weakness to US claims of sovereignty. The combination magnifies its importance as a political issue (particularly in states that end up as home for illegal immigrants, including Texas and California). The northern border was not a factor in Republican political losses; nor did it figure prominently in the policies of Democrats who were elected, so far as I know.

Escalation: (DOD) A deliberate or unpremeditated increase in scope or violence of a conflict. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/e/01924.html Does an increase in troops automatically increase the scope or violence of the Iraq conflict? One could call it an escalation* in the number of troops, certainly, but using the term as the opposition has chosen to do lends itself to a fallacy of equivocation. To increase, enlarge, or intensify http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/escalation http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/four_fall.html

Always start with the name-calling. It really strengthens your argument. Hmmm. Second step is also name-calling (delusion, self-interest). Because unemployment insurance records, which many people think are the source of total unemployment data, relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration project. It has been expanded and modified several times since then. As explained later, the CPS estimates, beginning in 1994, reflect the results of a major redesign of the survey. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm#Ques1 In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. If the U.S. didn't outsource jobs, you'd be paying about 3-4x more for the items you buy such as shoes and computers. So, you don't know how the U.S. figures its labor statistics and you don't know the benefits of counting labor as a trade commodity--but you're calling the other guy names. Sweet. http://www.cfr.org/publication/7749/#9

You would be correct if the context did not argue in Paszkiewicz's favor. Paszkiewicz was fielding a question from a student inquiring as to what basis religious believers had for accepting the veracity of Bible accounts (for example). The context is important, is it not? Again, a response to a reasonable question from a student. Is the topic of religion off-limits in the classroom? Another instance where Paszkiewicz is presenting an explanation for a reasoned belief in the Bible text, in answer to a question from a student. Not if you pay attention to the context, he's not. He is not presenting these ideas as something that the students are expected to accept as true. He is presenting these ideas to illustrate the rational basis of religious belief, fulfilling the parallel to beliefs about the claims of science. Regardless of the context? Certainly keeping the definition secret helps protect against a charge of inconsistency, however. That's a very convenient view for you to have, given that you are unwilling to spell out the criteria you employ in making the determination. Fair enough.

I'll visit your argument as to the former. As for the latter, Franklin believed in active provenance on the part of God, and was on record with a motion recommending prayer before government deliberations. That's not how many people think of deists today. Prior to the 17th century the terms ["deism" and "deist"] were used interchangeably with the terms "theism" and "theist", respectively. ... Theologians and philosophers of the seventeenth century began to give a different signification to the words.... Both [theists and deists] asserted belief in one supreme God, the Creator.... and agreed that God is personal and distinct from the world. But the theist taught that god remained actively interested in and operative in the world which he had made, whereas the deist maintained that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and self-acting powers and then abandoned it to the operation of these powers acting as second causes.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism Paszkiewicz didn't mention anything about schools at all, AFAICT. Looks like you're making up a straw man argument, Steve. Why would you do that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jeffer...hurch_and_state Note the portion that I have highlighted in green. How did Jefferson define "state church" in your opinion, Steve? And how would you describe his objection to a state church? As I have already pointed out, the First Amendment had no teeth in it against the powers of the individual states. The states were held to possess those powers not reserved to the national government. That only changed after the Civil War. Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin were all dead by the time of the Civil War. They would not recognize the application of the First Amendment as it is applied today with respect to state and local governments. It's like you guys aren't aware of that fact, and so far there seems little hope that you possess the will to accept the obvious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment...First_Amendment Huh. With Wikipedia's help and a little luck you may never need to write anything of your own again. I'd ask you, Steve, how far back the "historically understood" view goes, but since you're just copying and pasting the substance of your posts I may presume too much understanding on your part of what you copied. This article goes deeper than Wikipedia (the encylopedia anyone can edit). http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=804

I'm not overlooking that point. I'm just making sure that Strife's inaccurate statements do not remain unchallenged. Is that okay with you? You haven't been paying attention. The architects of the constitution set it up to bar the national government from delving into religious matters. It was the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the American Civil War, that was subsequently stretched (beyond recognition, I would suggest) to bind state and local governments in the same manner as the national government up to and including the establishment of religion. http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend14.htm You need to look at the argument that's on the table instead of the pre-cooked one in your imagination. Does that mean that you'll explain how this quotation was used out-of-context? "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428 http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...opic=3727&st=0#

I think that Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin would have unquestionably found the comments constitutional. That doesn't directly answer your question, however. The constitution has become a malleable document in the hands of the courts. Some precedents in the wake of the 14th Amendment place Paszkiewicz's statements in doubt. Others offer him some support. Given an equivocal constitution, nobody can say for certain except for the courts--but I do accept accept the principle of rewriting the constitution via interpretation. Changing the constitution ought to be done by amendment, not through judicial interpretation (that is, activism). Using an interpretation of the constitution based the language of the law interpreted in the light of authorial intent, what Paszkiewicz said should be fine (under the purview of the local government). The sole questionable comment in my mind was Paszkiewicz's apparently unequivocal statement to effect that a first cause "must" be intelligent--but even that type of comment may qualify as a commonplace low-level hyperbole. I'm basing my comments on the Sept. 14 transcript. Apart from that I've only heard the two-part recording posted online in mp3 format in which I found nothing at all that seemed out of line. Paszkiewicz is a Baptist, right? Which Baptist beliefs that he actively attempt to impress upon his students in doctrinaire fashion? Your question itself is insufficiently specific because one of the terms may be prejudicially defined. What is a "religious belief"? No, they would not. But for some reason folks do not tire of asking. Comments parallel to Paszkiewicz's by members of any of the above groups would be okay by me (with the exception of parallels to Paskiewicz's claim that a First Cause must be intelligent). If the Satanist were to tell the class that of course it's okay to take revenge on people who "wrong" you, I think that should be prohibited (though more as a matter of sustaining the social contract than as a matter of church/state separation). In a class where religious beliefs are fair game for discussion, on the other hand, there should be nothing wrong with a Satanist (Wiccan, whatever) using his own beliefs to illustrate a point (short of proselytization, which I define more narrowly than some others--though I find my definition more in line with what the dictionary offers).

Beginning of the translation of page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654 In the Name of God the Merciful The Compassionate Top Secret The Command of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base No 3/6/104 Date 11 March 2001 To all the Units Subject: Volunteer for Suicide Mission The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us. Air Brigadier General Abdel Magid Hammod Ali Commander of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base Air Colonel Mohamad Majid Mahdi. End of translation of page 6 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1...sts?page=301,50 I regret that the original is no longer available for public viewing. The website was closed down after Iraq's plans for a nuclear weapon were inadvertently published to the Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/mi...0&ex=1320210000 Iraq doesn't hate the US. It's sectarian violence in Iraq, primarily. The Kurds are pretty solidly behind the US. The Shiites were gung-ho for the US until they realized we wouldn't support a Shiite-dominated state--protections needed to be in place for the Sunnis and the Kurds. The Sunnis definitely don't like us because they had it pretty good under Saddam Hussein. Some of them are beginning to realize that the US is their best bet for not getting a raw deal from the Shiite majority, though. That's simply untrue, though bin Laden has been effectively neutralized since he stays so busy hiding out. Seen any terrorist attacks with bin Laden's fingerprints on them, lately? His biggest accomplishment is staying alive over the past five years. Bin Laden is about 6 feet tall, according to Lawrence Wright. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19433 But, if you want to believe the CIA ... Why shouldn't Pakistan look for bin Laden if bin Laden seems to be in Pakistan? So ... you would have found bin Laden if you'd been president? Something tells me you don't have the southern border security issue in mind. That issue accounts for a considerable amount of conservative discontent with Bush. Can we trust Strife to always come through with superficial analysis?

Fallacy of the complex question (question contains questionable premise). That's because you have no argument, present case included (this response and the earlier one). http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40389 Paul had no argument, either. He made an assertion but provided absolutely no concrete evidence in support. Good enough for Strife, apparently. Paul apparently did not have the ability or inclination to elaborate: http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...t=620&p=40389 http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...t=620&p=40389 http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40443 "Guest" had no argument, either. Good enough for Strife, apparently. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40452 Paul's charge was equivocal. Do you know what that means? Do you have any argument to stack up against mine? From anybody regardless of legal training? And are you finished trying to change the subject from your latest embarassment (I thought fundies did that--you a fundie, Strife?)?

The "right" to which you refer is not among those enumerated in the Constitution, as Paskiewicz points out. Once you appeal to 20th century court opinions in arguing for the right (I'd be glad to see you try without that appeal), you're conceding the brunt of Paszkiewicz's argument. That's part of the real story. Jefferson was Episcopalian in affiliation, and deist in belief. He was a Christian (in his own words) to the extent that he held Jesus' moral teachings as the ideal. That's hardly worse than Strife's failure to either acknowledge or refute the significance of the second quotation cited by Paszkiewicz. And here Strife again dodges the point of Paszkiewicz's written words, offering an accusation in lieu of rebuttal. So ... where's the argument against his thesis? Huh? Based on what? One of the LaClair cheerleaders (was it you, Strife?) flatly declared that it was the interpretation of the courts that mattered with respect to the Constitution. That view isn't uncommon, but it wasn't the intent of the authors and signers of the Constitution that the courts would have full sway over the interpretation of the founding document. It would be interesting to see a real argument in favor of your view, Strife. Seriously, I don't think that Jefferson would bat an eyelash if a public school instructor used Paskiewicz's exact words in a schoolroom. He was a deist, after all, not an atheist, and he was accustomed to life in a culture that was overwhelmingly Christian. He should have had ample time to complain about the prayers offered at official government functions, for example, if you were right. "Dreisbach argues that Jefferson's fairly nuanced account of church-state relations became reified in the twentieth-century when it came to signify strict separation. He rehabilitates Jefferson's understanding with a careful examination of the various drafts of his letter to the Danbury Baptists, the political purposes Jefferson had in mind in composing it, and he compares it to other statements Jefferson made both as President and as Governor of Virginia. Contrary to the strict-separationist account, Jefferson thought the First Amendment regulated relations between the state and churches, and not the broader relationship between state and religion. Moreover, the First Amendment applies only to the federal government; states may establish and support churches, as well as issue Thanksgiving and prayer proclamations-as Jefferson himself did while governor of Virginia." http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages...reisbach104.htm "Attacking Federalist policies, he opposed a strong centralized Government and championed the rights of states." http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tj3.html Jefferson probably would have been completely flabbergasted to see how the courts applied the 14th Amendment. "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428 http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm Probably correct, but Jefferson would have allowed the state of New Jersey to allow explicit religious instruction in its public schools. ... and we note the abundant evidence Strife produced in favor of this assertion. The evidence on Washington is varied and somewhat contradictory. "Among them is Gordon Wood, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian at Brown University and author of "Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different." He says their public square was far more saturated with expressions of faith than is today's. "They didn't anticipate religion retreating as much from the public square as we've done in the 20th and 21st centuries," Wood says. "The modern notion that we're being overtaken by a theocracy and that evangelical Christians are running amok - I think that's just kind of a madness that comes from people who have no historical perspective." http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0703/p01s01-ussc.html Paskiewicz's overall point (I accept that the initial quotation of Jefferson is misleading) seems to be the degree to which the founders were open to expressions of religious sentiment and belief in association with the government, along with the secondary point that they did not envision the courts making significant decisions with legislative impact. (post split in two to avoid quote bug) That post is blissfully absent material worth dignifying with a reply.

Huh. I'm very one-sided. Not at all. You've been asked about a particular quotation, one that you've been using as part of your argument against Paszkiewicz. That's the quotation from the office meeting, where Matthew was present with school officials and Mr. Paskiewicz. We have a written account that appears at Jim Lippard's blog, but without attribution as to the author, and without attribution as to the source providing the quotation of Paszkiewicz. That quotation is not likely to appear on any of the classroom transcripts, so no amount of listening is going to address that issue. Simply tell us, Paul, if you know who wrote that piece on the Lippard blog, and whether Matthew is the sole source relating that quotation of Paszkiewicz. That should be simple enough, regardless of any profusion of recorded classroom sessions Hence the pesky questions directed at one who was largely on the inside.

If the moderators are even half awake they're likely to catch the problem. Modern criticism does not make that assumption. It judges on the basis of genre. If the writer seems to be writing as though he expects his account to be taken as history or the like, the genre should reflect that fact (for example, Homer's works were in verse, which lends itself to embroidery). Since modern criticism doesn't make that assumption, don't make that assumption about modern criticism. Criticism expanded the toolkit. It did not lay down a roadmap for all to follow. That's nice, but you should weight your evidence carefully. Message boards, for example, do not necessarily provide an accurate cross-section. The question was not based on any (false) premise. I commonly use questions to elicit a more accurate picture of the other person's views, and to challenge their conceptions of science. Try identifying the supposed false premise, BTW. [Galileo] invited the university professors to see the heavenly wonders for themselves, but was met with hostility. Some refused to look through the telescope at all, others looked but professed to see nothing, others claimed that what they saw was a flaw in the optics. Galileo had better luck with the Jesuit astronomers in Rome. They had obtained a telescope and had confirmed what Galileo had found. Galileo went to Rome for a triumphal visit. Even old Father Clavius, the author of the Gregorian calendar, who had scoffed earlier, gave in gracefully. Cardinal Bellarmine, the chief theologian of the Church, asked the Jesuits for an official opinion of Galileo’s views, and got "the most favorable letter you could think of". http://www.ips-planetarium.org/planetarian...hofgalileo.html The geocentric view was probably popular with Catholics because it was popular with scientists. It's an ever-popular technique to take the claims of science and show them vindicated in the pages of the Bible. At the higher level, however, the Roman Catholic Church was a source of scientific advancement in Galileo's time. They were right to criticize Galileo's evidence while welcoming the hypothesis. What's the other thing(s) that causes us to reject it? I'm not asking Paul if he claimed that science and parsimony have the same meaning, if that's what you're asking. I'm asking him a question intended to get him to think about the epistemic foundation for the claims of science. The issue potentially touches on the notion of "religion" since scientific claims seem to meet the criteria that are sometimes offered for religious claims. That sounds like a job for Self-Awareness! Unless mental models may be constructed and manipulated unconsciously in the abstract? How would science demonstrate self-awareness? (appealing to an argument by analogy) Can't problem-solving behaviors be explained without the added notion of "intelligence" as you have defined it? Bryan, Dec 27: (The Turing test, in effect--Is it science?) No, the Turing test is completely different. It looks at whether a machine can simulate human conversational behavior. I’m talking about looking for evidence that something is using mental models to solve problems. Wouldn't a machine probably need to construct mental models to solve the problems of simulating a human conversation? "Turing originally proposed the test in order to replace the emotionally charged and (for him) meaningless question "Can machines think?" with a more well-defined one. The advantage of the new question, he said, was that it "drew a fairly sharp line between the physical and intellectual capacities of a man." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test#V...the_Turing_test If you can think one move ahead in a chess game, and act accordingly, you would be showing evidence of intelligence under my definition, but not by the Turing test. I’ll forego answering the “Is it science” question about the Turing test since it isn’t applicable. I do think it is within the purvue of science to define a phenomenon in such a way as to suggest tests that would demonstrate it, which is what I’ve done for intelligence. I don’t think what I’ve done equates exactly with the term “science”, however. The last sentence answers sufficiently. Glen Tarr, Dec 27: If something is demonstrating flexible and complex strategies to achieve a goal, and if it has a brain at least superficially similar to our own, chances are it’s demonstrating intelligence. That's an argument rooted in analogy. It's not a bad argument, but as you've noted it isn't especially scientific, either. Mental models are tough to quantify (Hubbard's results with the e-meter notwithstanding!). If by “calculate” you mean figure the odds to three significant figures, I’d agree. If you meant there’s no way of telling the likely from the unlikely, I think you’re wrong. Look at an action, consider whether the best explanation for it involves a mental model, consider whether the actor possesses an organ known to support intelligence, repeat for other actions, and base your determination thereon. It’s not that tough. And there was nothing in the definition of intelligence I provided that requires self-awareness. I think if you look at the steps you use to determine "whether the best explanation for it involves a mental model" you won't find much there beyond the argument from analogy. Bryan, Dec 27: In my experience, skeptics have only naturalistic explanations in mind when they ask for explanations. Are you different? You have a non-naturalistic explanation that is sufficient and falsifiable? I’m all ears. You could have just said "no." The (philosophical) principle of sufficiency is questionable, BTW. For one thing, there's no sufficient explanation for it. Bryan, Dec 27: The legal system presumes personal responsibility, otherwise there's little sense in offering punishment. That brings up the issue of personal responsibility given determinism. I see the compatibilist argument as very difficult to make. Although I don’t see anything wrong with Compatibilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism), I don’t believe I’ve made a Compatibilist argument. I don't think so, either--but neither have you tipped your hand. I’ve said that one thing that may have helped determine Paszkeiwicz’s behavior was the assumption that he could get away with it, and that some form of punishment would help prevent that assumption from forming in Paszkeiwicz’s mind, or the minds of others, in the future. Nothing in that argument requires either the existence or non-existence of free will. Again, it's tough to make the Compatibilist case that Paszkiewicz is morally culpable if he could not help acting as he did. Sitting on the fence just makes you look partial to Compatibilism. Bryan, Dec 27: Was that discovered through experimentation? How was the key variable isolated? If you listen to Dennett (as Paul recommended), wouldn't he tell you that the brain determines the thoughts in advance of the thinking? Doesn't that suggest to you the irrelevancy of conscious thought in determining action (consciousness just along for the ride!)? Is it right to punish somebody for what he cannot help doing just so that somebody else won't do the same thing in the future? Let's say that we've got a child in school with Tourette's syndrome. Every time he lets out a curse word, the teacher raps him on the knuckles with a ruler so that the other kids will see that cursing is not a rewarded behavior. Under the assumption that the punishment is reasonable (for the sake of argument), is this an acceptable paradigm? It has been discovered through experimentation that reasonable punishments can help prevent future rule violations, and that lack of such punishments can encourage them. New parents rediscover this point all the time. I’ve argued that the reason for this is that the punishments affect the presumptions held by the potential rule-breaker. I think that’s a reasonable explanation, but even if it works for some other reason, the point remains that it generally works and should therefore be applied to Paszkiewicz. There are some situations, such as with Tourette’s, in which the rule-breaker’s honest attempts to change her own actions are completely ineffective. You don't sound much like a Compatibilist at the moment--not that somebody could not be pre-determined to earnestly try to do other than what he (or she) is causally determined to do! Point being that the physical malady is intended as an analogy to and example of causal determinism. Take Tourette's as a special case from that POV and you're engaged in the fallacy of special pleading. You make it look like you're assuming free will. Punishment does not seem to lessen the likelihood of subsequent rule-breaking in these individuals, and the effect punishment would have on others is likely negligible once they understand the rule-breaker is acting despite her own best efforts to stop. Accordingly, punishment (beyond whatever is necessary to minimize the impact of the outbursts) would be unreasonable (or to use your terms, an unacceptable paradigm). Uh, Glen, you were asked to take the punishment as reasonable for the sake of argument. The failure to do so results in begging the question. Are you claiming Paszkiewicz was proselytizing in class despite his own best efforts to stop? No. What could have given you that idea? I thought you were trying to argue instead that his decision not to apply those efforts was itself pre-determined by preceeding circumstances. That’s entirely different. Some of those preceding circumstances included his presumptions regarding the likelihood of avoiding punishment, and can therefore be affected by the application of punishment. The point is that science cannot find Paszkiewicz guilty under its normal presuppositions. A different epistemology much come into play. You can't have science at all without its metaphysical foundation, and students should be well aware of the metaphysical model that modern science insists upon in relation to competing models. To proceed otherwise is to indoctrinate students in metaphysical naturalism by default. This shouldn't be a controversial point, by the way. Philosophy of Science is a huge field ever since Karl Popper. PoS's muddle about in the metaphysics routinely. Science should not be exempt from having its presuppositions examined. Science does not insist on a metaphysical model. Your numerous statements to the contrary remain unsupported. The mainstream scientific community, which is aptly termed "science" insists on philosophical naturalism. I agree with you that (idealized) science need not rely on philosophical naturalism. http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Enterprising.cfm http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/schafersman_nat.html http://www.naturalism.org/begley.htm (don't stop at the title) http://www.naturalism.org/science.htm#integrity http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/naturalism.html http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bar...naturalism.html http://www.philosophy.ed.ac.uk/ug_study/ug.../Naturalism.pdf book review http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/cata...n=9780521609937 I agree that the philosophy of science is an important field, but there’s more to philosophy than metaphysics, and it is possible to hold any number of metaphysical presuppositions and still do good science. One need merely follow the scientific method. And there's the rub, since there really isn't any rigid scientific method. The criteria seem to have exceptions invariably. Glen Tarr, Dec 27: Science class is for science. Metaphysics is beyond science – by definition. Bryan, Dec 27: Metaphysics is also the foundation for science, by definition. To quickly illustrate: Science cannot confirm intelligence, but the goal of science is to increase knowledge. Science can't confirm the legitimacy of its own goals. It needs a metaphysical foundation. Metaphysics means “beyond physics”. What definition were you using according to which it is the foundation of science? 1. the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology. 2. philosophy, esp. in its more abstruse branches. 3. the underlying theoretical principles of a subject or field of inquiry. See #1 and #3, especially. Or was I supposed to go for dubious definition for the prefix "meta" ("beyond"? No kidding?) combined with the term "physics"? meta philosophy /me't*/ or /may't*/ or (Commonwealth) /mee't*/ A prefix meaning one level of description higher. If X is some concept then meta-X is data about, or processes operating on, X. For example, a metasyntax is syntax for specifying syntax, metalanguage is a language used to discuss language, meta-data is data about data, and meta-reasoning is reasoning about reasoning. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meta Regarding your illustration, I disagree that science has goals. Science is a method of learning about the world, and a body of information obtained thereby. Okay, and if you don't have the goal of learning abut the world, or some purpose in mind for the information--where does that leave science (it'd be like having a pipe wrench while having no inclination to work on pipes)? In short, I think you misconstrued my point. Science in one sense is absent all values, but the enterprise of science is based squarely on the question for knowledge. Science itself can't justify the question for knowledge. If there is no goal for science--why do it? Bryan, Dec 27: I mean to say that it is common; not necessarily most of the time. Teaching methodological naturalism without any teaching about metaphysics in general is a de facto indoctrination in metaphysical naturalism. Do you have any examples to show that teaching metaphysical naturalism in science class is common? Did you read what preceded your comment? Do you have any support for your idea that teaching methodological naturalism without teaching about metaphysics in general is de facto indoctrination? Isn't that self-evident? Just pretend that I taught you an epistemology based on empiricism and nothing else. What metaphysical position squarely underlies that epistemology? Bryan, Dec 27: Glen, you're a decent debater, but don't put claims into my mouth for me. I'm way too experienced to fall for that garbage. I'd like to hope you did so accidentally. Here's what I said originally: "In practice the metaphysics get discussed in science class, but to the exclusion of everything that does not contribute to science (that is, metaphysical naturalism). Is that a proper education?" And you replied (bold emphasis added): "Metaphysical naturalism is the idea that everything is governed by natural laws and nothing can be beyond such laws. Methodological naturalism is the idea that science should proceed in its methods by assuming a phenomenon is produced by natural laws, unless there is evidence to the contrary. What makes you think high school science classes teach the former rather than the latter?" In short, I never made the claim you're ascribing to me. You employed the fallacy of the complex question (question containing dubious assumption that is affirmed by any direct answer). I suppose I should have called you on it from the first, but I thought I'd simply clarify (under the assumption that you weren't trying to be deliberately tricky). They teach the former by teaching the latter in an effective vacuum. You made the claim I ascribed to you in your response right above this one. I said that high school science classes don’t typically teach metaphysical naturalism, and you said it was common. If you weren’t trying to claim that science classes commonly teach metaphysical naturalism, then maybe you should retract that statement and carefully rephrase whatever it is you’re actually trying to say. The claims are not the same. Place them next to one another and focus. Your version of my claim suggested that metaphysical naturalism was taught rather than methodological naturalism. My claim is that instruction in a methodologically naturalistic epistemology is a de facto indoctrination in metaphysical naturalism. That is true because (where) the epistemology of the metaphysical position is taught to the exclusion of the alternatives. Recall that you were against teaching the metaphysics behind science. Bryan, Dec 27: That's a great question. I often use (random) quantum particle formation as an example of the supernatural in my discussions with skeptics. It tends to make their eyes cross. The usual response is to claim that science simply hasn't found the answer yet. I wouldn't be at all surprise if a guest contributed such a comment to this thread. I think most likely scientists who are not directly involved in quantum physics and the like don't trouble themselves over the fly in the ointment represented by quantum particle formation. Some of the folks I've debated, IIRC, claim to be scientists, and they resist the idea that quantum particles form randomly without cause. All of which merely provides further support for the idea that there is room for numerous metaphysical assumptions in science. Once science begins calling the formation of quantum particles "supernatural" I'll agree with you. Don't hold your breath on the former. Everything is considered "natural" in mainstream science. I doubt the average scientist can come up with a definition "supernatural" that passes the test of coherency. Bryan, Dec 27: Is there an important difference between philosophy and religion in terms of the establishment clause? Could we indoctrinate children into Stoicism in government schools? I don’t think we could Constitutionally indoctrinate children into a particular philosophical system, although the particular clause preventing it might be equal protection or due process rather than establishment of religion. I don’t know if the question’s ever been ruled on. I’m not arguing in favor of such indoctrination if that’s what you’re asking. I was merely pointing out that an ethical system based on the Golden Rule need not be considered a religious belief. I'm trying to challenge you as to how you define "religious belief." Science isn't going to discover morality for you (though it might describe norms). There's a hint of a "yes" in answer to my question about the "important difference." If your answer is "yes" then it would interest me to see your description of the important difference. Bryan, Dec 27: Those who believe that everyone should not be treated equally are obviously under pressure to conform. Take a Hindu, for example. There's this Untouchable class, and this "treating everyone equally" stuff very obviously militates against his religious beliefs. Is that credible? The Hindu in question need not treat everyone equally. So what? That misses the point. Society is coercing his conscience. Infringing his rights by favoring the group of religions that recognize equality. Forcing its own views onto him in opposition to his religious beliefs. He in fact has the Constitutional right of freedom of association. That's kind of like "For the other contestants we have this gift package from Wal-mart," isn't it? Would you comfort Matt LaClair with freedom of association? "Don't worry about Paszkiewicz. Join the New Jersey chapter of American Atheists!" It is the government that is required to treat everyone equally. If the government is required to treat everyone equally, then why does the government institutionalize the beliefs of the religions at odds with Hinduism on the issue of equality? Don't you see the problem? And even for the government we are only talking about the avoidance of special treatment based on group membership, and that only within the group of adult citizens. If, however, the Hindu wants to shoot an Untouchable for being an Untouchable, the government will attempt to prevent that, regardless of whether it’s allowed or required by the Hindu’s religious beliefs. And that’s OK. Laws passed for the general welfare are Constitutional even if they impair religious practice. See http://www.oyez.org/cases/case/?case=1980-...89/1989_88_1213. A 6-3 decision, with the swing voters joining the conservative justices. Let's not pretend that the courts, collectively, are a model of consistency. If you believe that the government treats all religious views equally, then you should be troubled that those guys in Washington can't smoke peyote as part of their religious observance. The discussion brings us to the point where the "general welfare" can trump religious beliefs. Who gets to decide what's in the interest of the general welfare? The courts, by fiat, or is there some objective correct answer somewhere? Thanks yourself. I don’t think I’ve employed any strawman stuff. It is not my position that metaphysical naturalism is taught instead of methodological naturalism. Teaching methodological naturalism as if it were the only epistemic approach is proselytizing, as the term is used by some of Paszkiewicz's accusers.