Bryan

In that case, Paul would fight for the right of modern Aztecs to utilize human sacrifice in their worship. Or would he? Well, if having a bunch of Communist and Nazi sympathizers is "fine" then I guess you're right. Except for the Joe McCarthy thing. That part seems to be inaccurate (but it's always handy to drop Joe McCarthy's name when one wants to tar the opposition). http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kelsbels/pl...etearticle.html That Paul doesn't know the history of the pledge? The Knights of Columbus (a Roman Catholic organization) and President Eisenhower were instrumental in added "under God" to the pledge. Yes, it had plenty to do with Communism, as in trying to draw a clear distinction between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., but that just helps to show its "secular" purpose. I doubt you can point to any nation that allows all its people to worship freely as they see fit, Paul. Exactly where can LaVey Satanists take revenge according to the tenets of their belief system? Without a common culture, there is no nation (if a nation develops a second culture, the nation commonly splits into more than one nation--see Bosnia among a host of others). Because the equal respect for all cultures results in absurdity. Huh. Now you tell me.

By "this," Paul presumably means a coercion of conscience. Okay. How is that putting the shoe on the other foot? That's just showing how to take somebody's words out of context. Now, if the Muslim teacher were illustrating Islam's solution to the problem of evil in the world, then his words might be understandable in a public school context (I say "might" because Islam finds god largely inscrutable, so they may not care about the problem of evil that much). http://www.sophia-perennis.com/evil.pdf Anyone whose conscience is coerced by hearing an alternative point of view is hypersensitive. Honestly, I wouldn't be offended, the teacher would have stayed, and I would not have bothered exploring legal action. Even if I were 14 years old and my daddy was a Baptist preacher who practiced law on the side.

Your present response re-illustrates the need. On the one hand, you excuse the problem based on the rationale that "[w]e're not just talking about one or two people with idiosyncratic beliefs," while in the next (parenthetical) breath you claim that we can't ignore two people with idiosyncratic beliefs. Either we can ignore two people with idiosyncratic beliefs, or your explanation (as given) doesn't wash. You have to have your position on the table for me to illustrate the problem, without risking a straw man, at least. You're on the fence. Climb down, and I will proceed.

Hey, there's another huge segment of teachers we can fire. I've run across quite a few teachers who ask for student input in what to teach. Here's the relevant thing about student questions: If the student's question may be objectively answered without directly proselytizing (something other than "Why should I join your church, Mr. Paszkiewicz?" for example). Paszkiewicz erred in one area, from what I've seen, and that's in declaring that a creative being needs to be (unequivocally) intelligent. His discussions of Christian doctrine, however, were relevant to the point of comparing two cosmological models (addressing the nature of religious faith by example, and explaining the primary Christian response to the problem of evil in response to a student's question). In the worst case (intelligent v. unintelligent generation of the cosmos), there is no particular religion in play. In the other case, Paszkiewicz is indeed talking about history. This is also where Matthew LaClair is at fault to a degree. He is disingenuous to complain about an infringement on his rights when the defense of his rights (those rights as LaClair perceives them) would require the teacher not to answer a question that LaClair asked. In such an instance, LaClair seems less than zealous of protecting his own right not to hear about Christian doctrine in class. On the contrary. That said, there's still no good reason to threaten or ostracize him.

In the greater context, I was referring to Paul's claim that Paszkiewicz was specifically promoting the religion of Christianity. This instance does not support Paul's claim, since the point is too broad. Even Paul now seems to admit that many non-Christians believe that an intelligence created the universe. No, it doesn't. Courts might do that sometimes, OTOH. Scarcely anything is "uniformly believed" and religious views are not necessarily theological, are they? Applying your view across the board as stated, Paul, leads to absurd outcomes. Can you provide a better expression of the principle you're recommending? All of the scientists who have commented on this have listened to the recordings? I doubt it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good reply, and the point about mullets is devastating. Here are some stats for Paul to mull over. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html

Three strikes rule in effect for A. V. Blom. Otherwise he’ll waste too much time. The topic was a supposed justification of judging that Paszkiewicz proselytized, so I’ll sift for that stuff even after Blom whiffs. Blum is exhibiting a bit of chronological confusion, here. My response is written as I read his message, so he has not provided evidence as of my writing. His attempt at arguing the point was to post fairly large individual snippets of the 9-14 transcripts as self-evident proof that Paszkiewicz was proselytizing. Outside corner on this one, though. I’m not going to call strikes on the edges of the plate. No mention was made as of then that evidence would follow, so the conclusion is creatively embellished given what Blum had written so far. Here, Blom attempts to identify a fallacy and fumbles badly. The charge is the lack of substance; that which replaces the substance (insult) is irrelevant. As noted above, as of this point in the message Blum has no substance beyond his conclusion and a set of insults. He also blows it by suggesting that there is a strawman fallacy present. What could the straw man possibly be? Clearly, the insults cannot be the argument all by themselves unless we credit Blum with the fallacy of ad homimen, and at this point of the post Blum hasn’t provided anything else except for his conclusion (buttressed by the reason—and I quote—“Because it is”) and a handful of insults. Incorrect again, since no conclusion about the argument is recommended on the basis of the lack of argument other than the fact that the argument is not apparent. http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argum...e_substance.htm It is not a fallacy to state a simple fact. I don’t care if people insult me. Where insult fails to accompany a real argument, however, it constitutes an ad hominem fallacy, and the commission of fallacies is a legitimate (inductive) consideration in weighing the strength of an argument. I leave that judgment to the reader, however, rather than pointing the reader in that direction (present explanation excepted). I’m also not going to call a strike for the same mistake twice consecutively. Still only one strike on Blom. And perhaps Blom should have referenced what he intended to post later on as a corrective to his earlier classroom transcript quote-a-thon. Again, I don’t care if my opponent insults me. It’s up to him if he wants to concede the rhetorical edge like that to me. It’s interesting that Blom feels that I insulted him, however. The reader is invited to examine the posts leading to the current exchange and compare the tone. #603: http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...=40225&st=600 #610: http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...=40225&st=600 No strike called for mere bizarre judgment of insulting language, however. His faith-based assumption, in that case, was that something tends to come from something. You don't subscribe to that faith? That’s all assertion thus far (but I’ll be looking for the support to follow!). Should he have said or implied that both are equally likely? How is a teacher supposed to address cosmology at all without favoring one idea over another? I’ll grant the point that this is a form of proselytizing if it is granted that recommending vacuum fluctuations from nothing as the origin of the universe also counts as proselytizing. Can we start firing tenured university professors yet? (10 quote tags looks like the cap; later quotations of Blom in bold black) You’d grant the converse argument, and fight just as hard for university professors to be fired for recommending nothing to something? (Big Bang student survey) http://aer.noao.edu/cgi-bin/article.pl?id=26 “The Universe may have simply been a random fluctuation out of nothing!” http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/bmendez/ay10/2...otes/lec21.html “Zero volume implies that it is “nothing.” >a whole universe was created from “nothing” and >the universe had a beginning out of that “nothing.” http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~tatjanaj/NUC...cture1_2006.pdf (page 14) An infinite foam of inflated bubble universes, isolated from one another, all created from nothing? The math can be worked out. I find the story compelling. http://www.physics.arizona.edu/physics/new...millennium.html “The Accelerating Cosmos: "Dark Energy" in the Beginning and Now or A Universe from Nothing: The standard Big Bang theory is very successful at explaining many observed aspects of the Universe.” http://www.rhodes.edu/physics/NonDeptItems...nemeeting03.htm “The Big Bang Hypothesis is an extraordinary concept. The origin of the Universe -- from nothing to everything.” http://www.wooster.edu/geology/geo200W/geo200.html “Many physicists have speculated that theoretical developments will eventually lead to a "theory of everything" (TOE) in which all the basic principles of physics will be shown to follow from a minimal set of assumptions, perhaps just statements of self-consistency. In that case, as Einstein suggested, there may have been nothing for God to do.” http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Found/08Void.pdf Unconstitutional speech if uttered at a public institution? Keep to the parallel. It would read like this: Teacher: I never said that my assumption isn't based on faith. Remember I confessed that at the beginning. My point is it takes more faith that something came from something, than a vacuum fluctuation created something out of nothing. You understand? You completely disregarded my reply. The reply was evasive; my reply was designed to steer back toward the specific issue. What’s the scientific evidence for creation of universes based on vacuum fluctuation and why is it more attractive than believing something came from something? Evasion is not egregious enough to warrant a strike, at least in this instance. Is it a religious belief to suppose that the universe was created out of nothing by a vacuum fluctuation? Why or why not? If it has the science to back it up, no. If not, yes. Now he’s pushing it. If science backs up something coming from something over something coming from nothing (as in one being more likely than the other), is what Paszkiewicz said okay? Or does he need to check with the High Priests of Science to get their okay first? Cosmology is a relevant classroom topic. Not in a history class. Your red herring is noted. A red herring, as a fallacy anyway, is an attempt to steer the discussion off-course to avoid a particular issue. Pointing out the lesser variety of red herring (temporary digression) is pointless, so Blom probably supposes that mentioning that Cosmology is a relevant classroom topic is a fallacious diversion. That supposition is false. I offered three consecutive paragraphs, and summed up in the third, beginning with “My point here is …” Strike two. There are only a handful of basic models, including varieties of steady-state hypothesis, spontaneous generation from nothing, or generation from a timeless something (either intelligent or unintelligent). Only one of which makes sense given the current model. Not that Blom would specify which one … My point here is that any discussion of cosmological models where one model is favored by the instructor amounts to proselytizing if you stretch the idea of religion that far. Except that only one of these (Big Bang) has any actual evidence to back it up without violating Occams Razor. The simple fact of the Red Shift of the universe shows that, some time ago, the universe was compressed in a single point. So, we seem to have the proposition that proselytizing is okay if there is evidence in support. There’s no support for something coming from something? Religious beliefs are taught ubiquitously at that level, and applying church/state separation at that level is an inappropriate gag on discussion and inquiry. There are proper places for discussion and inquiry of scientific topics. The classroom is not one of them. Especially when it is not the proper classroom to begin with. Big Bang is not a 'religious belief'. It follows logically from what we know (Doppler shift), and Occam's Razor (barring anything extraneous to observations). Given the supposed propensity of science not to hold its theories too dear—always willing to revise them in the face of new evidence—why isn’t it a religious belief? Because it is supported so well that it is certain? Because it is not held as a firm belief (but firm enough to exclude the competition)? Explain the paradox. Let's suppose that I teach that the big bang theory rests on creating the universe from Nothing, and that this flavor of the theory is the most likely explanation for the existence of the universe. Am I proselytizing? Why or why not? No, if the theory is scientifically sound (Big Bang is). You would not be proselytizing because you would be teaching science. So, it’s okay to teach wrong beliefs in the classroom if science says it’s okay? Steady-state theory until it goes out of vogue, followed by the Big Bang, followed by whatever science (maybe science should be capitalized?) says is the new orthodoxy after that? And regardless of how wrong science is, the beliefs are not religious? Interesting. How about before Planck time? Before Planck time? The very statement is nonsensical. Planck time, as the word is commonly used, is only the word used for the smallest possible amount of time (specifically, the time it takes for a photon to travel the distance of a single Planck length. Scientists seem to make decent enough sense out of the term. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askas...sics/PHY137.HTM http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhRvD..28..756P http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/question...lerotation.html http://www.physics.fsu.edu/courses/Spring0...2/Cosmology.pdf I suppose I should let them know that Blom disapproves. Really, though, this just looks like Blom's method of dodging the question. I’ll refrain from calling strike three on that one. By taking the argument that lack of intelligence is no bar to ornate complexity, I should be able to provide a stunningly elegant proof even if I were completely lacking in intelligence. And this is relevant, how? If you include insults in your message, Blom, don’t whine if I take a shot at one of your insults. It’s at least as relevant as any of your insults. Your response makes no sense at all. I hear this from the person who, when called on explaining his views in terms of complexity, responds by not at all using probability. And that’s relevant how? (a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe) Funny, I have that definition, as well. Except that, when reading the full source, it states: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Pumpkin pie is good, especially with whipped topping. (therefore pumpkin pie without whipped topping isn’t good?) Blom is not the first skeptic to stumble this way over “especially,” so I won’t call the third strike just yet. It looks as though he doesn’t like the basic definition. However, to be more complete, a good definition can also be found in the American Heritage Dictionary, which is the one I'm using: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. So Scientology isn’t a religion by that definition … http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-scie...-home-headlines A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. So we can indoctrinate school children in Confucianism, deityless Taoism and Buddhism, Scientology … any others you can think of? Atheism? Can we indoctrinate children in atheism? Myself, I’m leaning toward creating a new sect of Christianity that doesn’t worship God or recognize him as creator, but just accepts Jesus and his ethical teachings in order to experience eternal life. That’s okay with you, given your definition of religion, yes? And we could teach it in school? Does teaching science in class predispose students to having certain beliefs about the cause and nature of the universe? Certain beliefs, yes. Which should not be confused with religion. … the definition of religion that you do not like notwithstanding, I see. That’s strike three, but I want to see what he comes up with next. This is a belief in the same way mathematics predisposes you to believing the derivative of X^2 is equal to 2X. Faith requires a definition for purposes of this discussion. I'll let you recommend one. In this case, it meant the same thing as 'religion'. Blum’s preferred definition works against him in this case. By trying to carve out some protected room around Naturalism, he opens the door for a host of religions and seemingly enables Paszkiewicz to offer the idea of a creator so long as he doesn’t encourage outright worship of the creator (belief and worship). Three strikes, so now I’ll sift what’s left to see if he tried to deal with the issue (arguing—with reason--that Paskiewicz proselytized). I was not arguing that, since Paskiewicz believes in dinosaurs on Noah's ark, he should be disregarded. I was arguing that Paskiewicz, in said specific argument, was proselytizing. To pre-empt any sophistry on your part, I noted that, over the whole conversation, he was clearly arguing in favor of Abrahamic faith. His purpose in answering the student’s question was primarily to get the students to accept his view, or to accept that it was his opinion? So does reading the Declaration of Independence, what with the concept of unalienable rights relating directly to a purpose for the universe. Which in no sense addresses my argument. Another Red Herring. Apparently Blom is not familiar with reductio ad absurdum. But at least he can use “red herring” indiscriminately. Why would having science to back it up make a difference? Because science actually IS taught in high school? And as such, is part of a required curriculum? Religion is part of history and is taught in high school. That’s where most kids learn about Zeus. This next comment does not immediately concern the issue of proselytizing, but it’s too hilarious to pass up. You should also note that the ONLY presupposition you need for science is the existence of the outside universe. If you had to choose between a belief in an external reality and trust in sense-data, which would you pick? Can you really do science without the latter? belief that is not based on proof It's really past time for your definition of religion. You seem to define it (following your statement above) as beliefs that have no scientific backing. Something inherently linked to the term 'faith', but otherwise completely accurate, yes. What scientific backing is there for ethical/moral beliefs? Game over until Blom figures out a solution to the pickle he’s placed himself in.

Only if you understand everything to be opinion (strike one). "The background of the stop sign is red" is not generally considered to be mere opinion, virtually regardless of who advocates the proposition. What evidence was there that my rationale had been treated in that earlier response, then, that my statement could be taken as opinion (strike two). It shows that are able to ignore the facts of the matter (by calling them opinions). Strike three, "Guest*." *anonymous guests warrant limited investment of my time where the posts commit serial error

Just putting my two cents in--I don't expect Paul to deal with two conversations at once. A faith, in this case Christianity. Context? That's not in the 9-14 transcript, from what I can tell. Opinion noted, but let's not beg the question. Don't Jews, Muslims, and quite a few others believe that? And isn't it a classic philosophical problem apart from that? "'That the supreme god of Plato’s cosmos should wear the mask of a manual worker is a triumph of the philosophical imagination over ingrained social prejudice. ... But this divine mechanic is not a drudge. He is an artist or, more precisely, what an artist would have to be in Plato’s conception of art: not the inventor of new form, but the imposer of pre-existing form on as yet formless material.'" http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/timaeus.htm ... taking Paszkiewicz out of context. That is not something that Paszkiewicz presented as a dogma to be accepted by the class, but as part of a description of Christianity in response to a student question. Specifically, relating to the problem of evil (another classic philosophical question). Again, a student asked why a given statement should be accepted, and Paszkiewicz gave a response in keeping with the view of one who accepts the Bible account (the only POV relevant to the question that was asked). That view could encompass sects of Judaism and Islam, as well as others. What specific religion is Paszkiewicz pushing, again? The 9-14 transcipt gives some indication that the general topic is populism. Paul can't see any connect whatever that might make a comparison of faith-based notions relevant? http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/...ay.cfm?HHID=157 How come Matthew appeared to have no idea how Christianity addresses the problem of evil? Indeed, given that an intelligent creator is an idea found in dozens of religious traditions. Caught in what way, such that the context is respected? Was Matthew fishing with his tape recorder or not? FWIW, the quotation of Paszkiewicz here is apparently not from a recorded source, but from the recollection of an interested party (Matthew LaClair). The story containing that quotation appears at the Lippard blog, but without (AFAICT) referring to the original source, and without revealing the source of the quotation--not exactly standard journalistic practice. You know the original source for that one, Paul? Anybody? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In that case, it isn't clear where we disagree and it looks like you probably interpreted my comments out of context.

That post was not about a matter of opinion, but a matter of argument. I had provided a rationale that had been completely ignored by the other person in his/her response. One cannot argue effectively without taking into account the other person's argument, under any ordinary circumstances. Such an odd approach to debate is easily explained as a case of utter stupidity, though there may perhaps be other reasonable explanations. It is true that a person might feel insulted at my pointing out the obvious, but mine was a comment directed (contingently) at the argument, not the person providing the argument. Again, this was not a matter of opinion. If we went to a movie and my wife/mother/father got through with the movie and apparently had no idea what the movie had been about, it would be appropriate to ask why ("Were you asleep or what?"). When they state an opinion, eh? What, here at the hermitage? I'm pleasantly surprised. Well, that's a straw man. One would expect you to go to an authority higher than that for the kind of proof you were seeking, first of all. I felt that you may have overestimated the authority to which you appealed. The important point in my response is that the questions were answered in conversational layman's terms, which provided a distorted picture of the quality of proof. The evidences for a moving Earth do not falsify the stationary Earth hypothesis, and you fell short in supporting your claim of an absolute proof. And if you think there're specific mistakes in the experiments I linked to, what are they then? The experiments could be absolutely perfect and they'd never support the claim you made. Science works by falsification, not proof in the hard sense. The moving Earth hypothesis is favored on the basis of parsimony. I'm a knowledge generalist. I'm four years old and I'm considered above average in my preschool class. Fortunately, I'm more savvy about the way I treat scientific claims that the student Matija. And you. In your dream only. If you think there're specific mistakes in the experiments I linked to, tell us already. You're missing the point. Why keep skirting the issue? Why would you think I'm skirting the issue? Are we not talking about your claim that it has been absolutely proven that the Earth is stationary? Am I not dealing with that issue? It is not in the nature of science to prove anything in the hard sense. That's basic to the philosophy of science. Heh. Just think about what a hypocrite you are right now. Let it sink in. What hypocrite? Just because I missed the date on the web page that makes me a hypocrite? You truly need an explanation? What if I had misread something that led me to falsely believe that graduate students had written the answers to the questions? Would I be falsifying their credentials to express my sincere belief in print? Next you'll offer me something Einstein wrote when he was 3 years old and tell that it reflects the wisdom of the guy who came up with the theory of relativity. Yes I'm sure Matija was 3 years old in 2002. Yet more inanity from you. What a surprise. And I'll say this again: even at 2002, Matija was still far more knowledgeable in the field of astrophysics than you. He was 2 years short of a PhD. How about you? I'm only 4"1'. Not until you realize the implications of what you're saying, which is that any point of reference may be considered the center of the universe. It's just harder to come up with a parsimonious explanation depending on what point you choose. Let's stop skirting the issue shall we. You asked me to show you scientific experiments that show that the Earth is moving. You involved yourself in an existing conversation with this claim: Position is relative, but non-uniform motion is not. And as long as we're talking about whether the sun is revolving around the earth or not, we are talking about non-uniform motion since acceleration is involved. In this case, science can (and has) absolutely prove by experiments that the earth is moving and is not stationary. I asked you two things in response. First, for the experimental proof you claimed, and second for the identity of the person who told you science can prove things absolutely. You ignored the second question when you could have taken the opportunity to clarify what you meant. That hurts your present attempt to claim that you meant "absolute" in some everyday sense that means something less than absolute. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/absolute There really isn't any weaker definition of absolute. I think you're trying to claim you were using hyperbole or something. That claim isn't particularly plausible, considering the context. I did. Are you going to tell me what makes those experiments invalid? At best, they did what scientific experiments do. They supported (not proved) the hypothesis. That's how science works. The aim of the experiment is to falsify the hypothesis. Failure to falsify offers inductive support for the hypothesis. I knew that going in. I don't remember forcing you to use the term "absolute" in making your claim. You want me to apologize for your poor choice of words? That wasn't a poor choice of word. It's a common usage of the word. How many people mean the technical, strictest sense of "absolute" when they say "absolute"? Probably the majority (in the sense of "certain"), or else we'd see a weaker version of the definition in the dictionary somewhere. It's not my fault that you live in your own little bubble with absolutely (that word again) no understanding of social convention. After this post, I'm putting all unregistered "Guest" posters on a short leash. You'll need some rep to lure me into wasting time. Don't play dumb. I specifically said that the stationary earth hypothesis had not been falsified. If you know science then you know what that means. If you don't know science then you had no business trying to meet the challenge in the first place. <"Guest" supplies a bit more evidence that he's not interested in learning how parsimony works in science ... so we're done>

Your statement is equivocal, Paul. Could you be specific? Are you talking about something in the material you quoted, or no? You are curious, aren't you?

You figure you need some diversion to escape from the truth, or what? Atheism as a significant world belief has, what, 150 years under its belt? Don't feel left out. You can stack up your millions of dead and oppressed up there with the best of 'em. Stalin Pol Pot Mao Forced abortions in China Soviet expansionism (including a brutal repression of Hungarian resistance) Soviet Gulags "Re-education" in South Vietnam And all in an amazingly short time!

Oh, you mean "Guest"?

Most Americans have a direct interest in corporations (investment, employment). Shouldn't you ask what Keith is going to do with his country before you sign on?

That's the glory of the living Constitution. One day it can be read to allow the government to take over the press, eliminate freedom of expression, and oppress all religious beliefs save that of the default worldview of the state. And all without changing a word of the Constitution or even adding an amendment. Of course a government penalty for an expression of one's sincere beliefs violates free speech. But what do I know? I'm extremely one-sided! A person could lose his job over it--that's not sanction enough? Typically that's up to your employer. If you're self-employed, then nothing at all stops you from telling every client that you're an atheist and that their religious beliefs are a load of bunk. They're not obligated to keep you as their attorney, however. Good grief! Doesn't that depend entirely on what is prohibited? If Congress passed a law tomorrow stipulating that anyone who said "Kafelnikov" would be put to death, that would certainly be something that we're not allowed to say, but wouldn't it also be a restriction on free speech? What makes you certain, Paul, that some of the laws we've already got on the books are not unconstitutional restrictions on free speech??? In another thread there was a dispute about the SCOTUS's role in eliminating Jim Crow laws. Of course, the court largely laid the foundation for Jim Crow laws with its decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, so any decision the court made against a Jim Crow law was an effective reversal of its own opinion. Is the SCOTUS infallible? Were they right to void civil rights in the 19th century and right to uphold them in the 20th? While the U.S. has instituted some of those dopey "hate crimes" laws here and there, "hate speech" is not against the law. The primary application of "hate speech" codes occurs in those fountains of tolerance and diversity--our nation's colleges and universities. So watch who you call "water buffalo." So what's the ethical principle, Paul? Majority makes right, or appeal to an objective morality based on ... what? Can't we do something about this stupid representative government? Where's the Secularist dictator when you really need one?

Oh, man, I am so embarrassed. I didn't realize that since x number of "fundies" have used circular reasoning that therefore I shouldn't say anything about it when, for example, A. V. Blom produces an argument that fits the form. Thank you, thank you, thank you, Strife, for your invaluable observation.

I should have pointed out to Strife how his initial quotation is at variance with the one he tried to peddle off as "obvious" in its meaning as he interprets it. Strife: "There is no doubt that "you belong in hell" is a religious opinion as a matter of law." Strife, quoting a transcript: "'Teacher: You know, it's up to you to reason it out, and the outcome is your perogative. But the way I see it is this: he's done everything in his power, so much so, that he went to a cross that I should've been - it was my sin, he was innocent! But you saw the Mel Gibson portrayal? That was pretty accurate, when you read history, the flesh being beaten off of his back. God himself sent his only son to die for days (???)...on the cross. That's the idea. And if I reject that, then it really is, then to Hell with me.'" He added emphasis to "then it really really is, then to [h]ell with me." So, with the context added (what we have of it here, anyway), we see that Paszkiewicz does not press for the student to accept his view ("it's up to you to reason it out, and the outcome is your prerogative"), the statement is explicitly presented as a personal opinion ("the way I see it is this"), and he did not in this instance refer to anyone going to hell save for himself ("if I reject that ... then to hell with me"). But once Strife condenses all that, we end up with "you belong in hell"--presented as a verbatim quotation, mind you--as a religious opinion as a matter of law. How silly of me to be concerned about context.

You disagree that the context should be considered? Or do you just have a problem understanding reductio ad absurdum? That's no more logical than the idea that your refusal to actually consider (with actual, reasoned discussion) the context therefore means that you are wrong. You telling me it's "obvious" is a mountain of evidence (while you refuse to discuss specifics)? I believe in a change in the frequency of alleles over time. How do you define evolution so that I reject it? Or were you just trying to change the subject (I hear fundies do that all the time).

Never heard of a Marxist-Leninist revolution, eh?

Orthodox Christian doctrine (not the Orthodox church, mind you) teaches that everyone since Adam (Jesus excepted, and Mary for Roman Catholics if I'm not mistaken) is hellbound regardless of works or character (race, sex, etc.). That seems rather inclusive doesn't it? Surely there are people who identify themselves as Christians who display a self-righteous attitude, but that does not come from the doctrines, which explicitly instruct Christians to love all others including non-Christians. Isn't it ironic that the Constitution you claim to treasure came from a majority who held such destructive beliefs? Have you ever met middle-aged adults or parents who were perfectly just? Which of your adult children would you force to do things your way even if they resisted? Have you read C. S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce"? By the way, it is frequently ignored that the Bible speaks of judgment according to works regardless of the final destination. The heaven and hell experiences, respectively, will apparently be tailored to the individual based on works (perhaps accounting for the development of Roman Catholic "Limbo" or even Purgatory.

This is a short reply since this particular "Guest" is a waste of time. Demonstration below. "Engel v. Vitale concerned the enactment of a state law mandating the reading of a prayer composed by state officials. The law was held unconstitutional (and could only be found so according to the First Amendment in light of the Fourteenth Amendment). The teacher in this case is not a law that may be found unconstitutional." http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...616entry39616 Check the time stamp, along with the author (as I had suggested you might do in an earlier post). Your arguments are too pathetic for me to justify wasting time on them. The quotation above demonstrates rather unequivocally my proper understanding of the expansion of the First Amendment via the Fourteenth Amendment to governments (not individuals) in advance of any conversation with a "Guest" other than Paul LaClair. When you accused me of lying, you provided inaccurate information, and given that I informed you of the manner in which you could verify the truth of what I said--and you ignored it--you accomplished the moral equivalent of lying when you repeated your false accusation. Guest: "Christofundies love to fixate on the wording "Congress". In their fantasy world any non-Congress governmental entity can do whatever they want regarding religions as long as they're not passing laws." Bryan: "Well, if you knew me better (such as by reading some of my other posts), you'd realize that isn't what I believe (it might involve ignoring Strife's inaccurate posts as to that)." http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ic=2898&st=600# But you, "Guest," just ignored that. And now your skeptical allies are groaning because you've made them look bad (not personally, but as a group). Way to go, champ.

C'mon, Paul. As a lawyer you'd know that secondhand sourcing is automatically suspect as well as that from close family members. Her suspicions are reasonable even if they are incorrect--you don't know if she'd never be convinced of anything unless you're a mind reader. You're not a mind reader, are you?

Maybe I don't see opening a thread as that big of a deal. Yeah, I think that ideally LB should have judged the comments from the audio (or at least a transcript. On the other hand, I don't assume that he was aware of the availability of the recordings or transcripts. Frequently those sorts of things do not surface in the public. Review my initial post and you'll see ("rightly or wrongly") that I did not offer unqualified support for LB. I think his tone was respectful, though, so I saw no need for people to jump all over him. He was well-meaning and apparently underinformed regarding the subject matter. I can think of quite a few people who should be jumped all over before Lawyer Bob on these boards. Your point is reasonable, but this thread is so peripheral to the main issues that I'd just as soon see it sink a few pages into the background. Cheers.

A public broadcasting site that includes in its text a lukewarm-favorable reference to the sub-optimal design is not intelligent design argument? My tax dollars at work for anti-god proselytizing*? *if I defined it as do many in this forum