Nominations are now being accepted for the About.com Readers' Choice Awards for Agnosticism / Atheism. Get in there and splatter freethoughtblogs sites all over the place!
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Aye, aye, sir!
*Rushes off to harness kraken*
{{{splash!}}}
It says you have to be signed in to vote, but I see no way to sign in. Am I missing something?
And if you like all of the atheist blogosphere, just vote for Peter Grant’s blog.
@Aquaria / #2
No, they hid it somewhere.. had some trouble too but:
http://members.about.com/
that should work. And even after I managed to sign in I still don’t see any obvious login / log.out buttons oO
I require help in a debate I’m having with someone on another forum about this Ahlquist. I’ve been supporting Jessica, while this other person seems to believe it was unlawful for the government to deny the school the “right” to have their banner. I’ll go through what’s been happening with the debate up to this point, their responses being in italics:
So first I pointed out the school is breaking The First Amendment essentially because it passed a rule allowing that banner to be hung up, thereby violating the Establishment Clause. They said:
I’ll pretend for a second that the school faculty sat around and debated this banner and then voted to “pass a rule” that they could hang it up. In doing so, I still maintain the position that a “school rule” is not a law enacted by Congress.
The First Amendment plainly states “Congress shall make no law…” Ignoring for a minute the reality that this clause’s sole intent was to forbid the government from creating a national religion, a school banner still in absolutely no way involves a law being made by any Congress (either federal or state).
It quite obviously is not a First Amendment issue, as anyone who truly understands the Constitution, original intent, and the proper role of government understands.
I also tried to say that America is a secular nation as is the Constitution, and so if governments have any “agenda” (a word he has used quite a few times in our debate) in cases like this, it’s purely to uphold secular law. He said:
Secular in the sense that government and religion are separate, and not the same like in England, or the Holy Roman Empire, or the theocracies of today. The only original intent of the Constitution, in regards to religion, is to forbid the government from establishing a national religion. No law could ever be passed establishing a national religion, preventing the belief in a religion, or mandating when, how, and to who the people worship. The states were of course free to have their own official state religions.
If you want to pretend that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would have fought to make a school take down a harmless prayer banner, because it was unconstitutional, then that is your ignorance. Both of those gentlemen would have conceded that the government has no authority to be involved in the education business at all under the Constitution.
I also tried to point out that the school, as a public institution, couldn’t explicitly endorse ONE religion as the banner made them responsible for doing. He responded:
Actually, under the original intent of the Constitution, they can endorse whatever religion they want to since no law is being made and nothing is being mandated.
I tried to point that Ahlquist very likely wouldn’t have complained if the school had equally accomodated all religious beliefs as well as non-beliefs. He replied:
Yes she would have, and that you think this school is even capable of passing a law is hilarious. There was no law here, ergo no violation of an alleged “seperation of church and state” in the way you pretend it to mean.
I pointed out the history of other public institutions being forced to remove religiously motivated things (especially Christian things) and stop doing things because they violated church/state separation laws. His response was:
Yes, the Supreme Court, as well as entire federal government, does in face have a long precedent of ignoring the Constitution and doing things that are 100% at odds with liberty and the Constitution. But because lawyers in robes apply a bastardized interpretation of the Constitution, to fit their agenda, doesn’t make their rulings in accordance with what the Constitution actually says or means.
I pointed to the “Mass Delusion” argument with regards to what happens if no deity exists, and asked him if he could defend his belief in that regard. When he refused, I asked him what the point of his being in the debate was if he couldn’t even defend whether his beliefs were valid and therefore not actually really caring his spiritual beliefs were true while still trying to defend the school’s stance on promoting a religion through its banner. He said this:
Because there is something I care about and that does have an impact on me and everyone else in this country. I’m here because you said what this school did was “quite obviously unconstitutional.” That is not at all true, in fact it’s quite obvious that the Constitution, under original intent, has absolutely nothing to do with this school or any banners they choose to hang.
I just have a problem with people saying things are either constitutional or unconstitutional when they don’t have the slightest clue as to what the hell they are talking about. This kind of ignorance is precisely why our government is so big and so involved with every aspect of our lives despite 95% of what they do quite obviously being unconstitutional when you actually read the document.
He finished by saying that:
The only thing that Ahlquist and other atheists have shown me is that they lack a factual understanding of the Constitution and its original intent and what folks like Jefferson actually thought and what the proper role of government actually is.
So yeah, I could really do with a hand on this one. Any help people could provide would be fantastic.
Much thanks,
James
Oh, one other thing, I also referenced the Lemon Test and how this essentially boils down to how the government must remain neutral on religion. They responded:
That is only half of it. Government must accommodate and protect religion. It must protect religion from the hostility of others. It is all part of the freedom of religion which is protected by the Constitution. Take a look at these 3 Supreme Court cases.
Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools v. Mergens 496 U.S. 226 (1990)
Westside School district, located in Nebraska, denied permission to a group of students who wanted to form a Christian Club in their high school.
By an 8-1 decision the Supreme Court decided that the students had the right to begin their Christian Club.
The Lemon test does not mean that all religion is stripped from public places. So stuff like In God We Trust on our money isn’t directly supporting a singular religion. I mean look at the display of a nativity scene. In Lynch v. Donnelly, the Court allowed a city in Rhode Island to display a manger as part of a holiday display. In the decision, it was stated the Constitution “affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.”
Jono, you said some stuff about the use of a public space for religion. I don’t know how much case law you have actually read but there are plenty of examples where public spaces are used by religious groups and open to the public.
Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District 508 U.S. 384 (1993)
New York had a law that prevented school boards from allowing schools to be used after hours for religious activities. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously to reject the school district’s decision to refuse to allow school property to be used for religious activities.
Some assistance on replying to this would also be awesome. :)
jamesmichaels1
Unfortunately, you’re up against someone who not only has his personal opinion but also has his personal facts. You’re not going to convince him of anything when his response boils down to “Nope, you’re wrong and I’m right, so there, nyah!”
jamesmichaels1
Unfortunately, you’ve encountered the dreaded Selectively Blindly Literal Idiot. The First Amendment LITERALLY says that “Congress may make no law respecting an establishment of religion” so he ignores the obvious intended meaning (backed up by personal comments of the people involved in drafting it as well as about 200 years of the vast majority of case law, occasional wallbanger decisions notwithstanding). This is, of course, moronically intellectually dishonest and arguably regular dishonest, and given the circumstances and what Ms. Ahlquist has already been subjected to, puts him squarely in the “worthless piece of rat shit” category.
I suggest the following:
1) Observe that he appears to be arguing that all connotations, implications, and even customary interpretations found elsewhere should be disregarded in favor of a stupidly literal reading of a source considered authoritative.
2) Observe that Jessica Ahlquist is 16, and thus a “child” under US law.
3) Observe that while she has been extremely brave, she has obviously been upset by the treatment she has received, and would likely be bothered or annoyed by his disingenuous attacks on her stance and principles.
4) Point out that definition #1 of the term “Molest” offered by Dictionary.com, based on the 2012 Random House Dictionary, is “to bother, interfere with, or annoy,” and that the definition of “molester” is one who molests.
5) In conclusion, if, as he is attempting to argue, all meaning and understanding developed elsewhere should simply be ignored in favor of a stupidly literal reading of an authoritative source, he should not object to being characterized as a “child molester.”
…if he agrees, you’re on your own. x.x
Nominate Greta! PZ won last year already.
PZ, this would be a great chance to strike a blow against the usual neglect of women in these lists. Aim your horde wisely!
jamesmichaels1
The meaning of any clause in the US constitution, Bill of Rights, or any other amendment to the constitution is exactly what the US Supreme Court says it is. That is the law. How anyone else interprets those documents is completely irrelevant.
If anyone wants a different interpretation, they must take it up with the Supreme Court.
Trying to hold Jessica Ahlquist responsible for Supreme Court decisions is abject cowardice.
I registered and logged in, but I still can’t see where to vote.
Do you suppose the website knows I don’t intend to vote for PZ?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html
This might have already cropped up. However, if you still believe that BigPharma is some sort of imagined boogeyman, then be my guest to keep your heads up your collective arses
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1535610806003722 –the real source, for those with the expertise to parse it
Take it to TET or a thread where it might be on topic r1ck
The only value of these things is to occasionally introduce someone not noticed before. Otherwise winning the award and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee most places.