Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: RogerN on 24 Apr 2010 13:43 "Jon Kirwan" <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote in message news:9s65t51iaq3hq3qn7hcb8n2vc9tdt94t6c(a)4ax.com... > Let's start with a basic question or two. Maybe we can agree > on some initial points. > > (1) Do you agree or disagree? "As an absolute minimalist > point of view, the Establishment Clause was intended by the > signatories to the US Constitution at the time of signing it > to, at bottom, prohibit the federal government from declaring > and/or supporting a national religion, as existed in many > other countries at that time?" > > (2) What is the first case where the Supreme Court set out > to interpret the Establishment Clause, have you read it, and > if so what about the majority decision in that case is still > noteworthy and important today? What significant ground is > broken, aside from the mere fact that it was the first case > taking on this task? > > I have a hunch we won't even get this far, perhaps not even > on one of these let alone both. And if not, then I think you > and I have some serious research ahead of us before we can > proceed, at all. > > Jon Instead of letting you sidetrack me, let's try to focus on what we are discussing. The Judge decided that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. So, why not discuss the National Day of Prayer and the constitution. Does it violate the Establishment clause? No, it does not establish a national religion. Does it violate endorsement? Perhaps an endorsement of religion, not endorsement of a national religion. Does it violate acknowledgement? Yes, the government would be acknowledging religions that believe in prayer. Does it pass the Lemon test? Not directly but I believe so indirectly. People that take their religion seriously hopefully don't abuse drugs, alcohol, and perhaps do less secular harm. For example a man started a Christian construction firm, he takes drug addicted down and outers, Jesus saves them and delivers them from their drug and alcohol addictions, and he puts them to work in his construction company. The fellowship they have with others has them helping each other when they may otherwise fall back to their old ways. They have meaning in their life and go from crime to Christ. Also, at least part of the reason that churches are not taxed is because the government sees that they help with the public. Pastors often council troubled people and we don't know how many crimes have been avoided due to the role religion has played. So next time something like the killings as Columbine happens, thank the liberals and atheists for their role in making sure the murders don't get "Thou shall not kill" put to where they could see it and might be inclined to follow it. So, the national day of prayer does not establish a national religion, as required by the constitution, but it is arguable if it violates any of the other tests, though the other tests are not in the constitution. Bottom Line: The judge declared the National Day of Prayer to be unconstitutional because it doesn't pass tests that are NOT tests of constitutionality. RogerN
From: Jon Kirwan on 24 Apr 2010 17:12 On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 08:28:14 -0500, "RogerN" <regor(a)midwest.net> wrote: >"Jon Kirwan" <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote in message >news:9s65t51iaq3hq3qn7hcb8n2vc9tdt94t6c(a)4ax.com... >> Let's start with a basic question or two. Maybe we can agree >> on some initial points. >> >> (1) Do you agree or disagree? "As an absolute minimalist >> point of view, the Establishment Clause was intended by the >> signatories to the US Constitution at the time of signing it >> to, at bottom, prohibit the federal government from declaring >> and/or supporting a national religion, as existed in many >> other countries at that time?" > >Agree. Okay. This, by the way, doesn't mean we agree more broadly on the intent. It just means that we can find a mutually agreeable minimum interpretation. I was hoping we could at least set down ONE brick between us into a foundation that we could build upon. I think it means more than the above. You may not. But it is important to find some common ground, I think. Nice that we have it. >> (2) What is the first case where the Supreme Court set out >> to interpret the Establishment Clause, have you read it, and >> if so what about the majority decision in that case is still >> noteworthy and important today? What significant ground is >> broken, aside from the mere fact that it was the first case >> taking on this task? >> >> I have a hunch we won't even get this far, perhaps not even >> on one of these let alone both. And if not, then I think you >> and I have some serious research ahead of us before we can >> proceed, at all. >> >> Jon > >I'll have to look up part 2. I don't mean to move the discussion away. Part of what I'm trying to do is to get you reading and studying. We don't have to agree on anything. But when you engage yourself and work for your opinion, it's worthy of anyone's reading time no matter where you come down. I enjoy informed debate most especially when we disagree, because that is when I get to learn from you and hopefully in the end improve my opinions. You make me a better person and I appreciate that, a lot. > Without name calling, in the judges decision, the establishment > clause was stretched to endorsement, endorsement was stretched > to "no secular purpose" and at the judges will was stretched to > acknowledgement. ><snip> No. That presumes a great deal not in evidence _here_. For example, although the two of us now can agree on a minimal interpretation of the Establishment Clause, this does NOT mean we agree in totality about original intent. Worse, that focuses only on the intent of the signatories as representatives of their respective States at the time of the signing. It doesn't delve into any of the history and varying opinions leading up to that signing, the hidden agendas that may still have been present to motivate hopes about how those words might be 'adjusted' in future times, nor does it deal with near-term refinements that took place soon after -- both in terms of the opinions of the authors themselves, or those who, upon first seeing some of how this particular clause might play out, change their opinions. And if that weren't enough, the "meaning" of an Amendment isn't only determined by original intent, either. The judge, in her decision you read, deals with this point, as well. Original intent, assuming you can reach it at all, _informs_ but does not _determine_. The Supreme court uses at least these five different approaches. (These are from my head, I didn't go search around for them. You might find them discussed on the web, though. I can hope so.) (1) Textual/syntax arguments, which appeal to the unadorned language of the text and without any 'original intent' analysis to speak of -- on the theory that the document is the controlling agreement and that it means what it says and not what some folks may have read into it at the time); (2) Historical arguments, appealing to an historical background, such as specific appeals to the intentions of framers, as lit by their many writings on the subject (this gets to 'original intent', on the assumption that it is even possible to find such a thing -- doubtful in some cases when differing strong opinions are abundant); (3) Structural arguments, analyzing the particular structures established by the Constitution, such as the tripartite division of the national government or the separate existence of both state and nation as political entities and/or the structured role of citizens within the political order (a bit of an abstraction, but useful in understanding the _thrust_ of intent where specific details may be lacking); (4) Doctrinal arguments, focusing on implications of prior cases decided by the Supreme Court (namely, stare decisis); (5) Prudential arguments, which emphasize the consequences of adopting any proffered decision in any given case; For example, #5 ruled in the case of the 2nd Amendment. The original intent was to strike fear into the federal gov't about the possibility of using a federal military in taking over a State. (At least four of the Federalist papers address themselves to this point, clearly.) This meant no standing, overly trained federal military, as well. But that is destroyed as we have a standing federal military. And it meant parity in weaponry (equal in relative threat) and today that would mean anti-aircraft missles and nuclear weapons and so on in State militias. By the way, the constitutional authority Professor Laurence Tribe (who doesn't support the individual right to arms) confirms that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not just a State right. See "American Constitutional Law, 2nd ed., 1988." He writes in part, "...the debates surrounding congressional approval of the second amendment do contain references to individual self-protection as well as to states' rights." However, in 1939, the US Supreme Court made a determination on prudential arguments that some weapons simply aren't going to be allowed. Sorry. Too dangerous. Done and over. Long gone. Bye bye to the 2nd Amendment's original intent. It happens. Law evolves. The point of all this is to emphasize that you need to understand that the Establishment Clause may, for example, have already meant the rest of what you write about (the 'endorsement' comment from Justice O'Conner) above but you just don't realize it, yet. Or that the prevailing argument about which of the above mentioned five considerations are the more important ones and that the result has been changed by Congressional action, unchallenged Presidential action, US Supreme Court interpretations, etc. You need to consider these possibilities and not assume, from our agreement on one tiny subset interpretation, that the rest of what you write is given or even obvious to me. We have placed down ONE brick in a foundation. You have inserted more bricks into that foundation without my agreement and moved on quickly without giving each of us time to find agreement on them. So slow down a bit. We need to take this a step at a time. Jon
From: RogerN on 24 Apr 2010 18:38 "Jon Kirwan" <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote in message news:hjl6t5hk6mrl4lcf15hgtpdup8top2qnt1(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 08:28:14 -0500, "RogerN" > <regor(a)midwest.net> wrote: > >>"Jon Kirwan" <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote in message >>news:9s65t51iaq3hq3qn7hcb8n2vc9tdt94t6c(a)4ax.com... >>> Let's start with a basic question or two. Maybe we can agree >>> on some initial points. >>> >>> (1) Do you agree or disagree? "As an absolute minimalist >>> point of view, the Establishment Clause was intended by the >>> signatories to the US Constitution at the time of signing it >>> to, at bottom, prohibit the federal government from declaring >>> and/or supporting a national religion, as existed in many >>> other countries at that time?" >> >>Agree. > > Okay. This, by the way, doesn't mean we agree more broadly > on the intent. It just means that we can find a mutually > agreeable minimum interpretation. I was hoping we could at > least set down ONE brick between us into a foundation that we > could build upon. I think it means more than the above. You > may not. But it is important to find some common ground, I > think. Nice that we have it. > <snip> OK, if it only means the minimalist point of view, would a national day of prayer be in violation? In other words does it establish a national religion? I think it does not because many religions believe in prayer but many religions, like Christianity, are mutually exclusive. In other words if there is one true God then religions that do not believe in the one true God are not correct. Christianity is a narrow religion. RogerN
From: D from BC on 24 Apr 2010 22:35 In article <svq5t5d3sfde5oltdng81rnks2cv44258s(a)4ax.com>, jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > >If a person has to be stared at by the medical staff ..especially while > >pumping blood all over the floor .. and nothing happens until the 'ASK' > >happens then it's class discrimination. > > --- > That smells like a red herring to me, since my reply addressed your > statement that: > > "Most people wish/want/need their illness or injury to be treated. > Needing to ask for medical attention implies class discrimination." > > Which is ludicrous on its face, as I politely pointed out, and has > nothing to do with emergency medical treatment. > --- > It is a comparison of someone spurting blood in front of God compared to someone spurting blood in front of a doctor. God does class discrimination. The 2 classes that God does class discrimination are: 1) Those that pray/ask God for help. 2) Those that don't pray/don't ask God for help. Doctors do not do class discrimination. The 2 classes that Doctors do not do class discrimination are: 1) Those that pray/ask the doctor for help. 2) Those that don't pray/(don't ask) the doctor for help. For class 2 a person may not be in any condition to pray/ask for help due to hypovolemic shock. Yet God will still need that prayer otherwise God does the evil thing of doing nothing. It's praying to prevent Gods evil inaction. Praying/asking is nonessential when someone ethical is helping. (Hippocratic oath). It is unethical if praying/asking is mandatory for help. (God's ridiculous requirements with no reason.) Christian engineers are ridiculous to do essential/mandatory praying otherwise God does evil by doing nothing. -- D from BC British Columbia
From: D from BC on 24 Apr 2010 23:35
In article <svq5t5d3sfde5oltdng81rnks2cv44258s(a)4ax.com>, jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > Classic 'straw man' fallacy: > > You anthropomorphize God and then vilify the image you create for not > acting in ways of which you approve. It doesn't matter if God is quasi-human or totally alien. People have reasons to be ethical. God has no reasons for anything. Without reasons there is no ethics. A God free from providing reasons is free of ethics. A God free of ethics is evil. Judge: Why did you murder? Killer: I have a mystery reason and it's part of a master plan. I can't tell you. Judge: Life in prison.. > > That makes me think that you're not really an atheist, but that you hate > God so much for not following your rules you've decided to sublimate I also hate leprechauns. > that hate by talking yourself into believing that God doesn't exist: > "I mean, how could someone who allows babies to be raped by priests > exist?" and calling all who believe in God, fools, thereby exalting your > belief/non-belief set to the point where it can't be argued against. > > JF > Christian engineers are ridiculous to pray to God to stop God's evil(or God's evil agent) when it's obvious to omniscient God that you want the evil stopped. Don't pray..God knows. -- D from BC British Columbia |