If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AlterNet)   Don't believe in god? That's a jailin   (alternet.org) divider line 251
    More: Scary, Almighty God  
•       •       •

10287 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Nov 2012 at 8:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



251 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-22 03:19:12 PM
Er.... FTFA: "The law requires that plaques celebrating the power of the Almighty God be installed outside the state Homeland Security building--and carries a criminal penalty of up to 12 months in jail if one fails to comply."

That does not even make sense. What? Jail for... someone?... if they don't put up a plaque? Who? The building facilities supervisor? Stupid sentence is stupid. Horribly written article. I'll believe this when I see an intelligently written article about it.
 
2012-11-22 03:23:09 PM

grimlock1972: Oi Kentucky put down the bible and the bourbon and sober up.


O.O
NEVER put down the Bourbon
 
2012-11-22 03:25:08 PM

Mrtraveler01: And I've just finished my milk: Are you guys ever going to elect someone who doesn't believe in the invisible sky wizard?

No. We'll have a Muslim president long before we ever have an Atheist president.


Two generations. That's how long it usually takes for bigotries to become socially unacceptable.
 
2012-11-22 03:26:19 PM

OgreMagi: Endrick: It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

All the 1st amendment says is that the state can't stop you from loving Jesus.

It doesn't say that. Have you ever read the Constitution? Here, let me enlighten you:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since you might be slow, I've bolded the relevant part that this particular law violates. I'm guessing you can only see the part about free exercise, but you don't understand it. Free exercise also means NO exercise of any religion if that is your desire.


Does that mean I can still loose weight if I don't exercise (since no exercise is a form of exercise) ?
 
2012-11-22 03:27:20 PM

randomjsa: Thirdly, there's a really specific reason that the establishment clause is the absolute first thing in the Bill of Rights. That's not an accident and there's a reason Christianity loses almost every single solitary time things like this get to the SCOTUS.


The first proposed amendment in the Bill of Rights is actually the only one of the twelve amendments that has never been ratified. It would have increased the size of the House. The other eleven were ratified, but not in order.

The first one to pass, the First Amendment, is the third of the Bill of Rights's proposed amendments.

Source: The document itself
 
2012-11-22 03:28:59 PM

Mrtraveler01: And I've just finished my milk: Are you guys ever going to elect someone who doesn't believe in the invisible sky wizard?

No. We'll have a Muslim president long before we ever have an Atheist president.


I thought we did.... that's what I heard on Fark.
 
2012-11-22 03:32:27 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: FTFY: (knowing would require the proving of a negative [ie; God does not exist], therefore it's a theory of yours :)


You're not clever. Read this.
 
2012-11-22 03:32:39 PM

birdboy2000: I was thinking "well, it's a Muslim country, what do you expect?"

Then I hovered over the link. WTF Kentucky.


do you walk on water too?

:)
 
2012-11-22 03:32:52 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: Mrtraveler01: And I've just finished my milk: Are you guys ever going to elect someone who doesn't believe in the invisible sky wizard?

No. We'll have a Muslim president long before we ever have an Atheist president.

I thought we did.... that's what I heard on Fark.


That's what they want you to think.

/cues dramatic music
 
2012-11-22 03:34:43 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: OgreMagi: Endrick: It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

All the 1st amendment says is that the state can't stop you from loving Jesus.

It doesn't say that. Have you ever read the Constitution? Here, let me enlighten you:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since you might be slow, I've bolded the relevant part that this particular law violates. I'm guessing you can only see the part about free exercise, but you don't understand it. Free exercise also means NO exercise of any religion if that is your desire.

Does that mean I can still loose weight if I don't exercise (since no exercise is a form of exercise) ?


Get a better grip or you'll drop it on somebody's foot.
 
2012-11-22 03:35:28 PM

James F. Campbell: HindiDiscoMonster: FTFY: (knowing would require the proving of a negative [ie; God does not exist], therefore it's a theory of yours :)

You're not clever. Read this.


Wasn't trying to be... I was being snarky :)
Besides... I prefer my teapots to be at minimum silver plated.
 
2012-11-22 03:38:54 PM

Mrtraveler01: HindiDiscoMonster: Mrtraveler01: And I've just finished my milk: Are you guys ever going to elect someone who doesn't believe in the invisible sky wizard?

No. We'll have a Muslim president long before we ever have an Atheist president.

I thought we did.... that's what I heard on Fark.

That's what they want you to think.

/cues dramatic music


/FTFY :)
 
2012-11-22 03:48:28 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: OgreMagi: Endrick: It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

All the 1st amendment says is that the state can't stop you from loving Jesus.

It doesn't say that. Have you ever read the Constitution? Here, let me enlighten you:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since you might be slow, I've bolded the relevant part that this particular law violates. I'm guessing you can only see the part about free exercise, but you don't understand it. Free exercise also means NO exercise of any religion if that is your desire.

Does that mean I can still loose weight if I don't exercise (since no exercise is a form of exercise) ?


That's a rather lame strawman you've built there.
 
2012-11-22 03:53:58 PM

Mikey1969: crashdavis18: the penalty is not for being an atheist, it's for failing to display a plaque

Of course, the main people who are going to refuse to display the plaques are atheists, but I do see your point here. I think it's minor, compared to the Supreme Court implications, as you mention. That's the scary part.


i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-22 04:19:55 PM
They're just trying to put Jesus back in government- only Jesus left us, so they're putting the jackboots of the Lord into the pucker-knot of society.
 
2012-11-22 04:34:35 PM

FirstNationalBastard: SovietCanuckistan: FirstNationalBastard: SovietCanuckistan: KarmicDisaster: Does it say which god?

Not as awesome as when Macho Man ascended to the heavens to save us from the rapture!

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x720]


WOW. Took me a couple hours to process that image.
Thank you
Thank you
 
2012-11-22 05:06:53 PM

whidbey: "What I do see is an attempt to separate America from its history of perceiving itself as a nation under God."
Riner said.

Good. Because it wasn't a "nation under God.". Ever.


Well, at least not until Eisenhower signed the law changing the Pledge.
 
2012-11-22 06:04:17 PM

Mikey1969: "The church-state divide is not a line I see,"

I wonder if you could 'see' the door hitting you on the ass on your way out?

Really though, do we NEED Kentucky? Let's let Kentucky secede, and fill it up with the cheeseballs who signed the online petitions to leave the United States. This should make them all happy, they get to seceded, and they get to all be together. It SHOULD be a forced deportation, since they are actively promoting rebellion agains the US. Let's see how Kentucky does without any federal money at all. Then they can keep their highly unconstitutional laws and nobody will be care. They'll even benefit by being surrounded by the US, plus Canada and Mexico, nobody's going to invade them, so they won't need a Kentucky army.

/Unless they piss us off, that is, then they're screwed.


I think it would be fun to let them go. Then we don't acknowledge them as a legitimate country, meaning passports are not accepted for entry into the USA and we can't trade with them since we can't acknowledge their currency or establish an exchange ratio. Of course, they can't use our land or airspace or waterways to trade with other countries. Basically, siege warfare without declaring war.

"Wow, KY. That's a shiatload of coal you had those children mine up for ya. Wow, look at all that oil you pumped. Hope you find a way to use it. Nope, our refineries are busy at the moment. Keep asking God and he'll send you some refineries, since you murdered all the engineers trying to design one because you thought they were practicing "witchcraft," which we call math on our side of the border. What was that? Yeah, that does suck that it's hard to grow crops on a mountain range. Ask Jesus to divy up some more fish and bread. Look on the bright side; you don't have any more pesky Messicans trying to get into your country, which should solve the rest of your problems."
 
2012-11-22 06:09:32 PM
media.comicvine.com

I believe in Zod, don't you?
 
2012-11-22 06:39:53 PM
The article doesn't mention anyone actually being charged or incarcerated so this is still just an idiotic legal abstraction. I'm sure if they tried to pull this shiat in reality the entire country would be hearing about it.....right?
 
2012-11-22 09:01:20 PM

doctor wu: The article doesn't mention anyone actually being charged or incarcerated so this is still just an idiotic legal abstraction. I'm sure if they tried to pull this shiat in reality the entire country would be hearing about it.....right?


I can almost not believe what I'm about to suggest, but...

Maybe it's the police themselves (ie, the executive branch responsible for enforcing written law) that is too smart to even try? After all, they would get royally kicked in the @ss in court.
 
2012-11-22 09:24:34 PM

neenerist: clambam: Ironically, you buy into the kneejerk "America bad" narrative largely invented and certainly amplified in the 1960's by my generation.

I'm dead-center Boomer, was seven years old in the mid-Sixties and apologize profusely for upending society before starting high school. We used too much sugar on our Captain Crunch.


I find it interesting that I made what I feel to be a valid point on the nature of the secular, civic religion of America, accepted the blame on behalf of my generation for its destruction, and that wasn't enough for the likes of neongoat. Apparently I needed to apologize more, and how dare I suggest there was ever something about America worthy of admiration? I don't care for the ideology of the left or the right, and I stand by my claim that the loss of the innocent sense of patriotism once enjoyed in this country, John Phillip Sousa, Yankee Doodle Dandy, Flag Day Fourth of July patriotism, has left a gaping hole in the hearts of many Americans which cannot be filled with lef wing cynicism or right wing paranoia.
 
2012-11-22 10:24:47 PM

clambam: neenerist: clambam: Ironically, you buy into the kneejerk "America bad" narrative largely invented and certainly amplified in the 1960's by my generation.

I'm dead-center Boomer, was seven years old in the mid-Sixties and apologize profusely for upending society before starting high school. We used too much sugar on our Captain Crunch.

I find it interesting that I made what I feel to be a valid point on the nature of the secular, civic religion of America, accepted the blame on behalf of my generation for its destruction, and that wasn't enough for the likes of neongoat. Apparently I needed to apologize more, and how dare I suggest there was ever something about America worthy of admiration? I don't care for the ideology of the left or the right, and I stand by my claim that the loss of the innocent sense of patriotism once enjoyed in this country, John Phillip Sousa, Yankee Doodle Dandy, Flag Day Fourth of July patriotism, has left a gaping hole in the hearts of many Americans which cannot be filled with lef wing cynicism or right wing paranoia.


And you continue to ascribe points to me that I never made or said. That simple honest Yankee Doodle dandee, ragtime fun, big band, going to see some brass play in the town square.. Here is a hint guyo, that shiat still exists, still goes on, happily irregardless of politics. That you perceive that as something lost points to something you have lost, not America. Because ill tell you, I can find that kind of stuff literally every night during clement weather months. And I live in Ohio.

But you know, and I know, and everyone reading this thread knows that that's not the kind of patriotism I was referring to.

There is a grand gulf of intent between Yankee Doodle Dandy and the depredations of McCarthyists. That you continue to pretend I'm talking about one, when you know I'm talking about the other shows one of three things, 1) that you really don't know the difference, 2)that you are just a troll, or 3)that you are just THAT dishonest.
 
2012-11-22 10:41:47 PM
"The church-state divide is not a line I see,"
Are you a farking moron. For someone who so desperately wants to conform to the Founders' wishes, evangelicals sure do hate the first amendment.
 
2012-11-22 10:44:19 PM

colithian: "The church-state divide is not a line I see,"
Are you a farking moron. For someone who so desperately wants to conform to the Founders' wishes, evangelicals sure do hate the first amendment.


Which is funny, seeing as the Baptists were its earliest fans.
 
2012-11-22 10:44:52 PM

neongoats: Blah blah blah blah waah waah waah waah


Was I talking to you?
 
2012-11-22 11:15:46 PM
If someone goes to jail, the us army should come in and bust them out. We have to protect the constitution.
 
2012-11-23 12:42:13 AM
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg

"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.

True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they can't disarm their enemy."
-- H L Mencken, "Aftermath" (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925)
 
2012-11-23 12:45:11 AM

Endrick: It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

All the 1st amendment says is that the state can't stop you from loving Jesus.


No, it also says that the state can't make you love Jesus, either.
 
2012-11-23 02:03:29 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Er.... FTFA: "The law requires that plaques celebrating the power of the Almighty God be installed outside the state Homeland Security building--and carries a criminal penalty of up to 12 months in jail if one fails to comply."

That does not even make sense. What? Jail for... someone?... if they don't put up a plaque? Who? The building facilities supervisor? Stupid sentence is stupid. Horribly written article. I'll believe this when I see an intelligently written article about it.


This is confusing me too. If the plaques are already installed, doesn't that make this law useless anyways?
 
2012-11-23 02:06:44 AM

OgreMagi: Endrick: It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

All the 1st amendment says is that the state can't stop you from loving Jesus.

It doesn't say that. Have you ever read the Constitution? Here, let me enlighten you:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since you might be slow, I've bolded the relevant part that this particular law violates. I'm guessing you can only see the part about free exercise, but you don't understand it. Free exercise also means NO exercise of any religion if that is your desire.


How is this law any different than any other law that recognizes or proclaims the existence of god? Including any number of laws, both state and federal, that require the use of language such as 'in god we trust', 'under god' or 'With God All Things Are Possible' all of which have been upheld. None of the people who have filed suit are being forced, pressured, or coerced to do anything that violates their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). This law is not unconstitutional, and it will not be struck down. If you don't like it, go amend the constitution so that it actually means what you think it does.

This law is not one 'respecting the establishment of religion' any more than dozens of others that have been upheld.
 
2012-11-23 02:09:01 AM

FloydA: Empty Matchbook: Shadow Blasko: Gonzee: Popcorn!

I'll take one!

Why? This is Fark. Even the trolls don't pretend to support religion here!

0/10

You might have got away with this if you'd posted earlier in the thread before the religious trolls.


I actually wasn't trolling, I've never seen any! (Or at least any who even gave the SLIGHTEST shiat about getting bites)
 
2012-11-23 02:12:17 AM

Pichu0102: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Er.... FTFA: "The law requires that plaques celebrating the power of the Almighty God be installed outside the state Homeland Security building--and carries a criminal penalty of up to 12 months in jail if one fails to comply."

That does not even make sense. What? Jail for... someone?... if they don't put up a plaque? Who? The building facilities supervisor? Stupid sentence is stupid. Horribly written article. I'll believe this when I see an intelligently written article about it.

This is confusing me too. If the plaques are already installed, doesn't that make this law useless anyways?


The law also requires that the KY legislatures findings be used in training materials. If someone in the KY homeland security department refused to place the findings in the training materials, that could also trigger the penalty. That may well violate both the free exercise and free speech clauses of the first amendment. Unfortunately, it doesn't violate the 'establishment of religion' clause (no matter what the folks with a GED in con law have to say about it) so it doesn't violate the rights of any of the people who actually brought this law suit.
 
2012-11-23 02:20:45 AM

PandaPorn: Why the hell did the Kentucky supreme court refuse to review the law? Why did the state court overturn the decision of the circuit court? Why is this guy a democrat and a fundamentalist of teaparty proportions? So many questions!


More importantly, why was it apparently challenged in state rather than federal court?
 
2012-11-23 02:28:53 AM

Talondel: This law is not one 'respecting the establishment of religion' any more than dozens of others that have been upheld.


Mandating a religious statement be placed on a building on pain of jail is absolutely "respecting the establishment of religion." The Supreme Court has struck down these types of laws every time they've come up. A lower court is ignoring precedence with a complete disregard for the rule of law when they don't strike these down and shows a disdain for the Constitution that should never be tolerated.
 
2012-11-23 03:38:38 AM

Talondel: crashdavis18: Ennuipoet: Are we that desperate to bicker about religion that we need a six year old story, stemming from a three year old article to get it started? Can't wait for our family to piss us off so we start early?

Plus, we already did this one when the NYT article came out.

Even though the article is misleading (the penalty is not for being an atheist, it's for failing to display a plaque), the VERY current point is that the Kentucky Court of Appeal held that the law is legal, and that the Kentucky Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal. The petition to the US Supreme court was filed on November 13th. If the SCOTUS refuses to hear the appeal, then this clearly unconstitutional law is permanent and legal.

I agree with you that both the article and the headline are misleading (welcome to Fark / Alter.net etc.). The law does not require a belief in god, nor does it punish KY citizens who do not believe in god. It requires that the legislative findings (which include the finding that our security rests in part on god) be placed in training materials and near official buildings. The penalty is for failing to do those things, not for failing to believe in the imaginary sky wizard.

However, this law is clearly not unconstitutional, at least with respect to the individuals bringing the challenge. It does not require them to believe in god, nor does it require them to state a belief in god. Nor can they be punished for failing to comply with the law (because the law doesn't require them to do anything). Their only argument that this harms them in any way is that being told that their security depends on an imaginary god causes them mental pain and anguish. But that makes this case indistinguishable form the (clearly constitutional) cases upholding the use of phrases 'under god' and 'in god we trust' or other references to 'god' in state mottoes, seals, etc. The current test for the so called 'separation of church and state' is the Lemon test, whic ...


While all levels of court held that American Atheists, as an organization, lacked standing, as I read the Court of Appeal decision, it was not even argued, much less a basis for the decision, that the remaining parties lacked standing to bring the suit. Without trying to be a jerk, I've read the majority decision three times and I cannot find a single reference to standing which might support your position on that issue.

The majority and minority decisions differed over the application of the Lemon test. I could parrot the minority reasons to you, with which I largely agree, but I think it is enough to say this: the majority felt that this statute did not have the effect of advancing religion but rather simply reflected a historical reliance upon god, or a simple tolerable acknowledgement of historical beliefs. If that were actually the case, and if this statute fell in line with cases of that nature, then one could not be jailed for a year for a failure to comply with the statute. The executive director is required to publish the god drivel in training and education materials & to erect a plaque, failing which, he could be jailed. That is the direct rebuttal to your point that, "the law doesn't require them to do anything."
 
2012-11-23 03:50:41 AM

clambam: neongoats: There are plenty of thing that "go way way back" to the 19th century, but the codification of patriotic behaviour that we deal with in the modern era was very largely a McCarthy era invention. It starts with the pledge of allegiance, continues on through the deification of the military machine(which was largely an amateur, extracurricular activity, not a profession/social class pre ww1), and quietly implied that everything done by the state is good and pure, and people who disagree are evil and bad and hate America.

You are right, it wasn't "new". But it's overarching role in defining life and politics and policy in America was very much unprecedented.

Ironically, you buy into the kneejerk "America bad" narrative largely invented and certainly amplified in the 1960's by my generation. I suggest you expand your reading beyond Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky to get a better idea of the ideals behind this country's founding, how they were implemented, how they were betrayed, and whether on the whole we have fulfilled and/or transcended the founders' vision. Paul Johnson provides an extremely well-written if blatantly, sometimes laughably (he considers Warren G. Harding one of the best presidents of the 20th century) conservative overview of American history in "A History of the American People."

 
2012-11-23 03:51:53 AM

clambam: neongoats: There are plenty of thing that "go way way back" to the 19th century, but the codification of patriotic behaviour that we deal with in the modern era was very largely a McCarthy era invention. It starts with the pledge of allegiance, continues on through the deification of the military machine(which was largely an amateur, extracurricular activity, not a profession/social class pre ww1), and quietly implied that everything done by the state is good and pure, and people who disagree are evil and bad and hate America.

You are right, it wasn't "new". But it's overarching role in defining life and politics and policy in America was very much unprecedented.

Ironically, you buy into the kneejerk "America bad" narrative largely invented and certainly amplified in the 1960's by my generation. I suggest you expand your reading beyond Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky to get a better idea of the ideals behind this country's founding, how they were implemented, how they were betrayed, and whether on the whole we have fulfilled and/or transcended the founders' vision. Paul Johnson provides an extremely well-written if blatantly, sometimes laughably (he considers Warren G. Harding one of the best presidents of the 20th century) conservative overview of American history in "A History of the American People."


clambam: neongoats: There are plenty of thing that "go way way back" to the 19th century, but the codification of patriotic behaviour that we deal with in the modern era was very largely a McCarthy era invention. It starts with the pledge of allegiance, continues on through the deification of the military machine(which was largely an amateur, extracurricular activity, not a profession/social class pre ww1), and quietly implied that everything done by the state is good and pure, and people who disagree are evil and bad and hate America.

You are right, it wasn't "new". But it's overarching role in defining life and politics and policy in America was very much unprecedented.

Ironically, you buy into the kneejerk "America bad" narrative largely invented and certainly amplified in the 1960's by my generation. I suggest you expand your reading beyond Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky to get a better idea of the ideals behind this country's founding, how they were implemented, how they were betrayed, and whether on the whole we have fulfilled and/or transcended the founders' vision. Paul Johnson provides an extremely well-written if blatantly, sometimes laughably (he considers Warren G. Harding one of the best presidents of the 20th century) conservative overview of American history in "A History of the American People."


Well, as long as it was extremely well-written, I'm sure it reflected actual reality.
 
2012-11-23 04:07:32 AM

hootkr: If someone goes to jail, the us army should come in and bust them out. We have to protect the constitution.


Anyone dumb enough to get near Kentucky deserves their fate. Might as well try to pet a bear... a rapey bear.
 
2012-11-23 04:08:48 AM

Lernaeus: Get used to it.

When the welfare state reaches a big enough crisis - and it will - secular philosophy won't be enough to defend it; they'll need religion to ensure compliance. And don't act like this is a logical leap - Fark and Facebook were full of "Jesus was a liberal" talk, and a number of prominent Democrats use Jesus to justify their statist schemes, including the President.

Unless the American people reject statism and embrace individualism, an Evangelical theocracy is inevitable. We really don't have much time, either.


That's your answer? We must all act like selfish assholes, to prevent theocracy?

I reject both notions.
 
2012-11-23 06:40:32 AM

clambam: Before you atheists get too smug, consider this: currently atheists are, on average, smarter than believers. Imagine though in a few years when atheism has lost its stigma and stupid people start becoming atheists. Believe me, my friend, you don't want to live in a world of stupid atheists. Right now the only thing stopping a lot of them from raping and murdering you is the threat of hellfire and brimstone after death. Free them from that and watch the sparks fly.


Wrong. Morality and intelligence have nothing to do with one another. Even the stupid know right from wrong (to an acceptable degree, anyway). Morality is inborn. Religion strips it away (or can do so, anyway).

Look at northern Europe. Not much god, but you don't see the stupid atheists going on rampages there. The notion that we need religion to keep the morons in check is plain wrong.
 
2012-11-23 08:10:48 AM

PaulRB: Well, as long as it was extremely well-written, I'm sure it reflected actual reality.


I trust him on the facts up until the Wilson administration. After that, not so much. Historians of th recent past will inevitably have political biases, as do we all. It's possible to take someone's analysis with a grain of salt and still extract some value from it. And of course, providing an entertaining read excuses many faults.
 
2012-11-23 08:35:43 AM

Uncle Tractor: clambam: Before you atheists get too smug, consider this: currently atheists are, on average, smarter than believers. Imagine though in a few years when atheism has lost its stigma and stupid people start becoming atheists. Believe me, my friend, you don't want to live in a world of stupid atheists. Right now the only thing stopping a lot of them from raping and murdering you is the threat of hellfire and brimstone after death. Free them from that and watch the sparks fly.

Wrong. Morality and intelligence have nothing to do with one another. Even the stupid know right from wrong (to an acceptable degree, anyway). Morality is inborn. Religion strips it away (or can do so, anyway).

Look at northern Europe. Not much god, but you don't see the stupid atheists going on rampages there. The notion that we need religion to keep the morons in check is plain wrong.


You should also mention that there have been studies that have shown an inverse relationship between intelligence (IQ) and above average belief in religion. Now before you get your panties in a bunch, this is a correlation not a direct relationship so you can have intelligent religious people but the indication is if one puts too much emphasis on faith they tend to fall behind on standard measures.
 
2012-11-23 09:09:32 AM

friday13: Endrick: It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

All the 1st amendment says is that the state can't stop you from loving Jesus.

Either you're trolling, or you're an idiot.

And just so there's no more argument about what the law says, here it is, with emphasis on the "from" part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" bit is what gives the "of" part.


My dad pulls that bullshiat on me all the time. Every single time he perceives some sort of action against Christians he pulls that "its not freedom FROM religion!" line. But the thing is, it kind of is freedom from religion and freedom of religion at the same time. Congress cannot endorse a religion as much as they cannot prohibit a religion.
 
2012-11-23 09:41:17 AM

Bucky Katt: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg

"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.

True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they can't disarm their enemy."
-- H L Mencken, "Aftermath" (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925)


You're, like, the anti-Bevets or something.
 
2012-11-23 10:16:49 AM

Endrick: It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

All the 1st amendment says is that the state can't stop you from loving Jesus.


I have the right *of* way as a pedestrian, that doesn't mean I have to cross the street if I don't want to.
 
2012-11-23 12:08:03 PM

thepostess: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 450x425] 

wut?


I know it's full of words, but it's not...

Ow my brain. Even Squizgar Squigelf wouldn't bastardize the language that bad.
 
2012-11-23 07:12:53 PM

clambam: Before you atheists get too smug, consider this: currently atheists are, on average, smarter than believers. Imagine though in a few years when atheism has lost its stigma and stupid people start becoming atheists. Believe me, my friend, you don't want to live in a world of stupid atheists. Right now the only thing stopping a lot of them from raping and murdering you is the threat of hellfire and brimstone after death. Free them from that and watch the sparks fly.


Fear can still keep them in line. We just need a battlestation, right?

IntertubeUser: Pascal was a brilliant mathematician and inventor, but he was also a horrible philosopher.


He also worked before Cantor threw a massive monkey wrench into the notion of infinity, not to mention the further work in probability that came after his time,

HindiDiscoMonster: knowing would require the proving of a negative


Depends what sense of the word "prove" you have in mind. Can you prove you're not a cleverly disguised cabbage?
 
2012-11-23 08:00:13 PM

dervish16108: Oh no, Sharia law is in Kentucky! People will be persecuted for their lack of faith!

Oh wait, this was done by Christians. That makes everything OK.


The hypocrisy is staggering; too bad they will never see it.
 
2012-11-24 07:54:57 PM

OgreMagi: Talondel: This law is not one 'respecting the establishment of religion' any more than dozens of others that have been upheld.

Mandating a religious statement be placed on a building on pain of jail is absolutely "respecting the establishment of religion." The Supreme Court has struck down these types of laws every time they've come up. A lower court is ignoring precedence with a complete disregard for the rule of law when they don't strike these down and shows a disdain for the Constitution that should never be tolerated.


crashdavis: "the law doesn't require them to do anything."


The response to both of you is that none of the people who are at risk of being punished under the law are a party to the suit. The only harm they can allege is the mental anguish of being exposed to the reference to god. As I already said above, the law may be unconstitutional with respect to a certain class of people, but it's not facially unconstitutional and it's not unconstitutional with respect to any of the people who are a party to the suit, so the law will not be struck down (at least, not as a result of this suit, if someone who is actually required to make a statement or put up a plaque brings a suit, then it's likely to be struck down).

I think at least part of this debate depends on if you view this as a 3rd party bringing a challenge to a law that is unconstitutional only when applied to a someone else, as opposed a challenge to a law that is unconstitutional on its face. But that's an issue that's more complicated than I'm prepared to engage in on Fark. But in general, for a law to be facially invalid it would probably need to compel a particular a particular religious act. "A few rights involve absolute immunities from governmental coercion--for example, the right to believe in God, or to believe that there is no God, or to engage in silent prayer, or to refuse to pray at all. I cannot imagine any valid rule either requiring or forbidding religious belief or silent prayer." Richard H. Fallon, AS-APPLIED AND FACIAL CHALLENGES AND THIRD-PARTY STANDING, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 1321 (2000). (discussing what a 'facially invalid' violation of the Free Excercise clause might look like).
 
Displayed 50 of 251 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report