I don't know, I'd say it's a pretty massive deal that something in direct violation of the First Amendment passed the house. And while the Christian morality is our de facto one, what happens when, for example, a bill is proposed that does not "express continued support for Christians?" Isn't acknowledging another faith as legitimate not in support of Christians? Which Christians? It all seems a mess.
It's not in direct (nor indirect for that matter) violation of anything. It is not telling people how to act. Why does everything have to be so black and white with you people? The first amendment guarantees that the govt will support all religions. So why is it only now that this bill has come about that you're worried about opposing religious views? The rights of all individuals are protected so long as they do not impose upon the rights of others. The same thing applies to religious practices. If the govt says they'll support one group, it does not mean that they are going to prioritize that group. The only point I was making by raising the issue of Christianity creating our de facto morality is that the majority of our laws are going to parallel the Christian way of life. We are already biased towards other religions for this reason. HOWEVER, passing a bill that essentially says, "the majority of the people around here are Christian, therefore we will not force them to be PC about the holiday season" is a very far cry (and will in no way lead to) the subversion of the rights of non-Christians.
The first amendment guarantees that the government will support NO religions. I stopped reading your post after that. I'm starting to think you're a joke account created solely to make me mad.
The first amendment guarantees that the government will support NO religions. I stopped reading your post after that. I'm starting to think you're a joke account created solely to make me mad.
I'm starting to be fully convinced that you're a complete fucking retard who honestly doesn't understand the first step to drawing a logical conclusion. You start every argument with "to me" or "I think this means". You have no comprehension of the English language and the pre-set meanings of its words. You seem to believe in moral subjectivity to the point of perversion. You never give a single reason WHY you think what you think. I wouldn't have to contradict you so much if you'd take the time to think and type something intelligent.
And now after reading the one about Islam, I'm doubly mad.
EDIT OF: I wrote it in an edit on the previous page as well, but I wanted to rewrite it here so more people could see:
I'm going to be writing my representative about this. If you'd like to as well, go here http://www.house.gov/writerep/
If you don't care about this particular piece of legislation, that's fine, but if there ever comes a time when you do care about a particular piece of legislation, having this contact information on hand can be, well, handy.
DOUBLE EDIT OF: Mittens, dude, that is a whole 'nother bag of worms I don't even feel qualified to comment on. I would love to get an assignment there.
Hey, flame war! And yes, my main beef with the bill is that it violates the constitution, something that should not be happening without going through the amendment process. The Islam bill should no more have passed than this, and the casual disregard of the bill of rights is terrifying.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
These bills brought up in this thread violate this part of our Constitution, and they pave the road for any other laws that would violate our Constitution.
Also, John, your comments about Adam were really uncalled for, and I think you should apologize or at least retract them. If anyone has posted in a way meant to deliberately piss someone off, it would be you. I remember you voicing support for church-state connections in other threads, and hyper-ironically wondering why anyone would ever think that separation of church and state would be a good idea.
EDIT: In fact, half of your posts in this thread seem to be geared towards offending someone/pissing someone off.
I like John. He often plays the "devil's advocate" bit, especially when not many others are likely to. I do like a good-natured argument now and then, but you need someone on the other side (even if he's not always so good at it. He gets credit for trying. It's tough to support a point you don't believe in.)
As regards this case I do kind of agree with Adam that this isn't really a full on violation, but I do think it treads awful close so as to make me uncomfortable with it. As John said more than once. Slippery slope. Still, Mitten's post does reassure me a bit actually. It seems much more likely that this is a bill that was made up by the Legislature basically just so they can look busy and pretend that their pay is justified. The wording is weak and vague. Still, the fact remains that this is a pointless bill that should not have even been brought up let alone passed, especially because it IS kind of vague and close to illegal. It's just one more thing that could be abused somehow in the future.
So now I'm confused. Why is our government spending its time and money voting on motions to recognize religions? My previous concern has less impact if they did the same for Islam, a substantially less powerful religion in the US (by virtue of numbers).
I can only assume that the government has already found solutions to poverty, Iraq, the sub-prime mortgage slump, the gross decline in the value of the dollar, and the decision whether or not to lower national interest rates to help our economy recover while risking making the economy worse.
Apparently that's all taken care of. I look forward to finding out on the news really soon.
I agree with Serephel, there are a million issues that the legislature could be handling, and yet we have these seemingly pointless bills that essentially say, "hey we're cool with that". I don't understand why the Gov't would spend time on these arbitrary things when there are so many actual problems to deal with, it seems to me that the slippery slope john was talking about comes with ignoring our problems our real problems.
On the Subject of How My Brain Works:
Wow, hey, if I lash out at anyone it's only because like Steve Zissou in The Life Aquatic I'm trying to defend myself. I'm an insecure guy.
As for the thought that I like to play Devil's advocate, well I think it was that at first, but here's the real reason: I'm a racist guy. I think that people from different regions have differences in the genes that code not only for skin color and skull size and body mass and metabolism, but also the genes that code for brain development. How does this affect us differently? Well, aside from knowing that chinese people are awesome at math, I have no idea. Read: I do not know in what way foreign peoples are different, but I know they are different. This lack of knowledge on my part is what prevents me from feeling A-OK with declaring the observed puculiarities of a foreign peoples "wrong".
The above reason is why I'm reticent to pass moral judgment on a group of fanatic yahoos who want to crucify a woman on religious grounds. I don't know if this is something that works for them. I don't know if they were a vocal minority or echoed the beliefs of a majority of their brethren.
As for H. Res. 847:
Yeah, I just read today that Ron Paul voted on the earlier one showing respect towards Islam, which does not sit well with me, but I support his fiscal policy. Plus, I'm going to send him a letter asking what was up with that. The man deserves to at least explain himself to his biggest fan.
H. Res. 847 is what is known as a "House Simple Resolution". According to the Gov Tracker website, this is a resolution that does not require ratification by the other chamber of Congress or the President, and is used to change the internal workings or express the sentiments of the House. Technically this does not break the Constitution because there is no law being placed into effect. Nobody is being affected directly. No rights are being taken away, etc. What I'm trying to figure out now is whether I'm the victim of sensationalism or I truly think that it's in any way harmful for a branch of the government to acknowledge any religion for any reason. It seems to me that religion is strong enough to survive without government intervention. Thos're my feelings. They are subject to change according to who I'm trying to fuck.
I guess I should have been paying attention while this debate has been going on. Oh well. Here's my opinion.
I'm really not worried. This bill doesn't even do anything, it just acknowledges that there are Christians in the US and the world. The presence of an Islamic bill makes me feel even better. I don't think this is something to worry about, and I don't really think this is a slippery slope. I don't think this has crossed any huge barriers. There's still more to be done before a slippery slope is introduced. But believe me, once the government starts trying to actually favor Christianity as the US's religion in any small way, I'll be screaming in protest, writing representatives, doing whatever I have to to be heard.
Here's a statement I want you guys to argue with, because I'd like to test it out myself: favoring Christianity over other religions on the grounds that our nation was founded by Christians and Christians make up a majority of our population is the same as favoring whites over other races for the same reasons.
You know, I've entertained thoughts of moving to Britain. Think of all the literary culture I'd be able to soak up! Perhaps once I start looking for university positions after grad schools I'll extend my net there. Though I might have trouble at first, choking on the sweet air of freedom.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, John. Especially since you'll ignore anything I type. All people are the same. There has never been any correlation shown between race and mental ability or pre-dispositions. If you placed any new-born into any other culture, assuming the people of that culture didn't treat that baby any differently, he or she would act exactly the same as anybody else raised in that society. Please, please, please do not just tell me you don't believe it. Go read a few psychology books first. And don't just say you don't trust the psychologists, either. If you truly study the material, you'll understand the methods used to draw these conclusions.
Illithid, this was my main point the entire time, it never says that it's placing Christianity above any other religion. It only says that it will "support" it. As I said earlier and as John has even now stated, the bill is only a gesture of good will towards the majority of the population during a season that many consider important. I'm being serious now. I need help understanding how everyone is making this jump from expressing support for one thing as being equal to disapproving or being against everything else. I just can't see it. It makes absolutely no sense to me. It's like if I say I will continue to eat pizza throughout my life, it'll be taken to mean that I will shun all other foods.
But in a body where you shall make no law respecting or disallowing any food, the mention of ANY food is peculiar and makes me want to question any alterior motives you might have.
EDIT OF: Are you insinuating that intelligence is not inheritable?
Not necessarily Adam! Remember, all Japanese have a predisposition to becoming scared as shit when they see you wearing your trench coat and running towards them.
There is no ulterior motive. You as a pizza supporting citizen have voiced a concern that you government has not been doing enough to protect the rights of pizza enthusiasts during the annual pizza celebration day. In fact, in the weeks leading up to the renowned day of festivity, the government has forced you to replace your pizza decorations with more cuisine neutral decorations. So, to avoid making you feel alienated by your government, they have passed a bill to ensure you that you're rights will continue to be protected. And just so that you don't hold any ill will towards you're local politicians, they also want you to know that they recognize the importance of pizza to our nation as a whole.
Not necessarily Adam! Remember, all Japanese have a predisposition to becoming scared as shit when they see you wearing your trench coat and running towards them.
It snowed today. A sushi place near where I worked stayed closed. So, yes. It would seem that certain primordial fears, such as that of the sky, will follow to all regions of the world.
But in a body where you shall make no law respecting or disallowing any food, the mention of ANY food is peculiar and makes me want to question any alterior motives you might have.
EDIT OF: Are you insinuating that intelligence is not inheritable?
Intelligence is not inheritable. It is learned. If you have intelligent parents and you're primary exposure to life is through them, then (barring any mental illness or actual physical problems) you, too, will be pre-disposed to becoming an intelligent human being. However, even an advantageous beginning can be squandered and a child will not live up to the standards of intelligence set by their parents.
Seriously, until you read at least 2 developmental psychology books, I will not argue this with you. At the moment I am the only one of us 2 who has any "expertize" on this matter, therefore you have no right to try and guess about the things you think you've observed in life.
EDIT: also, I know some have suggested that you intentionally try to play Devil's Advocate, but Devil's advocate is supposed to be someone who encourages thought and discussion. They will find a potential flaw in someone's argument and ask a question that will allow that individual to expand on their thoughts. You just takes individual words out of context or intentionally mis-interpret what is said as a means of creating a weaker argument that you can more easily attack. In this way you bypass the conversation rather than fuel it.
But now as an enthusiast of the kebab, I'm worried that my lack of pizza excitement will be noticed by the people I interact with on a daily basis. What's the government going to do to protect me from people who give me funny looks when I chow down on my meat-on-a-stick? In fact, I'm starting to get scared when they offer me pizza. Are they trying to change my tastes? I LOVE KEBABS!
So, you think that you're kebobs are more important than the pizza? The government has no more right to force the pizza eaters to join your kebobianism than they to to make you eat pizza. If you wish to calmly explain your ways to the pizza enthusiasts, you're more than welcome to do so. However, if a pizza-person doesn't want to join you, thye don't have to. Just as you don't have to join them if you do not wish.
Adam, that was a wonderful analogy. I agree completely. I was going to type up a response to John's query, but I'll let you speak instead.
Like I said, I don't think that this crosses a line. The only behavior that this new bill prohibits is acts of intolerance or discrimination toward Christians. I think I will consider a line crossed when a new bill tries to affect non-harmful behavior. Like forcing children to pray in school, or forcing people to be married in a church, or something like that.
EDIT: Well, I was going to argue that intelligence is heritable, but if you've read some developmental psychology books, I'll not argue it. I have only speculation and a knowledge of general and environmental biology to go on.
So you don't accuse me of misinterpreting your words, I will ask if you believe that nature in no way shapes intelligence. That is the message I am reading. Also, please let's not get into a battle of who has more background in this. We are not competing for a job, we should let the ideas stand on their own.
So, you think that you're kebobs are more important than the pizza? The government has no more right to force the pizza eaters to join your kebobianism than they to to make you eat pizza. If you wish to calmly explain your ways to the pizza enthusiasts, you're more than welcome to do so. However, if a pizza-person doesn't want to join you, thye don't have to. Just as you don't have to join them if you do not wish.
But...But I'm SCARED that the pizza eaters are going to discriminate against me and use your legislation to back it. I demand a legislation saying how you support kebabs and how you extend respect and understanding towards those of us who eat kebabs.
No, I apologize. I should have been more specific. Everything I said is for an average, normally functioning human brain. Just as some people will inherit better organs, some will inherit better brains. But there is still no correlation between race and intelligence.
EDIT: I'm not being specific enough again. At first glance, the article about the twins seems rather concrete. However, it does not truly rule out all environmental variables. The identical twins will have shared many more identical experienced in life than the fraternal twins. By the simple virtue of looking different, they will be treated differently. The parents of the identical twins will place a far greater emphasis on equal treatment, especially since there will be no immediate visual cues to alert the parents of to whom it is they are speaking.
For example. Imagine there are fraternal twins, one wears glasses, one doesn't. The activities of their lives will be dramatically changed by just this one simple inconvenience on the part of the one. Say he gets picked on in school, he will now exhibit behavior consistent with low self-esteem. He will place less importance on his school-work than will his popular brother or sister. You really have to look closely at studies like these. The focus group isn't large enough to draw any reliable conclusions. Also, the one with adoption doesn't address the issue of time spent together during the most essential first 6-12 months of life. Believe it or not, your personality is set by the age of 6 months. It can be altered afterwards. Nobody is doomed to live life as they were shaped in the first year of life, but it will always remain an underlying factor. This can determine work ethic, as in study habits.
Anyway, I need sleep now, and I'll be busy the next few days. I'm serious. Read full texts, not just articles. An article doesn't give you the proper background of knowledge necessary to understand the implications of the study. I'm sorry to say, but your background does make a huge impact on how you will interpret what you read. The information cannot stand on its own because you don't know all of the implied factors that are universally understood by the people producing these reports. And without a full understanding of the field of study, you're missing all of the essential steps that were taken to reach this latest conclusion.
All I was saying before, though, is that for all intents and purposes, since you haven't studied anything yet, if I say something regarding something with which you are unfamiliar, you'll have no choice but to take my word for it or just blindly dismiss it. I'd prefer that you be able to make an informed conclusion when reviewing new data.
Comments
It's not in direct (nor indirect for that matter) violation of anything. It is not telling people how to act. Why does everything have to be so black and white with you people? The first amendment guarantees that the govt will support all religions. So why is it only now that this bill has come about that you're worried about opposing religious views? The rights of all individuals are protected so long as they do not impose upon the rights of others. The same thing applies to religious practices. If the govt says they'll support one group, it does not mean that they are going to prioritize that group. The only point I was making by raising the issue of Christianity creating our de facto morality is that the majority of our laws are going to parallel the Christian way of life. We are already biased towards other religions for this reason. HOWEVER, passing a bill that essentially says, "the majority of the people around here are Christian, therefore we will not force them to be PC about the holiday season" is a very far cry (and will in no way lead to) the subversion of the rights of non-Christians.
I'm starting to be fully convinced that you're a complete fucking retard who honestly doesn't understand the first step to drawing a logical conclusion. You start every argument with "to me" or "I think this means". You have no comprehension of the English language and the pre-set meanings of its words. You seem to believe in moral subjectivity to the point of perversion. You never give a single reason WHY you think what you think. I wouldn't have to contradict you so much if you'd take the time to think and type something intelligent.
EDIT OF: I wrote it in an edit on the previous page as well, but I wanted to rewrite it here so more people could see:
I'm going to be writing my representative about this. If you'd like to as well, go here http://www.house.gov/writerep/
If you don't care about this particular piece of legislation, that's fine, but if there ever comes a time when you do care about a particular piece of legislation, having this contact information on hand can be, well, handy.
DOUBLE EDIT OF: Mittens, dude, that is a whole 'nother bag of worms I don't even feel qualified to comment on. I would love to get an assignment there.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
These bills brought up in this thread violate this part of our Constitution, and they pave the road for any other laws that would violate our Constitution.
YET ANOTHER EDIT OF: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/11/graham-waterboarding-iran/ I just wanted to post this in regards to the earlier comment about Gitmo. That general does not give a fuck about me.
Also, John, your comments about Adam were really uncalled for, and I think you should apologize or at least retract them. If anyone has posted in a way meant to deliberately piss someone off, it would be you. I remember you voicing support for church-state connections in other threads, and hyper-ironically wondering why anyone would ever think that separation of church and state would be a good idea.
EDIT: In fact, half of your posts in this thread seem to be geared towards offending someone/pissing someone off.
As regards this case I do kind of agree with Adam that this isn't really a full on violation, but I do think it treads awful close so as to make me uncomfortable with it. As John said more than once. Slippery slope. Still, Mitten's post does reassure me a bit actually. It seems much more likely that this is a bill that was made up by the Legislature basically just so they can look busy and pretend that their pay is justified. The wording is weak and vague. Still, the fact remains that this is a pointless bill that should not have even been brought up let alone passed, especially because it IS kind of vague and close to illegal. It's just one more thing that could be abused somehow in the future.
I can only assume that the government has already found solutions to poverty, Iraq, the sub-prime mortgage slump, the gross decline in the value of the dollar, and the decision whether or not to lower national interest rates to help our economy recover while risking making the economy worse.
Apparently that's all taken care of. I look forward to finding out on the news really soon.
Just my thoughts.
Wow, hey, if I lash out at anyone it's only because like Steve Zissou in The Life Aquatic I'm trying to defend myself. I'm an insecure guy.
As for the thought that I like to play Devil's advocate, well I think it was that at first, but here's the real reason: I'm a racist guy. I think that people from different regions have differences in the genes that code not only for skin color and skull size and body mass and metabolism, but also the genes that code for brain development. How does this affect us differently? Well, aside from knowing that chinese people are awesome at math, I have no idea. Read: I do not know in what way foreign peoples are different, but I know they are different. This lack of knowledge on my part is what prevents me from feeling A-OK with declaring the observed puculiarities of a foreign peoples "wrong".
The above reason is why I'm reticent to pass moral judgment on a group of fanatic yahoos who want to crucify a woman on religious grounds. I don't know if this is something that works for them. I don't know if they were a vocal minority or echoed the beliefs of a majority of their brethren.
As for H. Res. 847:
Yeah, I just read today that Ron Paul voted on the earlier one showing respect towards Islam, which does not sit well with me, but I support his fiscal policy. Plus, I'm going to send him a letter asking what was up with that. The man deserves to at least explain himself to his biggest fan.
H. Res. 847 is what is known as a "House Simple Resolution". According to the Gov Tracker website, this is a resolution that does not require ratification by the other chamber of Congress or the President, and is used to change the internal workings or express the sentiments of the House. Technically this does not break the Constitution because there is no law being placed into effect. Nobody is being affected directly. No rights are being taken away, etc. What I'm trying to figure out now is whether I'm the victim of sensationalism or I truly think that it's in any way harmful for a branch of the government to acknowledge any religion for any reason. It seems to me that religion is strong enough to survive without government intervention. Thos're my feelings. They are subject to change according to who I'm trying to fuck.
I'm really not worried. This bill doesn't even do anything, it just acknowledges that there are Christians in the US and the world. The presence of an Islamic bill makes me feel even better. I don't think this is something to worry about, and I don't really think this is a slippery slope. I don't think this has crossed any huge barriers. There's still more to be done before a slippery slope is introduced. But believe me, once the government starts trying to actually favor Christianity as the US's religion in any small way, I'll be screaming in protest, writing representatives, doing whatever I have to to be heard.
Here's a statement I want you guys to argue with, because I'd like to test it out myself: favoring Christianity over other religions on the grounds that our nation was founded by Christians and Christians make up a majority of our population is the same as favoring whites over other races for the same reasons.
Critique and discuss.
Illithid, this was my main point the entire time, it never says that it's placing Christianity above any other religion. It only says that it will "support" it. As I said earlier and as John has even now stated, the bill is only a gesture of good will towards the majority of the population during a season that many consider important. I'm being serious now. I need help understanding how everyone is making this jump from expressing support for one thing as being equal to disapproving or being against everything else. I just can't see it. It makes absolutely no sense to me. It's like if I say I will continue to eat pizza throughout my life, it'll be taken to mean that I will shun all other foods.
EDIT OF: Are you insinuating that intelligence is not inheritable?
It snowed today. A sushi place near where I worked stayed closed. So, yes. It would seem that certain primordial fears, such as that of the sky, will follow to all regions of the world.
Intelligence is not inheritable. It is learned. If you have intelligent parents and you're primary exposure to life is through them, then (barring any mental illness or actual physical problems) you, too, will be pre-disposed to becoming an intelligent human being. However, even an advantageous beginning can be squandered and a child will not live up to the standards of intelligence set by their parents.
Seriously, until you read at least 2 developmental psychology books, I will not argue this with you. At the moment I am the only one of us 2 who has any "expertize" on this matter, therefore you have no right to try and guess about the things you think you've observed in life.
EDIT: also, I know some have suggested that you intentionally try to play Devil's Advocate, but Devil's advocate is supposed to be someone who encourages thought and discussion. They will find a potential flaw in someone's argument and ask a question that will allow that individual to expand on their thoughts. You just takes individual words out of context or intentionally mis-interpret what is said as a means of creating a weaker argument that you can more easily attack. In this way you bypass the conversation rather than fuel it.
Like I said, I don't think that this crosses a line. The only behavior that this new bill prohibits is acts of intolerance or discrimination toward Christians. I think I will consider a line crossed when a new bill tries to affect non-harmful behavior. Like forcing children to pray in school, or forcing people to be married in a church, or something like that.
EDIT: Well, I was going to argue that intelligence is heritable, but if you've read some developmental psychology books, I'll not argue it. I have only speculation and a knowledge of general and environmental biology to go on.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1520-iq-is-inherited-suggests-twin-study.html
http://www.macalester.edu/psychology/whathap/ubnrp/intelligence05/Rnature.html
So you don't accuse me of misinterpreting your words, I will ask if you believe that nature in no way shapes intelligence. That is the message I am reading. Also, please let's not get into a battle of who has more background in this. We are not competing for a job, we should let the ideas stand on their own.
EDIT: I'm not being specific enough again. At first glance, the article about the twins seems rather concrete. However, it does not truly rule out all environmental variables. The identical twins will have shared many more identical experienced in life than the fraternal twins. By the simple virtue of looking different, they will be treated differently. The parents of the identical twins will place a far greater emphasis on equal treatment, especially since there will be no immediate visual cues to alert the parents of to whom it is they are speaking.
For example. Imagine there are fraternal twins, one wears glasses, one doesn't. The activities of their lives will be dramatically changed by just this one simple inconvenience on the part of the one. Say he gets picked on in school, he will now exhibit behavior consistent with low self-esteem. He will place less importance on his school-work than will his popular brother or sister. You really have to look closely at studies like these. The focus group isn't large enough to draw any reliable conclusions. Also, the one with adoption doesn't address the issue of time spent together during the most essential first 6-12 months of life. Believe it or not, your personality is set by the age of 6 months. It can be altered afterwards. Nobody is doomed to live life as they were shaped in the first year of life, but it will always remain an underlying factor. This can determine work ethic, as in study habits.
Anyway, I need sleep now, and I'll be busy the next few days. I'm serious. Read full texts, not just articles. An article doesn't give you the proper background of knowledge necessary to understand the implications of the study. I'm sorry to say, but your background does make a huge impact on how you will interpret what you read. The information cannot stand on its own because you don't know all of the implied factors that are universally understood by the people producing these reports. And without a full understanding of the field of study, you're missing all of the essential steps that were taken to reach this latest conclusion.
All I was saying before, though, is that for all intents and purposes, since you haven't studied anything yet, if I say something regarding something with which you are unfamiliar, you'll have no choice but to take my word for it or just blindly dismiss it. I'd prefer that you be able to make an informed conclusion when reviewing new data.