Supreme court ducks the issue

cult (____), n.
[ad. L. cultus worship (f. colere to attend to, cultivate, respect, etc.), and its F. adaptation culte (1611 Cotgr.). Used in 17th c. (? from Latin), and then rarely till the middle of the 19th, when often spelt culte as in French.]
_ 1. Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings. Obs. (exc. as in sense 2).
1617 Collins Def. Bp. Ely ii. ix. 371 You tell vs most absurdly of a diuine cult_for so cult you are, or so quilted in your tearmes.
Ibid. 380 You_referre it to the cult that you so foolishly talked of.
1657_83 Evelyn Hist. Relig. (1850) II. 39 God, abolishing the cult of Gentile idols.
1683 D.A. Art Converse 92 That Sovereign Cult due to God only.
2. a. A particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in reference to its external rites and ceremonies.
1679 Penn Addr. Prot. ii. App. 245 Let not every circumstantial difference or Variety of Cult be Nick-named a new Religion.
1699 Shaftesbury Charac., Inq. conc. Virtue i. iii. _2 In the Cult or Worship of such a Deity.
1850 Gladstone Homer II. 211 While she [Proserpine] has a cult or worship on earth, he [Aidoneus] apparently has none.
1859 L. Oliphant China & Japan I. xii. 242 They are devoted in their attentions to the objects of their culte.
1874 Mahaffy Soc. Life Gr. xi. 350 The cult of Aphrodite.
b. Now freq. used attrib. by writers on cultic ritual and the archæology of primitive cults.
1901 A. J. Evans Mycen. Tree & Pillar Cult 25 Aniconic Cult Images.
Ibid. 77 Cult Scenes relating to a Warrior God and his Consort.
1903 Folk-lore Sept. 264 The image of the patron deity, usually a simple copy of the cult statue.
Ibid. 269 Inscriptions found at various cult-centres.
1904 Hastings's Dict. Bible V. 118/1 The female Divinity must be represented by the female animal, in order to carry out the mythological tale or the cult-act.
1906 D. G. Hogarth in Proc. Brit. Acad. 1905_6 375 Small objects dedicated in that temple, among which are several cult-figurines of the Goddess.
1928 Peake & Fleure Steppe & Sown 104 Already in Early Minoan times the double axe had become, not only a symbol of authority, but a cult object.
_1930 D. H. Lawrence Apocalypse (1931) vii. 117 Cult-lore was the wisdom of the old races.
1950 H. L. Lorimer Homer & Monum. vi. 349 The earliest cult-image of the goddess.
1950 Scott. Jrnl. Theol. III. 368 The rôle of the king in the great cult-drama at the beginning of every new year.
1957 Antiquity & Survival II. 167/1 Near it a cult mask, made of clay, was still lying on the floor._ In a further room, we discovered a unique cult-standard_made of bronze, with a tang to fasten it to a pole.
3. transf. Devotion or homage to a particular person or thing, now esp. as paid by a body of professed adherents or admirers.
1711 Shaftesbury Charac. iii. i. (1737) I. 281 Convinc'd of the Reality of a better Self, and of the Cult or Homage which is due to It.
1829 A. W. Fonblanque England Under 7 Admin. (1837) I. 238 These cults are generally to be found in the same house.
1879 Q. Rev. Apr. 368 The cult of beauty as the most vivid image of Truth.
1889 John Bull 2 Mar. 141/2 An evidence of the decay of the Wordsworth cult.
 
LMAOOOOOOO.... here we go again.

Just more PROOF that ART thinks he is the SOLE authority
on definitions around the world! Who needs websters when
you have ART, right?!?!?

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :p


For the million time, atheism, as in A followed THEISM,
is the LACK of theistic belief. The word itself directly translates
to lack of theism! :D


I even posted multiple sources in the past from PHD Harvard
philosophers, encyclopedias, atheist authors, and atheist
organizations themselves which agree with my definition
that atheism is simply lack of theistic belief.

But noooooooooooo.... 777 being the most POMPOUS delusional
god speaker, continues to assert that ONLY HIS DEFINITIONS
of words are the RIGHT ONES.

Dude.... GET OVER YOURSELF

You lost that debate too. You are by NO means the sole
authority on definitions and meanings.

Seek help for the voices in your head ok???
Funny how these ART debates always end this way with art effectively
screaming: IM RIGHT IM RIGHT!! MY DEFINITION IS THE ONLY **TRUE*** ONES!!!

Now he has followed the same idiotic pattern with the word "DODGE" and "SIDESTEP".

And since you already opened the door to Ad Hominem attacks...
let me just say....

WHAT A FRUITCAKE! ROLFMAOOOOOOO :p

As art would say...clearly insane by definition...LOL!


peace

axeman



Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: 'k<
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion


Atheists practice the belief in atheism, the religion of atheism. They have their own creed, and dogma. They are a small group, relative to established religions.

They are a cult, by definition.

The man you quoted is a member of a cult, a cult of atheists, who practice atheism.
More...
 
MORE proof 777 hasnt a CLUE about atheism.

WOW!!! I didnt know I PRACTICE atheism!!

Gee....why dont you tell us what exactly it is we are practicing ART :D
I dont see any little atheist bible sitting around with things to practice in it.
Can you please list them for me?
What DO atheists practice????

OMG!!!! We have our own CREED too!!!!
Gee ART....could you PLEASE use your incredible magical powers
to ask god what my CREED is??? Because I havent a CLUE.
But since YOU KNOW....why dont you tell me??? LMAOOO :p

And what about our dogmas 777? Ive never seen them.
Please LIST our dogmas. Maybe you think SCIENCE is dogma? :p


Nice poisoning the well fallacy at the end there...ill add that
to your list of fallacies that grows longer by each post.


Atheists have creeds, and practices, and they are religious too!
WOW...learn something new every day! LMAOOOOOOO:p

Why do I deal with such clueless people?
Poor lil guy went off the deep end again. :D


peace

axeman



Atheists practice the belief in atheism, the religion of atheism. They have their own creed, and dogma. They are a small group, relative to established religions.
They are a cult, by definition.
The man you quoted is a member of a cult, a cult of atheists, who practice atheism.
 
Go away poser.... this is a TRADING site...we all know you blew up
and cant trade no more :p

BWAAAAAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!

LOOOHHH HOOOO HOOOOSEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRR :p

peace

axeman


Quote from LongShot:

don't let up make axemonkey eat his own words
More...
 
One easy way to clarify what a word means in context, is to substitute the different definitions found in a dictionary, and see which makes the most sense.

Children are often confused as to what a sentence means, as words can have different definitions.

They begin to learn what is a verb, noun, adjective, and that helps to some degree.

Here is the sentence from the atheist cult member:

"The court ducked the issue, which means that a legal conflict still exists."

Clearly the word "ducked" in this sentence is a verb. I would hope we get no argument here on this point.

So what are the definitions of ducked in a common dictionary:

Main Entry: 2duck
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English douken; akin to Old High German tuhhan to dive, Old English duce duck
transitive senses
1 : to thrust under water
2 : to lower (as the head) quickly : BOW
3 : AVOID, EVADE <duck the issue>
intransitive senses
1 a : to plunge under the surface of water b : to descend suddenly : DIP
2 a : to lower the head or body suddenly : DODGE b : BOW, BOB
3 a : to move quickly b : to evade a duty, question, or responsibility
- duck·er noun

So, let's plug in the different definition into the sentence and find out which makes sense, assuming the atheist cult member was making sense.


1. "The court thrust under water the issue, which means that a legal conflict still exists."

Hmmm.

2. "The court bowed before the issue, which means that a legal conflict still exists."

Not there yet.


3a. "The court moved quickly as to the issue, which means that a legal conflict still exists."

Close...but speed of movement on the issue is not the issue raised by the comments.

3b. "The court evaded a responsibility as to the issue, which means that a legal conflict still exists."

Ah ha! The correct meaning of the speaker. The speaker suggests the court evaded a responsibility to the issue.

Why am I so sure this is correct meaning of the speaker? CONTEXT! Read the entire paragraph:

The court has avoided an important First Amendment case concerning the status of government promoted religion," said Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists. "We can only guess why the court majority made this unfortunate move, but in doing so they have failed to resolve the basic issue of whether the state can use religion to promote patriotism."

"The court ducked the issue, which means that a legal conflict still exists," said Dave Silverman, Communications Director for American Atheists. "Like it or not, the Supreme Court is probably going to have to take up this question again at some point in the future."


This conclusion is further supported by the remainder of the sentence:

"Like it or not, the Supreme Court is probably going to have to take up this question again at some point in the future."

The speakers clearly says that the court is going to have to take up this question again, and will not be able to "evade" (his usage of the word ducked) the question.

So......

Did the court evade their responsibility to the core issue?

Was their first responsibility to look at case on the core issue first, or look at the technical merits of the case first.

I have made my argument why they look at the technical aspects first, to see if it is qualified to reach the second aspect.

No counter argument has been made why they should ignore the technical flaws and proceed to the "core" issues.

Consequently, the court did the right thing, the rejected and dismissed the case.

The did not "duck" "dodge" nor "sidestep" the "core" issue of the case.

The court has no responsibility to resolve the basic issue the atheists have with the first amendment. That is their issue, a minority issue. They have a responsibility to review cases and determine their legality and constitutionality.

When a case is presented that is technically strong enough to withstand the rigors of the Supreme Court, then perhaps the atheists can have the court address their issues of constitutionality of the use of the word God.

Until then....

I pledge allegiance, to the United States of America.

One Nation, Under God.....

You know the rest...by heart.

Quote from rgelite:

The most common usages start at #1 and proceed down.

That said, I have no dog (live or dead) in this brawl.

I was just giving you guys more ammunition so I can enjoy my Monday Nights at the Fights.

:D
More...
 
Atheists hold a belief in their mind.

Definition
atheist [Show phonetics]
noun [C]
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist.

They practice holding this belief in their mind, and go to great lengths to maintain this belief.

The central component is belief, rather than knowledge.

As much as you would pose to be an expert on atheism because you practice it, that is as valid as saying a schizophrenic is an expert in schizophrenia because he has it.

Any group of people can form a society, and in cult like fashion claim themselves to be unique and the highest level of expertise in a subject, ignoring the terminology of the general public and dictionaries and their understanding and experience of atheism, but it does not make it so.


Hopefully you will soon get to the definition of atheism that makes you the same as a turnip.

New members will get a kick out of that one.

Quote from axeman:

MORE proof 777 hasnt a CLUE about atheism.

WOW!!! I didnt know I PRACTICE atheism!!

Gee....why dont you tell us what exactly it is we are practicing ART :D
I dont see any little atheist bible sitting around with things to practice in it.
Can you please list them for me?
What DO atheists practice????

OMG!!!! We have our own CREED too!!!!
Gee ART....could you PLEASE use your incredible magical powers
to ask god what my CREED is??? Because I havent a CLUE.
But since YOU KNOW....why dont you tell me??? LMAOOO :p

And what about our dogmas 777? Ive never seen them.
Please LIST our dogmas. Maybe you think SCIENCE is dogma? :p


Nice poisoning the well fallacy at the end there...ill add that
to your list of fallacies that grows longer by each post.


Atheists have creeds, and practices, and they are religious too!
WOW...learn something new every day! LMAOOOOOOO:p

Why do I deal with such clueless people?
Poor lil guy went off the deep end again. :D


peace

axeman



Atheists practice the belief in atheism, the religion of atheism. They have their own creed, and dogma. They are a small group, relative to established religions.
They are a cult, by definition.
The man you quoted is a member of a cult, a cult of atheists, who practice atheism.
More...
 
Quote from axeman:
A supposition? Are you kidding me?

They dismissed the case on his legal standing to even bring it forward.


They therefore DID NOT RULE ON THE ISSUE OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

What part dont you understand???

Let me repeat... they did NOT rule on the core issue, now did they?

They ducked the core issue. Its not arguable. You look funny
pretending that they did and rejecting the obvious reality of the matter.

You even said it yourself:
"but the vote was 8-0 to dismiss because the case was improperly brought from the very start"
The core issue WAS NEVER ADDRESSED. Period.
More...
You don't seem to understand how the Supreme Court works or what its responsibilities are. You just want what you want regardless of whether it's consistent with the SC's mandate.

The court is (1) under no obligation to rule on a case that is improperly brought to it (as this one was) and (2) should not deal in anyway with the case in such cases except that they should properly chastise any lower courts that allowed the improper case to even chew up any of their time and refuse to hear the case (which they have done in many cases) or dismiss it if the lower courts acted so egregiously in ignoring basic legal tenents that the SC needed to effect an immediate reversal.

When some idiot finally brings a legit case on this issue to the SC, they'll rule on it.
 

No counter argument has been made why they should ignore the technical flaws and proceed to the "core" issues.

Thats because NO ONE HAS EVER EVEN ATTEMPTED TO MAKE THIS ARGUMENT.
This is PURELY an ART fabrication. BUSTED! :D

This is a BLATANT strawman you continually attempt to slip
into this discussion.

I thereby REJECT your silly post because it is nothing more
than another typical ART fallaciously based argument.

Caught red handed AGAIN...its already over ART.
You cant read minds. You cant prove, and you haven't,
that all 5 sources had nefarious meaning behind their statements.

It's over. Go home to mommy, she will help you with the
god voices in your little head :p

peace

axeman
 
Quote from axeman:
Washington post says: Supreme Court dodges church-state issue by ruling father had no standing to sue over phrase in Pledge oath.


The UnionTribune says: The Supreme Court allows schoolchildren to keep affirming loyalty to one nation "under God" but dodges the underlying question of whether the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.


The LATimes says: Justices sidestep "under God" debate by ruling that a non-custodial parent can't sue.

Sacramento bee says: The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.

Yup..... they didnt address the core issue. Not debateable.
More...

Oh, I see - you ass-u-me that newspapers seeking headlines as inciting (not insightful) as possible to sell papers are (1) always the final authority on a subject and (2) never make mistakes or spin the issue

That explains a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top