This is the kind of thing that happens when a society accepts homosexuality

The Court did no such thing.
The foundation for the ruling was upon the purpose of the Act of Law, which was all to do with prohibiting the importation of foreign unskilled labor. Nothing at all to do with "we are a christian nation"

The rationale of the case is made in regard to the limitation of foreign workers , nothing else.

The opinion is separate again and is not therefore even available as legal precedence, let alone anything to do with the purpose of the Act itself

The law didn't exist as you claim. No such Law exists.

In his opinion the Judge mentions himself how it is is merely that "beyond all these matters no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people."...."These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

That " unofficial declarations" and a "mass of organic utterances" is not referring to any law that already existed. There is no law that "we are a Christian nation". You cannot apply law that doesn't exist.

How desperate you are. You see only the words "....this is a Christian Nation" like you see ".... the universe looks designed"
But neither of the authors of those are actually stipulating in Law, or as fact, either of those things.

Great theist plan. Leave all the facts out and make up any bullshit idea.

Funny and ironic how it’s only the theist who would use such deceit.
You don’t see…The Pope said "there is no God"
....Oh sorry I forgot to mention the bit about where he actually said " I don't believe…… there is no God"

Don't tell me.
I'm talking to someone who calls himself jem and lives in a facility somewhere thinking he's a banana.
 
For the few numbnut atheists who do not understand how law works in the United States....

Upon our countries founding and for the next 100 to 150 years The state Supreme Courts and the state constitutions supported state ties to Religion.

Nothing Stu, can say or do can change those facts.

The Supreme Court stated that the Establishment clause did not apply to the states for the first 100 years after our founding.

(Notice Stu never addressed that Fact.)

So only a lying idiot would sit here an write... that it was Unconstitutional for our States to have ties to religion when our country was founded. .


The truth is, America's states had ties to religion those ties were constitutional until the 14th amendment was passed.
 
Quote from jem:

For the few numbnut atheists who do not understand how law works in the United States....

Upon our countries founding and for the next 100 to 150 years The state Supreme Courts and the state constitutions supported state ties to Religion.

Nothing Stu, can say or do can change those facts.

The Supreme Court stated that the Establishment clause did not apply to the states for the first 100 years after our founding.

(Notice Stu never addressed that Fact.)

So only a lying idiot would sit here an write... that it was Unconstitutional for our States to have ties to religion when our country was founded. .


The truth is, America's states had ties to religion those ties were constitutional until the 14th amendment was passed.
More...

Well one thing is for sure, you certainly don't even know what United States law says ...never mind how it works.

I've addressed every bullshit claim you've made, your deviation from the main point, and the facts as they stand. I can't help that your comprehension is blinded by a brainwash of religious arrant nonsense

Appparently unable to directly answer to your bizarre argument, you have to couch replies in the form of a plea to the gallery. How much of clueless are you aiming for?

Making only the same repetitive feeble minded strawman claims as you do, instead of addressing the points I've raised against all the discrepant things you say, will not alter the fact that nowhere, ever, has the Founding Law of this land, nor separate Supreme Court Law in respect of individual states, at any time, at any place, passed any ruling that declares this country was founded on any religion including christianity, or that this is a christian nation.

Trying to say the opposite is the case only because states were tying themselves to religion against the fundamental purposes and guiding principles of the Constitution as it is written, is just asinine .
"We the people....." is about freedom and liberty. There is not freedom or liberty where there is no immunity from an arbitrary exercise of state authority, and no independence when beliefs are being imposed onto people who are required to be state tied to religion.

Your thoughtless unreflective religious nonsense does not change one iota that Founding and Supreme Law did not and does not support the establishment of federal or state religion, but quite the contrary and in particular , all Constitutional Law has been brought only to halt religious government or state ties to religion.

That states were eventually encouraged through Amendments to stop their unconstitutional behavior is no recommendation they were prior to that, making anything resembling good law. Obviously it was quite the opposite.

Requiring people to hold and declare a particular form of superstition in the form of religion is against freedom and against liberty, therefore un Constitutional.
The very fact that Constitutional Law had to be brought to restrict practices of state religion simply confirms it is so.

That's the thing with the religiously besotted you cannot see the facts, Making stuff up to suit yourself to then call everyone who doesn't agree delusional.

Your silly religiously motivated ideas are just pathetic Jem. Or to be more on topic with the thread, as queer as ever .
 
You have not countered one point made by the Constitution or the Supreme Court of the United States.


You claim you made legitmate arguments. I claim that not even a crack head would think you made any real arguments.

But I will make this simple....

Test for non crack heads -- At the time of our founding prove that it was Unconstitutional for the states to have ties to Religion.


To not be a crack head you must cite to authority.

1. Primary authority is the U.S. Supreme Court.

2. If you wish to cite to the Constitution itself...

Quote the words... and explain which court cases applied those words to the states and when.


Then explain why those words - ruled out all ties to and establishment of religion in those states in the states during the first 100 years.


This is your test STU. Don't be a crack head.
 
Quote from jem:

You have not countered one point made by the Constitution or the Supreme Court of the United States.


You claim you made legitmate arguments. I claim that not even a crack head would think you made any real arguments.

But I will make this simple....

Test for non crack heads -- At the time of our founding prove that it was Unconstitutional for the states to have ties to Religion.


To not be a crack head you must cite to authority.

1. Primary authority is the U.S. Supreme Court.

2. If you wish to cite to the Constitution itself...

Quote the words... and explain which court cases applied those words to the states and when.


Then explain why those words - ruled out all ties to and establishment of religion in those states in the states during the first 100 years.


This is your test STU. Don't be a crack head.
More...


Come on now JEM don't be such an ignoramus. Face it. Not a leg to stand on , you totally lost the plot.

Look,

a.) All mention of religion in the US Constitution is exclusionary.

b.) There has never, ever , been any Supreme Court making Law to establish this country as a religious or christian nation.

c.) States tying themselves to religion was as Constitutional as states tying themselves to slavery.
You own that problem not I, so trying to turn it on it's head by saying religious ties were good law prior to Constitutional Amendment , means slavery ties were also good law and Constitutional. That simple minded argument is fatuous.

Forced labor and forced religious belief are both un-Constitutional from the get go. Everyone knows early settlers fled England to get away from it
13th and 14th Amendments effectively prohibit both.
That you needed 100 years or more for confirmation , does not make either Constitutional or good law, nor could state ties to religion be an escape from religious coercion.
So you think it good or proper or Constitutional that states should have been indulging in the very same compulsion?

Irrespectively, there is nothing founding Constitutional or in Supreme Court Law anyway founding on fed or state religion. On the contrary, all mention through all US Constitutional history , is firmly against that.

It doesn't matter how much you try and squirm against those facts they speak for themselves.
Calling me names because you can't deal with those facts won't change them.
Flipping the same feeble religiously based perverted bullshit arguments every time you post won't change them either.

All that happens is you stay ignorant.
 
Crack heads think their opinion of the law means something.

I will make this simple....

Test for non crack heads --

At the time of our founding prove that it was Unconstitutional for the states to have ties to Religion.


To not be a crack head you must cite to authority.

1. Primary authority is the U.S. Supreme Court.

2. If you wish to cite to the Constitution itself...

Quote the words... and explain which court cases applied those words to the states and when.


Then explain why those words - ruled out all ties to and establishment of religion in those states in the states during the first 100 years.
 
stu i'm afraid you're wasting your time...

Pretty unbelievable that jem used that Youtube video to say that Susskind says that the universe looks as if it's intelligently designed. Anyone who actually listens to it will realize that he says that in the context of disputing it!

So that leads me to believe he might be suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

From the wikipedia page:

"people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Good opinion piece on it in the nytimes:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/?ref=opinion
 
Quote from dinn13:

stu i'm afraid you're wasting your time...

Pretty unbelievable that jem used that Youtube video to say that Susskind says that the universe looks as if it's intelligently designed. Anyone who actually listens to it will realize that he says that in the context of disputing it!

So that leads me to believe he might be suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

From the wikipedia page:

"people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Good opinion piece on it in the nytimes:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/?ref=opinion
More...


I suppose if you never read anything susskind wrote and did not understand what he means by environments.... you could be excused from not understanding english.

so why don't you explain this:




"Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: “Everyone has their own reason why they’re keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.”

But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isn’t conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?

Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it “an abdication of human intelligence.” That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.” But even if you don’t go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why."

http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
 
Quote from jem:

I suppose if you never read anything susskind wrote and did not understand what he means by environments.... you could be excused from not understanding english.

so why don't you explain this:




"Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: “Everyone has their own reason why they’re keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.”

But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isn’t conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?

Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it “an abdication of human intelligence.” That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.” But even if you don’t go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why."

http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
More...

Actually you really need to watch the Susskind video you posted again. He starts answering the question by saying that he believes the universe was not created by an intelligent being and that the universe was created in the same way that life on earth was, via an evolutionary process.

His argument is that prior to Darwin one might look at life on earth and believe that life was intelligently designed by some being. But that after Darwin we now in fact know that there wasn't divine intervention but rather a worldly evolutionary process.

He then extends the argument to our universe and the physical properties that define it. That while one might look at the physical properties and it might appear that they are intelligently designed in fact it is more likely they were created by some evolutionary process like life is.

And he's using the environments to further his point by saying that it only looks like it was designed because we see life only on a very small part of the universe, I dare say infinitesimally small. But in reality if you take the universe as a whole then it doesn't necessarily seem intelligently designed cause so much is lifeless.

And to extend his argument it's like winning the lottery. The chances are so small that if you win you might think god intervened on your behalf cause otherwise what are the chances of you winning! But in reality it only appears that god intervened cause it happened that you won.



And remember, he starts answering the question by saying he doesn't think the universe was intelligently designed!!! and everything after that is to support that view, he doesn't then contradict himself by saying the opposite!!
 
Quote from dinn13:

stu i'm afraid you're wasting your time...

Pretty unbelievable that jem used that Youtube video to say that Susskind says that the universe looks as if it's intelligently designed. Anyone who actually listens to it will realize that he says that in the context of disputing it!

So that leads me to believe he might be suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

From the wikipedia page:

"people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Good opinion piece on it in the nytimes:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/?ref=opinion
More...
Interesting thanks, haven't come across that before.
I was beginning to think I should ease up as the psychosis Jem displays might be a form of dementia.

If it isn't that even so maybe be as you say, he's a waste of time.
Whatever the disorder, it seems so deeply ingrained the guy is probably a hopeless case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top