Comments on: A discussion of (possibly a rant about) ID http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/ Warning: contains language from the outset Fri, 02 Dec 2011 00:32:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: asajeffrey http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/#comment-5961 asajeffrey Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:23:08 +0000 http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/#comment-5961 <p>Yes, unfortunately it was established by that boo-hiss late 20th century supreme court we're all meant to hate.</p> <p>I don't know if there'd be much support for an established church, although I suspect mandatory prayers in school, bible class, etc. would go down fine. The megachurches are just to proud of their own independence to want to hand over to something that would end up looking like the CoE, i.e. an inclusive not-wanting-to-offend-anyone affair.</p> Yes, unfortunately it was established by that boo-hiss late 20th century supreme court we’re all meant to hate.

I don’t know if there’d be much support for an established church, although I suspect mandatory prayers in school, bible class, etc. would go down fine. The megachurches are just to proud of their own independence to want to hand over to something that would end up looking like the CoE, i.e. an inclusive not-wanting-to-offend-anyone affair.

]]> By: asajeffrey http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/#comment-5960 asajeffrey Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:18:34 +0000 http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/#comment-5960 <p>I'm sure the EU would be only too happy to provide one. Oops, butterfingers, the French and Dutch dropped it!</p> I’m sure the EU would be only too happy to provide one. Oops, butterfingers, the French and Dutch dropped it!

]]> By: Martin McCallion http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/#comment-5959 Martin McCallion Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:56:13 +0000 http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/#comment-5959 <p>Well, yes. I was thinking of the executive branch, but it's true that the Constitution is in the care of the judiciary.</p> <p>I wish we had one. A constitution, that is.</p> Well, yes. I was thinking of the executive branch, but it’s true that the Constitution is in the care of the judiciary.

I wish we had one. A constitution, that is.

]]> By: Martin McCallion http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/#comment-5958 Martin McCallion Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:54:05 +0000 http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/#comment-5958 <p>That's a good point. It's clear that "separation of church and state" is an extension of the precise meaning of the first amendment; but it's a pretty well established one, it seems to me.</p> <p>And I suspect that the fundies would love to have a mandatory state religion if they could. Course, they might tear themselves apart fighting over which particular sect it would be.</p> That’s a good point. It’s clear that “separation of church and state” is an extension of the precise meaning of the first amendment; but it’s a pretty well established one, it seems to me.

And I suspect that the fundies would love to have a mandatory state religion if they could. Course, they might tear themselves apart fighting over which particular sect it would be.

]]> By: asajeffrey http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/#comment-5957 asajeffrey Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:44:41 +0000 http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/#comment-5957 <p>Where arses == new-look supreme court, indeedy doody. During the Nixon/Reagan/BushI/BushII years, the retro-1980s supreme court was a bastion of sensibleness compared to the executive.</p> Where arses == new-look supreme court, indeedy doody. During the Nixon/Reagan/BushI/BushII years, the retro-1980s supreme court was a bastion of sensibleness compared to the executive.

]]> By: asajeffrey http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/#comment-5956 asajeffrey Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:42:06 +0000 http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/#comment-5956 <p>I think there is a consistent world view here. The US constitution bans the establishment of religion, which is interpreted by the origonalists to mean "no official state religion", i.e. nothing like the CoE, no surprise there. The interpretation meaning "separation of church and state" and in particular "no federal support for any religious activity" is 20th century, and is what's being fought against, e.g. GWB's "faith-based initiatives".</p> <p>Not that I believe any of this, but I think it's at least internally coherent.</p> I think there is a consistent world view here. The US constitution bans the establishment of religion, which is interpreted by the origonalists to mean “no official state religion”, i.e. nothing like the CoE, no surprise there. The interpretation meaning “separation of church and state” and in particular “no federal support for any religious activity” is 20th century, and is what’s being fought against, e.g. GWB’s “faith-based initiatives”.

Not that I believe any of this, but I think it’s at least internally coherent.

]]> By: Martin McCallion http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/#comment-5955 Martin McCallion Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:36:21 +0000 http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/#comment-5955 <p>Ah, but you see, that all depends on the amendment. <strike>God</strike> The Founders meant the second amendment to be taken very, very literally. Gotta keep that well-regulated militia, after all. Otherwise the government might get too powerful... errr...</p> <p>But the first, though: that's much more... <em>allegorical</em>, y'know? And the fourth: <strike>God</strike> they didn't really <em>mean</em> that the people should be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures".</p> <p>*Sigh* Such an admirable document. Sad that it's currently in the hands of such arses.</p> Ah, but you see, that all depends on the amendment. God The Founders meant the second amendment to be taken very, very literally. Gotta keep that well-regulated militia, after all. Otherwise the government might get too powerful… errr…

But the first, though: that’s much more… allegorical, y’know? And the fourth: God they didn’t really mean that the people should be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”.

*Sigh* Such an admirable document. Sad that it’s currently in the hands of such arses.

]]> By: asajeffrey http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/#comment-5954 asajeffrey Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:30:14 +0000 http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/#comment-5954 <p>Good news is that the most recent coverage of ID over here has been "it's going to hell in a handbasket".</p> <p>There was about a year where ID was all over the news, probably peaked with the Dover, PA, school board requiring teaching of ID, swiftly followed by the board being kicked out.</p> <p>Me, I'm more worried about the composition of the new Supreme Court, and the upcoming battles on overturning Roe v Wade, e.g. North Dakota passing an abortion ban which clearly violates Roe v Wade, just to see if the new court will let them get away with it.</p> <p>No matter how much the Republicans get kicked around this year and in 2008 (and after Katrina they're not healthy) this court is going to be hanging around for a while.</p> Good news is that the most recent coverage of ID over here has been “it’s going to hell in a handbasket”.

There was about a year where ID was all over the news, probably peaked with the Dover, PA, school board requiring teaching of ID, swiftly followed by the board being kicked out.

Me, I’m more worried about the composition of the new Supreme Court, and the upcoming battles on overturning Roe v Wade, e.g. North Dakota passing an abortion ban which clearly violates Roe v Wade, just to see if the new court will let them get away with it.

No matter how much the Republicans get kicked around this year and in 2008 (and after Katrina they’re not healthy) this court is going to be hanging around for a while.

]]> By: zotz http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/#comment-5953 zotz Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:15:54 +0000 http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/#comment-5953 <p> . . . and yet they still think the Constitution is perfect and should also be interpreted literally and conservatively. Yes, I can spell "cognitive dissonance", as you ask.</p> . . . and yet they still think the Constitution is perfect and should also be interpreted literally and conservatively. Yes, I can spell “cognitive dissonance”, as you ask.

]]> By: swisstone http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/#comment-5952 swisstone Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:09:35 +0000 http://devilgate.org/blog/2006/02/23/a-discussion-of-possibly-a-rant-about-id/#comment-5952 <p><i>Have they never heard of the separation of church and state?</i></p> <p>Of course they have. They think it's one of the worst things to happen in the last four hundred years.</p> Have they never heard of the separation of church and state?

Of course they have. They think it’s one of the worst things to happen in the last four hundred years.

]]>