06-06-2006, 06:29 AM
Quote:Welcome to the war of ideas. Start the current phase, call it phase eleventy-seven, with the French Revolution. See you when you catch up. The fact that two (heck three or four or nine) sides are fighting to spread their agenda, rather than your presumed one, seems to have escaped you.
The fact of the matter is, kandrathe's post did the same thing as my post: it presents only two sides (in his case, what I viewed as characterising the opposing view by its extreme). But you emphasized him, and you're lecturing me. (Again? Jesus!) It's great that you can see flaws in comments you don't agree with, but it escapes me as to why don't you try picking them out in those that you do. When I agree with a position, I like to see the person arguing it do with as few faux pas as possible (read: I'll ream them if they say something that makes us look dumb).
And by the way, I was well aware of what I was doing. But the question is, does it really detract from my point, or are you just using this as an opportunity to condescend? In all honesty, it bothers me when I find myself having to choose between being perfectly factual and saying something that's true as far as I know (largely because I hate disclaimering; it can get windy). So if you really want to have a cow, go ahead and pinch a meatloaf because I didn't say "As far as I know, there is no movement to ( ... ) and if there is, I'll join with you in bitching them out. But the stance that I take, and that I've seen others take, is as follows ..."
Quote:I suspect that you would, under your line of reasoning, suggest to me that the American military should cease and desist in paying for Chaplins, as that would violate "separation of Church and state." I disagree with Jefferson's wall, unless it is built with gates. (...) Being that the Constitution was written by a group who were by and large anti-Papist, and the ban against formal State religion was aimed explicitly at the Papacy and the C of E, it is germane to the topic, correctly addresses the motivation of the establishment clause, and ends my participation in this discussion.
I don't know enough about military chaplins to have an opinion. But the debate about the history of what the founding fathers intended and what was really going on back in the day is something that, quite frankly, baffles the hell out of me. Why?
If our system of laws is based on reading something stuff dead people wrote in an attempt to try and interpret what it means, then we're doing no better than Christian denominations when it comes to interpreting the Bible and trying to find common ground. (Think "Evangelical Christian vs most-other-types-of-Christians" here.) Having to go back and interpret means those old farts weren't specific enough! When it comes to "separation of church and state," to me the question shouldn't be "What did the founding fathers really mean? What was the intent of that clause?" but "Is the notion of 'separation of church and state' a good idea?"
It seems that everyone's already made up their minds on whether SoC&A good/bad, and they're simply left debating whether it's constitutional. But whether something is supported by the constitution and whether it's a good idea are, obviously, quite different. So why don't we start talking about what is a good idea, why it's a good idea, and what we can do to get that good idea codified in law? That, to me, is a much more interesting conversation. But if folks prefer reading books of deadmen in hopes of reading their minds (necrobibliopsychomancy?)... well, have at it.
Quote:As to the "lecture," thanks for the coffee bone, it appears the food for thought provided wasn't to your taste. By the way, it's a "no touchee!" zone, on the patting my head, oh furriest of Mods: my hair on top is getting thin enough as it is! :blink: No extra friction desired. ;)
Well, I was eating my breakfast coffee (tar?) and talking about communication in public schools (with a side of 10 commandments) when all of a sudden this entree of "When you grow up..." showed up, and I was sputtered, "How does this fit into my balanced breakfast" And then faceless drone in the IHOP uniform nodded reaperishly and pointed at the Wafflehouse sign. I just wasn't sure where anything fit in at that point, so it was kinda hard to carry the conversation. But luckily, I have a topuee for your "no touchee" zone. It's made from quail feathers that I found in a French drain.
-Lemmy