(Insert title here)
Sowhatifit'sdark said:
Do you think it is against the constitution for the evangelicals to try to influence legislation?
No, I think it's against the constitution to pass a law establishing the supremacy of any one religion. If a labor union fights for one of its tenets to become law—e.g., better working conditions—that is its business. If a religious organization fights for one of its tenets to become law—e.g., God says homosexuality is wrong—it is unconstitutional. Additionally, the separation of church and state does not, Crefo Dollar notwithstanding, mean churches are above the law.
Sorry I think my posts fit in the debate.
And a good portion of it does. I think you're tilting windmills on that one point, when you forego PJ's clarification and tell him what he means.
You get what I'm saying, here.
Actually, I don't. There are a couple of points that seem ... well ... here:
The fact that intelligent design is silly does not make the fact that they are relgious people trying to influence legislation unfair.
I admit, this sentence confuses me. I
think I know what you're after, so I'll take a shot at it.
It's not that they are religious people. That's merely coincidental insofar as anyone demanding an irrational outcome should be repudiated.
If neo-con atheists, for example, think that our high school history textbooks are getting to revisionist (read: accurate) by being too critical of colonist treatment of Native Americans, indentured servants, poor people, etc. and try to legislate locally to change these books I do not think this is less (or more) unfair because they are atheists.
This is truly bizarre to me because it wouldn't have anything to do with the religious affiliation of the complaining lobby. It has to do with the historical record. If, for instance, a church group asserts an alleged factual revision based on the record, great, fine, whatever. If, to the other, they want to eliminate words like "kidnap" and "abduct" and "steal" from discussion of prayer villages because such terms have negative connotations, tough freakin' luck. It's not abusive of Christianity to tell the truth, that colonists forcibly removed children from tribes and tried to "civilize" them. There are some people who think it's racist to point out that the tribes learned to scalp from the European settlers, who paid natives bounties for killing their indigenous neighbors and bringing the scalp as evidence. There are people upset at a recent
National Geographic discussion of the effects of European earthworms on the American ecosystem. It doesn't matter
what religion, if any, these people hold. The historical record is the important thing: what does
it say?
If you think the whole debate now centers on whether intelligent design is the same as civil rights, well, OK, I agree with you.
Sigh. Look, it's not
all about intelligent design. But, as I noted in
#18, "
The topic question, while perhaps recklessly constructed, does touch on valid considerations". What, do I need to roll up a newspaper and swat PJ? "Bad PJ! Ba-a-aaaad PJ!" There. Can we
please examine what
he meant? Or do I need to slather Madanthonywayne with some praise? Fine. He's right. Dr. King was a Christian. Good Madanthonywayne. Smart Madanthonywayne. Have I been fair enough to satisfy you?
I hope that knowing I am taking the debate as about the right of evangelicals, for whatever reasons and with whatever dubious authority, to try to influence government is inherently unfair because they are a religious group that the government - according to the OP - cannot influence - note the slide from the individuals to the organizations you will agree with me. That however unpleasant it all is they are simply excercising their rights.
Okay, fine. Whatever. I agree. Great. Now, what does that have to do with the topic post? Oh, right: it's what you want it to mean.
Okay, look, I'm sorry. It's just that I feel like you're insisting on an argument that didn't exist at the outset. I find your jump from PJ's clarification to "If you think the whole debate now centers on whether intelligent design is the same as civil rights ..." a bit simplistic, more than a bit insistent, and of the appearance of deliberate and calculated construction.
I just think that the thematic leap from intelligent design to Dr. King was not thematic at all. That's why I object to it. I actually object to your statement, "But if we shift the debate to the one you are having," insofar as it suggests that if we shift the debate back to the one more contextually appropriate to what PJ wrote and gave us an example of ... well, asserting commonalities between contemporary evangelicals, Dr. King, nineteenth-century Quakers, and the Founding Fathers would make for a fascinating discussion, but it is also the usurpation of this topic, and not the discussion intended at the outset.
On a more technical note, and acknowledging that you registered only a few days ago, Sciforums has a fair number of ESL contributors, and also a surprising population of folks for whom, for whatever reasons, conventional grammar, spelling, and punctuation are simply out of the question. You will, indeed, get somewhat used to it. In this case, without the clarification in #3, we wouldn't be having this discussion; I would have left PJ to hang in the wind on the topic post, but Draqon asked the relevant question and PJ answered it. I just don't think it's right to tell him what he meant in this case. Without #3, fine, okay, whatever. Imagine that he didn't make that point, and when he was called out on it, he said, "You're right, what I meant to say was ...." Would that have been a satisfactory response? But he clarified when Draqon called him out. Whose what does he need to kiss in order that his context be acknowledged?
