This is pretty much what I expected happening. SCOTUS would never rule the pledge unconstitutional, but rather than violate the Establishment Clause themselves, they solve the problem by saying Newdow's doesn't have the parental authority(which, from reading about this guy over the last two years, seems perfectly reasonable) to intervene on his daughter's behalf. Not that this ruling is a huge blow against the cause of secularism, anyway. Someone else will, I'm sure, step up to challenge the ruling; hopefully, it won't be a mighty jackass like Newdow.
I guess Newdow's gonna have to find another hornet's nest to throw rocks at. Perhaps he can work to remove gender-specific personal pronouns from the English language. 
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
He said his daughter spends 10 days a month with him
10 days out of 30?? so like 1/3...
and this apparently means
quote:
He said he "may be the best father in the world."
The guy is fucking nutball...
quote:
The high court's opinion overturns a ruling two years ago that the pledge was unconstitutional in public schools. That appeals court decision would have stripped the reference to God from the version of the pledge said by about millions of schoolchildren in California and other western states.
wtfy?? Did the jounralist writing this actually bother to READ HIS OWN PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN COMMENTS at the start of the article???
quote:
The high court ruled that the atheist can't sue over the reference to God in the pledge.The ruling is a procedural one -- and it didn't specifically address whether the pledge is an unconstitutional blending of church and state because of its reference to God.
It doesn't specifially address the legality of the pledge itself, but apparently it overturns a decision making the pledge unconstitutional...
Man, either that guy found his Journalism major in a box of fucking Cheerios, or thats some fucked up laws you guys have over there... 
If they're truely all hard up on separation of church and state, wouldn't legislation against the word God in the pledge be just as bad as legislation for the word God?
A federally opressed religion is no better than a federally sponsored one.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Maradon!:
This always confused the hell out of me.If they're truely all hard up on separation of church and state, wouldn't legislation against the word God in the pledge be just as bad as legislation for the word God?
A federally opressed religion is no better than a federally sponsored one.
many people overlook this fact..
The government can't Form a religion. But by the strict wording, they don't have to be completely separated from God, or Allah or any other version of the creator.
quote:
Maradon! came out of the closet to say:
If they're truely all hard up on separation of church and state, wouldn't legislation against the word God in the pledge be just as bad as legislation for the word God?A federally opressed religion is no better than a federally sponsored one.
No, it's not the same at all. The pledge is mandated by be spoken by schoolchildren across the nation. Requiring that the word "god" be included is pushing that religion on all children in the country. A ruling forbidding the word "god" from being included in the pledge is not depriving the children in the country of religion.
A corresponding "against religion" law would be one forbidding children from going to church; and that's far from the case here.
quote:
Drysart's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
The pledge is mandated by be spoken by schoolchildren across the nation.
Actually, didnt the judges in this case point out that there is in fact NO MANDATION for children to take part in the recitation of the pledge should they so desire?
Sounds to me like school districts can determine whether or not it is mandatory that children recite it, not the government. Abbikat fucked around with this message on 06-14-2004 at 08:37 PM.
quote:
Abbikat had this to say about John Romero:
10 days out of 30?? so like 1/3... (et al)
You shouldn't be so quick to judge. In the United States it is exceedingly difficult for men who divorced to see their children if the child lives with the mother. and she decides she doesn't want the father the see the child. Yes, they technically have joint custody, but the law is unfortunately very slanted towards women in this regard. 10 days a month for a father to see his child when the mother is hostile is quite a lot.
quote:
Noxhil was listening to Cher while typing:
10 days a month for a father to see his child when the mother is hostile is quite a lot.
Enough for him to claim "HIS PERSONAL RIGHTS" were being abused because the kid was reciting the pledge OF HER OWN FREE WILL??
Plus, as I recall, it was the Californian Family Court that decreed 10 days was all he could see the child.. NOT the mother. And that amount was decided after reviewing the details of the divorce, custody claims of both parents and their suitability to raise the child.
Sounds to me like the courts decided Mr Newdom wasn't sufficiently fit to have any major involvement in raising the child.. including her education.
quote:
Abbikat wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Enough for him to claim "HIS PERSONAL RIGHTS" were being abused because the kid was reciting the pledge OF HER OWN FREE WILL??Plus, as I recall, it was the Californian Family Court that decreed 10 days was all he could see the child.. NOT the mother. And that amount was decided after reviewing the details of the divorce, custody claims of both parents and their suitability to raise the child.
Sounds to me like the courts decided Mr Newdom wasn't sufficiently fit to have any major involvement in raising the child.. including her education.
quote:
Yes, they technically have joint custody, but the law is unfortunately very slanted towards women in this regard.
Family law is a joke from what I have seen. From what I can tell women were treated unfairly for a long time, but then in their fervor to make sure that women got fair treatment they made the men inferior. I'm not saying whether or not he is a bad parent, but I also believe that there may be more to this than meets the eye, especially with all the slander religious conservatives will be throwing at him. (In my opinion he is a bit eccentric, but is made out to be a lot worse than he is)
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Noxhil said:
(In my opinion he is a bit eccentric, but is made out to be a lot worse than he is)
quote:
Even though Newdow is not the girls custodial parent and even though the girls mother wants her to recite the pledge, Newdow insisted that his rights and his conscience were being violated.
quote:
Newdow insisted that the classroom setting would impose on a small child, forcing her to go along in what he saw as a religious expression.Kennedy impatiently told Newdow, youre arguing based on the childs interest, instead of arguing why he Newdow was having his rights violated.
quote:
By trying in effect to represent the child and not himself, Kennedy said, Newdow had created a serious standing problem.
quote:
What was the vote in Congress when it decided in 1954 to add the words under God to the pledge, asked Rehnquist.Newdow replied that it was apparently unanimous, prompting Rehnquist to question how divisive the pledge really was.
Thats because no atheists can get elected to Congress, Newdow insisted
o rly??
The guy is a nutjob, and personally if I was a family court lawyer, I'd say that based on the fact that he contradicts himself repeatedly (not to mention his wild conspiracy delusions about "no atheist can get into Congress"... omg the churches are fixing the US elections!!) he'd have been lucky to get 10 days a month..
quote:
Abbikat had this to say about (_|_):
o rly??
The guy is a nutjob, and personally if I was a family court lawyer, I'd say that based on the fact that he contradicts himself repeatedly (not to mention his wild conspiracy delusions about "no atheist can get into Congress"... omg the churches are fixing the US elections!!) he'd have been lucky to get 10 days a month..
Actually some states have laws that disallow atheists from holding public office, Karnaj made a thread about it some time ago.
quote:
The propaganda machine of Abbikat's junta released this statement:
The guy is a nutjob, and personally if I was a family court lawyer, I'd say that based on the fact that he contradicts himself repeatedly (not to mention his wild conspiracy delusions about "no atheist can get into Congress"... omg the churches are fixing the US elections!!) he'd have been lucky to get 10 days a month..
While he is a nutjob, he is correct. No "outed"(with apologies to the gay community for borrowing that term) atheist can be elected to a national office in this day and age. Congress might be possible in the case of "closet" atheists.
quote:
From religioustolerance.org, as first collected by the Gallup folks:Polls by the Gallup Organization are of particular value because they have asked essentially the same question of American adults for over four decades. One series of questions is typically worded: "If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a 'X' would you vote for that person?" "X" is Atheist, Baptist, Black, Catholic, Homosexual, Jewish, Mormon, and Woman. Percentage of unprejudiced adults (those answering "yes") at approximately 20 year intervals have been:
code:
Factor 1937 1959 1978 1999
Atheist Not asked 22% 40% 49%...
In 1978, the second most-discriminated against group were Atheists. Only four Americans in ten would vote for a well-qualified Atheist. In 1999, Atheists had made a slight gain; five in ten would vote for one.
Even if every single person who said they would vote for an atheist did, they'd still wouldn't have half of their own party, never mind the opposition.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
And now, we sprinkle Mod liberally with Old Spice!
Actually some states have laws that disallow atheists from holding public office, Karnaj made a thread about it some time ago.
The laws are still in the state constitutions of 7 states, but a 1961 Supreme Court decision made such religious tests unconstitutional, so they're unenforceable.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Belief in pure logic is not wise, because one must also have some form of compassion. Logic solves most problems, but it doesn't solve some important ones. I know that's a broad assumption, but it's my general impression of the Aethiest population.
Secondly, belief in oneself is good, but inappropriate for office. One man can't solve the problems.
That, too, is a broad assumption, but at this moment, I can't rightly compose my thoughts to express what I'm really thinking. Hopefully, someone can get the idea.
I'll admit a lot of it is personal bias on my own part, but it's probably the same reason why Karnaj wouldn't vote for a heavily religious person.
quote:
We were all impressed when Karnaj wrote:
Even if every single person who said they would vote for an atheist did, they'd still wouldn't have half of their own party, never mind the opposition.
Has anyone ever actually TRIED this? Ie. Publically proclaimed they are atheist and run for public office..
..cos polls are very easily influenced by the manner in which a question is asked, the tone it is asked in, (and in the cases of written polls, how the question is structured). That's something that anyone who has studied basic statisical analysis is taught (I know I sure was in HS math anyway).
Abbikat fucked around with this message on 06-14-2004 at 10:22 PM.
Its wonderful to point out that polls say that 50% of Americans wouldnt vote for an atheist, but I recall seeing one edition of "the Awful Truth" that indicated 22% of polled Americans said they "would support bombing Sweden if the current UN sanctions didnt have an effect".. (sample was 25000 people as I recall, and done by a major polling company based in NYC)
quote:
Belief in pure logic is not wise, because one must also have some form of compassion. Logic solves most problems, but it doesn't solve some important ones. I know that's a broad assumption, but it's my general impression of the Aethiest population.
Logic does not need to mean a lack of compassion. The only thing that annoys me when talking or listening to religious people is their blithe assumption that the only source of morality and compassion is God. There are plenty of compassionate atheist and plenty of theists who totally lack it.
quote:
Secondly, belief in oneself is good, but inappropriate for office. One man can't solve the problems.
I can't think, off hand, of a great leader who lacked self-belief. Self-belief usually means that that person will stand up and fight for what they believe in. You know where you stand with such a man or woman and then decide if you should work to aid or oppose them.
quote:
I'll admit a lot of it is personal bias on my own part, but it's probably the same reason why Karnaj wouldn't vote for a heavily religious person.
Same disclaimer as above but I would have to add that I would vote (and have voted) for candidates who are religious. Belief or lack thereof is very low on my list of reasons for why I would vote for a candidate.
As a quick addition I want to say that I don't see either of the main presidential candidates failing to polish up the religious credentials. Our own PM is religious, while it wasn't as stressed during his election campaign as it is for the presidential candidates, everyone was aware of that fact.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
I wouldn't vote for an Aethiest, because as I usually see it, Aethiests replace religion with one of two things: belief in themselves or belief in logic.Belief in pure logic is not wise, because one must also have some form of compassion.
Secondly, belief in oneself is good, but inappropriate for office. One man can't solve the problems.
So, an atheist lacks compassion for others and is selfish? That's a damn broad statement, as you said yourself.
Religion is not required to learn compassionate and unselfish behaviors. There is an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to Humanism which shows that one can exhibit the desired traits of religious people without the need to believe there is a deity.
quote:
I want some of what Vernaltemptress was smoking when they wrote this:
So, an atheist lacks compassion for others and is selfish? That's a damn broad statement, as you said yourself.Religion is not required to learn compassionate and unselfish behaviors. There is an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to Humanism which shows that one can exhibit the desired traits of religious people without the need to believe there is a deity.
I don't believe in god, but I wanna be a massage therapist. Doink! 
I love those custom smilies
quote:
Mr. Parcelan got served! Mr. Parcelan got served!
I wouldn't vote for an Aethiest, because as I usually see it, Aethiests replace religion with one of two things: belief in themselves or belief in logic.Belief in pure logic is not wise, because one must also have some form of compassion. Logic solves most problems, but it doesn't solve some important ones. I know that's a broad assumption, but it's my general impression of the Aethiest population.
Logic is not a dogma. You don't have to believe in logic for it to work. It's simply tool one can apply to a situation/argument to see if it makes sense. I'm sure there are some atheists who would profess to "believe" in logic, but I would chalk that one up to the imprecision of language. After all, logic doesn't answer the questions for you; you still have to apply it.
quote:
Secondly, belief in oneself is good, but inappropriate for office. One man can't solve the problems.
I think you're confusing self-belief with delusions of grandeur. Moreover, no one wants a sniveling weenie to run the country. It's not like atheists believe that they're their own God or something. Well, maybe the crazy ones do.
quote:
I'll admit a lot of it is personal bias on my own part, but it's probably the same reason why Karnaj wouldn't vote for a heavily religious person.
I think you demonstrated my point quite effectively. And for the record, no, I probably wouldn't vote for a heavily religious person. Depends, of course, on the particulars.
quote:
The propaganda machine of Abbikat's junta released this statement:
Ok, so now its a giant government conspiracy against atheists perpetuated by both major political parties... and "forcing" kids to recite the pledge (and ignoring the fact that obviously school districts can dtermine just how mandatory the recitation can be) is another way of indoctrinating kids into a belief of God, and therefore undermining the moral fibre of the country??
What the fuck? The two items aren't even remotely connected, nor is the second any kind of secret. The only one shouting "conspiracy!" seems to be you and Newdow.
quote:
And coming in at #1 is Abbikat with "Reply." I'm Casey Casem.
Has anyone ever actually TRIED this? Ie. Publically proclaimed they are atheist and run for public office..
A google search revealed nothing.
EDIT: Best thing I could find is this. 11 "not stated" and one "unafilliated." So we have 12 possible atheists/agnostics, but no one who's come out and said it. In other words, as of 2000, no "outed" atheist has been elected to Congress.
quote:
..cos polls are very easily influenced by the manner in which a question is asked, the tone it is asked in, (and in the cases of written polls, how the question is structured). That's something that anyone who has studied basic statisical analysis is taught (I know I sure was in HS math anyway).
"Polls by the Gallup Organization are of particular value because they have asked essentially the same question of American adults for over four decades. One series of questions is typically worded: "If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a 'X' would you vote for that person?" "X" is Atheist, Baptist, Black, Catholic, Homosexual, Jewish, Mormon, and Woman."
They've been polling since at least 1937; they've probably figured out how minimize error by now.
quote:
Its wonderful to point out that polls say that 50% of Americans wouldnt vote for an atheist, but I recall seeing one edition of "the Awful Truth" that indicated 22% of polled Americans said they "would support bombing Sweden if the current UN sanctions didnt have an effect"..(sample was 25000 people as I recall, and done by a major polling company based in NYC)
And what does this have to do with anything? Oh, that's right, it has nothing to do with this issue whatsoever. If you have an issue with the statistics, I suggest you do more research into the Gallup organization and see if they habitually fuck up their polls. There is otherwise no reason to not take these statistics as reasonably accurate. Karnaj fucked around with this message on 06-15-2004 at 12:27 PM.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
From the book of Mr. Parcelan, chapter 3, verse 16:
I wouldn't vote for an Aethiest, because as I usually see it, Aethiests replace religion with one of two things: belief in themselves or belief in logic.Belief in pure logic is not wise, because one must also have some form of compassion. Logic solves most problems, but it doesn't solve some important ones. I know that's a broad assumption, but it's my general impression of the Aethiest population.
Secondly, belief in oneself is good, but inappropriate for office. One man can't solve the problems.
That, too, is a broad assumption, but at this moment, I can't rightly compose my thoughts to express what I'm really thinking. Hopefully, someone can get the idea.
I'll admit a lot of it is personal bias on my own part, but it's probably the same reason why Karnaj wouldn't vote for a heavily religious person.
but what about belief in the common man joining together to over come problems?
Ive seen alot of atheists who just feel like the idea of "GoD" to be an outdated ideal stemmed from Fear for not knowing what was going on and so looked for leadership in an ideal.
Part One.
quote:
Abbikat said this about your mom:
(not to mention his wild conspiracy delusions about "no atheist can get into Congress"... omg the churches are fixing the US elections!!)
Perhaps I should have ended that parentheses with [/Sarcasm Mode]..
quote:
Mod enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Actually some states have laws that disallow atheists from holding public office, Karnaj made a thread about it some time ago.
quote:
Abbikat had this to say about John Romero:
Ok, so now its a giant government conspiracy against atheists perpetuated by both major political parties...
Surely by this time your "Sarcasm Detector" should have just about gone into Meltdown at this point...
Since when could both major political parties in the US be actively involved in such a massive operation to keep atheists out of office (by passing state laws forbidding them from holding said office. That would have required some pretty hefty deal-making to get that one through I would have thought)
Part Deux.
quote:
Abbikat had this to say about John Romero:
..and "forcing" kids to recite the pledge (and ignoring the fact that obviously school districts can dtermine just how mandatory the recitation can be) is another way of indoctrinating kids into a belief of God, and therefore undermining the moral fibre of the country??
The above is a deliberate poke at how Mr Newdow believes that the inclusion of the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance violated his rights and conscience..
..(since, obviously, by forcing it upon kids the Federal US government is deliberately turning the US into a hotbed of Christian fundamentalism... oh yeah.. before I forget again.. [/sarcasm mode]..)
Perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been, but (Flame Tag aside) I don't see the need for you to respond with "What the fuck? The two items aren't even remotely connected, nor is the second any kind of secret. The only one shouting "conspiracy!" seems to be you and Newdow."
You're right. The two weren't connected (apart from sharing the same line in a text-based message).
But I was not shouting "conspiracy!" either.. I was pointing out how ludicrous the suggestion of such a thing could be..
On to the next point:
quote:
Karnaj was listening to Cher while typing:
"Polls by the Gallup Organization are of particular value because they have asked essentially the same question of American adults for over four decades.They've been polling since at least 1937; they've probably figured out how minimize error by now.
If you have an issue with the statistics, I suggest you do more research into the Gallup organization and see if they habitually fuck up their polls. There is otherwise no reason to not take these statistics as reasonably accurate.
First off, I have no issue with the statistics themselves. I was not stating that they were inaccurate. Nor was I suggesting that Gallup deliberately fudge, tamper, distort, or in any other way "fuck up" their results..
Let's take a close look at what I said, shall we?
quote:
Abbikat had this to say about Optimus Prime:
Has anyone ever actually TRIED this? Ie. Publically proclaimed they are atheist and run for public office..
I questioned whether anyone had actually come out and announced they were aetheist and run for public office, and then compared actual voting results against the poll results.
Polling is not an infallible science, as Gallup themselves agree. See following.
quote:
The Questions
The technical aspects of data collection are critically important, and if done poorly, can undermine the reliability of even a perfectly worded question. However, when it comes to modern-day attitude surveys conducted by most of the major national polling organizations, question wording is probably the greatest source of bias and error in the data, followed by question order. Writing a clear, unbiased question takes great care and discipline, as well as extensive knowledge about public opinion.
Let us return to my comments again for comparison:
quote:
Quoth Abbi:
..cos polls are very easily influenced by the manner in which a question is asked, the tone it is asked in, (and in the cases of written polls, how the question is structured). That's something that anyone who has studied basic statisical analysis is taught (I know I sure was in HS math anyway)
The Gallup people go on to say..
quote:
Even such a seemingly simple thing as asking Americans who they are going to vote for in a forthcoming election can be dependent on how the question is framed.
They acknowledge that the polls can be susceptible to innaccuracies!!
..which, incidentally, was my point about the 'bombing Sweden' poll.. it was *EXCEEDINGLY* innaccurate..
You, however, seem to think that I am saying "OMG! THEY HAEV NO IDEA WTF THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT AND AER JUST FUCKING ABOUT WITH NUMBERS!" I did not say that, nor can I see any way in which my comments inferred this either. Gallup themselves agree with what I pointed out, and indeed use much the same language thatI used to say it also.
You, however, are correct in pointing out that Gallup "probably figured out how minimize error by now."
quote:
For many of the public opinion areas covered in this book, Gallup is in the fortunate position of having a historical track record. Gallup has been conducting public opinion polls on public policy, presidential approval, approval of Congress, and key issues such as the death penalty, abortion, and gun control for many years. This gives Gallup the advantage of continuing a question in exactly the same way that it has been asked historically, which in turn provides a very precise measurement of trends.
Trends (as distinct from the actual statistics they are derived from) are a statistical curve reflecting the general movement in the course of time of a statistically detectable change. The trend in your figures is that more and more people are becoming accepting of Atheists in public office.
quote:
If the exact wording of a question is held constant from year to year, then substantial changes in how the American public responds to that question usually represent an underlying change in attitude.
This is indeed how Gallup "figured out how minimize error by now".
So, yes as you said: "There is otherwise no reason to not take these statistics as reasonably accurate." (Emphasis Mine, refer below)
However, further to my point, 12 possibilities out of 540 members (as taken from the figures you quoted) indicates that some 2.22(recurring)% of Congress Members are possibly Atheist. This is in direct contrast to Mr Newdow's claim that "no atheist can get into Congress".
It is highly possible that, in fact, 12 of them DID get into Congress. Therefore they must have had the support of at least 50% of the "turned out" voters in their respective electorates. As such, the figure of 49% is resonably accurate, in that it is within approximately 1% variance of the final voting figure.
In conclusion:
quote:
Karnaj was listening to Cher while typing:
I suggest you do more research into the Gallup organization
I did conduct a little more research as you suggested. I found that Gallup themselves agreed with me that:
quote:
Abbikat's fortune cookie read:
polls are very easily influenced by the manner in which a question is asked, the tone it is asked in, (and in the cases of written polls, how the question is structured).
Proof:
quote:
Gallup said:
The technical aspects of data collection are critically important, and if done poorly, can undermine the reliability of even a perfectly worded question. However, when it comes to modern-day attitude surveys conducted by most of the major national polling organizations, question wording is probably the greatest source of bias and error in the data, followed by question order.
and further:
quote:
Karnaj was listening to Cher while typing:
and see if they habitually fuck up their polls.
I did not say that, nor can I see any way in which my comments inferred this either. You trying to imply that I did, however, brought nothing constructive to the debate (ironies of the Flame Tag notwithstanding).
Have A Nice Day.
Abbikat fucked around with this message on 06-15-2004 at 09:10 PM.
Correcting typos..
quote:
And now, we sprinkle Abbikat liberally with Old Spice!
However, further to my point, 12 possibilities out of 540 members (as taken from the figures you quoted) indicates that some 2.22(recurring)% of Congress Members are possibly Atheist. This is in direct contrast to Mr Newdow's claim that "no atheist can get into Congress".
It's not a direct contradiction because they're not expressly atheist. None of them, when asked, saw fit to say "atheist." 11 are "not stated" and 1 is "no affiliation." The "no affiliation" answer seems to imply some sort of Deism where no religion is observed, but that's just speculation on my part. All we can say for sure is that these 12 don't consider themselves some version of Christian or Jew. There are many thousands of other religions they could be.
quote:
It is highly possible that, in fact, 12 of them DID get into Congress.
I'm not so sure about this. All we can know for sure is that they aren't Christian or Jewish. Given that the demographics place the atheist population at somehing between 900,000 and 2.2 million (or less than .7% of the U.S. population as of 1990), I would say that maybe three, ~pi(22/7 MATH JOEK HAR HAR), or four of those twelve could be atheist. Maybe.
quote:
Therefore they must have had the support of at least 50% of the "turned out" voters in their respective electorates. As such, the figure of 49% is resonably accurate, in that it is within approximately 1% variance of the final voting figure.
Naturally, but the critical fact you're neglecting is that, to the best of our knowledge, they never said they were atheist. And since the poll's question hinges on the people knowing that X is an atheist, and since you can't tell someone's an atheist just by looking at her, your knowledge depends on her telling you via some method. So it remains: no outed atheist has been elected to Congress. We can speculate until we're blue in the face, but I think that superfluousness of the poll of Congress(we have no idea how they took the data, or even if "atheist" was an option), combined with the devisiveness of the Gallup poll and the fact that none of the 12 in question are outed atheists, cast doubt on any conclusions we might draw.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that a few of the 12 are, at least to themselves, atheist. Until they admit it in some manner, however, conclusions inferred from the Gallup poll are suspect at best and invalid at worst. Again, we can only speculate, and it remains wholly possible that Newdow's statement is true and will remain true until a known atheist secures a party nomination and successfully runs for office.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Still always, Not-Dude.
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Duck Tales:
It's not a direct contradiction because they're not expressly atheist.
Nor did I say it was a direct contradiction. I said it was in direct CONTRAST.
quote:
And now, we sprinkle Abbikat liberally with Old Spice!
This is in direct contrast to Mr Newdow's claim that "no atheist can get into Congress".
Contrast
Main Entry: 2con·trast
Pronunciation: 'kän-"trast
Function: noun
1 a : juxtaposition of dissimilar elements (as color, tone, or emotion) in a work of art b : degree of difference between the lightest and darkest parts of a picture
2 a : the difference or degree of difference between things having similar or comparable natures <the contrast between the two forms of government> b : comparison of similar objects to set off their dissimilar qualities : the state of being so compared <the enforced simplicity in this diary... is in contrast to the intensity of his former life -- Times Literary Supplement>
3 : a person or thing that exhibits differences when compared with another
Contradiction
Main Entry: con·tra·dic·tion
Pronunciation: "kän-tr&-'dik-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : act or an instance of contradicting
2 a : a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something b : a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other <a round square is a contradiction in terms>
3 a : logical incongruity b : a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Duck Tales:
The "no affiliation" answer seems to imply some sort of Deism where no religion is observed, but that's just speculation on my part.
True. Speculatively it could also mean that the respondee is not actually a member of the congregation of a church, but still feels him/herself to be (Christian/Jew), but not actually "affiliated" to any specific church
Which actually raises a point in my mind..
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Duck Tales:
All we can say for sure is that these 12 don't consider themselves some version of Christian or Jew. There are many thousands of other religions they could be.
I noticed that study you linked originally doesnt show a percantage for Muslims. One wonders how they would stack up against the other categories listed. (Granted Islam is, I believe, a minority religeon in the US)
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Duck Tales:
the critical fact you're neglecting is that, to the best of our knowledge, they never said they were atheist. And since the poll's question hinges on the people knowing that X is an atheist, and since you can't tell someone's an atheist just by looking at her, your knowledge depends on her telling you via some method. So it remains: no outed atheist has been elected to Congress. We can speculate until we're blue in the face, but I think that superfluousness of the poll of Congress(we have no idea how they took the data, or even if "atheist" was an option), combined with the devisiveness of the Gallup poll and the fact that none of the 12 in question are outed atheists, cast doubt on any conclusions we might draw.I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that a few of the 12 are, at least to themselves, atheist. Until they admit it in some manner, however, conclusions inferred from the Gallup poll are suspect at best and invalid at worst. Again, we can only speculate, and it remains wholly possible that Newdow's statement is true and will remain true until a known atheist secures a party nomination and successfully runs for office.
I said it was only a possiblity, and possibilities in the end are mostly speculation. They may, or may not be atheist/agnostic/Muslim. However, under the odds of probability, a liklihood that at least 1 is atheist (whether they wish to admit it publicly or not. A point I note you are willing to concede also.)
I agree that none of those polled have openly admitted as such, and that until such time that one (or more) does, the entire premise is speculation.
However, given the laws of probability (and reasonable assumption) you have to agree that it does mean that Newdow's statement that "NO atheist can get into Congress" is a literal fallacy. Perhaps "no OPENLY atheist person can get into Congress" would lend a little more credibility to his claims of the government trying to link Church and State (but thats probably beside the point to the original matter which was that when his daughter rectited the pledge of allegiance it directly interferred with his civil rights and conscience). However, I still say that its highly unlikely that there could be a conspiracy between the two major parties (not to mention all the political independants) in the US openly preventing Atheists from getting into Congress (which was part of Newdow's argument).
quote:
Abbikat still thinks SARS jokes are topical, as evidenced by:
However, I still say that its highly unlikely that there could be a conspiracy between the two major parties (not to mention all the political independants) in the US openly preventing Atheists from getting into Congress (which was part of Newdow's argument).
He's overcomplicating matters. It's not a matter of government conspiracy, but simple public opinion. Going back to the Gallup polls, if we accept their truth for the moment, it still means that 50% of people won't vote for an atheist just because he's an atheist. They don't care what he'll do about taxes, international affairs, education, Medicare, or anything else. What's not clear is if that 50% will vote for the other guy or simply not vote at all. Regardless, in a two-party system such as ours, losing half of your core support is probably too crippling a blow to make up.
I would agree in saying that there's no conspiracy; it's simply a matter of people being prejudiced against atheists for whatever reason.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
