|
|
|
dhuxley
New Member
USA
15 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 01/25/2002 : 07:08:57 [Permalink]
|
Beautiful! I wonder how far this crippled cannonball will get.
I especally like the use of, "self evident." refering to creationism.
Good one!
f
The more I learn about people, the better I like rattlesnakes. |
 |
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2002 : 07:39:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/Senate/6500-6524/6500_01182002.txt
I'm just wondering what they were smoking when they came up with this part:
quote:
...teach the self-evident truth of creation.
Um, if it's so "self-evident", why do you have to teach it? Or am I just applying logic where it isn't needed again?
quote:
Darwin's Bitch
Say, how is ol' Darwin anyway?  
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." -Buddha |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2002 : 08:41:13 [Permalink]
|
Actually, I find the reasoning perfectly sound, in its own twisted way.
What he's trying to do is force the teaching of creationism based on the fact that the framers of the U.S. Constitution used some florid language in the preamble. The concluding line of the bill is merely parroting the "self-evident truth: that all men are created" line from the preamble.
Of course, he does omit one rather important word. The line actually reads "all men are created equal, and is more about a social theory than a philosophical one.
But most of all, the logic fails because the preamble to the Constitution is not part of the Constitution itself, and (unless I am badly mistaken) has no force of law.
Are there any attorneys out there with experience in Constitutional law? Can anyone back me up on this?
BTW - what's the status of this bill?
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2002 : 09:13:51 [Permalink]
|
Ack Ack Ack Ack Ack!!!
They do not quote the U.S. Constitution at all, not even the preamble, which reads thus:
quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Instead, they reference the Declaration of Independence which has no force of law whatsoever, and the Preamble to the Washington State Constitution, which reads thus:
quote:
We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this constitution.
Here are the relevant portions of the Declaration of Independece:
quote:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Whereafter follows a list of grievances against King George III (note that the grievances are against him specifically and not against the nation of England--historical sidenote now ends...)
And finally the ending:
quote:
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
In regards to a deity of any sort, there are only the terms "Nature's God" and "Supreme Judge of the world." And if we want to get lawyerly about it, there is no direct link between the creation of man and this God or Judge.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2002 : 09:24:20 [Permalink]
|
Ah, you beat me to it, Garrette!
I'd like to think that the Founding Fathers were intelligent enough that if they were alive today, and sat down with a group of atheists that could elloquently present our point of view, that they would have discarded any mention of a Creator...
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2002 : 09:34:54 [Permalink]
|
I too, picked up on the lack of the "equal" part.
In a perverse sort of way, I find this encouraging, whether it becomes law or not. This is all idiocy, as anyone capable of coherent thought can readly see, and will ultimatly lessen the credence of the bill's author and the rest of the creation wallopers with him.
How odd we humans are! Never was there such a species, at least on this planet! We are so willing to kill any thought that doesn't agree with our own, accurate or not, that it is a wonder that we can survive.
Sometimes, I gets a chuckle out of it.
f
The more I learn about people, the better I like rattlesnakes. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2002 : 09:43:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
How odd we humans are! Never was there such a species, at least on this planet! We are so willing to kill any thought that doesn't agree with our own, accurate or not, that it is a wonder that we can survive.
Take that back or I'll wallop ya.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2002 : 10:48:52 [Permalink]
|
I like this logic:
A: The (Washington state) Constitution mentions a creator.
B: Therefore, evolution is unconstitutional
Wow! I haven't heard logic that convincing since Art Bell convinced me that there were aliens lurking behind Hale Bopp!
Ah creationists, the missing link between the stupid and the mental.
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in
thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which
never yet hurt anybody."- Marcus Aurelius |
|
|
|
Marc_a_b
Skeptic Friend
USA
142 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2002 : 11:54:19 [Permalink]
|
while he is at it, could he do something to repeal this law of gravity? It could save NASA billions! Not to mention what it could do for public transportation. Construction would also be revolutionized if we didn't have to worry about buildings falling under their own weight.
|
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2002 : 14:58:24 [Permalink]
|
I doubt that this has a snowball's chance in hell of passing.
Trying to sneak in 'Intelligent design' theories or even giving equal time to creationism might have a hope, but an outright ban on evolution seems unlikely. If by some fluke it did pass, I hope that every concerned person in the education system would not only break the law, but do so openly and counsel others to do likewise. Simply ignoring it would not be enough
ill-treatment for such a contemptible piece of legislation.
Free speech; excercise it or SHUT UP! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2002 : 15:21:01 [Permalink]
|
"Take that back or I'll wallop ya."
------------
Never! I will fight to the death for the right to denigrate my species!
(chuckle)
f
The more I learn about people, the better I like rattlesnakes. |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
|
|
Kaneda Kuonji
Skeptic Friend
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2002 : 17:17:08 [Permalink]
|
*blinks as he reads it*
Okay...
What on Earth was that? Man, that Bill won't get very far, considering that it is using the Declaration of Independence (No legal weight whatsoever) and calling the quote from the Constitution.
Makes me wonder what kind of Vodka they were drinking.
Rodney Dean, CI Order of the Knights of Jubal
Ivbalis.org
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2002 : 19:00:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And, predictably, he's anti-environment;
http://www.responsiblewildlifemanagement.org/harold_hochstatter.htm
While this guy is an all-around doofus, I fail to see where you get the label "anti-environment" from this link.
Calling someone "anti-environment" is no different than calling someone an "evil-utionist", for example. It is inaccurate and inflammatory (and sometimes downright silly).
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2002 : 19:21:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
... I fail to see where you get the label "anti-environment" from this link.
Let's change that to 'anti-environmentalist'.
'Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management' is a front organization for the interests of loggers, hunters, trappers, NRA fanatics, and the like. They are anything but pro-environment. At least the way I define it.
Free speech; excercise it or SHUT UP! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
