http://tenamendmentsday.org/Our friends on thr right are constantly trying to get their religious icons on our public land, with our money. This is the most incidious of their attacks, since it is the most benign-looking.I love this idea — http://www.mybillofrights.org/2006_Mission.php?Nav=3 — to place placques of the Bill of Rights right next to the 10Cs so nobody can mistake that one did not come from the other. A great alternative where some judge decided the 10Cs are secular.
Hey, isn’t that what a degree in liberal arts is? Actually, with that one, perhaps the wishful thinking part comes afterward, when you imagine that you might be able to get a job with a high enough salary to pay back the student loans you ran up while acquiring your degree.
Oh, I don’t really mean any of that. Liberal arts/well rounded people = a good thing.
Speaking of degrees in divinity, there was a court case about a year ago as to whether a student could use a federal grant to attend some sort of divinity school. I believe the government had denied the student the money on the grounds of separation of church and state and was being sued either by the school or the student. I’m not sure how it turned out.
They have no. 12 wrong, depending on the definition of unlimited. If the Second is read in the same way as the other Ammendments, the Second is as unlimited as the First and the Fourth.
Even free speech is limited to not slandering or libeling or inciting to murder and such, yet we consider it unlimited.
Other than no. 12, I get 92 percent. I wonder what the other two are they think I got wrong.
You are right, it would be nice to see what they consider correct
sword_strike
Don’t the unicorns object? And isn’t that illegal? Or do they know how to consent? If so, no problems…
Political Science?
Social!st economics?
Music degrees?
Acting degrees?
holistic and naturopathic medicine?
accupuncture?
Chiroquackery?
Lots of wishful thinking above.
Old joke: what is the difference between a musician and a pizza?
A pizza can feed a family.
badump-bump.
I am here all week…
pasta,
I will give the paper the credit for printing an unpopular opinion, as I have been bashing all of the anti-science nonsense, in addition to general hostility towards theistic m*asturbations of reality. The last ‘science’ piece they ran was the WMAP inflationary big bang confirmation, and the cries of heresy were nonstop. I was the lone defender in the sea of fallacies & bad math.
What’s the difference between an engineer a physicist, an economist, and a liberal art major?
The physicist asks why it works, the engineer asks how it works, the economist asks how much will it cost, and the liberal art major asks if you’d like fries with that.
71% on the Bill of Rights quiz. Not too bad for a Canadian, I think.
I wish it would show which questions were answered right and which were wrong, though.
tomwright, at least a musician can play an instrument, creating music (or generating noise).
But a degree in theology? It only proves you’re good at debating about your favorite fictionnal character.
mxracer652
Whattaya want?
I have relatives in PA, originally around Harrisburgh, but scattered around now. I have heard them describe it as Philly and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between, (many, many years ago).
I apologize for the unorthodox method but someone asked me to question how many atheists think Jesus is nothing more than a myth, that there is no proof he actually existed. Do you believe he existed?
i do not believe he existed any more than other mythologic figures…king arthur,odysseus,mithra,etc
TomWright,
The answers are:
1. N
2. N
3. Y
4. N
5. Y
6. Y
7. N
8. Y
9. Y
10. Y
11. N
12. Y (I don’t agree here, but what do I know)
13. N
14. Y
15. Y
16. N
17. Y
18. Y
19. N
20. Y
21. Y
22. N
23. N
24. N
TXatheist,
I’m a Jesus agnostic. All I really know is that people can’t walk on water unless it’s frozen.
Regarding the 10 Amendments Quiz,
#2 asks if a parent can deny medical attention to a dependent child. The correct answer, according to the web site, is NO. I could’ve sworn that Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to allow blood transfusions to their children all the time. Am I missing something?
#15 asks if a person can be tried twice for the same offense. The correct answer, according to the web site, is YES. This seems to be contradictory to Amendment 5, the line concerning double jeopardy. Can someone give an example where it is allowed?
Thanks!
sword_strike
So can a cabbage and broccoli pizza. Whooo-boy.
I do not think I have ever debated anyone about Opus here or anywhere else, or even my second fave, Bill the Cat.
“…to obtain his masters of ?divinity? degree.”
I recently completed a degree in professional fishing from Onan University…I’m a Master Baiter (ha ha!)
Alex.
AAinSA:
Depends.
You can win the criminal trial, but still be sued in a civil case, & lose.
O.J Simpson springs to mind.
Well, I confess that I’m in utter shock.
In 45 posts, our resident reconstructionist hasn’t chipped in w/his usual chatter about the SOCAS being a ‘myth’, or his declamations about our being an xtian nation.
Consider this, then, a ‘pre-emptive strike’ (hehehehe).
http://www.religioustolerance.org/virg_bil.htm
“The opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
Oh, and this link takes a shot at good ole Barton, revisionist extraordinaire.
http://secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=columns&page=madison
And here’s the parting salvo:
http://secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=columns&page=decalogue
“. . . we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta [1215 CE], which terminates the period of the common law…and commences that of the statute law…. This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century…. Here, then, was a space of about two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it…. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law….We might as well say that the Newtonian system of philosophy is a part of the common law, as that the Christian religion is….Finally, in answer to Fortescue Aland?s question why the ten commandments should not now be a part of the common law of England? We may say they are not because they never were made so by legislative authority, the document which has imposed that doubt on him being a manifest forgery.? (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814. From Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. XIV, Washington, DC: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903, pp. 85-97.)”
There you go, phreedm.
Put that in your smoke & pipe it.
(spoonerism intentional).
TXatheist
If I think about the big number of sects today, it is my opinion that this Jesus guy might have existed.
IF he did though, let’s say people living in that day and age probably had a habit of exagerating stories around a campfire after a few jugs of wine and BBQ goat leg.
As rainbows4dinosaurs puts it, can’t walk on water unless it’s frozen.
alex I liked that one I am definetly saving it
thanks reluctant…i forgot robin hood…he’s perfect(i know people..adults.. that believe he was real)…and moses
Thanks reluctant, I like when people find these really types of documents from our FF.
TXatheist:
Thanks.
Oh, I got 79% on that quiz. I remembered the ‘double jeopardy’ you quoted, so that may’ve helped.
Back to the Beatles and the Stones:
The Doors were great. But Clapton and Hendrix aren’t gods, they’re just pleasingly excellent. The band that supercedes all (with the exception of 1 or 2): Led Zeppelin!
Cat For Adoption
Adopt a “special needs” pet, read encouraging stories, and like how the sabre tooth cat has pre adolescent Safe haven for unwanted and abando…