25-06-2005 00:32									#151
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Funny, I don't see any accusations of bigotry thrown at whoha, either by loinburger or by Boris. I wonder why that is.

Whoha hasn't brought in attacks on Muslim countries, nor espoused forcing Muslims to swear on the bible. You have. Moreover, you have a long history of bigotry. Whoha's comment just deserved a Your comments strike a more serious double standard to me.

	25-06-2005 00:35									#152
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Funny, I don't see any accusations of bigotry thrown at whoha, either by loinburger or by Boris. I wonder why that is.

Don't be an ass. Whoha made a single one-line post saying that Islam should be kept out of the legal system. You've gone into multiple diatribes expressing the inferiority of all muslims and/or your superiority to all muslims. Don't try to drag Whoha down to your level.

	25-06-2005 00:42									#153
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Moreover, you have a long history of bigotry.

I used to live with two muslims, one practicing, and one who was not. The non-practicing one kept trying to tell me that the Jews were the source of evil in the world, and had many complaints about his treatment in Canada by the evil Jews.

I got along with the practicing Muslim though. He was a nice fellow.

	25-06-2005 00:46									#154
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi True, but that doesn't mean pharmacists are required to stock it in the first place. Pharmacies are businesses, even though they are stringently regulated in what they can provide, I don't believe they are required to stock everything that they are allowed to prescribe.

Of course they are. It's the whole purpose of pharmacies - to deliver drugs to ordinary poeple. They may not have it in stock if it's rarely used, but they are supposed to get it and deliver without delay.

quote: For the reasons I have stated above. Introducing the Koran also introduces new problems in terms of equal treatment that are not currently present.

Of course it dosn't introduce new problems - it's just another book. Well, practically, you may have a point since that would mean that every court should have a rather big library of "holy books" - if that should be a problem, they could just have a book with blank pages and the oath could be someyhing like "I swear at this book with blank pages representing my version of a holy book..." - or more sane - totally drop the swearing to any kind of book or paper (constitution incl) and just be "I swear to 'whatever is my high values of life' that I will speak truth". That would at least be honest.

	25-06-2005 00:47									#155
	Support Apolyton

quote: You've gone into multiple diatribes expressing the inferiority of all muslims and/or your superiority to all muslims. Don't try to drag Whoha down to your level.

Wow, that's quite a bit that you infer from the use of the word 'they'. In case you haven't noticed, I have, in several other posts stopped tarring them all with the same brush, and acknowledged those Muslims who are willing to obey western laws, and who are rather more moderate than the more fundamentalists.

In fact, I have even expressed my delight in working with Muslims, since they sit on the same side of the fence as I do on issues such as abortion and family values. They also don't drink, which agrees well with me too.

The only problem I have is with all the Muslims who beat and kill Christians. That puts a wee bit of a damper on our relationship.

	25-06-2005 00:51									#156
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi The only problem I have is with all the Muslims who beat and kill Christians. That puts a wee bit of a damper on our relationship.

Ouch, you just did it one more time

	25-06-2005 00:52									#157
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Of course they are. It's the whole purpose of pharmacies - to deliver drugs to ordinary poeple. They may not have it in stock if it's rarely used, but they are supposed to get it and deliver without delay.

It costs them money to stock and to be able to supply rare drugs. I don't see all pharmacists being required to deliver all drugs to people, rather I would think that they would supply the drugs that do sell well, and make them money. They are not a public service, they are a business.

Secondly, the decision not to supply the morning after pill, is entirely a decision of the pharmacist. I don't see any compelling public need for the drug.

	25-06-2005 00:53									#158
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Jeez, are people arguing about this? The answer is simple, you either let every religion swear on their Holy Book (accomodationalist view) or no one (seperationist view). To do otherwise is violating the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment (and in a clear cut case as well).

Oh, and Ben Kenobi is a prat (which nobody can deny..) .

	25-06-2005 00:58									#159
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

So that's where pratfalls come from.

I still don't think that if the state requires everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation, to swear on the bible that this is a violation of the establishment clause.

After all, you are assuming that the bible represents one religion.

	25-06-2005 01:02									#160
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Jeez, are people arguing about this?

This is the Apolyton OT - you are supposed to do it

	25-06-2005 01:07									#161
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: I still don't think that if the state requires everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation, to swear on the bible that this is a violation of the establishment clause.

Oh yes it is! It's a clear cut violation of the Establishment Clause. According to the Agostini test, the government here violates their requirement to not advance or inhibit religion (they advance Judeo-Christian religions and inhibit Muslims religion in the courtroom).

It's a 9-0 case, Ben. No contest.

quote: After all, you are assuming that the bible represents one religion.

Um... it doesn't matter. You have no clue about the Establishment Clause, it is clear.

	25-06-2005 01:07									#162
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi I still don't think that if the state requires everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation, to swear on the bible that this is a violation of the establishment clause.

It might not be a violation if the law made everyone swear on the bible. There is no question that it is a violation if the law makes everyone swear on a holy book, and then goes on to say that the bible is the only acceptable holy book. In the former case the intent is a bit ambiguous -- in the latter case the intent is clear as day.

	25-06-2005 01:09									#163
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Well, for starters, I don't try to shoot Muslims, and I don't go out of my way to harrass them, or kill them, as what happens to Christians in most Muslim countries who dare to practice their religion openly. I don't see why it is offensive for me to go and say that because I refrain from doing any of these things, that then I have more respect for their religion then they do for mine.

What Muslims here are trying to shoot you, harrass you or kill you? This isn't about what's happening in those countries--it's about what's happening here. As loinburger points out, you're tarring all Muslims based on what fundamentalist Muslims do halfway across the world in staunchly different cultures. The association is unwarranted, since such attitudes aren't typical of Muslims here.

You may have more respect for Muslims than the Taliban would have for you, but otherwise you're definitely on the "less respectful" end of the scale.

As for what Whoha said:

quote: Islam should be kept as far away from our legal system as possible.

That's not necessarily a bigoted statement, and isn't remotely the same as what YOU said. I wholeheartedly agree with him--of course, that's because we're a secular country, and EVERY religion should be kept out of our legal system, be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or whatever.

But Whoha didn't state he wouldn't trust Muslims, nor did trumpet his own superiority to them in the respect department.

Now, I'd like to point out to everyone that in two previous threads, Ben has whinged ferociously about a supposed claim I made that all Christians were tarred by the nuts who shot abortion doctors or bombed clinics (I wasn't actually claiming that, but that's besides the point, except that he continues to claim I did, showing he's dishonest). But here he is tarring U.S. Muslims with the bad behavior of the fundies across the seas, as if that meant all Muslims treated Christians the same way.

	25-06-2005 01:10									#164
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi After all, you are assuming that the bible represents one religion.

What other religion does it represent, in the form it's used (with the NT)?

The bible is used as a religious book, hence the part of the oath that says "so help me God", and the bible in it's entirity represents only Christianity.

	25-06-2005 01:10									#165
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by loinburger It might not be a violation if the law made everyone swear on the bible. There is no question that it is a violation if the law makes everyone swear on a holy book, and then goes on to say that the bible is the only acceptable holy book. In the former case the intent is a bit ambiguous -- in the latter case the intent is clear as day.

The only way it wouldn't be a violation for everyone to swear on the Bible if they could show that there was a looong line of practice with no exceptions made, so that it became a civil ritual with no connection to religion at all.

Doesn't work because they've made exceptions for atheists among others.

	25-06-2005 01:10									#166
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi It costs them money to stock and to be able to supply rare drugs. I don't see all pharmacists being required to deliver all drugs to people, rather I would think that they would supply the drugs that do sell well, and make them money. They are not a public service, they are a business.

A regulated business. One that's regulated to sell the morning after pill. Pharmacists are required to deliver certain drugs to people, and that's laid down in law.

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Secondly, the decision not to supply the morning after pill, is entirely a decision of the pharmacist. I don't see any compelling public need for the drug.

However the law does say there's a need, and regulates that it's *not* the decision of the pharmacist. And the law says that because a lot of people believe there's a need, and they vote for politicians that don't remove it as being a need. The decision of what drugs a pharmacists must supply is entirely the decision of the regulating authority. The pharmacist may add extras if they wish.

	25-06-2005 01:16									#167
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Drogue What other religion does it represent, in the form it's used (with the NT)? The bible is used as a religious book, hence the part of the oath that says "so help me God", and the bible in it's entirity represents only Christianity.

Well, Christianity and Catholicism. Although in the latter it's only a secondary source to the Pope.

	25-06-2005 01:18									#168
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi It costs them money to stock and to be able to supply rare drugs. I don't see all pharmacists being required to deliver all drugs to people, rather I would think that they would supply the drugs that do sell well, and make them money. They are not a public service, they are a business. Secondly, the decision not to supply the morning after pill, is entirely a decision of the pharmacist. I don't see any compelling public need for the drug.

And that is why rarely used drugs isn't in stock, but when needed, they get it. And yes, pharmacies are both a public service and a business - they deliver nessecary drugs and make an earning of it. And no, it's not the pharmacists decision to deliver a drug or not if a person needs it - "Sorry, we don't sell this drug that is essential to your survival because we don't earn enough on it - oh, don't bother to try another pharmacist in 300 miles range - they think the same".

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi I still don't think that if the state requires everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation, to swear on the bible that this is a violation of the establishment clause.

According to this, you certainly agree that it's just fine that a islamic state is opressive against christians - please make up your mind.

	25-06-2005 01:26									#169
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Well, Christianity and Catholicism. Although in the latter it's only a secondary source to the Pope.

Catholicism is Christianity?

	25-06-2005 01:28									#170
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Just taking a poke at Ben.

	25-06-2005 02:03									#171
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Ah Then carry on

	25-06-2005 02:10									#172
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Sadly, it seems that BK has lost his fighting capacity - is he getting old and trying to hide it with his new ava ?

	25-06-2005 02:23									#173
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by JohnT Like DanQ and MarkG? Won't they be surprised to find themselves "conservative" and "all the same to you." Looks like you're having trouble quoting - did you mean to make that reply to that post? It looks kind of disjointed to me... though I do like how you copied my use of the word doggerel. GMTA.

Son, it was deliberate imitation, and was meant to be noticed.

I thought DanS, a Christian, was calling the Koran worthless. I responded that the Bible is just as worthless to me, as an agnostic/atheist.

Sorry you couldn't follow that one...

	25-06-2005 02:26									#174
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi I have more respect for Muslims and their beliefs than they have for mine. So I suggest, that you be careful where you tread with your flames

Worst mixed metaphor of the day

Goddamnit Ben. The self-pwnage is thick in this thread. Do yourself a favour and quit while you're behind...

	25-06-2005 02:58									#175
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Oh yes it is! It's a clear cut violation of the Establishment Clause. According to the Agostini test, the government here violates their requirement to not advance or inhibit religion (they advance Judeo-Christian religions and inhibit Muslims religion in the courtroom).

Sure it matters. First of all, in the question of whether the use of a bible in a courtroom advances Christian religion in any form is dubious. In fact, as already argued, Christians themselves can object to this use, so to say that it advances Christianity is doubtful. The same can be said of the Jewish folks. The bible does not represent them, especially when it also includes the New Testament.

To say that the Judaism and Christianity are one and the same is contrary to what each religion teaches. Ergo, it cannot be said that the bible advances this construct labelled as the 'Judeo Christian religion'.

Secondly, whether the establishment clause prohibits the inhibition of religion is not clear. There are certain circumstances where limitations and restrictions can be placed among the public expression of religion in order to protect the public order. One obvious case, would be regulations upon public religious festivals and parades. It may be considered an inhibition to require certain restrictions and regulations, yet it would not be considered a violation of the establishment clause.

Also, it is questionable whether this instance inhibits the promotion, or the practice of Islam in the United States. No one who is a Muslim would stop becoming one just because they were denied a Koran in court.

Now, the last question, is whether there is a rationale behind the restriction of the courts to the use of the bible only in the courtroom. As we have debated here, the use of the bible is not in any religious context, in the sense that one is taught material in the bible, or that to understand the ritual, one must first have knowledge of the bible. The idea is that everyone ought to be treated the same way, and in the united states, that means swearing them in on a bible. The regulation is in no way intended to restrict Islam, or any other religion, nor is it intended to promote or advance Christianity, and can in fact be said to be contrary to the teachings of Christ.

	25-06-2005 03:13									#176
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: First of all, in the question of whether the use of a bible in a courtroom advances Christian religion in any form is dubious.

No, it isn't. It's quite clear cut. You are using the Christian Holy Book to swear oaths on! It can't get more clear cut than that.

quote: To say that the Judaism and Christianity are one and the same is contrary to what each religion teaches. Ergo, it cannot be said that the bible advances this construct labelled as the 'Judeo Christian religion'.

They are both part of the similar religious tradition. You cannot neatly and quietly seperate out Judaism and Christianity and say the law must apply to one or the other. What a massive loophole for people to advance religious beliefs!

quote: whether the establishment clause prohibits the inhibition of religion is not clear

Of course its clear. Read Agostini v. Felton. The inhibition of a religion while others are untouched will not pass muster.

quote: There are certain circumstances where limitations and restrictions can be placed among the public expression of religion in order to protect the public order. One obvious case, would be regulations upon public religious festivals and parades. It may be considered an inhibition to require certain restrictions and regulations, yet it would not be considered a violation of the establishment clause.

That applies to ALL religions and does not discriminate on the basis of beliefs.

quote: it is questionable whether this instance inhibits the promotion, or the practice of Islam in the United States.

Oh come on! Even YOU can't be this dense. What do you think will happen when Muslims are told that they can't use their own Holy Book to swear oaths on and have to use the Christian book? Perhaps that may, I dunno, indicate that their religion isn't as valued in the courtrooms of America. They may be inclined to hide their religion more.

quote: As we have debated here, the use of the bible is not in any religious context, in the sense that one is taught material in the bible, or that to understand the ritual, one must first have knowledge of the bible. The idea is that everyone ought to be treated the same way, and in the united states, that means swearing them in on a bible. The regulation is in no way intended to restrict Islam, or any other religion, nor is it intended to promote or advance Christianity, and can in fact be said to be contrary to the teachings of Christ.

You have to be kidding. Why require swearing on the Bible? Why can't other books be used? Is it to assert that the US is a Christian country? It seems like it, doesn't it? And why prevent Muslims from swearing on their book? Could it be to assert that their Holy Book just isn't good enough?

Stop with the charade, Ben. A reasonable person would conclude that this violates the establishment of religion and all 9 Supreme Court justices would. Though if you want, you can try to pretend you are a lawyer familiar in US Constitutional law, even though you are woefully deficient.

	25-06-2005 03:25									#177
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Why even argue with Ben about what is or isn't constitutional? As his stupid remark to me about "One Nation, Under God" shows, he doesn't even know what the U.S. Constitution says. In fact, he has regularly gotten his ass whooped in questions of U.S. law and the Constitution. I wonder if that might be because his only lessons in U.S. Constitutional law have probably come from fundamentalist Christian sources.

	25-06-2005 03:27									#178
	Put an end to popups!

If the use of the bible isn't a religious context, then why the hell would the law be saying one must use a "holy book," and then those upholding say that only a bible counts? How on earth is that anything BUT a religious context?

	25-06-2005 03:29									#179
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Sure it matters. First of all, in the question of whether the use of a bible in a courtroom advances Christian religion in any form is dubious. In fact, as already argued, Christians themselves can object to this use, so to say that it advances Christianity is doubtful. The same can be said of the Jewish folks. The bible does not represent them, especially when it also includes the New Testament. To say that the Judaism and Christianity are one and the same is contrary to what each religion teaches. Ergo, it cannot be said that the bible advances this construct labelled as the 'Judeo Christian religion'.

You miss the point totally. There are no debate about wether christianity are advanced or not - the question is wether people who prefers the quoran has the right to swear by this instead.

quote: Secondly, whether the establishment clause prohibits the inhibition of religion is not clear. There are certain circumstances where limitations and restrictions can be placed among the public expression of religion in order to protect the public order. One obvious case, would be regulations upon public religious festivals and parades. It may be considered an inhibition to require certain restrictions and regulations, yet it would not be considered a violation of the establishment clause.

I guess that most judges will clear the court if someone are trying to make a religious parade or festival in the courtroom. This has nothing to do with the issue.

quote: Also, it is questionable whether this instance inhibits the promotion, or the practice of Islam in the United States. No one who is a Muslim would stop becoming one just because they were denied a Koran in court.

Noone has spoken a word about promoting religion.

quote: Now, the last question, is whether there is a rationale behind the restriction of the courts to the use of the bible only in the courtroom. As we have debated here, the use of the bible is not in any religious context, in the sense that one is taught material in the bible, or that to understand the ritual, one must first have knowledge of the bible. The idea is that everyone ought to be treated the same way, and in the united states, that means swearing them in on a bible. The regulation is in no way intended to restrict Islam, or any other religion, nor is it intended to promote or advance Christianity, and can in fact be said to be contrary to the teachings of Christ.

Ehhr, no. How are you to swear upon a book that you are not familiar with ? What if this book actually tells that it is fine to lie despite it's against your nature ? I'm not claiming that the bible allows that, but if you isn't familiar with it and it's understandings, you really don't know what you are swearing.

	25-06-2005 03:35									#180
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Why even argue with Ben about what is or isn't constitutional?

Well, there is a world outside the us and I certainly don't wan't such kind of law to get a toe inside here - it's bad enough that some tried to make it sane to implement a little islamic bloodmoney law here - fortunatly they got bashed from almost the total spectre of politicians.