The claim of delusion stands. Only a delusional person would think covering athletes for a living is the same as playing the game for a living or playing the game just for fun, and the same time killed between watching those players is the same as the time spent between the lines killing time the way players spend down time with each other. As is often the case, you take singular comments out of context of the entire thought process and argument. Oh well, if that is what you need to score wins, enjoy.
>As is often the case, you take singular comments >out of context of the entire thought process and >argument. As is often the case you conveniently "forget" the context of your own statements. It's all in the record. Bye Ya'll JB
Yes, fortunately it is all in the record. Those who want to revisit that thread, and see the context of the thread can easily do so, and understand the arguments made about the nature of down time of amateur and professional athletes during the games they play, not the downtime of amateur or professional watchers during the games they watch.
Are you suggesting I've failed to do something because I haven't previously been asked to do it? hmmm...have I succeed or failed to do something I've succeeded at not doing? Please look carefully Optional 777. Do you register visually and cognitively, any difference between these two phrases: "....Establishment of religion" "....respecting an establishment of religion". You will hopefully be able to notice 2 words missing in the first phrase from the second. This should suggest that the two phrases do not mean the same thing when read. If you cannot see the differences, maybe you are suffering an impaired ability which is restricting your capacity to learn or read. In that case, thanks to medical science, help is available and I apologize to you for not realizing the problem earlier. It would explain a lot about your correspondences on this thread and others of a similar theme. If that is not the case, please deal with the current wording under debate before creating new arguments. It is of little use to argue by altering the original wording of the Pledge, in order to fit it to your own personal viewpoint. It may make you feel better, but it won't assist a recognition to the common understanding of the words or their meaning. Of course, I don't think there is a problem with dyslexia on your part. And as I have also reciprocated an acknowledgement for the presence of some intelligence being apparent by your responses, and you have offered that possibility to me, I think perhaps you prefer argument by sham argument as a method of response, rather than to genuinely and more honestly deal with the matter under debate. You will, I trust, advise me if I am wrong on this. I am somewhat at a loss to see how, under these circumstances, you can possibly have any hope of being able to "defer to the argument as written", as you suggest below, when you would most probably change or read the argument below into another state of sham, until it suits, the way I have described above. .....then I presume by the same token you are obliged to defer to this and fortunately for all Americans, the court demonstrates its " much greater wisdom, and depth of reason " by the following.... " The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared the Pledge to be unconstitutional because it includes the words 'under God'. It was ruled that the phrase implies a government endorsement of religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." There is plenty of information and detail of my position in this thread for you to be able to grasp what is being said. It would be more germane to the argument were you able to accept the wording of the First Amendment and tackle the meaning of it, without going off into your own versions . 10 words are sufficient to demonstrate the wisdom, intellectual integrity and good grace of the Founders. Incontrovertible words and meaning. That is apparently why you alter them, as it offers the only method available to you in a vain and futile attempt at argument. Llittle point in my addressing the other items on your list, until you stop messing about with the first one.
Are you suggesting I've failed to do something because I haven't previously been asked to do it? hmmm...have I succeed or failed to do something I've succeeded at not doing? Please look carefully Optional 777. Do you register visually and cognitively, any difference between these two phrases: "....Establishment of religion" "....respecting an establishment of religion". You will hopefully be able to notice 2 words missing in the first phrase from the second. This should suggest that the two phrases do not mean the same thing when read. If you cannot see the differences, maybe you are suffering an impaired ability which is restricting your capacity to learn or read. In that case, thanks to medical science, help is available and I apologize to you for not realizing the problem earlier. It would explain a lot about your correspondences on this thread and others of a similar theme. If that is not the case, please deal with the current wording under debate before creating new arguments. It is of little use to argue by altering the original wording of the Pledge, in order to fit it to your own personal viewpoint. It may make you feel better, but it won't assist a recognition to the common understanding of the words or their meaning. Of course, I don't think there is a problem with dyslexia on your part. And as I have also reciprocated an acknowledgement for the presence of some intelligence being apparent by your responses, and you have offered that possibility to me, I think perhaps you prefer argument by sham argument as a method of response, rather than to genuinely and more honestly deal with the matter under debate. You will, I trust, advise me if I am wrong on this. I am somewhat at a loss to see how, under these circumstances, you can possibly have any hope of being able to "defer to the argument as written", as you suggest below, when you would most probably change or read the argument below into another state of sham, until it suits, the way I have described above. An argument as written is not a proof, merely an opinion. One opinion that has not shown itself to be effective at the highest level of the court system. The task before you, which I see you have failed as yet, it to show that the voluntary prayer recited daily is religion, a religion, establishment of religion, or an establishment of a religion. You may say the pledge is religion, you may believe it is so, but have not shown it to be so. We are dealing with a legal issue, the Establishment Clause, not an ivory tower philosophical discussion. If we survey the common man, who works from the common definition of religion, and ask them if the pledge is religion, they will say no. The court uses the common man principle all the time when it comes to understanding language and principles. The court would also look to the experts in religion, namely the religious institutions for their opinion on what constitutes a religion, religion, or the practice of religion. These experts in religion have also concluded that the pledge is not religion, and voluntary recitation of the pledge is not coercion of the government to establish religion. You have not shown the pledge to be religion, therefore you have not shown the Establishment Clause to have been violated. .....then I presume by the same token you are obliged to defer to this and fortunately for all Americans, the court demonstrates its " much greater wisdom, and depth of reason " by the following.... " The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared the Pledge to be unconstitutional because it includes the words 'under God'. It was ruled that the phrase implies a government endorsement of religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." In the opinions rendered by the high court, if anyone chooses to read the opinions that I posted a link to, the opinions of the high court representatives who wrote them gave the reasons that the 9th circuit court's opinion was invalid on merit. The clearly pointed out where the 9th court failed to apply case law, and perform the necessary established legal tests to determine religion present. These opinions of a high court member are similar to a college professor commenting on the opinions of a 9th grader. The high court is the final legal authority when it comes to opinion of the law and whether or not a law is constitutional. There is plenty of information and detail of my position in this thread for you to be able to grasp what is being said. It would be more germane to the argument were you able to accept the wording of the First Amendment and tackle the meaning of it, without going off into your own versions. The link to the high court's opinion is not my version, just the opinions of the high court members. I have made my own personal arguments, provided a link to a historical and scholarly piece on the process by which the Establishment Clause was born, and have also provided a link to the high court's findings. It would be more germane to the argument if you were able to accept their legal opinion, and scholarly opinions as to the question of the First Amendment being violated by the pledge. I know it must be difficult for an atheist to accept a defeat by a higher power, but that is exactly what happened to the 9th circuit's ruling which was overturned by a higher power. In this case, the higher power was a higher court. 10 words are sufficient to demonstrate the wisdom, intellectual integrity and good grace of the Founders. Incontrovertible words and meaning. That is apparently why you alter them, as it offers the only method available to you in a vain and futile attempt at argument. The high court has rendered an opinion on the meaning of those words, citing case law, and the necessary tests of a law as it relates to the Establishment Clause. The opinion expressed is that the pledge is not religion. What was done by rendering an opinion on the merits of the case, after it had been dismissed on a technical case, was to fire a shot across the bow to would be cases, that if similar cases rise to the level of the Supreme Court, the position of the court is clear. There were no dissenting opinions written. The lower court has little choice but to respect the higher courts ruling, as they know they are impotent to change it. As much as atheists may want to be the ones defining what is religion, they will have to defer to the opinion of the court on legal issues such as the constitutionality of the pledge.
So then, according to you if I understand you correctly (please advise if I have this wrong), we all only have opinion, including the Court. But once the Court hands down its opinion, everyone's opinion should be the same as the Court's. You seem to be saying the Courts are so learned, they never will get the wrong opinion of something. I should add, I do distinguish between accepting the judgement of the Court as binding under law, however I do not accept I must defer to it. If that were so, slavery might never have been abolished in America. So when the 9th handed down its judgement... defer to the Appeals Court, when the High gives its override... defer to the High? No questioning, no argument, no more opinion, no debate. Now... I was under the impression that opinion was formed and informed by debate not the other way around. I am still awaiting confirmation that you can distinguish between those two sets of words in my previous post.
Nope, everyone's opinion "should" not necessarily be the same as the court. Freedom of thought is a declared right of the Framers. However when one's opinion leads to action that violates the high court rulings, one may find themselves incarcerated. I am not saying the courts can't get it wrong, but you will have to show me where they did get it wrong first before I take your point of view. Right and wrong is a matter of opinion at times on legal issues, but no doubt right is the law itself, as the law grants the Supreme Court final authority on judgment of what is right under the existing laws, until such time that an Amendment is passed to change either the language of the Constitution, or introduce new language and laws. Assuming you read their opinion in the link I provided, I saw no counter opinion on their exact reasons for their opinion from you. When the high court rules on a matter like this, legally, the next step is a Constitutional Amendment. Be my guest. Informed debate is great, still waiting for one from you, either on a legal basis, historical basis, or common sense basis.
Freedom of thought is a declared right of the Framers. To be perfectly effective in carrying out the letter of the law as written in those days, if not the spirit of law or the wishes of the framers, we would have to return to those days, the exact use of language of those days, the political climate of those days, have conversations with the framers to ask questions an get clarification of ideas and points etc. in order to even begin to try and replicate what the original words truly meant then and the full intentions of the framers, and then the problem of how to bring that into the here and now of an America that bears little resemblance in size, power, diversity, and wealth to the America of the 13 colonies.. So your statement "freedom is a declared right of the framers" is made false according to another of your own statements. Are the wishes of 'the framers' understandable by the words they use or are they not? It appears you want it both ways. However when one's opinion leads to action that violates the high court rulings, one may find themselves incarcerated. So? I am not saying the courts can't get it wrong, but you will have to show me where they did get it wrong first before I take your point of view. I already have, a few times. It's just a refusal to deal with the actuality of words, wording and meaning, which seems to keep you content. Right and wrong is a matter of opinion at times on legal issues, but no doubt right is the law itself, as the law grants the Supreme Court final authority on judgment of what is right under the existing laws, until such time that an Amendment is passed to change either the language of the Constitution, or introduce new language and laws. So? Assuming you read their opinion in the link I provided, I saw no counter opinion on their exact reasons for their opinion from you. That doesn't make much sense. You saw no counter opinion... from me??! lol what do you mean? I saw no reasons for them to hold valid argument against the 10 clear words of obvious meaning, in the First Amendment, already referred to. When the high court rules on a matter like this, legally, the next step is a Constitutional Amendment. Be my guest Many will. Informed debate is great, still waiting for one from you, either on a legal basis, historical basis, or common sense basis. You have all 3. Refusing to acknowledge them will afford you no information. I am still awaiting confirmation that you can distinguish between those two sets of words in earlier post.
So your statement "freedom is a declared right of the framers" is made false according to another of your own statements. Are the wishes of 'the framers' understandable by the words they use or are they not? It appears you want it both ways. "We hold these truths to be self evident......" If you took the time to read the historical scholastic article by Feldman published in Law Review that I quoted and provided a link to, the concepts of freedom of thought as a right are clearly express in the writings of the Framers. The Lockean principle of "liberty of conscience" was the underpinnings of the Establishment Clause. So? So you are free to think about violation of law, but you are not free to act out on those thought without potential consequence. Legally speaking, you are not the higher power here. I already have, a few times. It's just a refusal to deal with the actuality of words, wording and meaning, which seems to keep you content. You think you have. You believe you have expressed the actual meaning of the words, but you have only expressed your opinion. The opinion of the court differs from yours. You have not show the pledge to be a religion or religion established by governemnt, you only claim it is. Do you not know the difference between showing a truth, and claiming one? You have not show why your opinion should be favored of that of the high court, or the comman man. It is just your refusal to accept the interpretations of the words and their meanings, as clearly put forth in the article by Feldman, and the high courts ruling on the Elk Grove case. In others words, you have shown your opinion, and your opinion, as it is parallel with Newdow's, which was was shot down by the highest court in the land. So? So you are on the wrong side of the law as determined by the Constitution, as the Constitution itself gives the Supreme Court the position of final arbiter when there is difference of opinion on what the law is, and what the law means. If you reject the high court, you are rejecting the Constitution in a sense, as they empowered the high court's opinion above yours, or mine in this case. If you can get an amendment passed to support your view, that would be a logical next step on your part. That doesn't make much sense. You saw no counter opinion... from me??! lol what do you mean? I saw you state something. I did not see an opinion such as the opinion by the court in the Elk Grove case by the Supreme Court. You can cite the opinion of the 9th Circuit Court, but that opinion was demolished by the high court. Anyone who reads the Elk Grove rulilng by the high court can see that. I saw no reasons for them to hold valid argument against the 10 clear words of obvious meaning, in the First Amendment, already referred to. Ah, the words are clear, yet the conclusions and meaning you place on them is different from the high courts. So, what exactly is your argument? They are wrong, and you are right? Quite an appeal. Many will. Many will have to overcome case law, and the legal tests put forth by the Supreme Court when it comes to determination of coercion by the government, and whether or not the pledge itself constitutes religion, or a religion, or a religions practice, especially when the pledge is a voluntary custom. You have all 3. Refusing to acknowledge them will afford you no information. Yes, I did provide all three. The work by Feldman and the Elk Grove case being of scholastic and Law Review standards. I am still awaiting confirmation that you can distinguish between those two sets of words in earlier post. I am waiting on a rebuttal of the work done by Feldman, and the opinion of the court in Elk Grove.
"We hold these truths to be self evident......" If you took the time to read the historical scholastic article by Feldman published in Law Review that I quoted and provided a link to, the concepts of freedom of thought as a right are clearly express in the writings of the Framers. Then I'll ask again, why , according to you, are these words ... "We hold these truths to be self evident......" subject to this statement of yours ...."the concepts of freedom of thought as a right are clearly express in the writings of the Framers."..... but these words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.". are NOT subject to this statement of yours ...."the concepts of freedom of thought as a right are clearly express in the writings of the Framers." So you are free to think about violation of law, but you are not free to act out on those thought without potential consequence. Legally speaking, you are not the higher power here. So? Your point being what exactly? It is just your refusal to accept the interpretations of the words and their meanings, as clearly put forth in the article by Feldman, and the high courts ruling on the Elk Grove case. So you can't interpret the meaning of theses words , "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" because you say, "we would have to return to those days, the exact use of language of those days, the political climate of those days, have conversations with the framers to ask questions an get clarification of ideas and points etc. in order to even begin to try and replicate what the original words truly meant... but you are able to interpret hundreds and thousands of words by Feldman, trying to argue 10 words mean something else than what they say. So you are on the wrong side of the law as determined by the Constitution, as the Constitution itself gives the Supreme Court the position of final arbiter when there is difference of opinion on what the law is, and what the law means. Then I'll ask again, So what? I was not aware the argument was based upon whether the Supreme Court has the right or not to make law. It is more a question of whether the Court's current decision is unsafe or unsound. By the way the common usage for 'on the wrong side of the law' is lawbreaker. Are you suggesting I and others of like mind are law breakers for holding an opposite opinion to your own? If you reject the high court, you are rejecting the Constitution in a sense, as they empowered the high court's opinion above yours, or mine in this case. So when The Abolitionists of slavery rejected the court rulings they rejected "the Constitution in a sense" ? It appears you prefer to try and attempt discredit by demonizing rather than argue what these words mean, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. If they don't mean exactly what they say then what do they mean. I am still waiting. I saw you state something. I did not see an opinion such as the opinion by the court in the Elk Grove case by the Supreme Court. You can cite the opinion of the 9th Circuit Court, but that opinion was demolished by the high court. Anyone who reads the Elk Grove rulilng by the high court can see that. I don't see any demolition . I simply see you agreeing with Elk Grove. I see no reason why you should. Ah, the words are clear, yet the conclusions and meaning you place on them is different from the high courts. So, what exactly is your argument? They are wrong, and you are right? Quite an appeal. How can you read Elk so well, yet miss read the very few words I wrote....."I saw no reasons for them to hold valid argument against the 10 clear words of obvious meaning, in the First Amendment, already referred to." Many will have to overcome case law, and the legal tests put forth by the Supreme Court when it comes to determination of coercion by the government, and whether or not the pledge itself constitutes religion, or a religion, or a religions practice, especially when the pledge is a voluntary custom. Then what business would Congress have had for altering it under law? Such things are unconstitutional. It says so in the First Amendment Yes, I did provide all three. The work by Feldman and the Elk Grove case being of scholastic and Law Review standards. You have provided (by your own reasoning) someone elseâs opinion. That opinion does not show how these words.. "under God".. entered under law , are not unconstitutional.. when these words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." ...show them to be so. I am waiting on a rebuttal of the work done by Feldman, and the opinion of the court in Elk Grove I have ,you refuse to acknowledge it. I think the problem is, it's very simple. These words are very clear..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Congress entered a law respecting an establishment of religion. I have shown why inserting the words "under God" makes that so. The law is unconstitutional according to those 10 words in the First Amendment. Neither you or Feldman or the Elk Grove have demonstrated sound or safe reason why it was not. Incontrovertible reason at least as incontrovertible as the 10 words themselves would do. I still await confirmation that you can distinguish between those two sets of words in my earlier post.