Re: Obama Attends Church for 1st Time in5 Months.

by Aaron Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:11 pm

ziggy wrote:
If one were to follow your reasoning Ziggy, anything that is derived from the the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and his book Dianetics in 1950 qualifies for copyright protection which would include the religion Scientology.

No, but that would be Cato's reasoning if we accept Cato's assertion that science is religion.

That's not the way it read a month ago or yesterday when you used the copyright clause. The Constitution and supporting documents are very clear in the intent of the clause and your intrepretation below

ziggy wrote:I made that reference to show that not only are the arts and sciences not religion, but that the Constitution specifically promotes the arts and sciences. If the Founders recognized science as religion as you do, then why would they direct Congress to promote science?

You imply the clause means that our founding fathers meant to promote actual art and science and that simply is not the case. While some founding fathers may have been supportative, as copyright laws and patent protections had a long history in England, that is what our founding fathers intended and the purpose of what you quote above.

Understand?

by ziggy Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:16 pm

Cato wrote:
ziggy wrote: What law has either Congress or the Federal Courts made respecting secular humanism as a religion? The 1st Amendment does not say anything about one religion at the expense of Christianity or any other religion. The state of PA and the local school districts there were establishing Christian doctrine as the official religion of PA public schools, at the expense of religious neutrality. All the Federal Courts said was that, constitutionally, the state and its schools cannot do that.

What the federal courts did by their rulings was make case law. You know that as well as I.

As far as what laws have been made, are you saying that you would accept the teaching of creationism in a public school or allow a religious display at chrstmas on public property

Creationism is clearly religious doctrine. It is not supported by anyone other than those who support supernatural religous dogmas.

ziggy wrote: Again Cato, you are the one who said that science is religion- specifically the teaching of evolution and global warming, for example. And you are the one that said secularism becomes the default religion in the absence of any religion.

Nope, I'm the one that took the time to look up the defination of religion and point out that just about anything can become a religion, including science.

And science is a part of "anything". Do you think that science is a religion as contemplated by the Founders in the 1st Amendment? Or are you just continuing to play bait and switch words?

You are the one that don't seem to have the mental capasity to grasp that concept.

Mental capacity or not, the Founders did not contemplate that just "anything" Cato says is a religion- including science- is actually so as relates to the 1st Amendment.

ziggy wrote: I made that reference to show that not only are the arts and sciences not religion, but that the Constitution specifically promotes the arts and sciences. If the Founders recognized science as religion as you do, then why would they direct Congress to promote science?

And as I said you grasping for straws.

I do not need to grasp for straws. It is "grasping for straws" to argure that just anything Cato says is religion actually is religion.

by ziggy Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:25 pm

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
If one were to follow your reasoning Ziggy, anything that is derived from the the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and his book Dianetics in 1950 qualifies for copyright protection which would include the religion Scientology.

No, but that would be Cato's reasoning if we accept Cato's assertion that science is religion.

That's not the way it read a month ago or yesterday when you used the copyright clause. The Constitution and supporting documents are very clear in the intent of the clause and your intrepretation below

ziggy wrote:I made that reference to show that not only are the arts and sciences not religion, but that the Constitution specifically promotes the arts and sciences. If the Founders recognized science as religion as you do, then why would they direct Congress to promote science?

You imply the clause means that our founding fathers meant to promote actual art and science and that simply is not the case. While some founding fathers may have been supportative, as copyright laws and patent protections had a long history in England, that is what our founding fathers intended and the purpose of what you quote above.

So the Founders directed Congress to promotes the arts and sciences, but they didn't want to promote the arts and sciences?

Understand?

I understand far better than Cato does, and better than you pretend to.

by Aaron Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:33 pm

If you understand, why don't you do a better job of proving it? All you've proven thus far is that you can butcher the constitution.

by Aaron Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:58 pm

I think the intent of our founding fathers is crystal clear to anyone without an agenda. From Federalist 43.

1. A power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for a limited time, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals. The States cannot separately make effectual provisions for either of the cases, and most of them have anticipated the decision of this point, by laws passed at the instance of Congress.

bold added as it proves Ziggy-par the course-wrong.

As Madison said, it will scarcely be questioned. That is, if one bothers to educate themself on patent law. If, like you Ziggy, they choose to pursue an agenda or remain ignorant, there's not a lot anyone can do other then correct you.

Sam is right about you, it's clear-at least when it comes to the Constitution- that you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

by ziggy Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:01 pm

The clause actually confers two distinct powers: the power to secure for limited times to authors the exclusive right to their writings is the basis for U.S. copyright law, and the power to secure for limited times to inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries is the basis for U.S. patent law. Because the clause contains no language under which Congress may protect trademarks, those are instead protected under the Commerce Clause. Some terms in the clause are used in archaic meanings, potentially confusing modern readers. For example, "useful Arts" does not refer to artistic endeavors, but rather to the work of artisans, people skilled in a manufacturing craft; "Science" is not limited to fields of modern scientific inquiry, but to all knowledge, including philosophy and literature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

by Aaron Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:02 pm

As my post demostrates above Ziggy, in regard to the copyright clause, you're dumber then a box of rocks. Hell, even your post does nothing to substaniate the crap you're trying to pass as knowledge.

by ziggy Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:07 pm

Aaron wrote:If you understand, why don't you do a better job of proving it? All you've proven thus far is that you can butcher the constitution.

Because any standard of "proof" you demand, while ridicuously low for yourself, is impossibly high for others.

So why don't you insist that Cato "prove" that science is religion for purposes of the 1st Amendment or that, for purposes of the 1st Amendment, that secularism is the default "religion" in the absence of religion?

by Aaron Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:18 pm

I've said from the getgo I don't agree with what he is saying so why would I demand proof from him? Seriously dude?

And there is nothing for you to prove. I've already demostrated on this one, you and a box of rocks have a great deal in common.

by ziggy Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:25 pm

Aaron wrote:As my post demostrates above Ziggy, in regard to the copyright clause, you're dumber then a box of rocks. Hell, even your post does nothing to substaniate the crap you're trying to pass as knowledge.

As regards the 1st Amendment, Cato is equally dumb as that proverbial box of rocks. The difference is that Cato really believes that having government schools promote his religious agenda is sanctioned by the Constitution- and he believes your snipy tripe as long as he thinks it supports that agenda. What Cato does not realize is that you make him look more and more ridiculous by arguing with me instead of supporting Cato's agenda outright. But that's OK. If if turns your crank to argue about which box of rocks is the dumbest, then, as the man said, bring 'em on.

by ziggy Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:27 pm

I've already demostrated on this one, you and a box of rocks have a great deal in common.

I have said often that I am just a dumb ole' Ziggy tryin' to figure some of it out. So at least we agree on that much.

by Aaron Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:46 pm

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:As my post demostrates above Ziggy, in regard to the copyright clause, you're dumber then a box of rocks. Hell, even your post does nothing to substaniate the crap you're trying to pass as knowledge.

As regards the 1st Amendment, Cato is equally dumb as that proverbial box of rocks. The difference is that Cato really believes that having government schools promote his religious agenda is sanctioned by the Constitution- and he believes your snipy tripe as long as he thinks it supports that agenda. What Cato does not realize is that you make him look more and more ridiculous by arguing with me instead of supporting Cato's agenda outright. But that's OK. If if turns your crank to argue about which box of rocks is the dumbest, then, as the man said, bring 'em on.

I'm not arguing about anything dude. You made an incorrect statement about the Constitution, I coerrected you on it and when you whined about what you knew, I proved you wrong. It's as simple as that.

As far as the 1st Amendment and you're arguement regarding schools, I've told Cato I disagree with him on that. Why would I argue any further with him about it?

by Aaron Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:53 pm

ziggy wrote:
I've already demostrated on this one, you and a box of rocks have a great deal in common.

I have said often that I am just a dumb ole' Ziggy tryin' to figure some of it out. So at least we agree on that much.

You're aww shucks routine doesn't play with me Ziggy. It's nothing more then part of your arrogance.

by ziggy Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:00 pm

So do you disagree that I am just a dumb ole' Ziggy?

by Cato Wed Nov 10, 2010 7:43 am

ziggy wrote:So do you disagree that I am just a dumb ole' Ziggy?

I can't speak for Aaron, but I'll tell you what I think. I think you are an arrogant elitist that couldn't scratch his A** with a hand full of fishhooks.

By the way dummy, your accessment of my view of the first amendment is wrong. I have just pointed out what the amendment says, nothing more. If it doesn't suit you, take it up with the founders.

by Aaron Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:53 am

ziggy wrote:So do you disagree that I am just a dumb ole' Ziggy?

No, I think your an arrogant, self absorbed individual with a very liberal agenda who's been around the block long enough to know the vast majority of West Virginians and Americans do not support thus you hide in plain site. Joe McCarthy was villified for hunting people like you years ago but it turned out that years later, those he accused of being a communist turned out to be communist.

And while I'm not accusing you of being a communist, I do believe that you are an ardent follower of Marxist philosophies and that if you had your way, the state would control much of what we do today.

That's all fine and well, to each his own, until you start twisting and butchering the constitution as you have in this argument. At that point, I'll call you out.

by ziggy Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:32 pm

By the way dummy, your accessment of my view of the first amendment is wrong. I have just pointed out what the amendment says, nothing more.

No, you have tried to tell us not only what the 1st Amendment and the Constitution says, but what it means- and including that it allows the states that care to and the public schools therein to promote certain regilious doctrines- but which, constitutionally, is to be determined by the Courts, and not by Cato or Ziggy.

If it doesn't suit you, take it up with the founders.

Thank you, but the Constitution suits me quite well. It was you, a few months ago, who was proposing radical changes to the Constitution. And it was you, a few months ago, who proposed to conscript Mr. Winchester and Mr. Browning into your rebellion against the government. You and your ilk (to use a Catoism) abhor the Bill of Rights, and would love nothing more than to see those 10 Amendments removed form the Constitution.

by Cato Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:52 am

ziggy wrote:
No, you have tried to tell us not only what the 1st Amendment and the Constitution says, but what it means- and including that it allows the states that care to and the public schools therein to promote certain regilious doctrines- but which, constitutionally, is to be determined by the Courts, and not by Cato or Ziggy.

I thought the people governed , not the courts.

ziggy wrote:
Thank you, but the Constitution suits me quite well. It was you, a few months ago, who was proposing radical changes to the Constitution. And it was you, a few months ago, who proposed to conscript Mr. Winchester and Mr. Browning into your rebellion against the government. You and your ilk (to use a Catoism) abhor the Bill of Rights, and would love nothing more than to see those 10 Amendments removed form the Constitution.

This will be a paraphrase, but, when governments become distructive to liberty, it is the right of the people to remove said government. We saw some of the rebellion this last election. I was peaceful and I hope it remains peaceful, but I will defend my liberty and I am finding more and more people feel as passionate as do.

Last night I was in Wheeling to see the festival of lights. The way I understand it, it was the wish of the Oglebays that the park have no government affiliation. When we went by a nativity scene this point was made, along with the comment that the ACLU culd do nothing about it. The people on the bus cheered.

People are tired of giving up their liberty to satisfy the trash of society who hate everything this nation stands for.

by Sponsored content