Absurd news article

systemnate
Silver Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-08-24
User is offlineOffline
Absurd news article

It's been forever since I have posted on these forums.  I hope that everyone has been doing good for the last couple of years.  When I read this article today, it made me think of the RRS and so I thought I'd share it.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=31101

 

I am doing a Toulmin Analysis on this article for a college assignment and so I am in the process of thoroughly breaking down this mans points and man is it horrible.

Claim: If the Supreme Court keeps taking our religious rights away , our system of government will fail.

 

Reason 1: Our nation and constitutional liberties are derived from the Judeo-Christian religion.

Support: History proves that it is not just religious nuts who make this argument.  Past Supreme Court Justices such as David Brewer also make this claim.

Warrant: If something is taken away that comes from the Juedo-Christian religion, the government will fail.

 

If anyone has any experience in deriving warrants, how do you think this one is?

 

Academic work aside...what do you guys think of the article?  Do you think he makes any valid points at all?

 

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I know nothing technical

I know nothing technical about law, being an old grandma working on a computer science degree after being one for 20+ years.

But it sounds like the same mush we get from other theists.

This country was founded on the principles of secular humanism. 

1. All people are born with the potential to be good regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof.  This was not a precept of "christians" during the 18th century.  Only people who went to the state sponsored church were good people.  In the US now, way too many people still hold the view that if you aren't a member of their church, you will go to hell. 

2. All people are born equal and should have equal opportunity to excel where ever their talents may take them.  This was not a precept of "christians" during the 18th century.  You were born into a socioeconomic class because god put your spirit there, and you were supposed to follow in your family's footsteps - not become president of a nation.  If you were meant to be a ruler, you would have been born a king's son.

All the rest flows from these two basic ideas.  Read Benjamin Franklin.  Or Catherine the Great of Russia's autobiography.  Catherine and Ben corresponded with each other.

It seems to me, a layperson when it comes to the law, that 99.99999% of the laws are about commerce.  And I haven't a clue as to why losing religion is going to change any of those laws or change how they are implemented.  The rest are either outdated "blue" laws that ought to be repealed or are common sensical as regards living in close proximity to other people.  Still, no religion required.

But what do I know?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
I had the impression that

I had the impression that the only 'rights' being taken away were the rights to restrict the rights of people not in your religious group, or the right to impose your religious rituals and rules on them.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
First and second paragraph.

First and second paragraph. Okay, so it's asserting that the Supreme Court is taking away our rights. When enough rights are taken away, the government will collapse.

Next several paragraphs. A bunch of appeals to authority and tradition.

Reasserts that rights come from God; it's "indisputable." Mentions "godless communist regimes" as proof that rights come from God.

Ergo, when Supreme Court tries to separate rights from Christianity, the jenga tower is in danger of falling. Okay, so not legally asserting a Judeo-Christian foundation for our rights = taking them away.

That's the whole "argument."

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The American Founding Fathers

 

Declaration of Independence draws on John Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration, rather than the tawdry scraps of 'advice' to be found in the bible. If the bible was the source of inspiration for our government we'd be living in a dictatorship, with singing.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck