RE: [EBSS] Digest for EB-skeptics@googlegroups.com - 7 updates in 1 topic

[Bob Marcus]

Come on. Granted that Scalia is not popular with this group but some of the comments about him are pretty wide of the mark.

 

Scalia is a Catholic with a religious belief system that few of us share. But if that should disqualify  him from  sitting on the court, then perhaps we should have a  CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT excluding people with religious beliefs. Of course, you’ll need to be prepared for similar amendments, say, making it a disqualifier to  believe in a so-called “living constitution,” whatever that is.

 

To judge Scalia’s intellect by his religious beliefs is akin to judging Einstein’s capabilities by his failure at parenting or Hitler’s morality by his love of dogs. The issue is whether Scalia was a good jurist, which requires some knowledge of law, and an appreciation of what it means to be a jurist, independent of whether you like his decisions. You may prefer Earl Warren for his legacy but he was a third rate jurist who substituted his vision for constitutional law. You can agree with his vision and  believe in legislating from the bench in the cause of social justice, but that is quite different from  admiring his intellect.

 

Regarding the remarks on conservatism in the prior comment, I can say that I am no conservative but I have hardly ever heard a sillier commentary on the conservative belief system (okay, maybe once or twice). While I am not inclined to write pages on the subject, I will note the following:

-          Conservatives obviously  believe in amendments to the constitution. After all, they passed 10 before the ink was dry; 23 more were passed thereafter

-          There is no conservative issue with Cabinet Departments (There is an issue with regulatory agencies, however.)

-          There are 4 liberal justices who vote in lock step far more reliably than the so-called 5 conservatives. (Think Roberts on Obamacare.)

-          Is living in our modern world that much more complicated than it was in colonial times, other than for taxes and regulation? Do you think learning to use a computer or a car is  more difficult that learning to care for and ride a horse? The  issues of today are not all that different from those of our forefathers: Why am I here? How do I feed myself? How do I get laid? Etc.

 

Of course, you don’t have to like Scalia. Or conservatives. But the invective should be bounded by facts and sense.

I can’t help but recall Mowgli’s words to the wolf pack: “Howl, dogs! A wolf has died tonight.”

 

 

 

 

 

From: EB-sk...@googlegroups.com [mailto:EB-sk...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 7:32 PM
To: Digest recipients <EB-sk...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [EBSS] Digest for EB-sk...@googlegroups.com - 7 updates in 1 topic

 

EB-sk...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Topic digest
View all topics

·         Keen intellect - 7 Updates

Keen intellect

John Kiefer <johnk...@aol.com>: Feb 16 08:13AM -0800 EBSS, Since we have been hearing for several days about the keen intellect of recently deceased Antonin Scalia, here is a sterling example, which somehow the mass media seems to have overlooked.   From his dissent in 1987 to the majority opinion that struck down a Louisiana law promoting you the teaching of creationism in public schools.     "The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger…. The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe. Evolution is not a scientific “fact,” since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory. Rather, evolution is merely a scientific theory or “guess.”… It is a very bad guess at that. The scientific problems with evolution are so serious that it could accurately be termed a “myth.”"   Sent from my iPad

bruce...@comcast.net: Feb 16 10:09PM Justice Scalia was an arrogant pompous a$$ who contradicted his own opinions and precedents, but he also deemed himself as one who could discern what was in the minds of our Founding Fathers (and, no, Abraham was NOT one of them) when they wrote the very documents he says he clings to as unchangeable. The most simplistic definition of "conservatism" is no change, that everything should remain static in the eyes of current Republican conservatives as they were when our country was founded. There would be no new Cabinet Departments, no Amendments to the Constitution, and our thinking/culture would be frozen in time. How can any modern man of his education believe that men who knew nothing of powered flight or penicillin for example be able to discern changes in the future as Scalia thinks he could enter their minds in their past? He is one of five cathoholic (sic) male Justices who seem to vote ideologically as a block and cover their stunted thinking by citing prior cases. These five Justices and presidential candidate such Jeb Bush and Eduardo Cruz (among others) prove that even with their collective educations and supposedly "towering intellect," class standing, and honors such as Phi Beta Kappa can still render "bad" decisions time after time; Citizens United and Eminent Domain are just two recent examples.   This is also not the only time Scalia has ignored scientific evidence like John's cite shows. I believe it was the Hobby Lobby case wherein the majority opinion with which Scalia sided cited among other things the "morning after" pill as an abortifacient when that drug merely prevents a fertized egg from implanting in the womb, it does not cause an abortion. It is a contraceptive. Those in the majority accepted incorrect science and nonetheless rendered an opinion based on inaccuracies. Scalia's dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard is just as inaccurate. This is not piling on. Evidence is evidence , and the evidence is that he was wrong in both cases.     ----- Original Message -----   From: "'John Kiefer' via East Bay Skeptics Society" <EB-sk...@googlegroups.com> To: eb-sk...@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:13:40 AM Subject: [EBSS] Keen intellect   EBSS, Since we have been hearing for several days about the keen intellect of recently deceased Antonin Scalia, here is a sterling example, which somehow the mass media seems to have overlooked.   From his dissent in 1987 to the majority opinion that struck down a Louisiana law promoting you the teaching of creationism in public schools.     "The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger …. The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe. Evolution is not a scientific “fact,” since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory. Rather, evolution is merely a scientific theory or “guess.”… It is a very bad guess at that. The scientific problems with evolution are so serious that it could accurately be termed a “myth.”"   Sent from my iPad       -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "East Bay Skeptics Society" group. To post to this group, send email to EB-sk...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to EB-skeptics...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/EB-skeptics --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "East Bay Skeptics Society" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to EB-skeptics...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout .

Officer Friendly <iamprob...@gmail.com>: Feb 16 03:07PM -0800 Hadn't heard he went full Ken Ham on evolution. Wow.   Recently learned Scalia thought the Devil was a literal person on Earth <http://nymag.com/news/features/antonin-scalia-2013-10/index3.html>, who went around spreading atheism. He also had theories as to why the Devil used to show up and now can't be found. He got "wilier."     -- "In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the *boot-maker*." -Mikhail *Bakunin*.

"herbert a masters III" <herb...@comcast.net>: Feb 16 03:19PM -0800 As a point of clarification. (Note: I hate to clarify something in defense of someone who I really didn’t like and generally agree with the criticism of.) Scalia was actually citing the arguments of someone else in his dissent, I’m not sure how much he really agreed with it… =============================== Senator Keith and his witnesses testified essentially as set forth in the following numbered paragraphs: (1) There are two and only two scientific explanations for the beginning of life <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/578#ZD-482_US_578fn3/3> [n3] -- evolution and creation science. 1 id. at E-6 (Sunderland); id. at E-34 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-280 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-417 - E-418 (Sen. Keith). Both are bona fide "sciences." Id. at E-6 - E-7 (Sunderland); id. at E-12 (Sunderland); id. at E-416 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-427 (Sen. Keith); 2 id. at E-491 - E-492 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-497 - E-498 (Sen. Keith). Both posit a theory of the origin of life, and subject that theory to empirical testing. Evolution posits that life arose out of inanimate chemical compounds and has gradually evolved over millions of years. Creation science posits that all life forms now on earth appeared suddenly and relatively recently, and have changed little. Since there are only two possible explanations of the origin of life, any evidence that tends to disprove the theory of evolution necessarily tends to prove the theory of creation science, and vice versa. For example, the abrupt appearance in the fossil record of complex life, and the extreme rarity [p623] of transitional life forms in that record, are evidence for creation science. 1 id. at E-7 (Sunderland); id. at E-12 - E-18 (Sunderland); id. at E-45 - E-60 (Boudreaux); id. at E-67 (Harlow); id. at E-130 - E-153 (Boudreaux paper); id. at E-423 - E-428 (Sen. Keith). (2) The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger. Id. at E-214 (Young statement); id. at E-310 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-416 (Sen. Keith); 2 id.at E-492 (Sen. Keith). The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe. Evolution is not a scientific "fact," since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory. Rather, evolution is merely a scientific theory or "guess." 1 id. at E-20 - E-21 (Morris); id. at E-85 (Ward); id. at E-100 (Reiboldt);id. at E-328 - E-329 (Boudreaux); 2 id. at E-506 (Boudreaux). It is a very bad guess at that. The scientific problems with evolution are so serious that it could accurately be termed a "myth." 1 id. at E-85 (Ward); id. at E-92 - E-93 (Kalivoda); id. at E-95 - E-97 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-154 (Boudreaux paper); id. at E-329 (Boudreaux); id. at E-453 (Sen. Keith); 2 id. at E-505 - E-506 (Boudreaux); id. at E-516 (Young). (3) Creation science is educationally valuable. Students exposed to it better understand the current state of scientific evidence about the origin of life. 1 id. at E-19 (Sunderland); id. at E-39 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-79 (Kalivoda); id. at E-308 (Sen. Keith); 2 id. at E-513 - E-514 (Morris). Those students even have a better understanding of evolution. 1 id. at E-19 (Sunderland). Creation science can and should be presented to children without any religious content. Id. at E-12 (Sunderland); id. at E-22 (Sanderford); id. at E-35 - E-36 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-101 (Reiboldt); id. at E-279 - E-280 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-282 (Sen. Keith). (4) Although creation science is educationally valuable and strictly scientific, it is now being censored from or misrepresented in the public schools. Id. at E-19 (Sunderland); id. [p624] at E-21 (Morris); id. at E-34 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-37 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-42 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-92 (Kalivoda); id. at E-97 - E-98 (Reiboldt); id.at E-214 (Young statement); id. at E-218 (Young statement); id. at E-280 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-309 (Sen. Keith); 2 id. at E-513 (Morris). Evolution, in turn, is misrepresented as an absolute truth. 1 id. at E-63 (Harlow);id. at E-74 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-81 (Kalivoda); id. at E-214 (Young statement); 2 id. at E-507 (Harlow); id. at E-513 (Morris); id. at E-516 (Young). Teachers have been brainwashed by an entrenched scientific establishment composed almost exclusively of scientists to whom evolution is like a "religion." These scientists discriminate against creation scientists, so as to prevent evolution's weaknesses from being exposed. 1 id. at E-61 (Boudreaux); id. at E-63 - E-64 (Harlow); id. at E-78 - E-79 (Kalivoda); id. at E-80 (Kalivoda); id. at E-95 - E-97 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-129 (Boudreaux paper); id. at E-218 (Young statement); id. at E-357 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-430 (Boudreaux). (5) The censorship of creation science has at least two harmful effects. First, it deprives students of knowledge of one of the two scientific explanations for the origin of life, and leads them to believe that evolution is proven fact; thus, their education suffers, and they are wrongly taught that science has proved their religious beliefs false. Second, it violates the Establishment Clause. The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion. Id. at E-36 (Sen. Keith) (referring to Torcaso v. Watkins, <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/367/488/> 367 U.S. 488, 495, n. 11 (1961));1 App. E-418 (Sen. Keith); 2 id. at E-499 (Sen. Keith). Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion. 1 id. at E-282 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-312 - E-313 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-317 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-418 (Sen. Keith); 2 id. at E-499 (Sen. Keith). Thus, by censoring creation science and instructing students that evolution is fact, public school teachers are now advancing religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. 1 id.at E-2 - E-4 [p625] (Sen. Keith); id. at E-36 - E-37, E-39 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-154 - E-155 (Boudreaux paper); id. at E-281 - E-282 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-313 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-315 - E-316 (Sen. Keith); id. at E-317 (Sen. Keith); 2 id. at E-499 - E-500 (Sen. Keith). Senator Keith repeatedly and vehemently denied that his purpose was to advance a particular religious doctrine. A t the outset of the first hearing on the legislation, he testified: We are not going to say today that you should have some kind of religious instructions in our schools. . . . We are not talking about religion today. . . . I am not proposing that we take the Bible in each science class and read the first chapter of Genesis. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/578#writing-USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZD ================================ 6 Of The Most Beautiful Excerpts From Antonin Scalia Dissents <http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/press/2013/04/12/some-of-the-most-beautiful-excerpts-from-antonin-scalia-dissents/> (note the source of that one!) Scalia Commencement Speech Supports Young Earth Creationism <http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/06/scalia-commencement-speech-supports-young-earth-creationism/> 20 Face-Melting Quotes from Late Justice Antonin Scalia Will Make You Miss Him Even More <https://www.ijreview.com/2016/02/537426-20-badass-quotes-from-late-justice-antonin-scalia-show-you-what-a-colorful-character-he-was/> Peace and Pedals herb masters Heading towards extinction for over half a century. image00111 (2) http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/dinojesus.png From: EB-sk...@googlegroups.com [mailto:EB-sk...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of bruce...@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 2:09 PM To: Naylor, Bruce Subject: Re: [EBSS] Keen intellect Justice Scalia was an arrogant pompous a$$ who contradicted his own opinions and precedents, but he also deemed himself as one who could discern what was in the minds of our Founding Fathers (and, no, Abraham was NOT one of them) when they wrote the very documents he says he clings to as unchangeable. The most simplistic definition of "conservatism" is no change, that everything should remain static in the eyes of current Republican conservatives as they were when our country was founded. There would be no new Cabinet Departments, no Amendments to the Constitution, and our thinking/culture would be frozen in time. How can any modern man of his education believe that men who knew nothing of powered flight or penicillin for example be able to discern changes in the future as Scalia thinks he could enter their minds in their past? He is one of five cathoholic (sic) male Justices who seem to vote ideologically as a block and cover their stunted thinking by citing prior cases. These five Justices and presidential candidate such Jeb Bush and Eduardo Cruz (among others) prove that even with their collective educations and supposedly "towering intellect," class standing, and honors such as Phi Beta Kappa can still render "bad" decisions time after time; Citizens United and Eminent Domain are just two recent examples.   This is also not the only time Scalia has ignored scientific evidence like John's cite shows. I believe it was the Hobby Lobby case wherein the majority opinion with which Scalia sided cited among other things the "morning after" pill as an abortifacient when that drug merely prevents a fertized egg from implanting in the womb, it does not cause an abortion. It is a contraceptive. Those in the majority accepted incorrect science and nonetheless rendered an opinion based on inaccuracies. Scalia's dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard is just as inaccurate. This is not piling on. Evidence is evidence , and the evidence is that he was wrong in both cases. _____   From: "'John Kiefer' via East Bay Skeptics Society" <EB-sk...@googlegroups.com> To: eb-sk...@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:13:40 AM Subject: [EBSS] Keen intellect EBSS, Since we have been hearing for several days about the keen intellect of recently deceased Antonin Scalia, here is a sterling example, which somehow the mass media seems to have overlooked. From his dissent in 1987 to the majority opinion that struck down a Louisiana law promoting you the teaching of creationism in public schools. "The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger…. The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe. Evolution is not a scientific “fact,” since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory. Rather, evolution is merely a scientific theory or “guess.”… It is a very bad guess at that. The scientific problems with evolution are so serious that it could accurately be termed a “myth.”" Sent from my iPad -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "East Bay Skeptics Society" group. To post to this group, send email to EB-sk...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to EB-skeptics...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/EB-skeptics --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "East Bay Skeptics Society" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to EB-skeptics...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "East Bay Skeptics Society" group. To post to this group, send email to EB-sk...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to EB-skeptics...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/EB-skeptics --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "East Bay Skeptics Society" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to EB-skeptics...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Jerry Schwarz <je...@acm.org>: Feb 16 04:09PM -0800 Thanks for the correction Herb. Something I dislike even more than when someone I disagree with gets basic facts wrong is when someone I agree with does.

Bruce Naylor <bruce...@comcast.net>: Feb 16 04:46PM -0800 Did I misstate something? Just asking.   Sent from my iPhone

Mac McCarthy <mac.mc...@gmail.com>: Feb 16 04:54PM -0800 Thank you, Herb, for this clarification, which I had not heard.   On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:19 PM, herbert a masters III <   --   Mac McCarthy     Get my* "Wine Tasting 101" - Kindle Edition only $1.99* *http://amzn.to/13GWHPI <http://amzn.to/13GWHPI>* *Amazon Prime* members! *Borrow this book* *FREE*!

Back to top

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to EB-skeptics...@googlegroups.com.

 

[Mac McCarthy]

Thank you, Bob. Wise words. We yield too easily to the temptation to demonize others for their views--they may (and often are) wrong, but they are not demons. The problem with demonizing the enemy is that they can just as easiliy demonize us - and we'd already have conceded that demonizing is an appropriate argument. 

Mac McCarthy

Get my "Wine Tasting 101" - Kindle Edition only $1.99

http://amzn.to/13GWHPI

Amazon Prime members! Borrow this book FREE!

[John Kiefer]

Mac,

I agree - demonizing someone for their beliefs is not too useful.  On the other hand, demonizing someone, anyone, for their BEHAVIOR is definitely appropriate.

You can believe as you will - it can not and does not bother me (some sources quote Jefferson as "... neither pick my pocket nor break my back...").  It is only when you begin to act in accordance with those beliefs that others may suffer or benefit.  

How have I benefitted from Scalia's behavior?  How have I suffered from Scalia's behavior?

Off hand, I can't specifically answer either of those questions.  Maybe his behavior had no effect on me.  For most people, that would be fine.  But there are a few people in this world who are in positions where they could be of great benefit to a great many people.  I think these people have an obligation to do so.  

Who benefitted from Scalia's behavior?

John Kiefer

[Bernie Rosen]

John is right. We are free to think, and say, what we want, but not to do what we think or say when someone is harmed acting on it.. 

b.r.