The Ten Commandments ARE the secular source of law
Riley M. Sinder
[[What is wrong with displaying in a federal
courthouse the secular source of most
of America's laws?
What is wrong is that there are some
superstitious people on the United States
Supreme Court that, unconstitutionally,
make law based on what their own religious
prejudices say about "God"--whoever she
might be.
An alternative to the current unconstitutional
bans on prayer would be for the Supreme Court
to attend to the empirical evidence which
strongly suggests that "God" and her divine
will do not exist.]]
D Thompson wrote:
> I guess the main reason is that displaying religious articles is
> unconstitutional
Surely not. If God does not exist, then she does not care whether
you display religious articles.
Furthermore, if God does not exist, then there is no NON-religious
reason either for banning the display of religious articles.
You seem to be infected by the same superstition as the United
States Supreme Court--that God has a plan under which it is sinful
to coerce someone to worship or pay for worship.
Challenge: You can state no rational and NON-religious
reason for banning prayers in school, out of school, or in between--
as long as the prayers are not fighting words, obscenity, or
cause some other provable secular damage because of their exceptional
power.
> and their portrayal as having anything to directly do with
> the U.S. government as a historical document is completely inaccurate.
You are delusional.
You have only to consult the empirical evidence
to see that you are wrong.
For, if you consult the empirical evidence, you
will readily see that in the Massachusetts Constitution
of 1780 it says that it is the "duty of all men in society,
publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING,
the great Creator and Preserver of the universe."
Now, it is true that that statement of duty in the
Massachusetts Constitution is pure superstition without
one shred of empirical evidence to support it.
However, it is also completely accurate that the
Second Commandment in the King James Version
provides the secular historical document from which
that superstition in the Massachusetts Constitution
derived.
JayP
Number 3 and Number 7 come to mind:
Thou shalt not lie
Thou shalt not steal
for a start then we'll work on the others later.
"Riley M. Sinder" <Red...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:bd9b6ae4.01051...@posting.google.com...
Galen Hekhuis
>Lets try to get the politicians to pay attention to obeying them sometime.
>Number 3 and Number 7 come to mind:
> Thou shalt not lie
> Thou shalt not steal
>for a start then we'll work on the others later.
>"Riley M. Sinder" <Red...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:bd9b6ae4.01051...@posting.google.com...
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>
>> [[What is wrong with displaying in a federal
>> courthouse the secular source of most
>> of America's laws?
...
I guess the religious nuts that are behind this think just because they
need reminders everybody does.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghek...@earthlink.net
Stings like a butterfly, floats like a bee
Omnivore
"JayP" <jpfr...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3oCN6.950$mG4.4...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
If this god of yours does not exist what the fuck are you giving a
female gender for?
cloidheamh
>----------------------------------------------------
>
> [[What is wrong with displaying in a federal
> courthouse the secular source of most
> of America's laws?
>
Absolutely nothing. I think the constitution should be on display in all federal
buildings, not just courthouses.
> What is wrong is that there are some
> superstitious people on the United States
> Supreme Court that, unconstitutionally,
> make law based on what their own religious
> prejudices say about "God"--whoever she
> might be.
Yeah I know. It's ludicrous that they would allow 'in god we trust' to become
the national motto.
>
> An alternative to the current unconstitutional
> bans on prayer
Did we switch countries here? You really should mention details like that.
>would be for the Supreme Court
> to attend to the empirical evidence which
> strongly suggests that "God" and her divine
> will do not exist.]]
Huh??? The Iranian Supreme Court? Pakistani? I'm not familiar enough with
theocracies. It just seams unnatural to have a court making religious inquiries
like that. In the U.S. such activities are not carried out by courts. They deal
with matters of law.
>
>
>
>D Thompson wrote:
>
>> I guess the main reason is that displaying religious articles is
>> unconstitutional
>
>Surely not. If God does not exist, then she does not care whether
>you display religious articles.
If She does exist, She is going to have to get a constitutional amendment passed
in order to change things. I would strongly suggest that She apply for US
citizenship first. We don't take too kindly to Foreigners telling us what to do.
Then She will have to convince 2/3rds of congress and 3/4ths of the state
legislatures to agree. A daunting task. But if She is persistant and patient,
and can give logical reasons for needing a change, then She may eventually
succeed.
>
>Furthermore, if God does not exist, then there is no NON-religious
>reason either for banning the display of religious articles.
The non-religious reason is the law. But that is irrelevant since there are
countless religious reasons.
>
>You seem to be infected by the same superstition as the United
>States Supreme Court--that God has a plan under which it is sinful
>to coerce someone to worship or pay for worship.
>
No. God superstitions generally require coerced worship.
It is, of course, immoral (sinful) to do that. But it has nothing to do with god
or any other superstitions.
>Challenge: You can state no rational and NON-religious
>reason for banning prayers in school, out of school, or in between--
>as long as the prayers are not fighting words, obscenity, or
>cause some other provable secular damage because of their exceptional
>power.
Prayer in schools is by definition 'fighting words' and 'obscene', IMO it is a
form of child abuse.
Challenge: You can state no rational and NON-religious reason for not outlawing
religion. (I can, but I don't think you can)
>
>
>> and their portrayal as having anything to directly do with
>> the U.S. government as a historical document is completely inaccurate.
>
>
>You are delusional.
>
>You have only to consult the empirical evidence
>to see that you are wrong.
>
>For, if you consult the empirical evidence, you
>will readily see that in the Massachusetts Constitution
>of 1780 it says that it is the "duty of all men in society,
>publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING,
>the great Creator and Preserver of the universe."
Hint: The seperation of church and state (1791) was drafted to eliminate that
sort of lunacy.
There are still state constitutions which require unconstitutional things. But
those provisions are preempted by the US constitution.
>
>Now, it is true that that statement of duty in the
>Massachusetts Constitution is pure superstition without
>one shred of empirical evidence to support it.
The Massachusetts Constitution is evidence. It was the law, it created the duty.
Their is no evidence that the duty existed prior to its creation by man.
>
>However, it is also completely accurate that the
>Second Commandment in the King James Version
>provides the secular historical document from which
>that superstition in the Massachusetts Constitution
>derived.
'Secular' normally means 'non-religious'. I assume you meant to say religious
since no rational definition of 'secular' can be applied to a religious
document. In which case, yes, there are plenty of examples of religious
fanaticism in the colonies prior to the adoption of the Bill of Rights. (The
Salem Witch Trials are probably the most well known example)
And yes, there are plenty of religious documents that were utilised in colonial
law.
But what did all that have to do with secular documents being displayed in
federal buildings?
Randy Cox
wrote:
>----------------------------------------------------
>
> [[What is wrong with displaying in a federal
> courthouse the secular source of most
> of America's laws?
>
If God had wanted them to be displayed in a federal courthouse....he
would not have written them in stone on a mountain. Then to affirm
again that he didn't want them in a federal courthouse...he took the
stones away.
Then finally.....for a third confirmation that they should NOT be
displayed in a federal courthouse...he sent Jesus to tell the people
that counted that they were to write them on their hearts!
It is enough!
Let God's will be done.
Clot...@ieee.org
>----------------------------------------------------
>
> [[What is wrong with displaying in a federal
> courthouse the secular source of most
> of America's laws?
Nothing. It is the religious propagamda that the atheist object to.
>
> What is wrong is that there are some
> superstitious people on the United States
> Supreme Court that, unconstitutionally,
> make law based on what their own religious
> prejudices say about "God"--whoever she
> might be.
>
> An alternative to the current unconstitutional
> bans on prayer would be for the Supreme Court
> to attend to the empirical evidence which
> strongly suggests that "God" and her divine
> will do not exist.]]
>
>
>
>D Thompson wrote:
>
>> I guess the main reason is that displaying religious articles is
>> unconstitutional
>
>Surely not. If God does not exist, then she does not care whether
>you display religious articles.
This is an oxymoron.
>
>Furthermore, if God does not exist, then there is no NON-religious
>reason either for banning the display of religious articles.
Just a stupid assertion.
>
>You seem to be infected by the same superstition as the United
>States Supreme Court--that God has a plan under which it is sinful
>to coerce someone to worship or pay for worship.
The USSC does not believe this, nor do I.
>
>Challenge: You can state no rational and NON-religious
>reason for banning prayers in school, out of school, or in between--
>as long as the prayers are not fighting words, obscenity, or
>cause some other provable secular damage because of their exceptional
>power.
This is a nice touch to shift the Burden of Proof (to leave the ball in the
atheist court) as you exit the discourse after the previous nonsensical
statements.
>
>
>> and their portrayal as having anything to directly do with
>> the U.S. government as a historical document is completely inaccurate.
>
>
>You are delusional.
>
>You have only to consult the empirical evidence
>to see that you are wrong.
>
>For, if you consult the empirical evidence, you
>will readily see that in the Massachusetts Constitution
>of 1780 it says that it is the "duty of all men in society,
>publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING,
>the great Creator and Preserver of the universe."
>
>Now, it is true that that statement of duty in the
>Massachusetts Constitution is pure superstition without
>one shred of empirical evidence to support it.
>
>However, it is also completely accurate that the
>Second Commandment in the King James Version
>provides the secular historical document from which
>that superstition in the Massachusetts Constitution
>derived.
Clothaire #1392
The SINDERBOT is back . Still using complex nonsensical questions that assume
the existence of a god.
D Thompson
<Clot...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:3b080444...@news.erols.com...
> On 19 May 2001 14:17:24 -0700, Red...@ix.netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder)
wrote:
>
> >----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > [[What is wrong with displaying in a federal
> > courthouse the secular source of most
> > of America's laws?
>
> Nothing. It is the religious propagamda that the atheist object to.
Atheist? I sense a straw man coming up.
> >D Thompson wrote:
> >
> >> I guess the main reason is that displaying religious articles is
> >> unconstitutional
> >
> >Surely not. If God does not exist, then she does not care whether
> >you display religious articles.
You need to get your attributions correct. You have snipped this to make it
appear that you are replying to what I wrote.
> This is a nice touch to shift the Burden of Proof (to leave the ball in
the
> atheist court) as you exit the discourse after the previous nonsensical
> statements.
Straw man. I don't believe currently there are any atheists on the Supreme
Court. Even though they are practicing xtians they still find most of the
laws used by fundies to file lawsuits against state and local governments
regarding the prayer/ten commandment/creationism issue to be
unconstitutional. How do you expain this?
Clot...@ieee.org
I don't; it is your nonsense. You have a comprehension problem.
Court refers to a well known game--tennis.
Clothaire #1392
>
>
>
>
>
Al Klein
<ghek...@earthlink.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>On Sat, 19 May 2001 22:23:59 GMT, "JayP" <jpfr...@home.com> wrote:
>>"Riley M. Sinder" <Red...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>news:bd9b6ae4.01051...@posting.google.com...
>>> [[What is wrong with displaying in a federal
>>> courthouse the secular source of most
>>> of America's laws?
>I guess the religious nuts that are behind this think just because they
>need reminders everybody does.
I'd have no problem with posting the SECULAR source of most laws:
"Don't steal.
Don't kill."
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com
D Thompson
<Clot...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:3b086531...@news.erols.com...
> On Sun, 20 May 2001 12:44:36 -0700, "D Thompson" <da...@txeylzeport.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> ><Clot...@ieee.org> wrote in message
> >news:3b080444...@news.erols.com...
> >> On 19 May 2001 14:17:24 -0700, Red...@ix.netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder)
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> >----------------------------------------------------
> >Straw man. I don't believe currently there are any atheists on the
Supreme
> >Court. Even though they are practicing xtians they still find most of the
> >laws used by fundies to file lawsuits against state and local governments
> >regarding the prayer/ten commandment/creationism issue to be
> >unconstitutional. How do you expain this?
>
> I don't; it is your nonsense. You have a comprehension problem.
> Court refers to a well known game--tennis.
No, the nonsense is yours. Game, set match - you are a jackass.
Al Klein
<sun...@SPAMOFFpacbell.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>"JayP" <jpfr...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:3oCN6.950$mG4.4...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
>> "Riley M. Sinder" <Red...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:bd9b6ae4.01051...@posting.google.com...
>> > Surely not. If God does not exist, then she does not care whether
>> > you display religious articles.
> If this god of yours does not exist what the fuck are you giving a
>female gender for?
You expect a (Sinder)bot to answer a direct question?
Riley M. Sinder
[[We are examining the empirical evidence.
Historically, America derived its laws from
superstitious sources--such as the King
James Version of the Holy Bible.
Now, for religious reasons, the United States
Supreme Court bans from federal buildings
the public display of these
secular sources of America's laws.]]
> > What is wrong with displaying in a federal
> > courthouse the secular source of most
> > of America's laws?
JayP wrote:
> Let's try to get the politicians to pay attention to obeying them sometime.
> Number 3 and Number 7 come to mind:
> Thou shalt not lie
> Thou shalt not steal
> for a start. Then we'll work on the others later.
Why not just forget your primal superstitions?
Obviously there are appropriate times to tell a lie.
Any good Shakespearean actor and actress inspires
us by telling the same old lies that Shakespeare wrote.
And the market will make a millionaire of whoever
twists Shakespeare's lie to tell one that is more to
the public's liking.
Your problem is that you deny reality in expecting the
politicians on the stage to take off their clothes and tell
the truth. But that is not what Shakespeare wrote. Grow
up.
In the real world, Americans do not vote for candidates
who tell the truth. Americans elect into office those candidates
that will tell them the lie they want to hear. Grow up.
Riley M. Sinder
[[American law is a morass of superstition.
First, one American asserts a law that there is a
an "Almighty God" with a "plan" under which
it is "sinful" to collect public taxes to pay for
teaching religion.
Then, the United States Supreme Court uses this
Thomas Jefferson superstitious law to ban
rabbis from reciting Mother Goose
nonsense containing God, Lord, and Amen.
But, from all the empirical evidence, Mother Goose,
God, Lord, and Amen are all derivatives entirely of the
same secular forces.]]
>> What is wrong with displaying in a federal building
>> the Ten Commandments, which are the historical
>> secular sources of America's laws?
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
> I guess the religious nuts that are behind this think that, just because they
> need reminders, everybody does.
Okay. We are with you. No argument about your
characterization of the desire
to post the Ten Commandments.
And, likewise, apparently the religious nuts that BAN the display
of the Ten Commandments think that, just because they need
protection for their belief about what "God" is and isn't, everybody does.
Riley M. Sinder
[[What is the American federal court test for which
Mother Goose rhyme the U.S. Constitution bans
from display in federal buildings?
The American courts look for the existence of the
supernatural God in the rhyme.]]
> > > > I guess the main reason is that displaying religious articles is
> > > > unconstitutional.
> > > Surely not. If God does not exist, then she does not care whether
> > > you display religious articles.
Omnivore wrote:
> If this god of yours does not exist what the fuck are you giving a
> female gender for?
If this god of yours does not exist, then what is your complaint
about my calling it a "she"?
Anyone well versed in Star Trek mythology knows that the
Captain calls the vehicle for the party a "she."
And the Starship Enterprise? She does not exist in the God I
model, or in the Allah III model--not even in the Deep Space IX
model.
Now, why do you complain that I arbitrarily call any one of the
non-existent vehicles a "she"?
buc...@exis.net
Guess who is back LOL
>:|----------------------------------------------------
>:|
>:| [[What is wrong with displaying in a federal
>:| courthouse the secular source of most
>:| of America's laws?
What follows was suppose to have been written by that infamous bot/troll
Riley M. Sinder. It was sent to me in March 1996 by
jta...@tminet.com(Tarver Engineering)
What follows sums up what the bot/troll Riley is about, in his "own" words.
I think anyone who wants to argue with the bot/troll should read this
first. It clearly shows that they are not going to discussing with someone
who is interesting in a give and take discussion.
============================================================
Re: FAQ: Re-Inventing American Civilization
To: jalison a@infi net (Jim Allison)
Newsgroups: alt. religion. christian, alt. atheism, alt. politics. usa.
congress, alt. politics. democrats. d, alt. politics. usa. repu politics.
libertarian,talk.politics. libertarian, alt. politics. usa. misc,
talk. politics. misc, alt. politics. clinton, alt. p .newt-gingrich, alt.
president. clinton, alt. politics. correct,
alt. fan. rush-limbaugh, alt. renewing. american.
Subject: Re: FACE: Re-Inventing American Civilization From:
jta...@tminet.com (Tarver Engineering) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 13:00:23 GMT
On Sat, 9 Mar 1996 18:36:17 GMT, in alt. politics. usa. newt-gingrich you
wrote:
Greetings!
The adventure before us is none other than re-inventing American
civilization.
Americans have inherited a concoction of cultural documents, forces, and
vehicles including: The Holy Bible, the Declaration of Independence, and
the Constitution. But we need not settle for merely floating downstream
on the split logs that, like a passing storm, divinity or evolution
accidentally has felled for us. Not only do we captain our ship. We also
design and build the vessel in which we negotiate the rapids, even if we
settle for the rotted log Though we may never redesign our own physical
bodies. we surely can re-invent the teachings and institutions which carry
us from generation to generation.
RE-INVENTING AMERICAN CIVILIZATION
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
I. PURPOSE
A. RE-INVENTING
[1]. Who decides the re-invention?
Within the free market, a new invention gets no advantage over the old
technology. Thus, the People decide the re-invention in comparison with all
the other alternatives.
[2]. Inventors may offer new inventions. However, the surviving technology
of the future derives not from the choices of the inventors, but rather
from the choices of the buyers, the People, the voters, the commentators,
the quoters, the users, the believers, and the teachers of the young.
B. AMERICAN
[1]. Isn't this a world civilization?
Partly. But, to be effective, the re-invention must target specific
problems that the old technology ignores. And the specific problems always
manifest in a specific civilization. Here, the discussion centers on the
uniqueness of the problems in American civilization.
[2]. What about re-inventing Japan, India, or Germany?
The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for re inventing those civilizations
would be quite different from this FAQ. No other country has the
particular combination of The Holy Bible, the Declaration of Independence,
and the United States Constitution.
[ 3]. What is the role for non-Americans?
Non-Americans provide a mirror. Obsevers from outside point to
inconsistencies and unconscious habits. For example, the folly of the
current budget battle between the Republican Congress and the "Democratic"
President is obvious to Europeans. Americans cheer or Americans boo; but
Americans join with the American phenomenon that others see as folly. The
American itch to join the folly of the budget battle may derive from the
flawed sources of the American civilization.
C. CIVILIZATION
[1]. is not civilization the heritage from the past?
Partly. In a similar legacy, technology is a heritage from the past. But
the technology of the future derives from the inventions of today.
[2]. How can you just "invent" civilization?
The American Founders certainly did.
D. THE HOLY BIBLE
[1]. Why replace the Bible?
Re-invention does not replace. Re-invention creates a competitor. After
the re- invention, the buyers may replace the items on their shelves. But
that is the decision of the buyers.
[2]. Does this include a re-write of the Torah?
No. The torah includes not only the first five books of the Bible from
Genesis through Deuteronomy but also commentaries and explanations which
were excised in the King James Version. American civilization did not
consult the torah's conception of Yahweh. Rather, American civilization
grew
from a militant Christian tradition in which the report of a "God said"
could unify armies to conquer the "heathen." In contrast, the torah's
concept of Yahweh is a two-way process of creation by covenant: People
create Yahweh and at the same time establish a covenant that binds Yahweh
to create the People. This two-way creation of Yahweh has been dramatized
in Leonard Bernstein's Kaddish Symphony where the Speaker calls Yahweh
"on the carpet" to hold Yahweh responsible for serious breaches of the
covenant. Thus, the Yahweh concept already has a built-in "re-invention"
and a re-competition with the old inventions.
[3]. What part of the Holy Bible requires repair? The "God said" approach
of the Holy Bible encourages an American search for an absolute truth to
serve as a sword and shield against facing reality when problems arise.
[4]. What is wrong with a "God said" approach? Nothing. If God regularly
appeared to deal with the People, then many public policies necessarily
should consider what "God said." However, in American life as in the days
of old, no one actually hears a "God said." But there are many
conflicting reports of a "God said." And Americans vote and teach their
young on the basis of the rumor while ignoring reality that must be faced.
E. THE AMERICAN DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
[1]. How can you "amend" the Declaration?
The Declaration of 1776 should remain untouched.
[2]. Why re-invent the Declaration of Independence? In American culture,
the Declaration of Independence states a particular view of the
relationship of government to the citizen. Though the Declaration of 1776
might have served well the purpose of unifying American colonists against
the King of England, this same Declaration may fail to provide insights
for solving current problems.
[3]. What part of the Declaration requires repair?
The Declaration of 1776 encourages Americans to think of "rights" as
pre-existing the formation of the community.
[ 4]. How could a document ever compete with the Declaration of 1776?
In 1775, many persons might have said, "How could a document ever compete
with . . .?" naming any revered document of 1775. But the American
Founders wrote the Declaration of 1776 to solve the immediate problem. And
the People adopted it because it rang true. People who quote the
Declaration of 1776 for the situation of today are using a sword for a
screwdriver. What the People need today is a good magnet that will solve
the problems of joining. But inventors so far have failed to conceive of a
magnet to join together in solving American problems. Why should an
American citizen join with the community, state, and nation to address the
problems in America? That is the question the re-inventor must solve. Then
the inventor must provide an inspiring document that will compete with the
misuse of the Declaration of 1776. The switch should occur, not because
"Someone said" it, but because the new document rings true.
F. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
1. Don't you have to "amend" the Constitution?
For the American People, the Constitution is more than the words in the
document. Most UseNet arguments over the Constitution are over the
"interpretation," not over the written words. Thus, re-inventing the
"Constitution is an on-going activity of the culture
[2]. Doesn't the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution?
Yes. However, the Constitution does not say that the Supreme Court is the
ONLY interpreter. Surely the People should interpret the Constitution that
begins with "We the People."
[3]. What part of the Constitution requires repair?
First, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause must
be changed to face reality. The current policy of banning teacher-led
prayers is a mere superstition.
[4]. What's wrong with BANNING religion if it is wrong?
Banning falsehood only makes falsehood stronger because whoever is
suppressed cannot distinguish between "truth" and the "appearance of
justice" in fighting against oppression.
G. YOUR ROLE IN THE RE-INVENTION
[1]. What can I do?
Look to your heart of hearts. What problem recurs but even so does not
attract enough attention? Talk about the reality that you see.
II PUBLIC DELIBERATION
A. COMPETING OPPOSITIONS OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH
[1]. What is Reality? No one observes reality directly. Everyone >
observes only a cognition of reality. Thus; sight is a cognition. Hearing
is a cognition. Everyone observes what they see, hear, and feel. But no
one can observe reality directly. Beliefs are a part of everyone's
cognition of reality. Thus, even if the objects of belief do not exist, at
least the beliefs exist. For example, during re-invention, some will
assert that "God is real." Others will assert that this is unknowable. In
any case, some cognize "God is real." Others do not. Thus, when anyone
states what is real, that person only recites a personal cognition which
includes beliefs. But the beliefs are > part of the political reality that
any true solution must incorporate.
13. DEALING WITH OPPONENTS WHO HAVE FIXED POSITIONS
[1]. What can be done?
The inventor does not attempt to change reality. The inventor merely faces
reality and responds to reality so that the solution emerges from the
identified natural forces. Thus, those with fixed beliefs merely state the
reality that the inventor must hear, not change. The solution emerges from
the inventor
changing the inventor's beliefs.
lII. CONVINCING
A. EFFECTIVENESS
[1]. How cans I measure my effect? Effectiveness does not derive from
getting your opponent to parrot what you believe You want your opponent to
deal with reality. What good then could come from getting your opponent to
chant what does not come from the heart! You want your opponent to see
without your aid. Effectiveness therefore derives from getting your
opponent to look. In the meantime, your opponent's method of looking may
consist of disagreeing. Thus, you cannot measure your effectiveness by a
poll of your opponent's agreements with you. Rather, your effectiveness
derives from getting your opponent to engage with the reality you see.
Hence, you must sketch your view of reality clearly.
B. WRITING STYLE
[1]. What makes writing easy to understand?
When your reader sees what you see, your writing becomes transparent. And
your reader responds directly to reality. Several interferences, like the
"snow" in a television image, can make your "transmission" less clear. For
example, changing your viewpoint even slightly creates confusion.
[2]. How can I maintain a single viewpoint? The sentence structure of the
English language creates unintended changes of viewpoint. For example,
generally succeeding sentences have different subjects and different verbs.
And every new subject and verb generate a spurious change of
viewpoint--unless you tie your argument together.You can tie your argument
together by beginning EACH SENTENCE with a "connector." The connector then
signals the effect you intend each new sentence to have. The following is a
table of "connectors."
CONTRASTS
HOWEVER, = The next sentence states some reality that the previous sentence
omitted.
BUT, = The next sentence states some reality that most people forget when
they agree to the previous sentence.
IN CONTRAST, = The next sentence states a reality at the other extreme from
the reality in the previous sentence.
NEVERTHELESS, = The next sentence states a reality that prevails even if I
concede to you the reality of the previous sentence.
TO THE CONTRARY, = The previous sentence criticized what you mistakenly
believe. And the next sentence will hit you with the reality that your
belief ignores.
RATHER, - I have stated what is NOT true in the previous sentence and I
have labeled it as UNTRUE. Since in the next sentence I will state what IS
true, I don't want you to linger any longer with that UNTRUE feeling from
the previous sentence. Clear the Untrue Flag.
INCREASING EVIDENCE IN THE SAME DIRECTION
FURTHERMORE, = I have an even bigger snowball to throw.
MOREOVER, = And an even bigger one.
ADDITIONALLY, = I want to make sure that you don't follow your suspected
tendencies and read the next sentence as disagreement with the previous
sentence.
SIMILARLY, = Warning! The next sentence may look to you like a different
topic. But I want you to see that if the previous sentence is about the
number 4, then the next sentence being about the number 8 is NOT a
different viewpoint because they are both about even numbers, which is the
reality that you should be viewing right now.
I CONCEDE A SMALL POINT, AND WILL STILL WIN
ALTHOUGH = I'll give you 2, but I'm going to take back 10 after the comma.
EVEN IF = I'll give you what follows and you still won't win.
BECAUSE OF THE REALITY ASSERTED BEFORE
Therefore; = The previous sentences stated that E=mc**2 and asserted that a
small amount of matter can be transformed into a vast amount of energy The
next sentence will state that people have reason to fear what the atomic
bomb does. Steps will be left out. So you had better think fast.
THUS,
THAT IS, = The next sentence is a restatement of the reality in the
previous sentence.
HENCE,
AS A RESULT, = The next sentence is a special case of the reality in the
previous sentence.
ACCORDINGLY, = I'm warning you that there is a hidden clockwork behind the
previous sentence and the next sentence. I won't take the time right now
to explain the clockwork. But, since my previous sentence stated that it is
night on > one side of the globe, my next > sentence is going to state that
it is daylight on the opposite side.
I WILL NOW STATE WHAT I WANTED TO PROVE
[[In geometry it is done with "therefore "
However, it CANNOT BE DONE convincingly in an argument in English
"Therefore" worked in geometry only because the result was already assumed
and conceded in the axioms and postulates. In contrast, when dealing with
any argument that matters in English, the argument is ONLY over axioms and
postulates.]]
[3]. How can I start using connectors?
Write a strong first sentence. This first > sentence should state the
problem Reality, not mere facts. Then, begin every following sentence
with a connector. After you have completed every sentence, go back and
adjust the connectors to proclaim how each sentence relates to the
previous sentence. Next, when you have an argument, move your > sentences
around so that the order of your sentences presents a string of
similarities together followed by ONE huge contrast. For a final draft, go
back and remove any connector that does not drive your point home.
[4]. How can I make my writing interesting?
First, have a theme. The theme is a hook to pull on your reader's
fascinations. Thus, an effective theme looks, not to your hobbies, but to
the hobby horses of your reader. Second, start your argument with the
strongest chunk of reality you think your opponent ignores. Don't build to
a conclusion. Start with it. Third, give illustrations. People like
pictures. Pick a random page in your favorite magazine for inspiration.
Even your opponents will get a worthwhile chuckle from a clever picture.
[5]. What favorite arguments of mine don't convince?
Inductive arguments generally don't work in English--unless the reader
already agrees with you. That is, if you start your argument with facts to
build to your conclusion, your reader is given too many chances to draw the
opposite conclusion, and WILL--because your reader has already examined
whatever data you might present. Although a "surprise ending" might
entertain your reader, it likely will not alter your
reader's view of reality. The most convincing arguments in English start
with a blockbuster reality and point to the effects of that reality.
IV.HANDLING PERSONAL ATTACK
A. FLAMES
[1]. How can I make them stop calling me idiot and ignoramus?
You can't.
[2]. What makes them do it?
Flaming is a natural response to being reminded of a neglected problem. In
looking at a problem, people naturally anthropomorphize it--turn it into a
human form, a symbol. It is a spontaneous and healthy step. The
statement, "My mom did it to me!" is an elemental cognition of the
problem--turning the problem into familiar symbols in the search for an
algebra that can be solved. "Mom" then serves as a symbol to provide
access to the mechanics of the problem. "Mom did it to me!" is
dysfunctional only it that particular formulation of the problem does not
evolve into cognitions that more closely conform to the Reality of the
problem. Likewise, when people flame you even when you did not provoke the
flame, they are simply using YOU as the first convenient symbol for dealing
with the problem Reality that you have posed, something that they cannot
face yet Any reasonable person in the nineteenth century, if presented with
the problem of the television, would respond, "Idiot. Ignoramus. Go back
and learn elementary physics." That is the natural response to a problem
that the flamer has not faced.
The same process occurs to the American President, any President of any
political persuasion. Whatever problem the People encounter, their first
spontaneous and healthy reaction is to flame the President. Thus, the
President provides a symbol through which the People can access the
problem as a first step at dealing with the underlying problem Reality.
The President's job then is to manage and control the symbol and the
public's attention so as to turn the People to face the problem Reality.
March 8, 1996
Riley M. Sinder _ red...@netcom.com
buc...@exis.net
>:|----------------------------------------------------
>:|
>:| [[What is wrong with displaying in a federal
>:| courthouse the secular source of most
>:| of America's laws?
>:|
Nothing wrong with displayuing the Constitution in a federal courthouse
LOL
>:|For, if you consult the empirical evidence, you
>:|will readily see that in the Massachusetts Constitution
>:|of 1780 it says that it is the "duty of all men in society,
>:|publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING,
>:|the great Creator and Preserver of the universe."
>:|
The Mass. Constitution carries no weight in these United states.
Carol Lee Smith
>:|For, if you consult the empirical evidence, you
>:|will readily see that in the Massachusetts Constitution
>:|of 1780 it says that it is the "duty of all men in society,
>:|publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING,
>:|the great Creator and Preserver of the universe."
>The Mass. Constitution carries no weight in these United states.
Does the Mass. Constitution of 1780 resemble the Mass. Constitution of
2001?
Riley M. Sinder
[[There is no secular reason to deny the
Catholic Church the same political right
as the other pig farmers to lobby for public
funds to support their own pork barrel projects.
Any secular interpretation of the Establishment
Clause would prevent the Supreme Court from
curtailing the political rights of any faction merely
because of the stupid religious beliefs of the faction.]]
> >You seem to be infected by the same superstition as the United
> >States Supreme Court--that God has a plan under which it is sinful
> >to coerce someone to worship or pay for worship.
cloidheamh wrote:
> No. God superstitions generally require coerced worship.
> It is, of course, immoral (sinful) to do that. But it has nothing to do with god
> or any other superstitions.
You ignore the empirical evidence.
The only speech that the American federal courts have banned
over the objections of the legislatures and voters is religious speech.
Here is an experimental demonstration.
1) Take the Ten Commandment sign that the courts have banned
from federal buildings.
2) Replace each occurrence of "God," "Lord," and "Amen"
with "Henry," "Ford," and "Edsel."
In case you are as slow as you seem, the first example will be
worked out for you. That replacement would make the First
Commandment into "I am the Ford, thy Henry . . . ."
3) Post the "Ford, thy Henry " version in the same spot from
which the courts banned the "Lord, thy God" version.
4) If you carefully record what happens in the town, you will
find many letters to the editor, and many artistic critiques of
Henry, the Ford. But you will find that no American court will have
the guts to ban any speech that has replaced each and every
"God," "Lord," and "Amen" with the
hilarious "Henry," "Ford," and "Edsel."
So, the empirical evidence suggests that you are wrong--
the ban on the Ten Commandments has everything to do with
god and superstition.
> >Challenge: You can state no rational and NON-religious
> >reason for banning prayers in school, out of school, or in between--
> >as long as the prayers are not fighting words, obscenity, or
> >cause some other provable secular damage because of their exceptional
> >power.
> Prayer in schools is by definition 'fighting words'
> and 'obscene', IMO it is a
> form of child abuse.
Ok. You may be right. And if the American courts would ban
the Lord's Prayer as fighting words or obscenity, then at least
the courts would have a NON-religious law.
> Challenge: You can state no rational and
> NON-religious reason for not outlawing
> religion. (I can, but I don't think you can.)
If the American courts would apply the same NON-religious law
to religious speech that the courts apply to non-religious speech,
then the courts would throw out of court each and every suit
against just religious speech by a state agent--
for the following NON-religious reasons:
1) There is no secular injury when the Ten Commandments
appear on the walls of a federal building. An example of a secular
injury would be a merchant's drop in sales caused by false accusations
posted on the wall of a federal building.
2) The Everson 1947 "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause
inverted the American Founders' writing of the First Amendment
to destroy the state right that the Founders wrote the Establishment
Clause to protect. Thus, the Everson 1947 "incorporation"
is illegitimate even if it is "right."
3) Each and every Establishment Clause case that bans some
state agent from making or endorsing a speech is self-contradictory
by violating the logic of the rule in the case. For example,
under the "endorsement" test, a state action violates the
Establishment Clause if the state makes "adherence to
a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in
the political community." Well! By any secular logic,
the Supreme Court has violated its own "endorsement"
test by making ONLY the religion of the accused relevant
in denying the Catholic Church its red-blooded American
pork barrel rights to lobby for support of its own pork--
Catholic schools running on public funds that will
train the next generation of upstanding citizens.
If you allow the crab farmers, the railroads, and the bygone Chrysler
Corporation to lobby for diversion of public funds for
their own pork barrel projects, then you cannot
deny the Catholic Church the same rights--if you apply
the "endorsement" test in any logically consistent fashion.
Riley M. Sinder
[[If Mother Goose had wanted all those rhymes
to be printed, she would have done at least
as much as the Red Hen--by at least stacking
up the paper on which to print the rhymes.
Then on the other hand, if Mother Goose does
not exist, then Mother Goose's will is
irrelevant--at least in any secular court.]]
> > What is wrong with displaying in a federal
> > courthouse the secular source of most
> > of America's laws?
> > After all, the Ten Commandments are the secular
> > source of most of America's laws.
Randy Cox wrote:
> If God had wanted them to be displayed in a federal courthouse....he
> would not have written them in stone on a mountain.
You are as delusional as the U.S. Supreme Court. God does
not exist. And your Bible story you quote is just fiction with
no more non-secular content than the average book of
Mother Goose rhymes.
> Then to affirm
> again that he didn't want them in a federal courthouse...he took the
> stones away.
> Then finally.....for a third confirmation that they should NOT be
> displayed in a federal courthouse...he sent Jesus to tell the people
> that counted that they were to write them on their hearts!
You must be joking! You want to make American law from
THAT cockamamie story?
That is as ridiculous a line of reasoning as the 1947 Everson
court's basing Establishment Clause law on
Thomas Jefferson's superstitious belief that
there was an "Almighty God" with a "plan"
under which it is "sinful" to collect public
taxes to pay for teaching religion!
> It is enough!
> Let God's will be done.
Apparently, God does not give a damn whether
her will is done or not!
Look at the empirical evidence. Does Mother
Goose care one way or the other? Probably not.
And for the same reason, apparently God does
not care either.
Riley M. Sinder
[[There is no secular and rational justification for the separation
of church and state.
In particular, the American court attempts to separate
the church from the state derive from the superstition
that there is an "Almighty God" with a "plan" under
which it is "sinful" to collect public taxes to pay for
teaching religion. Everson v. Board of Educ., 330
U.S. 1, 12-13 (1947) (quoting Act for Establishing
Religious Freedom, 1, 12 THE STATUTES AT LARGE;
BEING A COLLECTION OF ALL THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA 84,
84-85 (William W. Hening ed., 1823)).]]
> > What is wrong with displaying in a federal
> > courthouse the secular source of most
> > of America's laws?
Clothaire wrote:
> Nothing. It is the religious propaganda that the atheists object to.
You ignore the empirical evidence.
The American bans on posting the Ten Commandments do
not derive from atheists' objections. Atheists would have the same
objections to propaganda for the Loch Ness monster as to
propaganda for the Lord God monster. But you will find
no American ban on teaching the voyages of the Loch Ness
monster. So you are wrong in attributing the bans to atheists.
That is, atheists did not create the American doctrine of separation
of church and state--superstitious religious people did.
> >If God does not exist, then she does not care whether
> >you display religious articles.
> This is an oxymoron.
You have a serious misunderstanding of what an oxymoron
is.
An oxymoron is a combination of contradictory terms such
as "deafening silence."
You may not believe it, but the null set is a set and NOT an
oxymoron.
> >You seem to be infected by the same superstition as the United
> >States Supreme Court--that God has a plan under which it is sinful
> >to coerce someone to worship or pay for worship.
> The USSC does not believe this, nor do I.
You misconstrue plain English. I said nothing about what the
United States Supreme Court believes.
If you want to see an example of the United States Supreme Court's
reasoning from Thomas Jefferson's superstitions about God, you
have only to consult
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&page=1#12
> >Challenge: You can state no rational and NON-religious
> >reason for banning prayers in school, out of school, or in between--
> >as long as the prayers are not fighting words, obscenity, or
> >cause some other provable secular damage because of their exceptional
> >power.
> This is a nice touch to shift the Burden of Proof (to leave the ball in the
> atheist court) as you exit the discourse after the previous nonsensical
> statements.
Not so. Belief or disbelief in God does not change
the rules of logic, so your insertion of "atheist court" indicates
that you do not understand the logical inconsistency in your position.
Let me put it this way.
You cannot state a logical reason for banning prayers from schools
that does not apply as rationally to banning the Pledge of Allegiance
from schools.
Said another way: To assert that there exists no X for which
2 < X < -2 states a simple property of numbers and
does not shift the Burden of Proof. That you argue that
I have merely shifted the Burden of Proof indicates that
you do not understand the logical inconsistency in your
position.
cloidheamh
[snip attempted change of subject]
>
>> >You seem to be infected by the same superstition as the United
>> >States Supreme Court--that God has a plan under which it is sinful
>> >to coerce someone to worship or pay for worship.
>
>cloidheamh wrote:
>
>> No. God superstitions generally require coerced worship.
>> It is, of course, immoral (sinful) to do that. But it has nothing to do with god
>> or any other superstitions.
>
>You ignore the empirical evidence.
>
No. The empirical evidence suggests that there is no god. Therefore the sinful
nature of coerced worship has nothing to do with god's plan. If there is no god,
he/she/it can't have a plan. If there is a god, we have no way of knowing its
plan, since no verifiable written records of it exist.
>The only speech that the American federal courts have banned
>over the objections of the legislatures and voters is religious speech.
>
Because it is specifically limited by the constitution.
>Here is an experimental demonstration.
>
>1) Take the Ten Commandment sign that the courts have banned
>from federal buildings.
>
>2) Replace each occurrence of "God," "Lord," and "Amen"
>with "Henry," "Ford," and "Edsel."
>
>In case you are as slow as you seem,
You appear to be the one who lacks the ability to understand simple premises.
> the first example will be
>worked out for you. That replacement would make the First
>Commandment into "I am the Ford, thy Henry . . . ."
>
>3) Post the "Ford, thy Henry " version in the same spot from
>which the courts banned the "Lord, thy God" version.
>
>4) If you carefully record what happens in the town, you will
>find many letters to the editor, and many artistic critiques of
>Henry, the Ford. But you will find that no American court will have
>the guts to ban any speech that has replaced each and every
>"God," "Lord," and "Amen" with the
>hilarious "Henry," "Ford," and "Edsel."
>
It would be an obvious religious parody. And should therefore, IMO, be banned
from government buildings.
>So, the empirical evidence suggests that you are wrong--
Huh???
A hypothetical situation is not empirical evidence. It is not any sort of
evidence.
>the ban on the Ten Commandments has everything to do with
>god and superstition.
???
I agree 100%. The Ten Commandments are from a god based superstition, and
therefore cannot be displayed in government settings. To display it would imply
support of the superstition by the government, which is clearly prohibited by
the constitution.
>
>
>
>> >Challenge: You can state no rational and NON-religious
>> >reason for banning prayers in school, out of school, or in between--
>> >as long as the prayers are not fighting words, obscenity, or
>> >cause some other provable secular damage because of their exceptional
>> >power.
>
>
>> Prayer in schools is by definition 'fighting words'
>> and 'obscene', IMO it is a
>> form of child abuse.
>
>
>Ok. You may be right. And if the American courts would ban
>the Lord's Prayer as fighting words or obscenity, then at least
>the courts would have a NON-religious law.
>
The courts don't make the laws. The law in question is the constitution. The
constitution is by definition constitutional. Laws which are made must conform
to the guidelines set up by it.
>
>> Challenge: You can state no rational and
>> NON-religious reason for not outlawing
>> religion. (I can, but I don't think you can.)
>
>
>If the American courts would apply the same NON-religious law
>to religious speech that the courts apply to non-religious speech,
>then the courts would throw out of court each and every suit
>against just religious speech by a state agent--
>for the following NON-religious reasons:
>
I see that I was right. You were unable to answer my challenge.
But to answer your change of subject: The courts MUST apply different standards
to religious speach because it is REQUIRED by the constitution.
>1) There is no secular injury when the Ten Commandments
>appear on the walls of a federal building. An example of a secular
>injury would be a merchant's drop in sales caused by false accusations
>posted on the wall of a federal building.
>
The secular injury occurs because the government would be sponsoring a religion.
This is an assault upon the secular nature of government. It is therefore an
assualt upon all Americans. The injury is to the government itself and to all
those who do not belong to the proposed state religion. Further injuries are
likely to occur when backers of the state religion begin harassing those who are
not.
>2) The Everson 1947 "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause
>inverted the American Founders' writing of the First Amendment
>to destroy the state right that the Founders wrote the Establishment
>Clause to protect. Thus, the Everson 1947 "incorporation"
>is illegitimate even if it is "right."
>
Are you familiar with any American history? The bill of rights was written to
limit the government, not to protect it. Are you one of those people that thinks
that the second amendment is there to protect the right of the government to own
weapons?
>3) Each and every Establishment Clause case that bans some
>state agent from making or endorsing a speech is self-contradictory
>by violating the logic of the rule in the case.
The only rule is the seperation of church and state.
> For example,
>under the "endorsement" test, a state action violates the
>Establishment Clause if the state makes "adherence to
>a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in
>the political community." Well! By any secular logic,
>the Supreme Court has violated its own "endorsement"
>test by making ONLY the religion of the accused relevant
>in denying the Catholic Church its red-blooded American
>pork barrel rights to lobby for support of its own pork--
>Catholic schools running on public funds that will
>train the next generation of upstanding citizens.
>
Non sequiter.
We were talking about the 'seperation of church and state' and the government
posting religious messages. You then changed the subject to free speach in the
absence of the seperation of church and state. Now your talking about public
funding of religious organizations.
Why don't you just ask for a constitutional amendment stating that your religion
is the official state religion?
>If you allow the crab farmers, the railroads, and the bygone Chrysler
>Corporation to lobby for diversion of public funds for
>their own pork barrel projects, then you cannot
>deny the Catholic Church the same rights--if you apply
>the "endorsement" test in any logically consistent fashion.
That was not the question we were discussing.
If the Catholic Church wants money for a secular project they can establish a
secular corporation which can petition for money.
THEY ARE ALREADY DOING THAT.
They cannot petition for money for religious purposes because the government is
prohibited from being involved in religion.
Riley M. Sinder
[[The 1790 Establishment Clause prevented the federal
congress and courts from interfering with the establishments
of religion that the states might make or unmake.
But in 1947, the Supreme Court illogically inverted the Establishment
Clause to destroy the state right that the Founders wrote
the Establishment Clause to protect.]]
>:|For, if you consult the empirical evidence, you
>:|will readily see that in the Massachusetts Constitution
>:|of 1780 it says that it is the "duty of all men in society,
>:|publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING,
>:|the great Creator and Preserver of the universe."
>The Mass. Constitution carries no weight in these United States.
How about for Massachusetts? Is Massachusetts a part of "these
United States"?
Carol Lee Smith wrote:
> Does the Mass. Constitution of 1780 resemble the
> Mass. Constitution of 2001?
Mainly.
If you consult the following link
http://www.state.ma.us/legis/const.htm#cart046.htm
you will see in Article II the original superstition about the
SUPREME BEING--but that Web version has removed the
original all caps in the 1780 print version.
And you will see from that link that, in 1821, the people
in Massachusetts amended their constitution to nullify
the 1780 explicit permission for the legislature to
levy taxes "for the institution of the public worship of
God, and for the support and maintenance of public
Protestant teachers of piety, religion and
morality."
buc...@exis.net
>:|-------------------------------------------------------------
>:|
>:| [[American law is a morass of superstition.
>:|
>:| First, one American asserts a law that there is a
>:| an "Almighty God" with a "plan" under which
>:| it is "sinful" to collect public taxes to pay for
>:| teaching religion.
>:|
>:| Then, the United States Supreme Court uses this
>:| Thomas Jefferson superstitious law to ban
>:| rabbis from reciting Mother Goose
>:| nonsense containing God, Lord, and Amen.
>:|
>:| But, from all the empirical evidence, Mother Goose,
>:| God, Lord, and Amen are all derivatives entirely of the
>:| same secular forces.]]
From the Nov. 27, 1996 issue of the "Frontman," the student newspaper of
the
University of Chicago:
By Claira Duvensky
Staff Writer
If the Usenet newsgroup you frequent seems a little more active
lately, you can thank a team of six UofC psychology graduate students
researching debating behavior on the Internet.
The students have created an Internet character, given him an
unpopular cause, and even created a personality for him as they used him
to spar with real people all over the world.
"The results have been fascinating," says team member Ehmed Mudjavi.
"People have gone to a great deal of trouble to respond to our character,
and have even gotten really angry at him on occasion."
The team has dubbed its creation "Riley Sinder," and an account was
opened up under that name with Netcom, an Internet service provider
(Riley's e-mail address, red...@netcom.com, is based on the UofC lacrosse
team's colors).
Since the start of the term, the students have been regularly posting
under Riley's name to more than a dozen political, religious and
philosophical newsgroups.
All the posts argue a single point: that creationism should be taught
in public school science classes.
"We wanted to give him an unpopular viewpoint in order to generate
more comments," explains group member Karen DuPres. "But we didn't want to
make him outrageous."
Using arguments that typically include obscure legal references and
somewhat hard-to-follow logical paths, Riley never wavers from his cause.
One recent post authored by the team reads, "The most dangerous element of
evolutionism is that its religious content is UNCONSCIOUS. The
evolutionists actually BELIEVE their source of evidence to be infallible.
Thus, there is no reason to examine their own faith."
The core of the argument the team developed for Riley is that the
prohibition against teaching creationism in public schools actually
represents an unconstitutional limit on the free speech of the majority of
Americans. Riley also questions the infallibility of evidence in the
physcical world in order to score points against evolution.
"It's a little bit beyond where a completely logical person would
stand," admits Karen. "But there is a logical flow there, and some ideas
that people can respond to. We didn't want him to just announce that Jesus
is coming back at Christmas or something, because that wouldn't generate
the right kind of replies. And if we made him completely rational, no one
would respond."
The team members take turns writing the posts, which are then checked
by other members for consistency of tone, language and personality.
Explains Ehmed, "Riley's personality is a little bit pompous, and
sort of aloof. He uses big words, and likes to throw out an advanced
concept here and there. He never addresses anyone by their name, and often
does not reply at all."
Riley's posts have generated hundreds of Usenet replies, 95 percent
of them from people who disagree with him, says team member Judy Tockas.
Dozens more replies have been sent directly to Riley's e-mail address.
Interestingly, the private e-mail tends to be more favorable.
"About half the people who e-mail Riley directly are sympathetic to
his cause," Judy says. "Although some criticize his arguments as
illogical, a lot of the writers agree that religion should be taught in
the public schools."
Riley has even received two invitations to join militia groups bent
on the establishment by force of a more religious-based government. "That
scared us a little," said Ehmed. "There are a lot of crazy people out
there."
In the next few weeks, the graduate team plans to start analyzing the
replies to Riley. A focus of the analysis is identifying the degree to
which respondents become emotional in their replies to Riley, and how that
emotion affects their ability to argue logically.
"It's been a lot of fun," says team member Nova Ciccione. "Creating a
new person is sort of like playing god. We've all learned a lot about
religion and evolution, too, along with learning about how people argue."
So where does the name "Riley Sinder" come from?
"Believe it or not, it's a play on the name Cinderella," says team
member Matt Jenkins. "We knew our guy was going to get beat up on, but he
really is there for a more noble reason than people may think."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Frontman
"A Voice for Truth in a Community of Knowledge"
Founded in 1972
Editorial: Suite 307, Eckarthe Building, P'Mason St., Campus South
Advertising: Rms. 12 & 21, Student Union Bldg, The Oval
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
buc...@exis.net
>:|-----------------------------------------------
>:|
>:| [[What is the American federal court test for which
>:| Mother Goose rhyme the U.S. Constitution bans
>:| from display in federal buildings?
>:|
>:| The American courts look for the existence of the
>:| supernatural God in the rhyme.]]
>:|
>:|
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Who Is for Lifting the Courts' Bans on Prayer
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 07:53:31 -0500
Reply-To: buc...@exis.net
Riley M. Sinder <red...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>:|-------------------------------------------
>:|
>:| [[For any empiricist interested in the propagation of
>:| hoaxes within the evolutionist community, the Piltdown
>:| Man is the prototype and Buckeye's Duvensky Bot is the
>:| most recent example.]]
>:|
================================================
To: <buc...@exis.net>
Subject: Re: Who Is for Lifting the Courts' Bans on Prayer
From: red...@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:41:11 -0600
FYI
--------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was forwarded to you from Deja.com by red...@ix.netcom.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(beginning of original message)
Subject: Re: Who Is for Lifting the Courts' Bans on Prayer
From: Riley M. Sinder <red...@ix.netcom.com>
Date: 2001/01/04
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
-------------------------------------------
[[For any empiricist interested in the propagation of
hoaxes within the evolutionist community, the Piltdown
Man is the prototype and Buckeye's Duvensky Bot is the
most recent example.]]
> >:| Those who believe in evolution have an
> >:| interesting mechanism for avoiding the
> >:| work of facing reality.
> >:| Having neither repeatable empirical evidence
> >:| nor a rational argument, the evolutionists
> >:| who support the ban on prayer invent a
> >:| bot, god, or some other three letter
> >:| supernatural dog to blame for their
> >:| inability to speak or write coherently.
buckeye wrote:
> The bot speaks again.
Rednblu wrote:
|So, gang, what do you think? Why does the invented
|'bot' explanation keep recurring? And why do both
|sides of the argument right now favor email rather
|than the open forums in the newsgroups? Any insights?
|You may reply directly to Red...@ix.netcom.com if you
|wish.
Edna Parsons wrote:
> The number of Piltdown hoaxes increases inexorably as the
> number of practicing evolutionists increases. See the
> Piltdown mechanisms at
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~btcarrol/skeptic/piltdown.html
> It is just wishful thinking and cultural bias continuing
> among the practicing evolutionists.
Chib wrote:
> You wrote a bunch of shit. I wrote a bunch of shit
> answering you. Then I get this flood of intrusive
> emails like the following:
>> "Stop responding to posts from Sinder. It is only a bot
>> and not a human."
> What is with you and your accolytes? You want everybody
> to listen in silence while you write . . . ?
> Now you have that new puppet of yours buckeye publishing
> that fake University of Chicago article over and
> over. What is it with you people?
> Leave me alone. I will argue against you if I want.
Michelle Malkin wrote:
> Clayeskye, this is from Riley Sinder - a computer
> program set up by a bunch of college kids. The new
> class pulls him out of mothballs every year to see
> who they can catch.
> Do you give a test every Friday to your pupils?
Marvin Ingersoll wrote:
> I don't know who you are but you have stirred a pot
> that nobody else gets to. They send buckets
> of emails to keep people
> from answering your stupid arguments.
> The evolutionaries censor talk.origins just to keep you out
> and I keep telling you that those Linux/Unix programmers
> have put blocks on your postings. Your posts don't get to Norway
> for example. And half of the news servers in
> the U.S. don't know it but they are infected
> with a system block that keeps out your postings.
> You don't seem to care. Are you just collecting data?
Fish wrote:
> FYI: <http://www.alt-atheism.org/aakooks.htm#RileySinder>
> ------------------
> Riley Sinder
> Religion: None - not a person
> Synopsis: Not a person - is a project of grad psych students at the
> University of Chicago who are studying newsgroup interaction.
Henry Barwood wrote:
> "Riley Sinder" is/was an apparent Bot that posts absolute nonsense in
> reply to any post. Although never proved, it was considered to be a
> psychology study by a bunch of grad students. Ignore it/him/her!
FuckUp wrote:
> What you write makes much more sense than most of what
> is posted on the Internet. You seem to have a limted repertoire,
> but your posts are hilarious. And you have the patience of
> Job. Are you a Zen monk?
> Why don't you just challenge them to a debate? You
> could just have your agent line up a date and
> you could come give them a faculty seminar.
> Your topic might be -- Prayer: Superstition or Reality?
> Or how about this? -- Prayer: Superstition and Reality.
> Would you post your agent's email address?
> Are you as infuriating in person as you are in writing?
buc...@exis.net
>:|----------------------------------------------------
>:|
>:| [[We are examining the empirical evidence.
>:|
>:| Historically, America derived its laws from
>:| superstitious sources--such as the King
>:| James Version of the Holy Bible.
>:|
>:| Now, for religious reasons, the United States
>:| Supreme Court bans from federal buildings
>:| the public display of these
>:| secular sources of America's laws.]]
From: buc...@exis.net
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Who Is for Lifting the Courts' Bans on Prayer
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 13:40:39 -0500
Riley M. Sinder <red...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>:|-------------------------------------------
>:|
>:| [[For any empiricist interested in the propagation of
>:| hoaxes within the evolutionist community, the Piltdown
>:| Man is the prototype and Buckeye's Duvensky Bot is the
>:| most recent example.]]
>:|
A FLASH FROM THE PAST
==================================================
###new###To:
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.polit
ics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.po
litics.economics,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.s
ociety.conservatism
Subject: Re: Prayer in school? Never been illegal
From: jal...@infi.net now known as ( buc...@exis.net )
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1996 18:37:09 GMT
ms...@netcom.com (Mark Shaw) wrote:
>In article <rednbluD...@netcom.com>,
>red...@netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder) wrote:
>
>> Hearing a Christian prayer in public is offensive
>> to the non-Christian.
>
>How?
>
>Seems to me that a person who's this sensitive needs some profes-
>sional help.
Why do you come to that conclusion? For many people, religion is a very
sacred and private thing in their lives, and we have a country where the
their rights not to have to be exposed to others beliefs is protected.
I guess, based on your comment you would think that the catholics of the
mid to late 1800's were all in need of professional help?
I say that, because it was the fact that they had to endure Protestant
Prayers and read from or hear others read from a Protestant Bible, that led
to the creation of Catholic schools. Led to Catholic Schools after a few
riots, and the deaths of people on both sides of the issue.
At any rate the idea is called religious freedom, not tolerance, for
tolerance is not freedom.
===========================================================
###new###To:
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian,alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republica
n,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.
politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.economics,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limba
ugh,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Prayer in school? Never been illegal
From: jal...@infi.net now known as ( buc...@exis.net )
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 19:22:25 GMT
red...@netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder) wrote:
>cla...@ccnet.com (C. Smith) writes:
>
> Why should
>people be pained by the recitations of each
>others' prayers at state functions?
You honestly don't know? Or are you just asking the question to see what,
if any, response you will get?
=====================================================================
###new###To:
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian,alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republica
n,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.renewing.american.civilization
Subject: Re: Prayer in school? Never been illegal
From: jal...@infi.net now known as ( buc...@exis.net )
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 04:10:37 GMT
red...@netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder) wrote:
>chag...@vt.edu (chagedor) writes:
>
>Some people don't want students to HAVE a choice about
>whether or not they hear prayer.
>
Students already have a choice if they want to hear a prayer or not, it
just isn't in a classroom setting during class time. Its after school or
during lunch, or before classes start, etc.
=====================================================
buc...@exis.net
>:|--------------------------------------------
>:|
>:| [[If Mother Goose had wanted all those rhymes
>:| to be printed, she would have done at least
>:| as much as the Red Hen--by at least stacking
>:| up the paper on which to print the rhymes.
>:|
>:| Then on the other hand, if Mother Goose does
>:| not exist, then Mother Goose's will is
>:| irrelevant--at least in any secular court.]]
>:|
>:|
From: buc...@exis.net
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Who Is for Lifting the Courts' Bans on Prayer
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:49:24 -0500
Reply-To: buc...@exis.net
Message-ID: <slip5toiq2onnl21o...@4ax.com>
References: <3a3289fc...@news.sssnet.com>
<20001210203547...@ng-fp1.aol.com>
<91eal9$qv5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
<161220000328572631%chib...@SPAMBLOCK.earthlink.net>
<91jk0l$h7p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <9lku3t0svt7ubc2c4...@4ax.com>
<91to9i$nbu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <v2i64tci6fqedhii8...@4ax.com>
<932saj$3lm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A5666E5...@yahoo.com>
<9366o1$sml$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: digital-4-196.exis.net
X-Trace: 10 Jan 2001 15:51:17 -0500, digital-4-196.exis.net
Lines: 88
Organization: A Customer of Exis Net Inc
Path: grouper.exis.net!digital-4-196.exis.net
Xref: grouper.exis.net alt.atheism:1445315
alt.politics.usa.republican:1186342 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:1308652
alt.politics.clinton:919012
Riley M. Sinder <red...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>:|-------------------------------------------------------
>:|
>:| [[Within the next fifty years, the superstition of the
>:| current bans on prayer will pass into oblivion just like
>:| the 1664 court bans on witchcraft.
>:|
>:| After all, if there is no God to be displeased when you hear
>:| a prayer, then a prayer is nothing but a pledge to the
>:| flag and could not violate the Establishment Clause.]]
>:|
>:|
To the bot or troll Riley:
Showing how little things change when dealing with the bot/troll Riley over
time. Note the date of the following:
BLAST FROM THE PAST:
###new###To:
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian,alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republica
n,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.
politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.renewing.amer
ican.civilization
Subject: Re: Prayer in school? Never been illegal
From: jal...@infi.net
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 01:30:09 GMT
red...@netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder) wrote:
>
>The Greens believe that teachers should hold
>green twigs in their hand.
>
>The Reds believe that teachers should hold
>red stop-signs in their hand.
>
>Some school boards are controlled by Greens,
>others by Reds.
>
>The Supreme Court maintains that the First
>Amendment "establishment clause" requires that
>local school boards CANNOT decide. Teachers
>MUST hold green twigs in their hands.
>
>Whether the Greens are theists or atheists,
>the Supreme Court has ESTABLISHED the religion
>of the Greens.
>
What on earth are you talking about?
Are you saying that teacher/state led prayer should be allowed?
If you are, then how do you suggest that we get around the separation of
church and state that exists in the main body of the Constitution, as well
as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
Then what do you suggest we do with all those people who are not members of
that particular religion, yet have students who attend that school?
BTW, the Supreme Court has not established the religion of greens pinks
reds, yellows or anyone else. State led prayer would do just that.
buc...@exis.net
>:|---------------------------------------
>:|
>:| [[There is no secular reason to deny the
>:| Catholic Church the same political right
>:| as the other pig farmers to lobby for public
>:| funds to support their own pork barrel projects.
>:|
>:| Any secular interpretation of the Establishment
>:| Clause would prevent the Supreme Court from
>:| curtailing the political rights of any faction merely
>:| because of the stupid religious beliefs of the faction.]]
>:|
From: buc...@exis.net
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Who Is for Lifting the Courts' Bans on Prayer
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 06:50:12 -0500
>:|"Riley M. Sinder" wrote:
>:|>
>:|> -------------------------------------------------------
>:|>
>:|> [[Within the next fifty years, the superstition of the
>:|> current bans on prayer will pass into oblivion just like
>:|> the 1664 court bans on witchcraft.
>:|
>:|Red herring. There are no bans on prayer even roughly analogous to the
>:|bans on witchcraft.
Riley is either:
(1) a troll
or
(2) a bot
>:|
>:|> After all, if there is no God to be displeased when you hear
>:|> a prayer, then a prayer is nothing but a pledge to the
>:|> flag and could not violate the Establishment Clause.]]
>:|
>:|I know of no one that prays to the flag and the existance of dieties is
>:|*still* not an issue.
>:|
>:|> > > For any empiricist interested in the propagation of
>:|> > > hoaxes within the evolutionist community, the Piltdown
>:|> > > Man is the prototype
>:|>
>:|> Eric Gill wrote:
>:|>
>:|> > Of course, on close examination, it's an excellent example of the
>:|> > self-correcting nature of science and supports the idea of widespread
>:|> > fraud not at all.
>:|>
>:|> There you go!
>:|>
>:|> That is an enlightened approach.
>:|>
>:|> And likewise, the self-correcting nature of science
>:|> will soon cause the courts to overturn the current
>:|> bans on prayer.
>:|
>:|Has nothing to do with science, as, contrary to your claims, it matters
>:|not at all if the believer's gods/angels/demons or whatnot actually
>:|exist.
>:|
>:|Find an argument based in reality, Sinderbotty. This one was tired years
>:|ago.
>:|
>:|<further irrelevancy snipped>
buc...@exis.net
>:|--------------------------------------------------------
>:|
>:| [[There is no secular and rational justification for the separation
>:| of church and state.
So says the Riley the bot or troll.
>:|
>:| In particular, the American court attempts to separate
>:| the church from the state derive from the superstition
>:| that there is an "Almighty God" with a "plan" under
>:| which it is "sinful" to collect public taxes to pay for
>:| teaching religion. Everson v. Board of Educ., 330
>:| U.S. 1, 12-13 (1947) (quoting Act for Establishing
>:| Religious Freedom, 1, 12 THE STATUTES AT LARGE;
>:| BEING A COLLECTION OF ALL THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA 84,
>:| 84-85 (William W. Hening ed., 1823)).]]
>:|
From: buc...@exis.net
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Who Is for Lifting the Courts' Bans on Prayer
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 08:31:25 -0500
>:|"Riley M. Sinder" wrote:
>:|
>:|> In 2001, the American federal courts ban teacher-led
>:|> prayer.
>:|
>:|Engel v. Vitale, a 1962 case in which the Supreme Court ruled against
>:|officially sponsored and organized school prayer. "We think," wrote
You are aruging with a bot or if a real person a troll. He has been doing
this for years, and as long as he can fish people in to responding he will
continue to do it.
===================================================
A FLASH FROM THE PAST
==================================================
###new###To:
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.polit
ics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.po
litics.economics,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.s
ociety.conservatism
Subject: Re: Prayer in school? Never been illegal
From: jal...@infi.net now known as ( buc...@exis.net )
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1996 18:37:09 GMT
ms...@netcom.com (Mark Shaw) wrote:
>In article <rednbluD...@netcom.com>,
>red...@netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder) wrote:
>
>> Hearing a Christian prayer in public is offensive
>> to the non-Christian.
>
>How?
>
>Seems to me that a person who's this sensitive needs some profes-
>sional help.
Why do you come to that conclusion? For many people, religion is a very
sacred and private thing in their lives, and we have a country where the
their rights not to have to be exposed to others beliefs is protected.
I guess, based on your comment you would think that the catholics of the
mid to late 1800's were all in need of professional help?
I say that, because it was the fact that they had to endure Protestant
Prayers and read from or hear others read from a Protestant Bible, that led
to the creation of Catholic schools. Led to Catholic Schools after a few
riots, and the deaths of people on both sides of the issue.
At any rate the idea is called religious freedom, not tolerance, for
tolerance is not freedom.
===========================================================
###new###To:
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian,alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republica
n,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.
politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.economics,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limba
ugh,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Re: Prayer in school? Never been illegal
From: jal...@infi.net now known as ( buc...@exis.net )
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 19:22:25 GMT
red...@netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder) wrote:
>cla...@ccnet.com (C. Smith) writes:
>
> Why should
>people be pained by the recitations of each
>others' prayers at state functions?
You honestly don't know? Or are you just asking the question to see what,
if any, response you will get?
=====================================================================
###new###To:
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian,alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republica
n,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.renewing.american.civilization
Subject: Re: Prayer in school? Never been illegal
From: jal...@infi.net now known as ( buc...@exis.net )
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 04:10:37 GMT
red...@netcom.com (Riley M. Sinder) wrote:
>chag...@vt.edu (chagedor) writes:
>
>Some people don't want students to HAVE a choice about
>whether or not they hear prayer.
>
Students already have a choice if they want to hear a prayer or not, it
just isn't in a classroom setting during class time. Its after school or
during lunch, or before classes start, etc.
=====================================================
================================================
To: <buc...@exis.net>
Subject: Re: Who Is for Lifting the Courts' Bans on Prayer
From: red...@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:41:11 -0600
FYI
--------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was forwarded to you from Deja.com by red...@ix.netcom.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(beginning of original message)
Subject: Re: Who Is for Lifting the Courts' Bans on Prayer
From: Riley M. Sinder <red...@ix.netcom.com>
Date: 2001/01/04
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
-------------------------------------------
[[For any empiricist interested in the propagation of
hoaxes within the evolutionist community, the Piltdown
cloidheamh
[snip]
>Riley is either:
>
>(1) a troll
>
>or
>
>(2) a bot
>
or [3] both
>From the Nov. 27, 1996 issue of the "Frontman," the student newspaper of
>the
>University of Chicago:
>
>By Claira Duvensky
>Staff Writer
>
> If the Usenet newsgroup you frequent seems a little more active
>lately, you can thank a team of six UofC psychology graduate students
>researching debating behavior on the Internet.
> The students have created an Internet character, given him an
>unpopular cause, and even created a personality for him as they used him
>to spar with real people all over the world.
> "The results have been fascinating," says team member Ehmed Mudjavi.
>"People have gone to a great deal of trouble to respond to our character,
>and have even gotten really angry at him on occasion."
Interesting... I hope they don't think that the perceived anger in a post is
necessarily indicative of a persons true state of mind... and 'a great deal of
trouble' is also somewhat hard to guage...
[snip]
> All the posts argue a single point: that creationism should be taught
>in public school science classes.
Apparently they diversified...
> "We wanted to give him an unpopular viewpoint in order to generate
>more comments," explains group member Karen DuPres. "But we didn't want to
>make him outrageous."
Teaching creationism in public schools is not outageous? Eliminating the
seperation of church and state is not outrageous? I guess it depends on your
POV. They must be Christians.
> Using arguments that typically include obscure legal references and
>somewhat hard-to-follow logical paths, Riley never wavers from his cause.
A lack of logic is not a 'hard-to-follow logical path'.
As to wavering from 'his cause'; I can't comment. But he does waver on his topic
of discussion.
>One recent post authored by the team reads, "The most dangerous element of
>evolutionism is that its religious content is UNCONSCIOUS. The
>evolutionists actually BELIEVE their source of evidence to be infallible.
>Thus, there is no reason to examine their own faith."
> The core of the argument the team developed for Riley is that the
>prohibition against teaching creationism in public schools actually
>represents an unconstitutional limit on the free speech of the majority of
>Americans.
Thats what I meant by illogical arguments. The seperation of church and state is
a constitutional fact and therefore, by definition, cannot be unconstitutional.
> Riley also questions the infallibility of evidence in the
>physcical world in order to score points against evolution.
> "It's a little bit beyond where a completely logical person would
>stand," admits Karen.
But not at all uncommon for a theist on this newsgroup.
> "But there is a logical flow there,
A logical flow, perhaps, but not a logical argument. (At least not one that I
have seen)
> and some ideas
>that people can respond to. We didn't want him to just announce that Jesus
>is coming back at Christmas or something, because that wouldn't generate
>the right kind of replies.
In this newsgroup, the replies would be simmilar.
> And if we made him completely rational, no one
>would respond."
I give and receive responses to completely rational posts.
Why do they think that only irrational people post?
> The team members take turns writing the posts, which are then checked
>by other members for consistency of tone, language and personality.
But not for logic?
> Explains Ehmed, "Riley's personality is a little bit pompous, and
>sort of aloof.
Haven't seen that yet... Apears to be a standard theist around here...
> He uses big words, and likes to throw out an advanced
>concept here and there.
Haven't seen that yet either....
> He never addresses anyone by their name,
I don't think I do either... <looks around nervously>
> and often
>does not reply at all."
A failure to reply won't generate any responses, now will it? Once again, a
standard theist procedure around here.
Does this guy use 'Ernobe' or 'Boatright' as aliases?
> Riley's posts have generated hundreds of Usenet replies, 95 percent
>of them from people who disagree with him, says team member Judy Tockas.
Obviously! When you create a character that less than 5 percent of the
population can agree with, what would you expect? These are psychology majors?
I know people keep complaining about the American educational system, but I
didn't realise it extended to graduate students.
>Dozens more replies have been sent directly to Riley's e-mail address.
>Interestingly, the private e-mail tends to be more favorable.
> "About half the people who e-mail Riley directly are sympathetic to
>his cause," Judy says. "Although some criticize his arguments as
>illogical, a lot of the writers agree that religion should be taught in
>the public schools."
That would be the 5% minority I was referring to.
> Riley has even received two invitations to join militia groups bent
>on the establishment by force of a more religious-based government. "That
>scared us a little," said Ehmed.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Psychology GRADUATE students??? They should have seen that coming before they
made their first post.
> "There are a lot of crazy people out
>there."
Some of them even create fictional internet personas...
> In the next few weeks, the graduate team plans to start analyzing the
>replies to Riley. A focus of the analysis is identifying the degree to
>which respondents become emotional in their replies to Riley, and how that
>emotion affects their ability to argue logically.
> "It's been a lot of fun," says team member Nova Ciccione. "Creating a
>new person is sort of like playing god. We've all learned a lot about
>religion and evolution, too, along with learning about how people argue."
> So where does the name "Riley Sinder" come from?
> "Believe it or not, it's a play on the name Cinderella," says team
>member Matt Jenkins. "We knew our guy was going to get beat up on, but he
>really is there for a more noble reason than people may think."
What would that 'noble reason' be? Academic research on internet personalities?
Sounds trivial and foolish to me. But if that makes you happy, go for it...
>
>
[snip]
>>:|
>>:|> After all, if there is no God to be displeased when you hear
>>:|> a prayer, then a prayer is nothing but a pledge to the
>>:|> flag and could not violate the Establishment Clause.]]
Does he ever use logical arguments?
Damn. I've been looking for a theist that could argue these ideas logically. I
guess I'll never find one. At least not one with a degree from the University of
Chicago.
buc...@exis.net
>:|On Wed, 23 May 2001 09:10:19 -0400, buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|
>:|[snip]
>:|>Riley is either:
>:|>
>:|>(1) a troll
>:|>
>:|>or
>:|>
>:|>(2) a bot
>:|>
>:|or [3] both
>:|>From the Nov. 27, 1996 issue of the "Frontman," the student newspaper of
>:|>the
>:|>University of Chicago:
>:|>
>:|>By Claira Duvensky
>:|>Staff Writer
>:|>
>:|> If the Usenet newsgroup you frequent seems a little more active
>:|>lately, you can thank a team of six UofC psychology graduate students
>:|>researching debating behavior on the Internet.
>:|> The students have created an Internet character, given him an
>:|>unpopular cause, and even created a personality for him as they used him
>:|>to spar with real people all over the world.
>:|> "The results have been fascinating," says team member Ehmed Mudjavi.
>:|>"People have gone to a great deal of trouble to respond to our character,
>:|>and have even gotten really angry at him on occasion."
>:|Interesting... I hope they don't think that the perceived anger in a post is
>:|necessarily indicative of a persons true state of mind... and 'a great deal of
>:|trouble' is also somewhat hard to guage...
This is suppose to be what the bot/troll Riley is all about.
Puck Greenman
>Surely not. If God does not exist, then she does not care whether
>you display religious articles.
An irrelevant straw man.
It is not whether a god exists or not that matters, but whether people
believe that such a horror exists, and people do.
Add to that, the fact that not all Americans believe in your version
of what a god is, or should be, and by posting the religious texts of
one sect only, in a place intended for the use of all sects, you are
denying religious freedom to those who worship differently to you.
How would you feel if all of the court houses in america were
decorated with texts from the Koran, or if a portrait of Shiva hung
over the judges chair?
Whether they exist or not makes no difference, in the minds of
superstitious people, they are real.
Riley M. Sinder
[[According to the empirical evidence, God the
Father does not exist. So why does the United
States Supreme Court ban teacher-led prayers to God the
Father?
In contrast, the United States Supreme Court does not
ban teacher-led prayers to any of the other secular
imaginary abstractions--like Republic, Nation, Liberty,
or Justice.
So what is the Court's hang-up with God the Father?]]
> >> >You seem to be infected by the same superstition as the United
> >> >States Supreme Court--that God has a plan under which it is sinful
> >> >to coerce someone to worship or pay for worship.
cloidheamh wrote:
> >> No. God superstitions generally require coerced worship.
> >> It is, of course, immoral (sinful) to do that. But it has nothing to do with god
> >> or any other superstitions.
Rednblu wrote:
> >You ignore the empirical evidence.
cloidheamh wrote:
> No. The empirical evidence suggests that there is no god.
Fine. And the empirical evidence suggests also that the only
speech that the Supreme Court has banned over the objections
of the legislatures and the voters is religious speech.
> Therefore the sinful
> nature of coerced worship has nothing to do with god's plan.
Of course. Do you think you are scoring points? No empirical
person would disagree with you. Why state again that one and
one are whatever they are?
The flaw in your argument follows from your putting god
into a special category for which there is no empirical evidence.
> If there is no god,
> he/she/it can't have a plan. If there is a god, we have no way of knowing its
> plan, since no verifiable written records of it exist.
Obviously.
But Thomas Paine probably would disagree with you. For Thomas
Paine wrote in the Age of Reason that the physical universe was the
only Word of God.
You and I would contend that Thomas Paine had no empirical
evidence for the ridiculous notion that the physical universe
is anything other than just the physical universe.
> >You will find that no American court will have
> >the guts to ban any tablet of Ten Commandments
> >that has replaced each and every
> >"God," "Lord," and "Amen" with the
> >hilarious "Henry," "Ford," and "Edsel."
> It would be an obvious religious parody. And should therefore, IMO, be banned
> from government buildings.
Really? You are inventive, at least, even if ridiculous.
So would you also ban the projection of the
hilarious Matt Damon movie "Dogma" onto the sides
of government buildings?
http://www.centerstage.net/stumped/reviews/dogma.html
In "Dogma," Damon is a fallen angel attempting to get back to heaven
and close to God's love. God is a woman. And in the
opening, Bethany, a devout Catholic working in an abortion
clinic, is the last living descendant of Jesus Christ who is
black.
Yes! Yes! We all know. You will respond to say that
the empirical evidence suggests that God does not exist
and is hardly a woman. You still will score no points
by stating the obvious.
> >So, the empirical evidence suggests that you are wrong--
> Huh???
> A hypothetical situation is not empirical evidence. It is not any sort of
> evidence.
You keep contending that what is NOT empirical evidence
is not empirical evidence. You are scoring no points here.
The empirical evidence suggests that God has everything to
do with the Court's ban on posting the Ten Commandments
on federal buildings. So your statement above, that the
ban "has nothing to do with god or any other superstitions,"
is wrong.
> >the ban on the Ten Commandments has everything to do with
> >god and superstition.
> ???
> I agree 100%. The Ten Commandments are from a god based superstition, and
> therefore cannot be displayed in government settings. To display it would imply
> support of the superstition by the government, which is clearly prohibited by
> the constitution.
That is a ridiculous argument.
Here is a counter-example to your hypothesis. The Pledge of Allegiance is
also from a god based superstition. But displaying the Pledge
of Allegiance in government settings does not imply support of
the superstition by the government.
And the Constitution has nothing to do with the ban against
displaying the Ten Commandments on federal buildings.
The Establishment Clause in plain words prevents the federal government from
interfering with the states' right to establish religion as the states
please. So the 1947 "incorporation" of the Establishment
Clause is logically impossible. Hence, the Supreme Court
ban against displaying the Ten Commandments in federal
buildings is unconstitutional.
> >> >Challenge: You can state no rational and NON-religious
> >> >reason for banning prayers in school, out of school, or in between--
> >> >as long as the prayers are not fighting words, obscenity, or
> >> >cause some other provable secular damage because of their exceptional
> >> >power.
> >
> >
> >> Prayer in schools is by definition 'fighting words'
> >> and 'obscene', IMO it is a
> >> form of child abuse.
> >
> >
> >Ok. You may be right. And if the American courts would ban
> >the Lord's Prayer as fighting words or obscenity, then at least
> >the courts would have a NON-religious law.
> The courts don't make the laws.
Sure they do.
For example, in the 1947 Everson case, the Supreme Court made the law
that the states could not establish religion.
> The law in question is the constitution.
The 1947 "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause against
the states is unconstitutional because the "incorporation" is
logically impossible.
It is logically impossible to "incorporate" a constitutional
protection of a state right to destroy the right that the
Constitution protects.
The logical impossibility is clearer to non-mathematicians
on examining the feasibility of "incorporating" the Tenth
Amendment against the states.
> The
> constitution is by definition constitutional. Laws
> which are made must conform
> to the guidelines set up by it.
Not so.
The Supreme Court regularly makes laws which
do not conform to the Constitution.
For example, in the 1856 Dred Scott case, the Supreme
Court made the unconstitutional law that the state
of Illinois could not make a black slave into
a citizen of the state of Illinois.
> >> Challenge: You can state no rational and
> >> NON-religious reason for not outlawing
> >> religion. (I can, but I don't think you can.)
> >
> >
> >If the American courts would apply the same NON-religious law
> >to religious speech that the courts apply to non-religious speech,
> >then the courts would throw out of court each and every suit
> >against just religious speech by a state agent--
> >for the following NON-religious reasons:
> I see that I was right. You were unable to answer my challenge.
> But to answer your change of subject: The courts MUST apply different standards
> to religious speech because it is REQUIRED by the constitution.
Not at all.
You have only the superstitions of the superstitious to support
your notion that religious speech is not speech, just as you have
only the superstitions of the superstitious to support your notion
that holy water is not water.
> >1) There is no secular injury when the Ten Commandments
> >appear on the walls of a federal building. An example of a secular
> >injury would be a merchant's drop in sales caused by false accusations
> >posted on the wall of a federal building.
> The secular injury occurs because the government would be sponsoring a religion.
That is no secular injury. That is a superstitious injury.
Religion is only a nonsense. And the courts do not find an injury
from hearing merely nonsense speech.
Your whole notion of injury derives from the superstition that
there is some injury from the improper relationship of witches with
the supernatural. Witches are just women. And the witch's spell
creates no injury.
> This is an assault upon the secular nature of government.
Ridiculous.
The church is made of only the same secular elementary particles
and energy that comprise all the physical manifestations of government.
And no matter what your superstition believes, no assault could
ever alter the entirely physical, worldly, and non-spiritual nature of
each and every particle of government.
> It is therefore an
> assault upon all Americans. The injury is to the government itself and to all
> those who do not belong to the proposed state religion. Further injuries are
> likely to occur when backers of the state religion begin harassing those who are
> not.
Harassment is entirely a secular phenomenon. And religious
superstitions will never create something non-secular from
a harassment that will ever remain of this world, finite, and secular.
> >2) The Everson 1947 "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause
> >inverted the American Founders' writing of the First Amendment
> >to destroy the state right that the Founders wrote the Establishment
> >Clause to protect. Thus, the Everson 1947 "incorporation"
> >is illegitimate even if it is "right."
> Are you familiar with any American history? The bill of rights was written to
> limit the government, not to protect it.
Really?
What would be your similarly entertaining interpretation of the
Tenth Amendment.
Since you would not know where to look, here is an edited paraphrase
of the Tenth Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."
> Are you one of those people that thinks
> that the second amendment is there to protect the right of the government to own
> weapons?
The Second Amendment is there to prevent the federal government
from interfering with the state right to raise or disband state
militias as the state legislatures might elect.
> >3) Each and every Establishment Clause case that bans some
> >state agent from making or endorsing a speech is self-contradictory
> >by violating the logic of the rule in the case.
> The only rule is the separation of church and state.
Interesting.
Do you belong to one of those quaint religious sects that
believe that the "separation of church and state" is in
the Constitution?
> >For example,
> >under the "endorsement" test, a state action violates the
> >Establishment Clause if the state makes "adherence to
> >a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in
> >the political community." Well! By any secular logic,
> >the Supreme Court has violated its own "endorsement"
> >test by making ONLY the religion of the accused relevant
> >in denying the Catholic Church its red-blooded American
> >pork barrel rights to lobby for support of its own pork--
> >Catholic schools running on public funds that will
> >train the next generation of upstanding citizens.
> Non sequitur.
> We were talking about the 'separation of church and state' and the government
> posting religious messages. You then changed the subject to free speech in the
> absence of the separation of church and state. Now you're talking about public
> funding of religious organizations.
The "separation of church and state" is a religious superstition
and illogical, whether the "separation" is applied to posting
nonsense messages, speaking nonsense poems, or funding
nonsense organizations.
Religion is just a form of secular politics with not one
whit of non-secular residue.
> Why don't you just ask for a constitutional amendment stating that your religion
> is the official state religion?
The neutral observers would object just as strongly to religion
being made the official state politics as to any other nonsense
being made the official state politics.
> >If you allow the crab farmers, the railroads, and the bygone Chrysler
> >Corporation to lobby for diversion of public funds for
> >their own pork barrel projects, then you cannot
> >deny the Catholic Church the same rights--if you apply
> >the "endorsement" test in any logically consistent fashion.
> That was not the question we were discussing.
> If the Catholic Church wants money for a secular project they can establish a
> secular corporation which can petition for money.
From all available empirical evidence, every project and every corporation
created by the Catholic Church is entirely of this world, finite, and
secular with not even a smudge of non-secular content.
> THEY ARE ALREADY DOING THAT.
> They cannot petition for money for religious purposes because the government is
> prohibited from being involved in religion.
Clearly, the American government is not prohibited from being involved
in religion because the American federal courts regularly ban
the state funding in which the courts detect the supernatural presence
of God, bless her Heart.
Say it again, please! "From all the empirical evidence, God
does not exist, so you cannot say that She has a Heart"! You
still will score no points for stating the obvious.
For the American courts can detect the supernatural presence
of God--even if She does not exist.!
Riley M. Sinder
> > > [[25 pages of misquotations and misspellings]]
Amada Jeffers wrote:
>> Jesus! Stop your self-righteous laughter and give
>> your readers that link to the Re-Inventing America
>> site.
>> I know that you do not approve of the site. But
>> at least you can spare us another post from Buckeye's
>> misquotes and misspellings.
JJ wrote:
> Give the link yourself. I cannot find it.
> Maybe you could get Buckeye just to post the link instead
> of loading my download bucket with all those misquotes
> and misspellings. How about an email to Buckeye?
Try
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6624/Prescription_Reinvention.html
Riley M. Sinder
[[Certain superstitious people, including many United States
Supreme Court Justices, contend that a speaker's improper
relationship with the "supernatural creator" justifies banning
speech, such as the posting of the Ten Commandments on
federal buildings.]]
> >Surely not. If God does not exist, then she does not care whether
> >you display religious articles.
Puck Greenman wrote:
> An irrelevant straw man.
> It is not whether a god exists or not that matters, but whether people
> believe that such a horror exists, and people do.
An irrelevant straw.
In any non-religious court, there would be no testing of what religion
people believe or disbelieve.
For according to all the empirical evidence, what religion people believe
has no effect on the consequences of an act, such as posting a nonsense
listing of ten phrases.
Hence, the banning of the posting of the Ten Commandments is merely
an extension of the war of one religion
against the other--namely, the domination of
Thomas Jefferson's religion over similar religions of intolerance.
> Add to that, the fact that not all Americans believe in your version
> of what a god is, or should be, and by posting the religious texts of
> one sect only, in a place intended for the use of all sects, you are
> denying religious freedom to those who worship differently to you.
> How would you feel if all of the court houses in America were
> decorated with texts from the Koran, or if a portrait of Shiva hung
> over the judges chair?
The neutral observers would prefer that only NON-religious tests
be used for banning texts, decorations, and portraits. What the
speaker believes about the "supernatural creator" should be irrelevant
in any NON-superstitious system of law.
The neutral observers would not care which religious or non-religious
symbols appear on federal buildings. Evidently, the neutral observers
would prefer an artful display. So, any of your "how would you feel"
variations would get the same answer--the superstitious power that
some believer thinks the symbols have does not change one way or
another whether the display is artful, legal, or appropriate--if the court
uses only NON-religious tests.
> Whether they exist or not makes no difference, in the minds of
> superstitious people, they are real.
You are hilarious when you recite your superstitions.
Of course it matters whether the gods exist! If the gods existed, then the
tabular listing of the gods would merely
be the empirical classifications of animal,
vegetable, and mineral. Surely your
superstitions have not grown now to include
bans on the posting of scientific facts on federal buildings!
Hoyer
Think of the lives it ( the supposed deity) would have saved.
If there were a god, of which there is not the smallest bit of evidence,
think of the blame it would rightfully deserve.
If such a wildly fantastic thing were true, I would fight it with all my
being. It would truly be the incarnation of evil. Perhaps the "spirit of
evil" is more accurate.
Happily, religion is naught but delusion.
Craig Hoyer
a.a#821