O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

@Rottweiler: You may not have noticed, but Thomas Kinkade has long since become the face of religious-themed art.

Hm, do parks count as public property or government property? I'd assume the first since people are usually allowed free access. I don't see why a "check out sections of the park, first come first serve" policy wouldn't be perfectly fair.

Nothing in science explains everything

...YET◊.

Just because science does not explain everything, does not mean it can't.

The Elgin Marbles are not diminished in beauty because they are no longer attached to the parthanon.

Well, first they got stained by 19th-century London smog, and then damaged by primitive cleaning methods, but since they'd be melting in acid rain if they were still on the Parthenon, I guess it's a toss.

But of course it's all irrelevant because no one wants to remove historically-important artwork because of its religious context, and because churches and religious buildings are private property in the first place.

Deboss: it depends on the park. I've lived in towns where there were no government-owned parks — they were owned and maintained by the Elks Club, or the VFW or some other private organization, but made available to the public. I've lived in towns where there were both city and privately owned parks. And I've lived in towns where all of the major parks were city-owned, but some businesses or clubs maintain a greenspace near thiet building.

Nothing in science explains everything, there is a measure of faith that even without all the information available, the current explanation is an accurate and valid one. There is a measure of faith that new information will not render the previous interpretation of facts at hand invalid. It doesn't mean the faith is wrong, but it is still there.

It does create the whole idea that science is a belief system. And America was founded on the basis that one person's beliefs are no more valid than another person's.

Better present David Icke's views on politics and world history then. You know, to teach the controversy. After all, it's not like we can absolutely know anything about those either.

edited 22nd Oct '10 7:43:47 PM by Desertopa

Thread Hopping here.

No, it doesn't explicitly say that you have the right to wear sleeveless shirts.

However, this is a right arguably guaranteed in the tenth amendment.

On the other hand, everyone has a right to the forelimbs of ursines.

Back on topic: Major Tom, the Constitution does not literally say "separation of church and state". However, even as you note, it would be "a bit odd with established tradition", to say the least—in fact, you'd be effectively arguing that Thomas Jefferson advocated judicial activism if you took that stance.

Not to mention, since you're a libertarian, you should be supporting the separation of church and state, because that would minimize the role of the state in society. As a libertarian, you should be trying to ensure that government does not get an undue amount of power, rather than simply sitting idly by if it's being taken over by a religious group that doesn't respect liberties that are due to the people.

^ And where do you get the implication I am supporting the idea of integrating church and state? Did I just phrase it badly?

Meh. Not on topic.

edited 24th Oct '10 8:13:37 PM by Lanceleoghauni

Yeah, this got off topic.

Sort of topicy

Can you yanks really live on 15,000 a year? We're having problems living off 30,000.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/christine-odonnell-uses-campaign-cash-to-pay-her-rent.php

It really depends on where you are and what you consider "necessary". I can fairly easily. But I'm in a working-class town in the midwest, not a major city, my car is 15 years old, I don't have many expensive hobbies (as long as I stay out of bookstores and fabric stores, I'm okay), and so on...

If one has rent of more than $500/month (and you're lucky to get it that low in some cities), it becomes an issue due to the fact that half of that $15000 is essentially spent before you earned it. And the other half is all that's left for food, toiletries, and any other expense one may need.

And that's just for one person.

@ Major Tom: Oh, perhaps I misunderstood you, then. My apologies.

I guess you were simply taking the devil's advocate to argue that that is a valid interpretation of the First Amendment, rather than actually supporting such an interpretation.

Our rent is 950 (Hydro heat included.) atm, so I guess its a relative thingy.

I live on a bit more than that with $900 rent, but I live close enough to work that I don't have to worry about a car and all of the associated costs. Also, I live on my own and have my small amount of space naturally constraining my purchasing.

For a while, my father were spending about 2300 a month, including car insurance, rent (850), food, electric, cable, water...

... Living is really expensive.