Maxine Waters Suggests in Church Sermon That She Was Sent by God to Stop Trump
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) has been one of President Trump's most outspoken critics, recently going so far as to encourage people to publicly harass members of the Trump administration.
On Sunday, however, Waters suggested in a church sermon in Los Angeles that she's on a divine mission to stop the president, blasting the Trump administration on a range of issues.
Addressing the congregation at First AME Church, Waters said, “You’ve gotta know that I’m here to do the work that I was sent to do, and as pastor said to me when I came in this morning, ‘When God sends you to do something, you just do it!'” she exclaimed to cheers from the crowd.
“So, I have a message. I’m going back to Washington tomorrow morning. I’m going to tell them pastor told me to come here and just do it!” she concluded.
Tags
Who is online
122 visitors
Considering the disdain for some on the left of those who believe in god this is a bold move indeed!
No, it just means she's either trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator or is just plain nuts. Or both. Whenever someone says they are on a "divine mission," or "god told/sent me to do this," that's a big red flag.
She is a Democrat. How much you want to bet she gets re-elected anyhow?
I really don't care. Crazy is crazy regardless.
Good to know some people still have sense.
Considering the partisan demographics of her district, she’s a shoo in for re election.
Keep politics and religion separate as per the 1st Amendment.
For a politician to try to link the divine with a political goal is as old as Zeus and Jupiter.
I wonder what Joy Baher ("hearing voices is a “mental illness”) will say about this on the View.
Mental illness is certainly a valid concern.
I think it is well past time for her to be committed.
I wonder if this is the move that finally gets the moon bats to stop re-electing her. Right. What am I thinking?
I tend to refrain from making judgements on things like this, but apparently she believes in God? Well, if that is the case, God says He is the one who appoints powers and authorities. If that is so, then wouldn't President Trump be there because God appointed him? And if that is so, wouldn't she be actually fighting against God's appointed?
My own personal suspicion is that God appointed Trump as a sort of punishment for our country, and possibly the world. I don't really know. I don't trust anything the media says, on either side, so it's hard for a little guy like me to know. But I do believe that God appointed President Trump. So I pray for President Trump. First, that he turns his heart toward God and second, that he accomplishes whatever God put him there to do, even to the detriment of our country. Not because I want to see our country suffer but because I believe God is going to do whatever will move the most people in His direction. Maybe the Honorable Waters should take this into account if she really believes in God.
Having read your response with great interest, do you hold leaders appointed by God can be for reward as well as punishment?
Of course. But mostly, I believe God appoints leaders to accomplish His plan. I say I suspect President Trump may be punishment for the direction our country is taking, but I don't know that. It may be that God is just using this servant to accomplish something that has nothing to do with reward or punishment. God certainly hasn't told me specifically : )
Honestly? I am usually out of my depth in politics. To me, it seems mainly about forcing one side to act or behave or believe a certain way. I don't really understand that. I mean, I don't understand how that can work. To me, effective "activism" is to treat the person you come into contact in your daily life the way you want to be treated. Show them through your own life and actions what you think is right, don't tell them. Live what you believe, in other words. I don't understand how people think that enacting laws can change what a person they've never met believes.
Not sure how what I just said relates to your question. It's just what came out.
So Trump was appointed by the Great Sky Fairy to make Russia great again and flush the US down the toilet?
Why does He hate America?
Perfectly answered my question, appreciate your response.
You don't actually expect a significant response to that, do you?
That's up to you given that you made the claim that your "god" appoints sociopathic traitors like Trump to advance some sort of agenda. Is your "god" a white supremacist or is he just trying to harm women and all kinds of minorities?
You don't actually expect a significant response to that, do you?
I doubt you have a significant response to give.
There you go with logic again. Haven't you learned that doesn't work with these folks?
I think you should ask Maxine these questions. I have yet to hear Trump make such a claim. But, hey, that would make too much sense and you would be admitting who the crazy one really is right?
Speaking of idiotic comments....
No chance and if she were to drop out another nut would replace her. She represents the middle of "Victimizationville".
And crickets from the crowd who get upset if a Republican so much as mentions looking at a church....
Indeed! It’s not the voice of God she’s hearing. She’s attributed to God her own personal desires.
What an odd thing to do.
I declare, I've never heard a politician do such a thing /s
Politician or not, who would name-drop the most supreme possible entity to garner support for one's intentions? Who would believe such a ploy?
I know. But it is a common ploy, and it does seem to work with some people.
Which is probably why she used it.
Not the wisest move, and not designed to appeal to the wisest of her audience, but it's been done before, and successfully. It likely won't succeed for her, though.
Apparently, there are those ignorant and/or gullible enough to believe anything if said supreme deity is invoked.
this seems to be quite common with almost all of the religious - whether they are conservative or liberal or whatever.
It's just a coincidence that my imaginary friend hates all the same people I do.
Liberalism trumps everything, even Democrats who believe in God are accepted as long as they believe in victimization and socialism and of course claim to be Liberals.
The majority of Democrats are practicing Christians. The majority has always been comprised of practicing Christians.
But you keep on fighting that straw man, if it makes you happy.
Not the leaders of the Democrat Party today.
Democratic Party
Unless one has personal knowledge of their religious convictions, it is dishonest to make declarations about them.
In Water's case, it is more like the Demonic Party!
Likewise, amazing there's not uproar on the left about this:
Read the link. Personally I detest cherry-picking scripture for political justification...by anyone regardless of party.
I know what you mean. It's like using something from the big old tax law books. There's something in there for everyone, good or bad. In other words there are tax laws to keep you out of prison and tax laws to put you in prison. You just have to know which one to use in your defense.
Lynne, seems you replied to a comment on another article and I didn't have time to respond, now I'll have to look it up. I think it had something to do with the tariffs. I think you have to look at the objective of rocking the boat, which we aren't sure if there is a productive objective at this time. I think it was you. Sorry for the short distraction.
Personally I think it's a great tool to bust these phony Christians and their stinking-to-the-heavens sanctimony.
Agreed!
Like I said, Liberalism trumps everything.
This progressive leftist liberal bigoted witch has been homesteading in DC decades longer than President Trump has been in office!
Don't Christian extremists like Robert Jeffress claim that their god appointed Trump to office? If so then I hope that Maxine's god is more powerful.
I'm reminded of the time G. W. Bush said god told him to invade Iraq. Crazy is crazy no matter who it is.
No he didn't.
Amazing how much propaganda the left spreads.
Yes, he did. At the very least, he claimed to have talked to god about invading Iraq. That's just as bad.
Why do you keep saying things that aren’t true?
please provide a transcript of the comment and prove me wrong.
Google is your friend. There's plenty of reports in different media outlets which affirm what the former President said. The Washington post (among other media outlets) mentions it in an article way back in 2005. Of course some would deny it. There's little doubt that Mr. bush wasn't at the very least partially religiously motivated.
Unfortunately, it's not yours. Please provide a transcript of when and where he said it. It shouldn't be difficult since President's statements are contemporaneously reported.
I'd hate to think you are relying on the word of a spokesman for a terrorist organization with a long history of bizarre lies in service of his repulsive ideology.
It would be so be embarrassing for you to be a stooge of anti-American terrorists and get caught repeating their self serving propaganda as fact!
Yea, he really did...
Please provide a transcript of when and where he said it. It shouldn't be difficult since President's statements are contemporaneously reported.
I'd hate to think you are relying on the word of a spokesman for a terrorist organization with a long history of bizarre lies in service of his repulsive ideology.
It would be so be embarrassing for you to be a stooge of anti-American terrorists and get caught repeating their self serving propaganda as fact!
Wow, so a media organization is now a terrorist organization? Or do you simply make that assertion about any or all media organizations that doesn't fit your own biases?
Wow. I didn't think I needed to spell this out, but I guess you should never overestimate your audience.
I'm referring to the actual, and only, original source for your claim. He's a spokesman for a terrorist organization with a long history of lying. Yet, you, and other liberals embraced anti-American terrorist propaganda because it suited your hatred.
I shouldn't need to spell this out, but apparently I have to. Just because a newspaper carries a statement from a terrorist, it doesn't make it a terrorist organization.
They won't admit they are carrying water for terrorists. Sad.
An odd statement, considering you just said, "He's a spokesman for a terrorist organization with a long history of lying."
So, are you saying a media outlet is a terrorist organization or not? And on what basis are you making the (serious) accusation of terrorism?
You must be confused, as I'm not a liberal.
I'm assuming you've read the article and understand what's happening. Do you not understand the provenance of your accusation? Here's a hint, it's not a news organization claiming to have heard Bush say that.
'm not a libera
My bad. I've only noticed you post conventional liberal talking points.
Yeah, for some candidates, their supporters eat this shit right up.
Having some people claiming something about Trump is not the same as Trump claiming it himself but I wouldn't expect that to stop you or the people who gave it a thumbs up from making such a ridiculous comparison, or trying to equate the two. Nice job on (unwittingly?) displaying bigotry BTW.
Trump pandered to evangelical Christians. It was every bit as laughably obvious as this ploy by Waters.
But for him, it worked.
What does that say about his base?
What does it say about someone who tries to equate "pandering to evangelicals" to someone claiming to do God's work to make a point?
They're both pandering. They're doing it in slightly different ways, but they're pandering. Only one seems to bother you. Why is that?
I agree on pandering but the contrast is stark. Not "slightly different". There is a VERY BIG difference in saying God has sent me to do something and saying I will stand up for certian values. Nice try though LOL
The fact that I keep pointing out this stark contrast only seems to bother you. Why is that?
I disagree that it's stark. Waters has said God sent her. Trump has portrayed himself as the savior of Christianity in America - the only one who will stand up to the "Season's Greetings", and a big fan of the two Corinthians. Both claim God's favor.
And you still only seem to have a problem with one.
And the biases revealed by your comments are too transparent to bother me
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Funny. I don't know anyone that believes Trump is the savior of Christianity in America but you.
Ditto.
If you could see my Facebook feed - pics of him in the White House, with preachers "laying hands" on him. Shared seriously, without any sense of irony at all, by my "Christian" friends. Yes, many of them think he's "bringing God back to America", since apparently God has been outlawed or something, and is too weak to do anything about it
What bias on my part? I've already said I don't think it's a smart strategy by Waters, and that it's designed to appeal to the least wise of her supporters.
At least 2 people on NT believe that trump is the savior of Christianity in America. Neither one of them is Sandy
Your bias is showing like a badly fitting slip
Meh, to each his own.
good answer
All voters are commissioned by providence to vote the damn gop out of Congress. Democrats for Impeachment!
Since we have the proof Trump was all in on colluding with Putin to subvert our republic it is all of ours duty now.
Go for it. Pence will make Trump look like a liberal.
They always forget about that part.
Or Pence could pardon Trump, select him for V.P., then resign his position.....fun thoughts.....
That’s not God talking to her. It’s just her wig scraping against her hollow scull and creating an echo.
The seed's title is a lie.
What part of her comments specifically lead you to believe the title is inaccurate? Sure sounds to me like she was insinuating it.
She doesn't mention Trump.
Makin' stuff up.
You obviously didn't read the article you are posting about.
(No surprise there) The ENTIRE RANT was about Trump.
Why don't you try for the "she didn't mean what she said" excuse instead? That one always carries more weight with Waters and is way more believable..
deleted
Deleted
She wants to get rid of a corrupt liar who also heads the opposition political party.
This is news?
Hey!
She' a Black woman saying unpleasant things about a White man.
Gettin' uppity, she is!
Gotta take her down a peg or two...
What's it like to be so obsessed with race, Bob? It must be exhausting.
Is there any situation you don't immediately racialize?
What's it like to have to constantly deny reality, Sean?
deleted
Those uppity black folks indeed should know their place/s
History of the Democratic party in a nutshell.
Don'y you know by now that when they know they can't win and argument they try to accuse racism to distract you from their inability to debate the actual subject?
Or put another way, she gets to say unpleasant things because she is black.
No. What she said is the kind of overblown language heard in evangelical churches all across the country... without drawing the slightest comment.
But when a Black woman uses the same florid language, she gets slammed.
Nothing sexist/racist there!
There are lots of televangelists spouting the same sort of language every Sunday. You should have lots of opportunities.
Then we agree.
It's certainly true that the King of the Birthers was elected in large part due to the racism of his overwhelmingly white base.
I'd like to see your proof for such an outlandish statement.
That's been widely covered before. Racism was the # 1 factor driving support for the King of the Birthers. No ethical person would have voted for him.
Yep...another one of those "if it's on the internet, and posted by a liberal, it must be true".
Actually what I think is news is that a far leftist has the balls to say they believe in God. Hate of God and those who believe in him is something the Alt right and far left usually have in common.
Well said.
Maxine Waters told people that, if they shoot her, then they better shoot straight and kill her — because an old loudmouth fascist fool, like herself, is dangerous when wounded.😂
Curious, the right wing calling this woman crazy, (and for the record, I am not a maxine waters fan....at all), but if a rightist had said the exact same thing, I would bet that the right would totally buy it. Hell, if trump said it, the evangelicals would be screaming it from the tops of buildings...
So is what waters said crazy because it is...well, crazy, or is it crazy because she is a democrat?
May come as a shock, but there really are Christians that are also democrats.
Jimmy Carter, terrible president, but 100% Christian who walks the walk and talks the talk. Just sayin..
I'd prefer she just shut the fuck up, she is starting to act like Louie Gohmert...
I'd prefer they both shut up, but then they aren't my representative.
Jesus, can god just leave us the fuck alone for a minute? It is getting really hard to tell what that asshole actually wants since he is telling multiple politicians multiple different things.
Being such a strong Trump critic will seal Maxine Waters' legacy as a great member of congress, and a fine, courageous representative of the American people.
Like an actual ahole, she should never been seen and only heard when it can’t be helped.
Worthless comment.
Great comment.
Rodney King verdict and Los Angeles riots
When south-central Los Angeles erupted in riots —in which 58 were killed—after the Rodney King verdict in 1992, Waters gained national attention "when she helped deliver relief supplies in Watts and demanded the resumption of vital services". [26] [27] Waters described the riots as a rebellion, saying "If you call it a riot it sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable." [28] In her view, the violence was "a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice." In regards to the looting of Korean-owned stores by local black residents, she said in an interview with KABC radio host Michael Jackson : "There were mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes... They are not crooks." [29]
CIA
Following a 1996 San Jose Mercury News article alleging the complicity of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the Los Angeles crack epidemic of the 1980s, Waters called for an investigation. Waters questioned whether "U.S.-government paid or organized operatives smuggled, transported and sold it to American citizens." [30] The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it had failed to find any evidence to support the original story. [31] The Los Angeles Times also concluded after its own extensive investigation that the allegations were not supported by evidence. [32] The author of the original story, Gary Webb , was eventually transferred to a different beat and removed from investigative reporting, before his death in 2004. [33] Webb was found in his apartment with two bullet holes in his head. His death was declared a suicide. Following these post-publication investigations, Waters read into the Congressional Record a memorandum of understanding in which former President Ronald Reagan 's CIA director rejected any duty by the CIA to report illegal narcotics trafficking to the Department of Justice. [34] [35]
Allegations of corruption
According to Chuck Neubauer and Ted Rohrlich writing in the Los Angeles Times in 2004, Maxine Waters' relatives had made more than $1 million during the preceding eight years by doing business with companies, candidates and causes that Waters had helped. They claimed she and her husband helped a company get government bond business, and her daughter Karen Waters and son Edward Waters have profited from her connections. Waters replied that "They do their business and I do mine." [36] Liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Waters to its list of corrupt members of Congress in its 2005, 2006, 2009 and 2011 reports. [37] [38] Citizens Against Government Waste named her the June 2009 Porker of the Month due to her intention to obtain an earmark for the Maxine Waters Employment Preparation Center. [39] [40]
Waters came under investigation for ethics violations and was accused by a House panel of at least one ethics violation related to her efforts to help OneUnited Bank receive federal aid. [41] Waters' husband is a stockholder and former director of OneUnited Bank and the bank's executives were major contributors to her campaigns. In September 2008, Waters arranged meetings between U.S. Treasury Department officials and OneUnited Bank, so that the bank could plead for federal cash. It had been heavily invested in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae , and its capital was "all but wiped out" after the U.S. government took them over. The bank received $12 million in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money. [42] [43] The matter was investigated by the House Ethics Committee , [44] [45] which charged her with violations of the House's ethics rules in 2010. [46] [47] [48] [49] On September 21, 2012, the House Ethics Committee completed a report clearing Waters of all ethics charges after nearly three years of investigation. [50]
"Reclaiming my time"
In July 2017, during a House Financial Services Committee meeting, Waters questioned United States Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin . At several points during the questioning, Waters used the phrase "reclaiming my time" when Mnuchin did not directly address the questions Waters had asked him. The video of the interaction between Waters and Mnuchin became viral on social media, and the phrase became attached to her criticisms of Trump. [51]
Louis Farrakhan
In early 2018, Waters was among the congressmen whom the Republican Jewish Coalition called to resign due to her connections with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan . [52] [53]
So Maxine said the billions of dollars in cost and death during the Rodney King riots was acceptable. You know during 1992 Los Angeles had 2900 plus murders that year. Compare that to today. Those officers were wrong, but people like Maxine should be locked in a padded room. Can you imagine what the police in Los Angeles had to deal with every day with nearly 3000 murders in their city that year which translates into over 8 murders a day and don't give me the old picking on minorities excuse, because that's who were committing those murders and the demographics in 1992 were a little less Hispanics and a little more blacks.
Yep she is a peach
So nice of the seeder to supply the quote that proves his headline is a lie:
So, Waters suggested nothing at all. Her pastor did. As usual the rightwing lying about Rep. Waters tells us two things: how much visceral hatred they have for anyone of color, particularly a woman, who doesn't take their shit and how much they're afraid of her. Fear and hatred go hand-in-glove.
That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? The pastor implied that she is doing the work of God and she went with it. While it can be argued that all she is doing is stating what the pastor said and no more, only an imbecile would believe that was the purpose of her statement.
First, that's only one thing. Where's the second? Second (see how that works?), your statement implies that had it been a white male democrat (with her history) who had said what was reported here no one would have had a problem with what he said. Is that what you are implying? Because if you're not, it seems you're just doing that left wing throw-in-the-race-and-sex-card-because-it-obfuscates-the-issue thing. That's usually a tactic that is used by people who don't use reason for their political position, but rather, emotion. In this political environment, you don't actually have to have a logical reason for stating it's about race, you just have to make the claim. Thoughtless lemmings can understand that racism is bad so, for them, that's good enough. It makes them feel good about fighting racism. There doesn't actually have to be any racism. That isn't important. What's important is the feeling one gets from fighting racism.
It's actually kind of degrading for the left, really. Not to say that the right doesn't degrade itself as well. It does. But we're talking about the left right now. A large, significant portion of the left, or so it seems to me, is made up of young people who don't really have a clue about life. They have ideas, but not experience. They don't know how it really works. So they go with their ideas. How they think the world should be. And older leftists use that naivety. Someone like you claims racism and sexism and those are things they think they understand, so they go with it. They don't really know why it's about racism or sexism. It's enough that they can see that she's a black woman so, ergo, it must be true. Without one little bit of evidence to back it up. It couldn't possibly be that people simply disagree with her politically. No. Instead, they, and you apparently, simply present the 'logic' that since she is both black and a woman that therefore proves they are against her because she's black and a woman, not because they disagree with her politically.
So, apparently, anyone who disagrees with Representative Waters must be a sexist racist. That implies that the world should be run by black women. Fine. But what are we going to do when black female political leaders disagree with each other, strongly? I have to wonder what the left will come up with that does the same thing? How will they label the one who's on the right?
Well, let's hit that "first" by reviewing the [false] headline:
The first fairly minor inaccuracy is claiming that she was delivering a sermon. She is not the minister so she is not giving a sermon. She's a member of this church which was filled with her constituency so she's addressing them about her role in that capacity. But the glaring lie is that she made any reference that SHE claimed she received some kind of direct message from God. Nothing of the sort was said or even implied. Let's look at her exact words, which you seemed to ignore, again:
No mention of any or a God much less even the whisper of being sent by one in that statement. She refers only to what her pastor told her. The pastor suggested this, not her. And she doesn't even use that idea of being sent in her statement.
Now as to this part of your "rebuttal:"
I'll address the word "democrat" first--it's a gratuitous description. I'd say simply any white male [politician] would have been given a pass because there are plenty of them, particularly in the rightwing bible thumper claque who make statements like this and much more in line with the what this seeder falsely accused Waters for saying all the time and get nothing but praise for it. I say, "like" this since, again, this statement is pretty anodyne. And as far as the other snide comment about "her history," she's a model of restraint and statesmanship compared to the likes of Loony-tunes Louie Gohmert and Make-Russia-Great-Again Rohrbacher," just to name a few of many on your side. You really need to study that "people in glass houses" aphorism a bit before you start throwing stones.
I agree, this is minor, although I think you are reading it wrong. It doesn't actually say she was giving a sermon but that she made her remarks during a sermon. At least, that's what it seems to say to me. Language can be tricky.
Well, I happen to agree with you to a point. The article and video seem to do all they can to suggest that Representative Waters was on a mission from God, according to her. I agree that this is misleading. It was the Pastor who made the claim, not her. However, it is also misleading to say that it wasn't implied. It very well was implied.
Consider. She is speaking to a congregation who, presumably, believes in God. She tells them “You’ve gotta know that I’m here to do the work that I was sent to do, and as pastor said to me when I came in this morning, ‘When God sends you to do something, you just do it!'” she exclaimed to cheers from the crowd. But you say...
Problem is, she's speaking to an audience. As a politician, she knows her audience. One that believes in God. So when she says things like “You’ve gotta know that I’m here to do the work that I was sent to do, and as pastor said to me when I came in this morning, ‘When God sends you to do something, you just do it!'” she exclaimed to cheers from the crowd. You can believe that they certainly heard it as she is on a mission from God.
So, you can remove all context and have a chance at your accusation being reasonable, but that's about it. Once you add the context, it doesn't stand a chance. There is no way to not link her and a mission from God in the audiences understanding.
Why?
Actually, as I have said elsewhere (15.1.4) I prefer politicians to leave public mention of God to a minimum. I certainly want my politicians to believe in God, but I don't think God wants to be a running mate. I don't like any of them doing it. But as to "the rightwing bible thumper claque,", I happen to agree with you. I loathe some of the statements made by them.
It wasn't meant to by snide. I was simply putting a white male in her place. Since that is so, he would necessarily have to have the same history. That is, done and said the same things. That was the point after all, wasn't it? That had she been a white male she'd have gotten a pass?
I don't think you know what side I'm on. Hint. Not a republican. Didn't vote for President Trump.
I'll tell you why I responded to your post. It pisses me off that you perpetuate the very thing you are arguing against. You claim that the title and article are misleading, and to a narrowly defined extent, it is, but it isn't totally misleading and you think I'm too stupid to see it. In other words, you, in trying to point out how misleading it is, try to mislead me in another direction. If you are for the truth, then be for the truth. Regardless of her personal beliefs, she certainly intended to give the impression that she was on a mission from God to this congregation, whether or not she herself believed it or not. That is the truth.
Oh, also! I don't actually consider the Fox article/vid actual news. I don't think it was meant to convey information. I think it's only purpose was to cast derision on Representative Waters for the lemmings on the right who like to soak that sort of thing up. As far as I can tell, all major news outlets do this sort of thing and part of the reason I can hardly stand to read the news anymore. They aren't news sources, they're indoctrination centers.
Good post.
IMNAAHO, the is "mountain from a molehill".
Flamboyant language is a standard characteristic in lots of churches - not just Black ones. Taking flamboyant words out of that context and putting them in an everyday setting is... false.
Like CNN?
Yes
The full quote...I know how distressed you must be that some of the left believe in God but there you have it.
Hold the phone!
A politician is making a speech in a church? Where are the screams of protest from our militant atheist friends? What about that wall of separation between church and state you guys are always insisting should be inviolable?
that church should lose it's tax exemption
Page 7A news in today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram newspaper.
Imagine Congress even debating such a thing...........stunning.
it's a start
I presume you are just kidding around and that you actually do understand the concept of the 1st amendment (in concert with the eventual state incorporation based on the 14th amendment).
Nothing here prevents a politician or government official from holding religious beliefs. The Constitution defines (by intent) a secular government - one that operates (in theory) based on what is best for society regardless of what religious beliefs might suggest. The exact opposite of a theocracy. But it does not, in any way, seek to dissuade religious beliefs.
Nothing I wrote had anything to do with a politician's right to have religious beliefs.
You wrote:
There is nothing wrong with a politician having religious beliefs (genuine or fake). If a politician wishes to attend a church and even participate in the service (and that includes getting up and talking) they are free to do so. Nobody should be screaming about separation of church and state because this act has nothing to do with said separation .
See?
Again, I didn't say anything about her beliefs. She is making a political speech in a church. If Trump were making a speech in a church, the militant atheists on here would either be calling it an endorsement of religion or you'd be accusing the church of getting involved in politics.
I couldn't care less, but if that politician makes a show of it, your allies generally call it a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Oh, you're preaching to the choir. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists who are truthfully more aligned with Democrat partisanship than they are actually concerned about the 1st Amendment (IMO).
Yes she is!!! In a CHURCH . Do you think she is portraying herself as an atheist or as a believer? (hint: not an atheist) When she refers to God wanting her to deal with Trump (per the preacher) is that her speaking in terms of a religious perspective or not?
Why do you dismiss the blatantly obvious fact that this seed is very much about her religious beliefs (genuine or fake)??
You were complaining that 'my allies' are not complaining about this. Remember, you wrote:
... and I am telling you that the lack of screams of protest is quite sensible. In fact, I have explained it in very basic terms. Yet you seem to pretend to not understand. Tacos! you do not get such a pass - no way you do not understand this so feigned obtuseness is not going to work.
Actually you are failing miserably. You complain that there are no screams of protest in a situation that really should not be protested. Very strange.
Yes, and I have seen people make the argument that that amounts to a government endorsement of a specific religion. I have said this three times now, I think. Is it so hard to understand, but you don't even seem to be engaging with the argument. You keep trying to talk about other things. To wit:
Because I want to talk about the aspect of the story that interests me. If you want to talk about her beliefs, make a comment thread on that.
Correct. That's called hypocrisy.
Nope, you're not being honest with yourself. The circumstances are similar to others where people complain about the separation of church and state, but we aren't hearing the complaints here because of the politics of the speaker.
I despise the form of intellectual dishonesty you are using: playing games to avoid engaging in debate.
You wrote this:
You figured there should be screams of protest from atheists (note how your introduction of the term atheist introduces religious belief into the question). You then write that you would have expected atheists to protest that Waters is violating the separation of church and state . So naturally I responded to your point noting that there is no reason for screams of protest:
So I answer with the 1st and 14th amendment and invite you to show why you think there should be screams of protest. I then start with an initial explanation that it does not matter if Waters attends a church, speaks at a church or if she even holds religious beliefs while in office. None of these compromise the 1st + 14th amendments. So why would you expect this to be a separation of church and state issue?
Instead of addressing my counterpoint, you avoided it and dishonestly focused on one sentence with the lame ' but I did not actually use those words ' so as to distract the debate. This is your response in its entirety ... this is all you offered:
Yeah, well when in a topic talking about a politician who believes (or fake-believes, does not matter) that God has charged her to deal with Trump, you really do not have to say the exact words to be talking about belief. It is implicit.
So explain why you think this violates the separation of church and state.
Be specific. If an R politician is speaking in a church, or expresses a belief, or anything else that has a tie to 'church' (basically religious belief) that is NOT ipso facto a violation of church and state. So if a D politician (and I strongly dislike Waters so this certainly is not bias from me) does similarly it is NOT a violation of church and state.
What, specifically, would be the atheist complaint?
Personally I would prefer all politicians engage in critical thinking and never act because they think they are following the will of God. But that does not mean it violates the constitution (or an interpretation of principles underlying the constitution) if someone acts based on religious beliefs. However, it would be a violation if a politician attempted to create a USA religion or to prevent the practice of religion in the USA.
I think you're missing the point, TiG. He hasn't at all spoken of whether or not she should have religious beliefs or of whether or not she should speak in a church. Tacos! is merely pointing out the lack of equal treatment by many on the left concerning Representative Waters statements in that church. Had a Republican told a congregation that he was on a mission from God, whether literally or implied, the left would be all over it. But the same voices seem to give Representative Waters a pass.
To make sure I'm being clear, Tacos! point isn't at all about any amendment rights or separation of Church and State. It's about the lack of reaction to a statement that, had a candidate on the right made it, would have been commented on negatively. In short, it isn't about Representative Waters' beliefs at all. It is about those on the left who are silent but never miss a chance to lambaste someone on the right who say the same sort of thing.
I'm not sure how you got to your argument from what Tacos! said.
Uhm, by the way. Awesome name and avatar. The exclamation point in the name is brilliant! Now if you will excuse me. I feel a need for tacos for some reason.
I. Don't!
I don't know what else to tell you. I have tried to be clear and to clarify my remarks where you seem to misunderstand, but you are so far off target from what I have tried to talk about, I might as well be typing Greek. Try reading the comment from Drakkonis. Maybe that will help you.
I suspect you are only reading Tacos! posts because my point was not about whether or not she holds beliefs or whether or not she should speak in a church. Those are simply the optics. My point is that there is no reason for an atheist to complain because Waters' believing (genuine or fake) that she has been instructed by God to deal with Trump is not a violation of the 1st and 14th. Her pastor-God-Trump statement is not a constitutional issue.
Just have to actually read what I write and not cherry-pick. Here is what Tacos! wrote to start this:
Did you read it? Did you see that Tacos! noted that the very event of a politician making a speech in a church is something that atheists (not partisans, he focused on religion) would find objectionable? Did you notice that he specifically called out the expected complaint: separation of church and state ? So he apparently thinks atheists consider it a violation of the 1st and 14th amendments for a politician to make a speech in a church.
And this is my response:
Note the point I made: n one of the events in this seed violate the 1st and 14th amendments . So why would someone expect atheists to object to this? That is the point Drak. My follow on essentially establishes the fact that there is nothing constitutionally wrong with politicians or government officials being religious (or even pretending to be). So the mere fact that Waters is in a church giving or speech or even if she acts in congress based on her belief that God told her to deal with Trump has nothing to do with the separation of church and state .
Tacos! ignored my point and went for the 'I did not use those words' ploy. Not the point. Pure deflection. What role are you planning to play?
A valid constitutional objection would be if Waters returned to Congress and tried to push a bill to deem a particular religion the 'designated' religion of the USA (or a state) or if she tried to outlaw all religions. She is doing nothing of the sort so your typical constitutionally aware atheist would not offer screams of constitutional protest because there is nothing constitutional to protest.
Neither do I.
So why do you expect anyone to object? Your expectation is irrational - or presumes that atheists do not understand the 1st and 14th amendments.
Just to punctuate, to illustrate an obvious problem:
That is what the man wrote. Screams of protect ---- by atheists ---- regarding separation (the only named issue)
Yes, Drak, Tacos! point is very much about amendment rights and the separation of Church and State. At least before the equivocation started.
You are one hundred percent correct. You, me and Tacos! agree completely. But that is totally beside the point. Has nothing to do with what Tacos! Said. But you insist that he explain why atheists (or some people on the left, as I'd have said) should object. Which is missing the point even further.
The point is, if it isn't unconstitutional for any politician to attend and even speak in a church, why do so many atheists and others on the left deride those who do so on the right??? And since they obviously do, why are they giving Representative Waters a pass? They know what you know, but they do it anyway to those who are on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Can't you see that this is what he is asking??? It isn't a question of constitutionality, it's a question of why do they treat the same situation different ways.
I've already played it. I've already spent too much time on it and it really isn't that important.
Tacos! made a specific point about separation of church and state. I demonstrated this with his opening post. The implication is that atheists more often than not will cry constitutional foul when a person attends or speaks in a church. There were no cries here. And the reason is that there is no reason to cry foul. (And you agree with that.)
However, you (and Tacos!) presume that more often than not atheists will declare a constitutional violation if a politician attends or speaks at a church. And I challenge your presumption. Show me that atheists will by-and-large pretend that speaking at a church service violates the 1st and 14th amendments. Demonstrate that atheists are, by and large, confused about the constitution regarding giving speeches in churches.
You will not be able to do that. That should illustrate my point (to you) nicely. I understand that this is something a theist would want to believe is true, but wishful thinking does not always align with the facts.
Sorry, TiG. There's just no point in going on.
There was no point in the original statement. It is illogical to presume that atheists are by and large so ignorant of basic constitutional facts that they would protest a politician speaking in a church. Given the vast majority of politicians claim to be religious the speaking in religious circumstances is routine.
If the presumption that merely speaking in church would cause atheists to cry constitutional foul were true, we would be inundated with such cries because politicians speak in religious venues all the time. There are always the exceptions but by and large atheists do not hold the position that politicians are constitutionally bound to NOT make speeches in religious venues.
You picked the wrong side of this debate.
Tacos! made an accusation. One which he refuses to, or is unable to, substantiate. He should be honest enough to admit as much, and that he just likes making unfounded accusations and expecting them to stand unchallenged, but I won't hold my breath.
Respectfully, I disagree. I think he declines, as do I, because it wouldn't matter one way or the other.
As a Christian, I'm pretty familiar with how many of the atheists treat candidates or politicians on the right when they involve religion. Both in here and in the now defunct Newsvine. What TiG is attempting to do is restrict Tacos! meaning of his statement to a specific, narrowly defined meaning. Specifically, one that can be challenged in court. But I think what Tacos! meant was that regardless of whether it violates the constitution, many on the left, atheist or otherwise, decry foul whether or not there's an actual foul. That is, the issue isn't whether or not there is a constitutional violation. The issue is that some atheists and others on the left decry any public expression of faith by those on the right who hold or contend for public office, violation or not.
Take, for instance, religious monuments on public lands. There is no constitutional violation in them being there. It is not an endorsement of religion. It's public land and the public should be able to use it. What would be an endorsement would be only allowing a specific religion access to public lands. Yet we have a segment of society who twist the meaning of the constitution to exclude another segment of society based on their own beliefs. In essence, every time an atheist or humanist causes some religion's monument to be removed, they have basically erected their own monument, in the form of legal rulings, on public lands at the exclusion of others. That is, atheism, or humanism is allowed to be expressed on public lands but not religion.
I have noted that they have similar reactions to public figures on the right who express religious views. But it would be useless to debate this with TiG because he isn't interested in discussing this aspect of the topic. He wishes to restrict Tacos! statement as he has defined it rather than the more likely probability that Tacos! meaning was the general comments anyone on the right who expresses faith or says the name of God garners.
Of course. That's why we see so many Baphomets outside of courthouses. Because government is allowing all religions equal access
You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. Atheists and leftists don't care if politicians have or express religious views. We only care that they don't legislate them or use public resources to promote them. You and Tacos! are stating otherwise, but can't substantiate your claims.
TiG is responding to Tacos!'s actual words. Tacos!'s (and your) inability to back up those words do not mean that TiG is defining them. If Tacos! can't back up his statement, perhaps he should rethink deploying a straw man.
Right now the latest claim on the table -by you- is that atheists, et.al. routinely cry foul if a politician speaks at a religious venue as a constitutional violation. I rejected that claim and gave you very specific reasons why. I then asked you to back up your claim.
You are still responding yet your claim remains unsubstantiated. Looks to me that you are trying to equivocate to a defensible position.
Yes. That's part of it. In my opinion, the statue of Baphomet should be allowed under the constitution, although I am of course against it on religious grounds. I'm sure, however, that you recognize that this particular issue isn't about the freedom of religious expression but, rather, a tactical ploy to eliminate Christian religious symbolism on public property. The Satanists would be perfectly happy with being denied the display of their symbols as long as it resulted in the elimination of Christian symbols as well.
The evidence for this is that they, the Satanists, never present their argument for putting their symbols on public property on the basis of freedom of religion but always link it to Christianity. That is, their goal isn't the fair treatment of their religion but is always the elimination of Christian expression in the public square. If you pay attention to such things, you will never find a petition from the Satanist to establish a monument on public ground simply based on the freedom of religious expression. Rather, it is always targeted at pressuring the removal of Christian symbolism.
Personally, although I think it sad, I'd prefer we Christians take down such symbolism. It puts the focus on what Christians are fighting for on the wrong thing, although I understand why many fight it.
You, of course, are welcome to your opinion. I don't believe I am wrong. I have been on Newsvine and in here too long to believe your view of things.
The problem is that people of your view believe that people of my view need to leave our religious beliefs in a box we only take out on Sundays. Take abortion for example. Your side believes we are imposing our religious views on you when we oppose abortion. We aren't. We are expressing our view of reality. To ask us to disregard our views because they are religious is exactly the same as what you are claiming we do. That is, you are imposing your view that religion has no place in the subject of abortion.
To put it another way, your side is doing exactly what you claim our side is doing. Attempting to impose your beliefs on us.
I disagree. TiG is attempting to enforce his interpretation of Tacos! actual words. Atheists and other leftists, in my experience, deride any form of religious expression by the right. That is what Tacos! was actually referring to, in my view. I say this from experience. From years in Newsvine, and now this place.
It's more like not desiring to debate the flat earthers.
And Christians are always quick to forego their own "freedom of expression (at taxpayer expense, of course)" when confronted by the fact that those they oppose can legally demand the same. A much more common-sense approach is to leave religious expression to churches and private homes, which are in ample supply.
I thought you were male, Drakk. I'm not aware that abortion affects you in any way whatsoever. It most definitely affects women. Abortion affects you like Muslim and Jewish prohibitions on pork affect vegetarians - not at all, because it's not something they were going to eat, anyway.
These are Tacos!'s actual words:
Those are the words that TiG is addressing. Tacos! is the one accusing us of finding Constitutional dilemmas where there are none. If he doesn't meant that, and I can't see any other possible interpretation of those words, then he should clarify or backpedal. That would be the intellectually honest course of action, rather than letting unsupported accusations stand, and running away from debate, or willfully misunderstanding those words in order to let Tacos! off the hook for them.
Yes it is.
No, it isn't.
It's about equality under the constitution. Either ALL religions must be represented equally, or none at all. Anything else is a show of preference. And Satanists haven't been happy at being denied. They had to fight for their displays through the court in some cases.
If Christians are allowed to display their religious icons in the public square, then why not Satanists (or anyone else)? That is the argument, and it is a valid one.
See previous statement. Of course, Satanists and other religions do not feel the need to have the government validate their religion for them or shove their religion in everyone else's face. Only christians seem to do that. Satanists simply want to level the playing field.
On that, we agree. Why some Christians feel the need to display their religious icons like some kind of bling is beyond me.
As you say, you are welcome to your opinion.
It doesn't! Abortion is a legal issue, not a religious one. You may oppose abortion on religious grounds, but that doesn't mean you get to use that as an excuse to attempt to deny people their right to abortion.
It's more like not having a debate to offer.
You equate my debate to that of a flat Earther - a common exemplar of misguided and irrational thinking??
What value comes from making such an insulting comparison?
I disagree with your claim that atheists et. al. typically complain that simply speaking in a religious venue goes against the Constitution. Rather than get personal, it would be vastly better to back up your claim.
I got to remember that one
I understand your point, but here's the problem. How does one leave their religious expression at church and at home when it is what their life is about? If you are a Christian, you don't (or aren't supposed to) just put on Christianity like some sort of clothes you only wear at home. Even so, I do agree with you up to a point. I do not agree with my Christian brothers and sisters who attempt to enforce Christian morals on those who aren't Christian. Gay marriage, for instance. Although I think there are moral reasons against it, there isn't a constitutional one, so we shouldn't be trying to force people to live by our beliefs legislatively. However, I have no problem with people voting their conscience. For instance, in my state we voted on the gay marriage issue. If one voted against it because they thought it was wrong, no problem. If they voted no because they wanted to force others to their values, problem.
I am male. Also, thanks for the second 'k' in Drakk. I like it when people contract it that way rather than just a single 'k'.
As for the rest of your opinion on this, I'm not trying to judge you or piss you off but I have a different opinion. I am going to express what that difference is. Please don't take it as an attack on yourself.
First, even though I am male, abortion does affect me. If I were not a follower of God I would be all for abortion. What man who doesn't follow God would want to be potentially saddled with having to pay for a child they fathered but don't want? That isn't the direction our society is headed. I wonder how many women get abortions at the insistence of the man who got her pregnant in the first place? Nope. What we want today is what we desire, without the consequences of our actions.
Second, I don't believe your comparison works because I don't believe the issue of terminating a human life, or a potential human life, is comparable to whether a person chooses to eat pork or not. I can't say for sure, but I think that, even if I were an atheist, I'd still think abortion wrong. For all we know, this is the only planet in the entire universe with life on it. And out of the 8.7 million species on Earth (that we know about) we are the only species with the self aware intelligence that we have. Abortion makes a mockery of that. I wonder how many Gandhi's we've killed. How many Jonas Salks, Martin Luther Kings, Albert Einstein's? For what? The inconvenience of the consequences of our actions? How does that compare to eating pork or not?
Yes, they are. But is that his intended meaning? I had a pill botte from my doctor that said "take one pill twice daily". Does that mean I was supposed to take the same pill twice?
I disagree. As I said, I think TiG is trying to force a narrow interpretation that he feels he can win. I think Tacos! was simply speaking of the typical response the left gives the right whenever they speak about God.
No. What I was getting at is making the effort to make my argument would be similar to trying to argue with a flat Earther. I know you've been in this sort of venue as long as I have, if not longer. I know you've seen the same comments I have. Yet, even so, you wish to narrow Tacos! intended meaning down to what you have. I know you know as well as I do that the general position of the left and of atheists is as Sandy stated…
And she put it politely. Yet you seem to wish to ignore this sentiment which is often expressed in more vitriolic terms and restrict it to actual case law. Be offended if you want to, but I know you have seen the comments that explicitly state that they would wish to eliminate any public mention of religion or of God in the public sphere. I have, so therefore, so have you.
Because they often do if the politics are reversed.
Many don't, which is why they make those complaints.
It's rather easy if one takes a rational and logical approach to an issue or problem.
I have yet to hear one, especially one that doesn't involve religion to some degree.
Or at all.
Good thing equal rights is not, and should not, be put to popular vote.
If you are a male, it doesn't affect you in the least. Especially if abortion involves someone you do not know or have any affiliation with.
Even one is too many. It's not the man's place nor anyone else's to decide what a woman should do regarding her choices, including abortion.
Nothing wrong with desire.
Depends on the actions. And what consequences would those be? If it doesn't involve you, then it doesn't affect you.
That's what we currently know. But it's mathematically unlikely.
That's emotionally based tripe. You might as well say miscarriage or SIDS makes a mockery of that too.
Or how many Hitler's or Stalin's, or Bin Laden's, ect..? See how flawed that particular argument is?
Certain people/religions view it as equal.
TiG was quite clear in his responses.
That's a remarkable bit of hypocrisy considering you have accused both me and Drakkonis of being dishonest in this conversation.
I should have been more precise. Religious monuments should stay on private property. Taxpayers should not be supporting the creation, placing, or maintenance of symbols of religions they do not support. Most Christians wouldn't want to pay for the upkeep of a Baphomet or pentacle. Likewise, I don't want to pay for the upkeep of a cross or creche.
"Don't be offended, but I'm going to say something really offensive." Why is it that you refuse to believe that atheists have a moral compass, but think atheists shouldn't see that as an attack? Atheist men, every bit as much as Christian men, support their children. Even the ones they didn't mean to conceive.
If you're a Christian, and unmarried, I believe you're supposed to be celibate, so abortion is still an issue that does not affect you.
Likewise, how many Hitlers, Mussollinis, Dahmers? How many women were prevented from becoming Marie Curies and Rosemary Franklins by being forced to forego their educations due to unwanted pregnancies?
The distance you have to stretch to misunderstand either statement is absurd. If you manage to misinterpret something so clear, please have your pharmacist sort your medications for you, for your own safety.
Except that neither of you has been able to show that that is the typical response, and yes, Tacos!'s words, and yes, they did indicate that we believe religious speech by government officials is unconstitutional.
Insisting that he didn't say what he clearly said is dishonest, Drakk.
You made an accusation you can't back up. That's dishonest.
I have noticed a distinct lack of intellectual integrity.
This is why I seldom respond to you. You actually think this post is some sort of rational response to what I said. I usually wouldn't bother with this, but you caught me in a mood.
Typical. You make a declarative statement but don't actually provide any rational or logic to support your assertion.
What you mean, actually, is you haven't heard a moral reason you agree with. No, that isn't correct. That implies that you are capable of actually thinking about alternative points of view. You aren't.
Correct, but not in the way you intended. While I believe we Christians shouldn't force our beliefs on others, you do not believe that you shouldn't be able to force your beliefs on others. That is, you believe that your statement only applies to me and not to you. If it were not so, you'd have no problem with someone expressing their faith in public. Such as a prayer at a football game.
For goodness sake, Gordy, do you actually bother to think before you write? You actually quoted me saying that the issue of gay marriage in my state was put to the popular vote and then went right ahead and said this.
Brilliant! Masterful! I actually posted an example of why abortion does affect me and you come back with this. So typically you. So, according to this, my example of Jonas Salk, Martin Luthor King, Albert Einstein and other such people actually have had no effect on my life? That our world, had such people been aborted, would not be different?
I'll agree with even one is too many. The rest is just a slogan. Totally disregards personal responsibility.
I'm sure NAMBLA will be thrilled with your support.
True, if I lived on my own planet with just me on it.
O.M.G. Really? There is absolutely no math based on evidence that supports this claim. The only place we know, provably, that has life on it is Earth. One place. You can't build a statistical model off the number "1".
Except one involves choice.
Are you kidding me? So, your argument is, abortion is okay because even though we may prevent Martin Luthor Kings, Gandhis and Albert Einsteins it's okay because we may be preventing Hitlers?
Okay, so your saying that there are religions where they'd actually dither over whether to abort someone or eat pork?
Yes, he was. And???
A lot of that going around.
Agreed. I don't know what this has to do with what we are discussing, though. Not a criticism. Just saying I don't understand how it relates.
Not offended. I don't find anything offensive in what you said.
That said, I don't believe atheists don't have a moral compass. I think nearly everyone does, with the possible exception, I'm lead to believe, sociopaths and psychopaths. It would be more accurate to say that I believe that atheists have a defective moral compass (because they don't believe God). Nor do I think that being an atheist guarantees that they aren't moral people in the usual sense. I'm pretty sure that, morally, there are atheists who act more morally than I do. Behaving morally is a hard thing to do.
Nor did I mean to imply that there aren't atheists who support their children. Of course there are those who do. I suspect that the number who do so greatly outweigh those who don't.
In actuality, I wasn't referring to atheists. I was referring to men in general. Being a man, I know the temptations of being a man. Although I have been celibate for decades I do have a sex drive. I understand the desire to have sex without any consequences being attached.
If you're a Christian, and unmarried, I believe you're supposed to be celibate, so abortion is still an issue that does not affect you.
I am a Christian and I am unmarried but I disagree with the issue of abortion not affecting me.
Consider. If I were to say that the white race is superior to all others and I worked toward making that public policy, would you not consider that to affect you? The point isn't whether or not being white is superior or not. The point is how does such a policy affect others. The question each person has to contend with is, do I want to live in a society where being white is considered to be superior?
Concerning abortion, the question is, do we wish to be a society where personal desires trumps what is or isn't moral? That is the debate. Women are what produce more humans. Without them, we'd have never existed. Like it or not, there is a responsibility in that, although the so called "pro choice" deny it.
To me it is obvious, but I can understand why it isn't to some. I have had the opportunity for sex on many occasions. In a sense, it is what is in the Bible that stops me. No sex outside of marriage. But, really, it's understanding why that is so that stops me. The responsibility of potentially fathering another life unintentionally is but one of the things that stops me.
A good question. I don't have a perfect answer. However, do you think preventing Hitlers, Mussollinis and Dahmers an actual justification for abortion, even if it means potentially that Martin Luthor Kings, Gandhis and Albert Einsteins would not be born?
It isn't about misunderstanding. I understand perfectly what TiG was saying. What I am saying is that TiG is forcing an interpretation that wasn't intended, just like my example with the pill bottle. Tacos! wasn't saying that opponents were literally challenging religious expression in a legal, constitutional sense (in my opinion), but rather, how the left treats religious expression from the right.
I am assuming you've been here a while. By that I mean you've also been on Newsvine. Assuming that's true, it's inarguable that those on the left in here express hostility to any expression of religious views by the right. That is what Tacos! was referring to.
And separation of church and state was in no way an exaggeration. Anyone with any honesty would admit that those who participate in discussion in places like this can't come to the conclusion that the left, and atheists, feel there is no place for religious views in politics.
I don't insist that he didn't say what he clearly said. What I insist is that you are bending it out of context. I will ask you a question I already know the answer to. Do you believe that an individual can believe in God and have that faith rule their life? Answer. Yes, you believe that, as long as it doesn't affect you. Problem is, if a candidate for political office has religious beliefs, you believe that they should have no part in his run for office. (this is, of course, an assumption based on what you've said. I could be wrong) In my years of participating in sites like this one I understand perfectly what Tacos! said. It isn't a question of whether or not it's constitutional, it's about how people treat it in places like this.
To put it another way, what TiG is attempting to do is look at the constitutionality of Tacos! statement. What Tacos! was referring to was how people in this place treat religious expression.
The reason we don't bother with providing proof, although proof can be found right here in this very seed, is that presenting it wouldn't make any difference. This is because we aren't talking about the same thing. TiG wants the conversation to be about the actual legality constitutionally, while Tacos! was speaking about how people treat the subject in this place. Do you not see the difference?
I assume that you mean am doing the same thing. I think that is dishonest. I take pains to back up what I say. That is, I make a statement and then provide reasons behind it. Are you saying that I am not or are you simply saying that you disagree with what I say?
Which says a lot about you, especially where logical discussion is concerned.
Read it again then! It is a logical response. It's certainly not emotional.
The statement speaks for itself. If there is some issue or concern, there are two ways to approach it: logically and rationally, or emotionally. Three ways if you prefer to outright ignore it. But solutions come best if approached rationally. That does go without saying. I'm surprised I actually have to explain that.
No, it means I haven't heard a good moral reason. Some people might claim some "moral" opinion or high ground, but that's about it.
Nice personal attack there. That also says a lot about you.
You presume too much. I've always said people are free to believe whatever they want. As long as they don't attempt to push their beliefs onto others or through the law/government where it doesn't belong, then there's no problem.
If you want to pray at a football game, go nuts. I don't care. But I assume you are referring to school games and prayers led by school staff (such as a coach), then that runs afoul of the constitution.
My statement stands! We do not put equal rights to popular vote. That's why states that voted to pass bans on same sex marriage have always been challenged and near universally struck down in federal courts, culminating with the SCOTUS decision in Obergefell.
Glad you noticed.
What example exactly? I reviewed you post and you provide no example. Just religious rhetoric. something bout child support, and a fallacious argument about whom might be born, which is at best a what-if scenario. you haven't said how abortion affects you personally. If you're male, then the only way abortion might affect you is if your significant other has an abortion with you knowing she's pregnant. Otherwise, anyone else having an abortion has absolutely no impact on you.
Again, a logical fallacy based on nothing more than a what-if scenario. That's why I countered with Hitler, Stalin, ect., if you're going to try to use that argument.
The rest is just fact!
Choosing to have an abortion, or not, is taking responsibility.
I'm sure you can do better than a strawman argument. Eh, maybe not.
You still didn't answer the question.
The Drake Equation is math based.
Considering the sheer vastness of the universe, with the number of planets, not to mention the myriad of environmental conditions under which life can arise, thrive, and even evolve, the idea that there is not any life whatsoever elsewhere in the universe is just absurd.
And that choice belongs to the woman, and only the woman in question, and no one else.
How is it any different than you argument about having "Jonas Salk, Martin Luthor King, Albert Einstein and other such people?" If you are going to dismiss my exact same argument as yours, then you are dismissing your own argument, which shows how weak it is to begin with!
Some religions and/or individuals probably view those things with equal seriousness.
There seems to be a certain...hostility (for lack of a better term) towards his replies.
I meant that I should have confined myself to discussing religious monuments on public property, rather than religious expression in general.
And that is offensive. You don't get a pass for saying something offensive by telling people beforehand not to be offended. If I were to say that Christians have a defective moral compass because they worship an evil, murderous god, Christians would rightly be offended. Telling them beforehand not to be offended doesn't make the statement any less offensive.
That is an oversimplification of the debate. It is not merely a matter of personal desires. It's the needs of an actual, living, breathing human being opposed to the potential needs of a potential human being. A woman may not be able to afford to care for a child, nor able to afford prenatal care. She may not be able to afford the time off of work required for that prenatal care, not to mention the delivery and recovery period, especially if there are complications. She may (actually, often does) have other children at home whose financial stability would be threatened by her pregnancy. She may not be in physical condition to carry a pregnancy to term safely.
As long as there are men who want consequence-free sex, there will be women dealing with the consequences, one way or another.
That is a blatant false equivalence. TiG responded to actual words frequently in use when discussing the Constitution.
I've never said anything of the sort. It would be difficult for a politician to be elected in the US without at least pretending to be Christian, however insincerely. What I have said, and maintain, is that their religious beliefs should have no part in the writing of our laws. No Bible-based bans on same-sex marriage (nor tattoos, nor cotton-poly blends). No Blue Laws. No bans on contraception or sex education. No coverture laws.
And yet also you:
Not to mention, lack of access to abortion also kills. How many women who were denied abortion and died as a result might have contributed good to the world?
Um. Wow. I'm just going to assume you don't actually know what the Drake Equation is and just quietly back away.
Hmmm..... so what's this, then:
N = R* • f p • n e • f l • f i • f c • L
N = The number of civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy whose electromagnetic emissions are detectable.
R* = The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of intelligent life.
f p = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.
n e = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment suitable for life.
f l = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears.
f i = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges.
f c = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
Um, it's the Drake Equation.
Are you suggesting that because you can post it that you know what it is? If so, you would be wrong.
The Drake Equation is Drake's best, what he considers reasonable, guess as to how many civilizations may exist that can communicate with others. It is a guess based on an assumption. That's it.
Further, if you look at the subject at all, many find fault with the values he uses in the equation. Personally, since I do know what the Drake equation is, I don't really care about that. Drake wasn't actually trying to determine the number of civilizations that could communicate. He was really trying to stimulate conversation about the idea of other civilizations. That was all he was trying to do.
While I have no problem with someone believing that there must be other civilizations out there, trying to use the Drake equation as evidence to negate what I said previously is erroneous, to put it politely.
Above is what Tacos! wrote. No strange interpretation from me, just what he wrote. Now let’s read what you just wrote:
So you see nothing specific in Tacos! comment? You do not see the words I highlighted in blue? You think it was an unfair narrowing of meaning for me to address the separation of church and state in my response?
I know exactly what the Drake Equation is, as Atheist kindly elaborated on. And yes, it is a mathematical equation.
Apparently, you do not.
It's based on mathematical probability.
I put it out there as a mathematical equation, which supports the probability of advanced life out in the Milky Way. It doesn't even take into consideration all other galaxies within the universe, of which there are billions. So the idea that there is no life in our galaxy, much less the entire universe not only defies mathematical probability, it is just an absurd position to take. It's a shame that we do not yet have the technology to detect or find other life in the galaxy/universe directly-yet.
You base that assertion on what, exactly? However, it does stimulate conversations about life in the universe and encourages scientific attempts to discover said life.
It's funny how he complains about abortion somehow affecting him, but doesn't even seem to consider how it affects women who actually become pregnant and have to deal with that. What about them?
Okay.
Um, I don't recall asking you not to be offended. I did notice that you asked me not to be offended. I don't care if I'm offensive to Gordy. He's offensive and proud of it, but I am seriously trying not to offend you. I am treating my discussion with you seriously, whereas I don't with Gordy because, so far, I think you are speaking genuinely.
I can understand why you think my saying atheists have a defective moral compass is offensive. To be clear, I don't mean that in the sense that you possibly take it. I don't mean that atheists eat babies, think nothing of not honoring their word or don't allow people making a right turn into traffic. For me, anyone who doesn't acknowledge God has a defective moral compass. Believing that doesn't mean that atheists can't or don't do what is commonly considered right. As I said earlier, I'm sure that there are atheists who do things that put me to shame.
If I were to say that Christians have a defective moral compass because they worship an evil, murderous god, Christians would rightly be offended.
I used to be offended by such, but not anymore, but I get your point. I don't know whether or not you used this example randomly or if you actually think this but, regardless, I've heard this expressed more times than you know. What is relevant to this discussion is that to those who think such, they think my moral compass is skewed. Why should I be offended by that when I think the same of them?
I'm sorry, but I disagree. All of your reasoning here is about self sans personal responsibility rather than the other. There are consequences for me going into a bank and demanding money that isn't mine. There are, or can be, consequences for having sex. Whether or not it's fair is irrelevant. What the pro abortion faction really want is to be able to act without consequence. They dress it up as choice and freedom but it's really about removing themselves from responsibility. That's my opinion.
I noticed that you include medical safety. I'm not against abortion on those terms. If it is necessary to save the life of the mother, I don't object.
I agree. I despise the idea that abortion is a woman's issue. It's also a men's issue because women wouldn't be in the position to get an abortion without men. It makes me want to puke that we put the blame on women for abortion when it is men who get them pregnant in the first place.
I disagree. How many times in your life have you hear someone say "I'm gonna kill him?' and you thought they meant it literally? And that isn't even equivalent to what Tacos! said. Tacos! wasn't saying that there was a constitutional violation, he was talking about how the left reacts to religious comments from the right.
What TiG did was take the literal meaning of Tacos! words rather than the intended meaning of the typical response of those on the left towards those who bring religion into politics. If your intent is to ask me to believe that the left makes no such response, then I suggest I'm wasting my time with you as much as I would be with TiG.
Fair enough. I assumed. It's up to you whether or not I was accurate. Do you believe someone who runs on the basis of their faith should hold office?
Okay, but can you not see that this statement itself is a belief? There is nothing provable you can base it on. Yeah, you can say, "the Constitution, " but that's only a collection of beliefs of other people.
If you can recognize that much, then upon what should laws be written? Upon what we think is right? And what if religion informs what we think is right? Why should religious belief be excluded? Please don't be tiresome and claim the constitution. I guarantee that much of what it says it says because of religious beliefs, including freedom of religion or freedom from religion.
You would have to discard the plain meaning of my words to reach that conclusion. I don't believe I opined on the content of her speech, just the location.
No, it's actually my prerogative as the speaker. I am the best expert on the intended meaning of my words - not you.
No, I expressed an opinion based on personal experience. There was neither an intent nor a need to be dishonest. I don't mind explaining my opinion so long as I am not subject to absurd straw man arguments or personal attacks. I'll try to be brief, but that necessarily limits how much evidence I will supply you with. I also ask that you understand that any examples offered are not intended to constitute a fully inclusive or exhaustive list.
There have been multiple Supreme Court cases on the Establishment Clause where it has been argued that the mere physical association of the secular and the religious constitute the appearance of an establishment of religion, and thus violate the Constitution. For example, "In God We Trust" on the money, or public school choirs performing in churches and singing religious songs. It also comes up in tax-exemption discussions. For example, in this article,
Tax Rules Forbid Churches From Endorsing Candidates, Will IRS Take Action?
We see this issue:
Now this article is 3 years old, so you can see that I didn't just yesterday invent the idea that a politician speaking (on nobody cares what issue) at a church is potentially controversial.
So, it's not weird that I might expect someone to see a politician speaking in church (and again, I don't care about the topic) and claim that they were violating the Constitution. The thing is Republicans, and others comfortable with being religious, hardly ever complain about stuff like this (unless they are hypocritically whining about taking the oath of office on the Quran - that happened). No, it tends to be the militant leftist Atheists of the world who complain. But they might be hypocritically less inclined to complain if the politician in question is a leftist like them.
Hope that clarifies things for you.
I ask that you refrain from specious personal attacks claiming that I am being dishonest.
I was paraphrasing your words
Frankly, that is offensive. You imply that not believing in your god absolves us (the men among us, anway) of responsibility for caring for our children, in our own minds. How can you not see that such a statement would be offensive to a nonbeliever?
So a pregnant woman has no responsibility to her existing children? To her own health? You put the fetus above the woman. I hold that the living human being who already has responsibilities, and potentially her already-living, already-breathing, already-sentient children, are more important than the potential human. Her rights supersede. Robbing a bank is hardly a normal day-to-day activity, as is sex for most people. One doesn't accidentally rob a bank, as one can become accidentally pregnant when contraception fails.
Unfortunately, not all in positions of power agree with you. Savita Halappanavar died because "Ireland is a Catholic country" and even women dying from sepsis from prematurely-ruptured membranes couldn't have abortions. The pro-life stance, obviously, is to kill the mother in order to not be guilty of killing a nonviable fetus /s. Such cases actually cemented my pro-choice views - they showed that the pro-fetus crowd would gladly take an inch, given a mile, and ban abortion in all cases, sometimes condemning mothers to death, and they would feel perfectly righteous about it.
Tacos! has had ample opportunity to clarify that he was engaging in hyperbole, but he has not done so. Words have meanings, Drakk. If he doesn't mean the words he types, he should either say so immediately, or not use them in the first place. The very fact that you are talking to multiple leftists in this very discussion, and none of them have accused Waters of violating the separation of church and state, should tell you that no, that is not a typical reaction on the left.
I don't believe there should be any law preventing them from doing so. I often wish their supporters would open their eyes and realize that many people who claim to run for office at their god's command are just pandering.
Which has the virtue of being the basis for our government. We operate within its framework.
I don't see the Bible advocating for freedom of religion, nor freedom from it. I do recall tribes who wouldn't convert being slaughtered and enslaved, though. Hardly in keeping with our Constitution.
And there are multiple reasons we shouldn't base laws on religion. The lack of agreement, for one. The lack of proof that any religion is correct. And the frequently horrific examples of morality given in religious scriptures, which we have discussed ad nauseum on this forum and on NV.
As I noted there are always exceptions, but if you actually hold true to what Tacos! wrote you are necessarily claiming that atheists by-and-large would (and do) object to a politician speaking in a religious venue on constitutional grounds. That is nonsense. Politicians speaking at religious venues occurs all the time. The super majority of politicians are (or pretend to be) religious. If you were correct we would be inundated with atheist outcries.
And I have already explained this to you. Yet you fail to corroborate your claim.
Also, remember what started this:
I responded to the above comment. You have generalized and watered the original comment down to:
What you pose is fundamentally different than what Tacos! posed. Atheists would clearly prefer that people speak about that which is known and stop perpetuating as truth that which nobody could possibly know. However that is profoundly different from atheists [et.al.] crying constitutional foul over a politician speaking in a religious venue. Note again my direct response to Tacos!. I responded directly to what he wrote:
Tacos! specifically identified why atheists would, in his mind, cry foul. He wrote: ' wall of separation between church and state '. That is, on constitutional grounds. You really need to actually read what the man wrote because you are way off track
My point was that getting personal and making derogatory comments does nothing to advance the discussion.
I lost a long response to a bug, so I'll just say - what TiG said in 20.2.53.
Where do you see atheists (presumably on the left) often (as in routinely) claiming that a politician on the right is violating the Constitution by speaking in a religious venue? Don't mention the exceptions because there are idiots in every demographic. Instead show that a right-leaning politician speaking in a religious venue is likely to be called out by atheists as violating the separation of church and state merely by speaking politics in the venue.
Don't just repeat your claim (pointless). Actually demonstrate that this occurs as the rule rather than exception. Because if it did routinely occur then given how often politicians speak in religious venues there would be plenty of data showing atheists routinely screwing up one the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution. In other words, your 'feeling' needs to be corroborated as actual fact.
Why make such a comment? Here is the actual sequence of comments:
Gordy is correct. The Drake equation is math-based. It is a general framework based on probability designed to offer a rough approximation of the likelihood of intelligent extraterrestrial life. It is not accurate, but is most definitely math based (given it is a probability formula).
The evidence is data that has been accumulated. The data is rough (all over the map), but it is still data. One can use the data to calculate the optimistic and pessimistic extremes.
The Drake equation does indeed provide a basis for suggesting it is more likely than not that human beings are NOT the only intelligent life in the universe. Under the most pessimistic valuations, the Drake equation does indeed suggest intelligent extraterrestrials are more likely than not. Just as Gordy noted upfront.
We have zero evidence that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists. We only have a probability and the probability is rough. But that is what Gordy wrote. He simply noted that it is more likely that we are not alone.
That is a good point and deserves further discussion. Resources both money and parents time will be further divided
How about we just read your actual words? Would you accept that?:
Sandy must have read what you wrote because her comment seems to match nicely with your actual words. Let's do a comparison so that we leave little to 'interpretation'.
Sandy's view : ... did indicate that we [ atheists ] believe religious speech by government officials is unconstitutional .
Tacos! words : A politician is making a speech in a church ? Where are the screams of protest from our militant atheist friends? What about that wall of separation between church and state you guys are always insisting should be inviolable?
Comparing we have ...
Looks like the plain meaning of your words was in fact respected by Sandy's comment. Where did she discard your plain meaning? Be specific.
On that point you are absolutely correct. So as the author how about you be clear on what you meant in your opening post?:
Apparently you need to provide reading instructions because you object to a plain reading of the words you actually wrote.
Why did you include the wall of separation between church and state if you did not intend to claim this speech ties with a constitutional question?
Why did you talk about a speech in a church or refer to atheists if this has nothing to do with religious views?
If we are supposed to disregard certain words and maybe include words not written it would be helpful if you (the author) would provide these. Not being able to read your mind makes ' knowing what I mean not what I wrote ' a tad difficult.
And those most likely to have an unwanted pregnancy are likely those for whom reliable contraception is hard to obtain - namely, poorer people, and the working poor especially, who are likely to have fewer resources and less time.
Yes, the nation is old and complex with many challenges to the CotUS over the centuries. That said, do you believe that a commonly held position by atheists is that it is a violation of the 1st+14th amendments for a politician to give a speech in a religious venue and that said atheists voice their concerns in protest?
If so, then your belief (and your claim) is unsubstantiated - it is at best conjecture unless you can provide corroboration. As I noted, with so many religious (at least in name) politicians speaking in religious venues, we would be inundated with complaints from the aforementioned atheists citing violations of the CotUS. Where do you find stories of atheists protesting a politician (regardless of party) speaking in a church? They should be all over the place ... easy to find. If not, ask yourself why all these atheist complaints you think happen are so hard to find?
No, it's not. Speech in a church is about a location. Religious speech is about content. You guys keep trying to restate my words as being focused on the content of her speech. I have said multiple times that it was not my concern.
Not really. I don't acknowledge that there is a constitutional wall of separation between church and state. It is the atheist obsession with this interpretation that I was sending up with my initial comment as explained below.
Your attempts at pedantry are a distraction from the core theme of my post, which I will restate for you as follows:
Militant atheists routinely try to make a constitutional issue out of ordinary behavior when that behavior is an act of someone on the Right. They massively expand the meaning of the Establishment Clause so as to eliminate from the public sphere as much religious expression as possible. They're not actually concerned about the Constitution, they just try to use it as a weapon for their own purposes. It looks like there is an exception to that tactic is when someone on the Left is doing it. Then, they are more hesitant to speak out against someone who tends to side with them on political issues.
Here, Waters has engaged in what I would consider harmless and ordinary behavior, but I believe if she were a Republican, militant atheists would be screeching about the destruction of the Constitution and the doom of the coming theocracy. They might also be demanding that the church in question have its tax exempt status revoked.
You might notice that this was all obvious to others who don't live that far to the Left.
I appreciate that you are defensive about this characterization. No one likes to be portrayed as unjust. But you don't have to accept association with people who would engage in such hypocrisy. You are free to condemn this behavior wherever it might exist without even acknowledging that it does. I don't expect you to defend every atheist in the world any more than I would try to defend everyone who votes Republican. But perhaps lumping people into a monolithic group is something you're more prone to than I am.
Intellectual dishonesty is a tactic. There are many forms such as feigned obtuseness, straw-man arguments, equivocation, moving the goal posts, obfuscation, deflection, etc.
If one uses the tactic of deflection, for example, it is appropriate to call out that tactic and label it as intellectual dishonesty. That is simply a fact.
Your best response would be to show how you are not deflecting from the point.
This is all about the argument, not the person.
I supplied three examples of the kind of thing I was thinking of in 20.2.51 . I also made clear that my examples were not intended to be an exhaustive list. You're either willing to admit that the behavior I'm referencing exists or you aren't. You and some of your allies unfortunately have a history of moving the goalposts in conversations like this. You ask for evidence and when you get it, it's not a source you like or there aren't enough examples. I will obviously waste some time with you, but there is a limit.
I am not claiming that you are talking about the content of her speech. Religious speech also refers to 'giving a speech in a religious venue' - the event itself. A speech in a church is an event in which some human being gets up in front of the participants and starts talking. We are all talking about the event. So you are objecting over nothing.
Good grief man, are you going to equivocate on everything? Looks to me like you are running from your own statements. Are you denying that your reference to Jefferson's 'separation of church and state' is in fact a reference to the 1st (and later the 14th) amendments?
You are generalizing. Show me where these militant atheists routinely complain about politicians giving speeches in religious venues. That is what you wrote and that is what I challenged you on. Moving the goalposts is fine but not until you come clean on your original statement. In other words, do not blame me for what you wrote. If you wish to change your mind that is fine. Tell us that is what you are doing. But unless you do that I am holding you to the words you used because you are holding me to the words I used in response.
I know you believe it. But I challenge you to corroborate your belief. I am predicting that you can not do so. I am hoping you will try because it would be good for you to realize that in this case you are dead wrong.
I noticed intellectually dishonest tactics used to try to soften, generalize and basically modify your incorrect claim.
As I have noted several times, there are always exceptions. But you are not talking about an exception - you are talking about a norm. I challenge your allegation that atheists -by and large- are so ignorant of the CotUS that they would deem a speech by a politician in a religious venue to be a constitutional violation of the 1st+14th amendments. My stance is that you cannot deliver facts to corroborate your claim and that your claim is, in effect, simply an unsubstantiated belief.
Show me where you demonstrate atheists crying constitutional foul simply because a politician gave a speech in a religious venue. That is what I asked for (clear evidence that this is not an exception but rather a common occurrence) because that is what you claimed.
I know you cannot deliver the corroboration and I promise to call you out every time you pretend to do so.
Alternatively, you can retract your comment @20 and offer a more general substitute. There are points of agreement, but your statement @20 is far too specific and, importantly, wrong.
We're wasting our time here.
I agree. If you cannot corroborate the presupposition that atheists commonly protest on constitutional grounds against a politician merely speaking in a religious venue then Tacos! opening comment @ 20 is at best a cynical opinion.
Your attempts to generalize and equivocate into a more defensible claim illustrate that you too cannot support the original claim @ 20 .
In partisan politics there is almost always a double standard. Partisan politics is dishonest and slimy. So there is plenty of room for agreement in your attempts to reinterpret the comment, but not on the actual comment as worded @ 20 . It was too specific to play the ‘you just do not understand’ game.
Tacos! can of course state that he really did not express himself well and offer his true intended meaning.
Almost everything is potentially controversial when dealing with politics and religion. You did not write of 'potentially controversial ' when you authored your post @20:
The above suggests that it is unusual for a politician to speak at a religious event without atheists raising a constitutional objection. And even if you had explicitly noted your implied double standard, your claim is unsupported by the evidence. Atheists do not typically claim that politicians (regardless of party) violate the constitution by giving a speech in a religious venue. The reason, I suspect, is that most atheists understand the CotUS well enough to know that this does not violate the establishment clause - not even close.
It is quite weird to expect something that rarely occurs. You have yet to demonstrate that this would be anything more than an exception.
And given you have yet to corroborate your claim, it does appear that ' leftist Atheists ', et. al. ALSO hardly ever complain that politicians violate the constitution by giving a speech in a religious venue. Your claim is unsupported. Yet you refuse to admit you are wrong and instead double-down with everything but actual corroboration.
People do indeed make irrational double-standard claims. It is the nature of politics. There are many examples that you could have picked to make the point of a double standard. The one that you picked was wrong. You will have to struggle to even find examples of constitutional objections to a politician merely giving a speech in a religious venue much less establish it as the norm and then establish it as a double standard.
If you dislike having your comments labeled as using intellectually dishonest tactics the way to avoid that is to either provide the corroboration for your claim or admit that you really have no basis for making the claim.
It’s only when conservative politicians speak at evangelical churches or their pastors advocate on an issue or candidate that it’s a problem. When it was mainline Protestants doing civil rights and anti war or African American churches pushing a democrat it’s a -ok.
It's not. So will you and other defenders of the wall of separation of church between church and state join me in the effort to strip the tax advantages for any church that uses the pulpit for political purposes?
Like the NYT's article, the Left keep trying to blame all the violence on others when they are and have always been the party of violence.
One is a murder victim, the other is a joke.
deleted
Well, this one is a Democrat who tried to kill the Republicans while they were playing ball. And he almost did kill Steve Scalise. Democrats have always been the party of violence.
Dylann Storm Roof (born April 3 yuk, 1994) is an American white supremacist, neo-Nazi and mass murderer convicted for perpetrating the Charleston church shooting on June 17, 2015. ... On April 10, 2017, Roof was sentenced to nine consecutive sentences of life without parole after formally pleading guilty to state murder charges.
We could continue.
Would you like to have details on the worst terrorist attack committed by Americans on American soil?
You're not trying to compare Dillon Roof, who had no party affiliation and his two best friends were black guys to this Democrat, who had many years behind him as a Democrat, are you? The attempted murder of the Republicans by this Democrat is altogether different from what Dillon Roof did. For allyou know, Dillon Roof may have been a Democrat, although I doubt he ever registered, much less voted.
What are you doing, six?
Where are you going?
You're finding excuses and justifications for deadly violence by right-wing extremists, while ginning up... anything you can find... from the left.
Why?
What is your purpose?
Is this a prelude to a nationwide call for violent repression? Are we nearing America's Kristallnacht?
Dylan Roof liked to burn the American Flag. I don't know a lot of Republicans who would support that, but there tons of Democrats and other leftists who think this kind of thing is just awesome.
He also had a history of drug abuse. Leftists are always talking about legalizing drugs, right?
What was the drug Dylann Roof was holding when arrested in February?
He also like the Confederate Battle Flag, White Supremacy, and hated blacks. Traditionally, these were features of the Democratic Party - you know, the party that filibustered the Civil Rights Act. I haven't seen any evidence that he had any particular love for Republicans. He seems more like a classic, racist, Southern Democrat.
There is nothing new about what he is doing.
People who think there are communists hiding around every corner and there is a conspiracy to turn the country into totalitarian collectivism don't need a "reason" for what else they do.
He also liked to display the Confederate flag.
Shall we therefore presume that all who display Confederate flags are murderous nutzoids, about to commit slaughter? We'd have to arrest a fair portion of NT members...
Sounds like the only thing that's changed about southern conservatives in the past 150 years is their party affiliation. No wonder the confederate states are a solid block of red today, and no wonder they all voted for the racist King of the Birthers.
Ignorance is no excuse for pushing lies:
Trying to deflect responsibility of an extremist act of massive racist violence (the cold blooded murder of 9 people) away from its source is beyond despicable. You think you can get away falsely accusing an entire political party while turning a blind eye to who and what's responsible for this horrendous act is stomach turning.
Look who's cozy with the CCC:
Oh, and using that "he had black friends!" line is the most brain-dead kind of lame argument there is. So much so that it's a joke line now but when you use it to try to paint a softer picture of a racist murderer, it's grotesque.
Here's some more CCC connections to republicans (and, no, finding one dem in there which was used as camouflage or was to a DINO doesn't mean shit).
I have to say Maxine is really hard to take seriously( thanks to the fates she isn't MY representative).
reading the title of the seed it is hard NOT to picture her as one of the blues brothers using a Dan Akroyd voice saying ," I am on a mission from Gawd…"
This statement works both ways. Try this:
"Because I am not one of Waters's voters, I am not socially/culturally attuned to this kind of message."
She was singing to the choir. Her audience speaks the same dialect, so they clearly do take her seriously, and have done so for a long time...
You don't understand her because you do not speak that dialect...
You weren't in the audience. She was not speaking to you. Why are you surprised that you don't understand?
She has a different dialect? and here I heard her speaking the common language of English, which I do understand .
so I don't understand her because I disagree with just about every word of English she utters?
Is that to be the new talking point , that disagreement is due to utter disagreement? alluding one disagrees because they don't understand the position being put forth, thus the conversation is over their intelligence level?
sorry I was raised to use simple plain English , make misunderstandings few and far between , unfortunately saying something in plain English , has become offensive to some today.
I actually cant take her seriously because I DO understand what she has been saying all along and simply disagree with what she posits. so I don't follow her path or lead.
I also know she is not the most photogenic person in all truth , neither am I, but lately the only pictures I see of her usually posted is with her mouth open, making her look like a bad characature , of a 60's and 70's cheap blow up doll, how in the hell can ANYONE take that seriously with that in the back of their mind?
Whatever
Hey, that hateful bigot can speak gutter trash with the best of em! who do you think makes up most of her constituency?
Yeah, you're rep is so much more dignified--the guy who beat up a (much smaller) reporter for asking him---the horror---questions. Having a demonstrable thug as a rep must make you proud.
Oh, please don't hold back now. Describe "most of her constituency" and don't spare any detail. While you're busy putting that together here's an extremely short list of gutter trash on your side, "doc."
Blake Farentold
Trent Franks
Eric Greitens
Roy Moore
Tim Murphy
Scott Desjarlais
Pat Meehan
In your medical career, "doc," have you ever come across a case of the syndrome of throwing stones while living in a glass house?
This comment was meant, of course, for Mark in WY not MT which is where the thug republican comes from. I apologize for the misattribution but not, of course, for the fact that the republican voters seem to welcome, encourage and reward thuggery. WY's congress person is despicable Liz Cheney and she should be an embarrassment to any state, even WY.
Ummmmmmmmmm....................... Atheist???
Why are you addressing this to me?
Bob's best response of the day. Clear, concise and carrying the same amount of truth as usual.
Um, it's the Drake Equation.
Are you suggesting that because you can post it that you know what it is? If so, you would be wrong.
The Drake Equation is Drake's best, what he considers reasonable, guess as to how many civilizations may exist that can communicate with others. It is a guess based on an assumption. That's it.
Further, if you look at the subject at all, many find fault with the values he uses in the equation. Personally, since I do know what the Drake equation is, I don't really care about that. Drake wasn't actually trying to determine the number of civilizations that could communicate. He was really trying to stimulate conversation about the idea of other civilizations. That was all he was trying to do.
While I have no problem with someone believing that there must be other civilizations out there, trying to use the Drake equation as evidence to negate what I said previously is erroneous, to put it politely.
Why, yes. Yes it is. A MATHEMATICAL equation or put another way, an equation BASED ON MATH which was something you ridiculed. This is what happens when a poser pretends to know something and turns out doesn't have a clue and then has to scurry to cover his ass by throwing in a bunch of rubbish, e.g.:
No, it can't be a mathematical equation and an assumption at the same time. It has a number of unknown variables in it so that makes it an estimation but that's not the same thing, mathematically, as an assumption which has a specific meaning in mathematics and you did not adhere to that meaning. In mathetmatics, assumptions are called axioms or postulates--things that are taken (or assumed) to be true in order to perform further mathematical functions. So you blew your thin cover on that, too. Going on....
That's just pure bluffing, desperate and futile. I'd be embarrassed for you if you hadn't made such a fool of yourself up to this point already. The ridicule you're getting is richly deserved. Continuing....
Perhaps you'd like to give us quotes from Drake that that was "all he was trying to do." That ought to be a hoot. And, finally (you really couldn't stop yourself, could you)......
Here, if you're suggesting that that was what Drake believed then you're understanding of the reasoning behind this equation is even worse than the mathematics of it. Although Drake devoted a good deal of his time to the idea of searching for ET life the equation had nothing to do with "belief" in it. It was an attempt to identify mathematically and scientifically what factors needed to be considered for come up with the probability of finding it. You also said something rather vague about nothing I wrote "negated" anything you said before. Was it the howler this was Drake's "best guess?" Because he made no guess. There is no solution to date to his equation (and there is likely never to be) much less a guess. Gee, it's fun to burst a wind bag.
I do not what? For goodness sakes, man! At least try to make a coherent argument.
For crying out loud, do some basic research! It isn't based on mathematical probability at all. It's based on Drake's assumptions. It's easy to look up. Try it.
(groan) Drakes equation doesn't support the probability of advanced life other than our own at all. It is based 100% on the ASSUMTION that there is other civilizations out there. That assumption is based on the idea that because we exist there must be other advanced civilizations out there. There very well could be, but that is merely an assumption. That's it. End of story.
I base it on the assumption that Drake wasn't an idiot. There is no basis for his equation. The only place that we know of that has the intelligence he refers to is our planet. Based on that, it isn't difficult to defend the statement that one cannot build a statistical model off the number 1. I think anyone with an ounce of rationality understood the humongous "if" in his equation. Not only that, but anyone with an ounce of sense would realize the variables after the first three are highly speculative.
Since I never claimed that you seem to be in a debate contest with yourself (which will result in two losers). But it does again show utter and complete misunderstanding of the equation. Drake never used the term "assumption." Yet it seems to be the only word you can come up with. And, you were the one who ridiculed the statement that his equation was "based on math," yet you're now using a quote from him that it is, indeed, a mathematical equation. You can't even avoid demolishing your own arrogance. And this is the biggest howler you've committed (so far--I eagerly await and expect you to top it):
First thing is you give not even a hint what "it" refers to in that first sentence so we can add poor composition to your growing list of deficiencies. Then you claim he was not an idiot right before you actually suggest he is with the preposterous claim that he had no basis for the equation. He was a fellow of the National Academy of Science and you, a poser, claims he had no basis for the equation. And you seem to have almost a romantic relationship with the word "assumption." You toss it out at every opportunity and clearly have no idea what it means either in mathematical or general language sense. I've got to give you high marks for one thing, though: unmitigated gall.
Does the fact that he is quoting my post (specifically 20.2.47) while responding to yours in a completely separate post column count?
I believe that meets the criteria. He's one mixed up pup all the way round.
That, and pretty much all his other posts too.
I know you didn't. I did. It was in response to what you said, to wit...
And I replied...
You on the same page, now?
Okay, but what do you call something you don't actually know is true and have no data for but you use anyway? What would you call it???
Because saying it is a mathematical formula, which I never disagreed with, isn't the same thing as saying the formula is based on math. The formula is based on what gets plugged into the variables. Every one of those variables were complete unknowns when Drake wrote that equation, with the possible exception of the first one. Today we have more information on the first variable and are making a lot of progress on the second, but the rest are still complete unknowns. Therefore, any value that gets placed in those variables are necessarily assumptions.
My apologies for assuming you can follow a conversation. You asked me...
I don't see how this means I think he's an idiot. Also, I could have said it more precisely than I did. I should have said, there is no basis for the variables he plugs into his equations, not that there was no basis for the equation.
Let's take a look at that, shall we? You earlier attempted to school me on this yet end up using the same word I did and in the same way. Let's look at it again.
All you did was provide synonyms for the word "assumption". You even had to use the word in order to make the point you thought you were making but didn't actually make. Instead, you actually made mine.
Also, it certainly can be a mathematical equation and an assumption at the same time. When the variables plugged into the formula have no actual basis in fact, meaning we have no evidence, proof or data to support what gets plugged in, the formula still works as intended but the result is just an assumption.
As Gordy correctly identified, I, for some reason, quoted him rather than you.
I was not. moving on...
Agreed. It should not be looked at as being any more than that. It doesn't actually provide any sort of answers as to how much intelligent life is out there. At this point, I'd like to go back to what started all this in the first place.
I said...
Gordy responded...
To which I replied...
He responded with...
At which point you jumped in with the actual equation.
The problem here is that neither one of you seem to understand that the Drake equation is not evidence based. Or, if you do understand this, why would you offer up the Drake equation in the first place? Since it is not evidence based, it's supposition, speculation, assumption. The truth is, we have zero evidence based idea about how likely there is to be other life out there, let alone intelligent life. Right now it's all opinion and assumption. So offering up the Drake equation to support Gordy's claim that we are the only life there is as mathematically unlikely is meaningless. There isn't any math out there that can determine this. In fact, what data there is seems to go against Drake's equation. Assuming the variables he used are reasonable assumptions, there should be millions of civilizations out there, but as Fermi asked, "Where is everyone?"
Another debate based on splitting hairs.
I think everyone will (or at least should ) agree that:
In result, the Drake equation simply gives us mathematical formalism to get an idea on the likelihood that IEL exists. It is rough and involves assumption but it is mathematical and produces probabilities.
So nobody can (yet) say that IEL exist outside of human beings on Earth. We are the only known hard evidence of intelligent life. It is possible we are unique in all that exists. It is also possible there are other forms of intelligent life somewhere in the cosmos. Currently we do not have good enough data to state with high confidence how likely it is that IEL exists but we do have a mathematical framework for structuring our calculations.
But it is wrong to claim that the Drake equation is not mathematical or that it is nothing but assumption. Further, the Drake equation originally used Drake's estimates. Nowadays the equation is used with more sophisticated estimates (e.g. back in 1961 we had no real idea how large our galaxy much less an idea on how many galaxies exist, the likelihood of exoplanets, etc.). Stay tuned - the estimates will net improve over time.
I disagree. And I don't think it's splitting hairs. In order to understand what the Drake equation is, it is fundamental to understand it's purpose. It isn't to determine probability. That's impossible without actual data or evidence to support the values we put into the variables. I think the purpose for which Drake created the formula was simply to start the process by which we think about the subject of IEL's. That's all. It gave us a place to start.
Look at the variable for intelligent life existing on another planet. How can we possibly know what to use for that value? The odds could be vanishingly low. I have read that there have been an estimated 1 to 4 billion different species that have lived on Earth over the course of time. In all of that, only one has risen to the intelligence we have. Just one. There simply isn't a way to determine probability with little to no data.
This is why I say Drake's equation isn't based on math. It's a mathematical equation rightly enough, but that's it. If it were based on math, then we could plug in a number based on evidence. For instance, perhaps 100 years from now we can, through evidence, show that 3 out of every 10 solar systems we've examined so far has planets with atmospheres containing gasses that only life can produce. If we've looked at 1,000 systems, we could reasonably say that based on the math, Drake's equation seems to suggest that 30% of systems contain life of some sort. That would be math based.
As noted, the equation is mathematical. I'm not denying that. I am saying the variables, except, increasingly, the first two, aren't mathematical. They are what the user considers reasonable assumptions and no more.
I think some of them will and already have. Jury is still out on the rest.
Some things are predictable ... and with high confidence.
That is indeed what the equation does - gives us a place to start . Odd that you cannot seem to recognize that a framework can be probability-based (an estimate of likely intelligent extraterrestrial entities). Even Wikipedia in its simplified and common definition offers this:
-or- NASA
The characterization of the Drake equation as a mathematical equation used for probability seems to be rather consistent. But you disagree.
You are arguing a point that I have already made. Yes our estimates are low quality - some are SWAGs. Did you read my post?? The data is not super great right now.
In spite of that fact that it is a mathematical formalism?? The quality of the estimates does not make the equation any less mathematical . Further, as I noted, some variables are SWAGs but others are estimates that are based upon very careful measurements (albeit still have room for improvement). For example, science estimates the number of stars in our galaxy to be no less than 100 billion (with the most optimistic estimate of ~400 billion). Not thousands, not trillions but in the low 100s of billions range. This is not a SWAG.
Well at least you recognize that it is a mathematical equation. But somehow you are clinging to this 'not based on math' notion. You are conflating mathematics with data. The data is sketchy, but Drake's equation is still very much math and the estimates it yields are absolutely based on math . The data, however, has a lot of room for improvement. Complain about data quality and the world will agree with you. Complain that the Drake equation is not based on math and the world will look at you sideways.
This is the splitting of hairs again: ' based on math '.
You are arguing that Drake's equation will become math-based once we have sufficiently good data. That really is not how math works. Math is the formalism . The quality of the data is an entirely different matter.
In a sense, it is. There is 100% certainty that life exists in the universe-namely our planet. Now, given what we know about the various environmental conditions under which life can arise, thrive, and even evolve, using our planet as a template, it is quite reasonable to assume that life exists elsewhere in the universe. Since the universe is essentially infinite, with an estimated 100-200 billion galaxies in it, and billions upon billions more planets, it is quite logical to merely assume there is life elsewhere, even without the benefit of an equation as a starting point. Drake's Equation gives an estimation of intelligent life in our galaxy alone as a starting point. Based on that, it is far more probable that even more, less intelligent life exists. Detecting it is the hard part.
You yourself stated, "There is absolutely no math based on evidence that supports this claim," to which I offered up the Drake Equation. Not only is it a math based equation, our own planet is the solid evidence. Even if we discovered the simplest prokaryotic organism somewhere other than Earth (Mars and Europa being views as possibilities), that would only strengthen Drake's Equation, not to mention be an exciting discovery and "smoking gun" proof of life elsewhere.
That is a possibility.
Given the sheer distance between solar systems (never mind entire galaxies), finding someone is akin to standing on a beach and trying to "find" someone on another continent across the ocean.
Further, Drakk at times complains about the lack of evidence but really he is complaining about the lack of data to plug into the equation. So certainly the number of stars in our galaxy, the number of galaxies and the number of exoplanets (as examples) is not evidence of extraterrestrial intelligent life, but they are indeed data and not simply guesses (or pure assumption).
Indeed.
The sheer number of galaxies and exoplanets makes it quite probable that extraterrestrial life exists in the universe. I'm always amazed at people who proclaim there is no life in the universe. It's such small-minded thinking, it boggles the mind.
Any one of your comments on this subject at least. You just can't stop embarrassing yourself. Please go on.
Focusing on just this quote.
I agree that most of the variables are quantified assumptions. I used the term SWAGs (as in scientific wild ass guess). So clearly we are making our best guesses for things such as the fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges.
But it is not that these variables are 'not mathematical' since clearly the knowledge that goes into the estimate is quantified and part of a mathematical equation. The lack of confidence in the accuracy of a variable does not make it 'not mathematical'. Quantified assumptions are mathematical - just likely inaccurate.
Semantics aside, as Gordy originally noted, we have been quantifying the likelihood of intelligent extraterrestrial life for decades. So based on our best knowledge we have good reason to hold that we are not the only intelligent life in the universe. But, alas, we could easily be wrong at this point.
It seems he might have retreated from the discussion. If so, I'm not surprised.
Then you agree with my argument. What the hell are you doing?
Again, agreement. So what are you talking about? We have exactly zero evidence of life outside our own planet, let alone intelligent life that can transmit anything. You begin with the assumption that there must be other life out there and go from there. The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges??? That is an assumption that there must be other life out there! Don't you see that???
So, what I said was correct. Drake's equation isn't based on math, even though the equation is mathematical. It is based on the assumption that there must be other life out there.
Really? What is the "knowledge that goes into the estimate is quantified?" Where does this "knowledge" come from? I am eager to learn of it.
The truth is, it isn't "knowledge" at all. It's simply an assumption that if life exists here, then it must exist elsewhere. And if that is so, then what I said was true. The Drake equation isn't based on math, but rather, an assumption that life must exist elsewhere, and if it does, statistically, some of it must be intelligent. Of course, there's no actual empirical evidence for that, either.
I don't deny that Drake intended the equation to predict the quantity of probable intelligence in the galaxy capable of communicating. What I deny is that such a probability is based on math. It isn't, and your words agree. It is based on the assumption that there must be other intelligent life, capable of communicating, out there.
I know you think I'm a moron because I believe in God without what you consider valid evidence. I'm fine with that. What pisses me off about this is that you don't apply the same standard in this instance. I am completely cognizant that whatever assumption anyone plugs into one of Drake's variables is mathematical, but do you really think that because of this that my assertion that the variable has no basis in fact or evidence is invalid? It actually doesn't matter what number gets plugged into the variable as long as there is no evidence or data to back it up.
The Drake equation is mathematical. I have no problem with admitting that, especially when I never said it wasn't. What I said was, it wasn't based on mathematics. It's based on assumptions. Since we have about zero data on most of the variables, then how can it possibly be otherwise? How can one say there are likely X amount of intelligent civilizations out there when you have nothing to base it upon but assumptions? How is that "mathematical?" It isn't. It's all predicated on "if".
Apparently I was doing something else the day it was explained why, based on our best knowledge, we have good reason to hold that we are not the only intelligent life in the universe. Could you please bring me up to speed.
But it's not.
It's a framework to estimate the probability of there being other intelligent life.
Oh? Then it's based on evidence? We have proven how many planets out there are capable of bearing life? And out of that number, we know how many actually do? And out of that number, the number of actual intelligences that can actually communicate? We don't actually need a hard and fast number. We can settle for averages based on what we've discovered so far. Only problem is, we haven't discovered anything so far. So, the only thing we have to plug into most of the variables is what TiG calls SWAGs, or what I call assumptions.
Okay. What is the probability, then, and how did we arrive at it? How much intelligent life is out there?
Why do you think I agree with your argument?
Repeating myself different ways to try to get through to you.
Remember how this started:
Drakkonis @ 20.2.27 - For all we know, this is the only planet in the entire universe with life on it.
Gordy327 @ 20.2.30 - That's what we currently know. But it's mathematically unlikely .
Drakkonis @ 20.2.35 - O.M.G. Really? There is absolutely no math based on evidence that supports this claim. The only place we know, provably, that has life on it is Earth. One place. You can't build a statistical model off the number "1".
Gordy327 @ 20.2.39 - The Drake Equation is math based .
Drakkonis @ 20.2.43 - Um. Wow. I'm just going to assume you don't actually know what the Drake Equation is and just quietly back away.
The question is whether or not the Drake Equation is math based . The use of qualified assumptions does not ipso facto make something NOT math based. So no, my acknowledgement of the qualified assumptions global science plugs into the equation (an acknowledgement I have been making throughout) is not some reversal of position. Makes me think you have not really tried to read what I wrote.
Drakk we (and I think everyone) agree that the data we currently have to plug into the Drake equation is extremely rough. And we do indeed have zero evidence of extraterrestrial life. I made no assumption that there is life (read what I write rather than presume).
You are still insisting that the Drake equation is not based on math simply because the actual numbers we have are rough . I have explained this repeatedly so doing it again is obviously not going to help but try to imagine that the 'math-worthiness' of an equation is not a function of available data. Many of Einstein's field equations were unverifiable (no data whatsoever) for decades but that did not make them NOT math-based. Not sure what else I can say to make this clearer.
Do you think that world science simply guesses that the Milky Way has ~100+ billion stars in it? Do you think they simply toss out a random number for the average number of exoplanets per star? Do you think they run a random number generator to determine the known universe has on order ~100 billion galaxies ? Underlying these qualified assumptions is the entire scientific area of astronomy. The numbers remains rough so the calculation of probability is rough. 'Rough' does not mean 'not based on math'.
Who has made that assumption? I certainly have not. The question is 'math based' .
Not sure how anyone can conclude what you just concluded. Bizarre. You want the phrase 'based on math' to mean 'precise' but that is not true in the English language.
No, the Drake equation is a mathematical formalism the combines various factors that science holds are required for intelligent life to emerge. The factors are expressed in a multivariate equation which is designed to yield the number of civilizations of intelligent life in the known universe. If the data were better this equation would likely deliver quality results and then you would probably call it 'based on math'. But, somehow, just because we lack quality data you insist the Drake equation (and its current results) is not based on mathematics. As I noted, this is bizarre twisting of the English language.
No. We are getting increasingly better estimates given technologies such as Kepler but at this point nothing is 'proven' - just an estimate on how many exoplanets likely exist.
We have no data on that. Currently there is zero evidence of intelligent life other than ours.
0 out of 0 is 0. So currently we have no evidence of communicating intelligent societies other than our own.
Or we can estimate using other factors. The Drake equation does that.
True, we have no direct positive evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life.
No, not every variable in the multivariate equation known as Drake's equation is populated with a SWAG. For example, our current estimate of 100+ billion stars in our galaxy is not a SWAG. It is rough, but far from a SWAG. (Just one example.)
Bottom line - Drake's equation is a multivariate mathematical equation (math-based by definition). Most scientists agree with the formalism of Drake's equation - they do not fault his reasoning. The disagreement today is still on the estimates - the quantities we plug into the equation. That data is rough. The equation, however, is math-based (a mathematical formalism) regardless of the availability of quality information. And the rough results it produces with this rough data are math-based.
The Drake equation makes no assumptions about the presence of intelligent life outside of Earth. It does not assume there is, nor that there isn't.
It uses what we know or guess, about the number of planets where conditions might favor the development of life, and concludes that, due to the sheer numbers of planets in the "sweet spot" of their particular stars, the existence of intelligent civilizations capable of communication are more likely than not. That is not an assumption that they do exist. It is a statement that they are more likely to exist than not.
The variables are based on guesses, wild guesses at times, and this is recognized both by those using the equation, and the nature of equations dealing with probabilities.
That is really disappointing to read. You actually think that I equate belief in God with intelligence. Worse, after all these years, you think I consider you anything but highly intelligent?? Just to set the record straight, I do not consider beliefs and intelligence to be at odds. My position is that beliefs are aligned with emotion and that the desire for something to be true will often (very often) suppress critical analysis.
Except I am being entirely rational and fair when I defend the notion that the Drake equation is a multivariate mathematical formalism designed to estimate the number of likely intelligent civilizations and that the current empirical data is still rough. It is based on math - it is math-based - but the data to plug into the equation is still rough.
If you were to read my words carefully (and I am convinced that you have not done so - going back to early debates as well) you will see that I have been quite upfront on the fact that the Drake equation produces very rough results. I have never suggested that there is evidence of extraterrestrial intelligent life - indeed I have several times here noted that we have zero evidence. Hell, Drakk, I wrote an article on this.
The Drake equation is an estimate. It is not intended to serve as evidence. Nobody claimed it was evidence, just a way of structuring our thinking on the question: 'Is there intelligent life other than our own?"
The phrases 'not math based' and 'not based on math' then are incredibly poor word choice for you. You could have said that the Drake equation does not yield evidence of extraterrestrial intelligent civilizations. Everyone would probably agree with that. Note that all Gordy said, originally, is that such life is mathematically likely. He did not claim evidence.
It is based on mathematics AND it is based on qualified assumptions. Both conditions are true. These are not mutually exclusive.
First, qualified assumptions are far better than randomly tossing out whatever feels good. So there is that. Second, I think part of the problem is that you do not understand probability theory. Not meaning to insult you Drakk, but that is how it seems to me.
Yes, thank you. I know how it started. I know what was said. Apparently, from my point of view, you do not. Let's examine what was said.
You even highlighted the most relevant part in blue, yet still wish to claim I'm wrong or that I don't understand. Gordy comes back with the statement that the Drake equation is math based. Unless his intent was simply to state that the Drake equation is a math equation, he's offering it as proof or evidence of some sort as a counter to what I had just said. In other words, he's saying that the Drake equation, because it is itself mathematical, is evidence that there is other life out there. Simply because it's a math equation.
What I said was there was absolutely no math based on evidence. So far, that's true and none of you have proven that to be incorrect. So, since there is no evidence for most of the variables we are left with only speculation, hunches, guesses and assumptions to put in them. Of course, you seem to put it differently...
Yeah. Extremely rough. Like, we actually don't have any data at all on whether or not there is other intelligent life out there kind of rough. When you have zero data to actually use in the variable the only thing left to do is fill it in with one's best guess. That isn't math based. It's reason based. That is, one has some reason for choosing the value for the variable they use that makes sense to them.
If those of us who've participated in this discussion were sitting at a table together and one of us pulls out a gold coin and said "I found this in the woods yesterday" we could speculate as to whether that was the only one or whether there were more. What we could not do is build an equation that would predict the answer. We could get it to produce an answer, but that isn't helpful because you can get it to spit out whatever answer you want depending on what variables you decide to use.
But, if we get up from the table and go investigate, get actual data, now the equation actually does something. It's a big wood but so far, we discover what amounts to 1.2 gold coins per acre in the 100 acres we've searched so far. Now we have a shot at an actual prediction. We have the math to base it on. But as long as we are sitting at the table, it's only based on speculation.
I'm assuming by rough you may be possibly speaking of the first two variables. Agreed, although I think the first one is reasonably solid, myself. The rest are zeros. That isn't rough. Rough makes it sound as if we have some idea at least. We don't. So the rest get filled in based on the assumptions the person doing the calculations thinks make sense. Since I'm pretty sure you've looked up the Drake equation online, I'm sure you know there is quite a bit of debate on what should be reasonably used in those variables.
This isn't about you, TiG. Nor is the question "math based". The question is, is there any evidence based math that supports Gordy's claim that it is mathematically unlikely that we are alone in the universe. As far as I can tell, you all seem to think that the Drake equation says that there is other intelligent life out there, um, because it's math and stuff. But the truth is, the Drake equation only exists because of the assumption that there must be other intelligent life out there, else why the need for the equation to begin with? It doesn't calculate whether or not there's intelligent life out there, it calculates how much there could be, given certain assumptions. The assumption is that there is and apparently Gordy feels the same, else he wouldn't have offered the Drake equation to begin with. It's also why I said I don't think he knows what the Drake equation really is.
You guys don't appear to be keeping the topic of this conversation in mind. The question isn't whether or not the equation is math. As I have already stated before, it is a math equation. The question is, does the Drake equation validate Gordy's assertion that it is mathematically unlikely we are alone. It doesn't, because right now, without the data we need to actually use the equation, anyone can pretty much put whatever they want into the variables.
Nope. What I want it to mean is something like finding an actual exoplanet with confirmed life on it. Now we can actually begin to build a statistical probability. We can actually have math based data to insert into another one of the variables. And the more we find, the more refined the probability becomes. Then, if we ever find another civilization that can communicate, that improves the probability model even more. More math based evidence instead of speculation we have now, no matter how well reasoned it is.
Okay. How many are out there??
If the data existed, you mean? Right now what data there is appears to tell us we are alone. Please note Fermi's paradox at this point. But otherwise, yes. Having actual data would be considered actual math based calculations by me. Right now, we don't have that for much of the equation. What we have is various scientists expressing their reasoning as to why a given variable should be a certain value. It may be excellent reasoning and 100 years from now, proven to be right. Or it may be proven entirely wrong. Also, another scientist may have equally convincing reasons for his variables and come out with a wildly different answer than the first scientist. So now what? Both predictions can't be right. Actually, both could be wrong.
Maybe it seems bizarre to you because you keep forgetting what this discussion is about. I asked Gordy for math based on evidence that supports his claim that it is unlikely we are alone. So far, all any of you have done is endlessly say some version of Drake's equation is math, or is based on math in some way. The equation could say there's so many intelligent civilizations out there you can't swing a cat without hitting one. Or it can say intelligent life is so rare it's almost non existent. Or anything in between. But it's very existence is an assumption that there is other intelligent life out there.
Worse, there's nothing at all that demands intelligent life exists in the first place. For all we know we are a fluke. A one in a trillion trillion chance. (Please note that I'm speaking in your world here, not mine. I obviously don't believe we are a fluke, given my beliefs)
One last time. Anyone who thinks the Drake equation is an argument for other intelligent life being out there doesn't understand the equation. It doesn't predict whether or not there is other intelligent life out there, it predicts how much of it there is. It's already assumed that other intelligent life exists.
Also, it may seem from my argument that I am somehow against the idea that there is other life out there. I am not. My own opinion is that I have no idea whatsoever whether there is or isn't. I certainly think it may be possible, but I don't take it for granted that there is.
Lastly, it has just occurred to me how we may move on from this apparent "math based" sticking point. How about I meet you half way and say "math based assumptions?"
Agreed. Which is why I told Gordy he didn't understand the equation when he offered it as evidence against my statement that there was no evidence based math that supported the existence of other intelligent life. He attempted to use it in that manner.
Again, I completely agree.
True. Except I don't understand why I'm getting so much resistance to what I am saying. I've wordily stated pretty much what you have here, yet I'm getting so much flack for it. Don't understand it.
Because you acted as though Gordy was a fool to suggest that the Drake equation is math-based. That is what caused me to respond.
Drakkonis @ 20.2.27 - For all we know, this is the only planet in the entire universe with life on it.
Gordy327 @ 20.2.30 - That's what we currently know. But it's mathematically unlikely.
Drakkonis @ 20.2.35 - O.M.G. Really? There is absolutely no math based on evidence that supports this claim. The only place we know, provably, that has life on it is Earth. One place. You can't build a statistical model off the number "1".
Gordy327 @ 20.2.39 - The Drake Equation is math based .
Drakkonis @ 20.2.43 - Um. Wow . I'm just going to assume you don't actually know what the Drake Equation is and just quietly back away.
Gordy is correct in that the Drake equation is math-based and that it is used to estimate the number of likely intelligent civilizations.
Your disagreement was on the aspect of mathematics but your argument focused on the quality of the data. Nobody (from what I have read) disagrees with you on the quality of the data. I think we all agree that you are correct on that point. Nobody (from what I have read) posits that intelligent life necessarily exists outside of our own. The entire debate is on the question of the Drake equate being math-based.
So why not just note where we all agree (at least seemingly):
Let's forget about the 'math-based' aspect since this should have been easily resolved a long time ago. If we are going to debate this semantic point this long with no progress then no progress is likely no matter what we write.
By the way, the Drake equation was intended to be a sobering mechanism. If one looks at the expanse of the universe - hundreds of billions of galaxies with likely hundreds of thousands of stars in each - one will intuitively exclaim 'how could there NOT be other intelligent life out there given the unfathomably large number of opportunities?'.
Drake's equation takes that incomprehensibly large range and reduces it (dramatically) based on modern physics, biology and sociology.
What I am saying is that one could naively argue that it is very unlikely out of no less than 100 billion galaxies x 100 billion stars per galaxy x 1.6 planets per star for us to be the only intelligent life. If we are unique then we are the only one out of 10.6 trillion planets to have intelligent life.
Drake imposes a bit of sobriety on that.
Yes, you have, but I don't understand the relevance. From my perspective, this debate isn't about the accuracy of the equation, per se. It's actually morphed into two separate things. One is, was it correct for Gordy to offer the equation as mathematical evidence for his position and the other, is the equation math based.
Concerning the math based part...
You wish, apparently, to restrict this discussion to whether or not an equation is mathematical or not. I've already said it was. But to simply stop at saying it's math based doesn't validate Gordy's point. What? It's an equation so therefore he's right in presenting it as evidence? I'm pretty sure you understand exactly what I'm saying when I state it's based on assumptions. You yourself use that word to describe what goes into some of the variables. If the result of the equation is determined by the assumptions in the unknown variables, would it not be correct to say that the result was based on those assumptions? How would you put it?
But that's the problem with your argument right there. By now, I'm sure you've read sandy's post to me and perhaps she would agree. The Drake equation doesn't actually address that question. It operates on the assumption that there is and only tries to estimate how much there may be. That's what this is about. Gordy tried to offer the equation as proof that we aren't alone. It's incorrect to use it that way.
Okay. I can go with that. But it's still an assumption. The assumption, qualified or not, is necessary due to the lack of actual data. Can't you see that the result of the equation is based on that assumption? Suppose someone else has a different, but equally qualified assumption that causes a very different result? The outcome is based on the assumptions used. I don't understand why you feel this to be "bizarre." To me, what's bizarre is arguing about it being math based. It's an equation, but simply saying it's math based is like saying the outcome is valid simply because it's math based. It doesn't really say anything.
Then what, in your opinion, was his reason for offering up the Drake equation immediately after I said there was no evidence based math that supports that claim?
Never argued against this. That is, I agree.
I've never studied the subject. However, to my recollection, the only probability statement I made was one can't build a statistical model from the number 1. That isn't my own idea. I actually read it in an article somewhere by a statistician. It was a long time ago so I don't remember what it was about but I think it was on this very subject. Drake's equation.
Anyway, was it this statement that made you say this or was it something else?
Gladly.
I understand your point, and even share it to an extent. However, rationality tells me that it is a mistake to assume something just because the number seems really huge. Not saying that you do. But people do. How many times in books and movies have you seen the Drake equation used as proof that there are other intelligences out there? All on the assumption that we can't be all there is. Just the way Gordy did? Math will not tell us whether or not there is other life out there. Only finding it will. That's my opinion.
I agree. One cannot assume intelligent life exists but one can certainly form an informed opinion that it is likely that we are not alone.
I will have to take your word on the idea that people actually publish words stating the Drake equation is proof of anything. I have not come across it (or maybe I have and immediately dismissed it as nonsense).
That is not what Gordy did Drakk. Also, you should know Gordy well enough by now to know that he is not likely to believe something simply because he wants it to be true.
That is true of anything. Mathematics is a tool for structuring our thinking. Proof (or the closest one can approach proof) is a function of direct evidence. So until we have direct evidence of an alien intelligence nobody can legitimately state with confidence that we are not alone. But one could make a decent case that we are likely not alone.
Then why the effing hell did you deny that it was mathematical (with some dumbshit equivocation about how it was not mathematics but based on mathematics) at the beginning of your nonsense?
I never said the Drake equation was not an equation. That is, because it is an equation, the equation itself is of course, math. What the argument has been about is my response to Gordy saying that the equation is based on math. It isn't. It's based on assumptions, educated guesses or however you wish to term it.
Here is the list of variables of the Drake equation you provided earlier.
The only two variables in that list we have any data on are R* and fp. So, in what sense are you saying the rest of those values are based on math, since we have zero data on any of them? Remember, though, that this question has to be answered in context of the discussion. That is, I said there is absolutely no math based on evidence that supports Gordy's claim that it is mathematically unlikely that we are alone in the galaxy. He responded that the Drake equation is math based. My contention is that since we have partial data on two of the variables and zero on the other six, how does Drake's equation support his contention that it is mathematically unlikely we are alone? Anyone can put whatever value in those variables that seems reasonable to them, generating wildly different results.
Yes, the values that go into those variables are numbers, but that doesn't actually say anything. It's like claiming that words are made of letters. Yep. And? Claiming that it is mathematically unlikely that we are alone because the Drake equation is math is like saying Hitler was right because Mein Kampf is made up of words.
More, those numbers come from somewhere. Since they do not come from data they are, again, necessarily assumptions, educated guesses or however you wish to term it.
And finally, putting forward the Drake equation as even suggestive evidence that we are not alone is misunderstanding of the equation. The equation doesn't deal with the question of whether or not we are alone. It was created on the assumption that we are not. It was created as a starting place on the big "IF". If there is other intelligent life out there, how can we begin to look for it. It was never intended to answer the question, "is there?"
If you are still following this, I owe you an apology for the distain with which I treated you. There is no excuse for it. I'm sorry.
E.A Actually you were right the First time not so the second, An Equation can not have a Single known factor and then Claim to be fact based, what it can be is a Theoretical a Fiction, then anything is acceptable!
I don't understand what you are referring to as the first and second time.
OK.. let Bypass that!!
Tell me can any Accountant make a Ledger of Income and Costs based on a Single Item Entry?
Can Any Chemist make a Chemical Compound with a Single Element?
Can a Math Table be composed on One Known Numeral and a lot of " Imaginary " ones?
How many KNOWN Habitable Planets does the " Equation " have?
No. I have already stated that one cannot build a statistical model from the number 1.
E.A Hence why I said "
E.A Actually you were right the First time not so the second, An Equation can not have a Single known factor "
So what Part of " Drake " so called " equation " merits ANY scientific Voracity?
Since by Default there is NO " equation " just a lot of Garbage innuendo and False Science.
No worries. Apology accepted. I appreciate it, thanks.
Thank you.
I know, right? Some people just don't get it.
And some people do indeed get it yet pretend that it is something else.
Which is even worse than not getting it to begin with.
There is no godly reason why so much attention is paid to Maxine Waters on this forum. I think she's a little eccentric, a little full of herself, she likes a lot of attention, but she is no worse than any number of right wing goofballs, and more truthful and accurate than many of them.
We know why the rightwingers of Newstalkers want to bang on Waters, by why do all the liberals engage them about it?
I think it may be time to start seeding articles from Right Wing Watch again.
Because she shows the direction of the party and Trump Hysteria in general so nicely.
She just a whack job the new face of the dnc
there 20,000 beds for illegal immigration Im sure there 20,000 homeless that like one of those beds when are we going to be concerned with america first. We cant take care of the world till we take care of our own. Government healthcare do you really want VA health care. you seen the dead at phoenix you seen dentist that may have infected vets with aids for not cleaning there tools. You seen the va police that beat up a veteran and falsified the police report. you seen the veteran that set himself on fire because the va wouldn't listen to him. American politicians wont wake up.
Is this relevant to the article in any way?
no just maxine and that she dosnt want borders
I do appreciate you putting your bullshit in such nice tidy packages like that.
I wish he'd punctuate his bullshit.
ha! ha! ha! I love this site