I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Judge Jones wrong about Founding Fathers' "true religion"

This article is a follow-up to "Judge Jones flunks history and philosophy as well as law and science".

I think that it is unfortunate that religion is an issue in the debate over evolution, and I am particularly disturbed that some people are abusing the establishment clause here to suppress scientific ideas that they don't like. I also feel that the Founding Fathers' religious beliefs should not control our interpretation of the Constitution. And I am also greatly disturbed that Judge Jones has shown that his lousy Kitzmiller v. Dover decision was influenced by his hostility towards organized religion and his distorted ideas about the Founding Fathers' religious beliefs and reasons for creating the establishment clause. Here again is an excerpt from his Dickinson College commencement speech:

.....we see the Founders' ideals quite clearly, among many places, in the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This of course was the clause that I determined the school board had violated in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. While legal scholars will continue to debate the appropriate application of that clause to particular facts in individual cases, this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state. (emphasis added)


For starters, Judge Jones' above statement about "true religion" shows such great hostility towards organized religion that he should recuse himself from any establishment clause or free exercise case.

Also, contrary to Jones' statement that the Founders' beliefs about "true religion" are "very clear," the only things that are "very clear" are that today there is no consensus at all about the Founders' religious beliefs and that Jones' simplistic description of the Founders' "true religion" is wrong. A Christian Science Monitor article titled "How religious did they expect us to be?" says:

Both Christian fundamentalists and their militantly secular opposites tend to cite our founding intellects as the original wellsprings of their philosophies about the proper place for faith in the public arena.

Another Christian Science Monitor article titled "This year, lots of fireworks over the Founders' faith" says:

"People who are fighting battles now, against the Christian right or the secular left, feel their case will be stronger if they have history on their side," says Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College.

At least nine new books this year - such as "Washington's God," "Moral Minority," and "American Gospel" - delve into the Founders' spiritual and ethical beliefs.

Some authors are raising questions about Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. Were they Christians who found salvation in a personal God? Or were they deists, that is, devotees of reason who saw God as a benevolent yet distant creator?

Ironically, though Dickinson College, Jones' alma mater where he gave the above commencement speech, was founded by a Founding Father, Dr. Benjamin Rush, and named for another Founding Father, John Dickinson, the college seal -- designed by Rush and Dickinson -- has a picture of an open Bible and a Latin motto which means, "Religion and learning, the bulwark of liberty." And yet Jones' commencement speech said, "The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible." What a joke. I can't believe this.

Jones is just a lousy judge and a crackpot.

Definition of "federal judge" -- A lawyer who knows a senator (another variation of that cliche`, "it's not what you know, it's who you know"). My thanks to BarryA, an attorney, for that one.

Labels:

6 Comments:

Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> I am particularly disturbed that some people are abusing the establishment clause here to suppress scientific ideas that they don't like. <

You have never given a single citation of a case where anyone is trying to supress any scientific ideas. Let's see you cite one.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006 11:13:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Wilderness said...
>>>>>> I am particularly disturbed that some people are abusing the establishment clause here to suppress scientific ideas that they don't like. <

You have never given a single citation of a case where anyone is trying to supress any scientific ideas. Let's see you cite one.<<<<<

If that is the only criticism that you can make against my arguments, then I can declare that I have proven my case.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006 6:15:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

>>>>>You have never given a single citation of a case where anyone is trying to supress any scientific ideas. Let's see you cite one.<<<<<

> If that is the only criticism that you can make against my arguments, then I can declare that I have proven my case. <

So you admit that you can't cite a single one. You are still hiding and everyone can see it.

You can declare that you have proven your case. You can also declare that you are Napoleon Bonaparte. Both are equally believable.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006 7:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> The problem is that you don't make serious arguments or ask serious questions, so there is nothing to answer. <

I will make this simple for you. I will ask the most innocuous question that I have asked recently. If you can answer it, you might be able to step up to some tougher ones, but I doubt it.

A while back you made a point out of the fact that a document presented in a Pennsylvania court was notarized by a Texas notary. What do you believe is wrong with that?

There is a very simple question for a start. Now everyone will be able to see that you will either ignore the post or find some breathtakingly inane excuse why you won't answer.

> Here is a typical argument from you: Q: Why do you think that irreducible complexity is unscientific? Your answer: Irreducible complexity is unscientific because it is unscientific. <

Here is a typical argument from you: "Irreducible complexity is scientific because it is scientific." While I have never made the argument that you have cited, you are constantly making the type of statements that I have just cited. You believe that repeating your unsupported claims is proof of them. You are fooling nobody but yourself.

> Furthermore, I am under no obligation to answer all or any of the comments on this blog. <

Then you show yourself to be a hypocrite when you criticize Ed Brayton.

> I never demanded that he answer my comments. <

Why should he answer your inane questions?

> preparing new posts, which is no easy task because many of them require a lot of research. <

You're joking, right. How much time does it take to post the words of Dylan's song or your recent poem? Mostly you just take something that you don't understand, even linking to it, and then give your misinterpretation of it. If it takes a lot of time for you to do this, you sure have little to show for it. Perhaps you could save a little time by stopping your impersonations. (I have to admit that they have decreased in number recently. There was only the pathetic post you labeled "Anonymous".

Well here it is, folks. Larry is a coward and a hypocrite. I gave him one very clear cut and innocuous question and he will duck it so as not to further reveal his ignorance. Naturally he will give a lame excuse for not doing so.

I can just see you frantically trying to find new songs and poems to post to distract people from seeing that you are petrified by questions. You only seem to know two ways to "debate". One is to repeat unsupported claims enlessly in the hope that they will eventually make sense. Another is to either write ad hominems or accuse others of them although you still have shown that you don't understand the term any more than you understand "declaratory relief".

Thursday, July 06, 2006 8:09:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Reply to Voice In Wilderness --

You stupid fathead -- you posted the same comment in four different places. It was not worth being posted in one. So I'll have to answer it in the different places (on what other blog do you think that you could get away with this crap?)

>>>>>A while back you made a point out of the fact that a document presented in a Pennsylvania court was notarized by a Texas notary. What do you believe is wrong with that?<<<<<<

I already gave you my answer to that question -- I said that I'll answer that when you tell me what is wrong with a county sheriff serving process on a state or federal office. A sheriff's office did not tell me why they wouldn't do it. In another case, another sheriff's office was willing to serve process on a state office.

<<<<<<> Furthermore, I am under no obligation to answer all or any of the comments on this blog. <

Then you show yourself to be a hypocrite when you criticize Ed Brayton.<<<<<<

No -- what makes Brayton a cowardly hypocrite is that he pretends to be tolerant of opposing views, then posts articles directly attacking me and my ideas and won't let me defend myself on his blog. And I never demanded that Ed respond to my comments posted on his blog.

<<<<<<> I never demanded that he answer my comments. <

Why should he answer your inane questions?<<<<<<

Why should I answer yours? Furthermore, you are demanding that I answer yours -- many bloggers respond little or not at all to comments posted on their blogs.

>>>>>You're joking, right. How much time does it take to post the words of Dylan's song or your recent poem?<<<<<<

Some articles require more research than others, moron. And that was not a poem -- that was another song.

>>>>>you don't understand the term any more than you understand "declaratory relief". <<<<<<

What would you call, say, a finding that a plaintiff has been libeled? Monetary relief? Injunctive relief?

As for nominal damages, you and Kevin Vicklund consider them to be a fetish with some kind of magical power to prevent cases from being mooted. That is not law -- it's voodoo.

I am still wondering, VIW -- certainly the amusement you get here is not worth all the time that you spend here. My "Philadelphia Lawyer" song lampooning those shysters who represented the Dover plaintiffs was one of the few funny things that I have posted on this blog.

Thursday, July 06, 2006 9:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> you posted the same comment in four different places. <

And you dodged my question on four different places.

> I already gave you my answer to that question <

No. You dodged it in four different places.

> I said that I'll answer that when you tell me what is wrong with a county sheriff serving process on a state or federal office. A sheriff's office did not tell me why they wouldn't do it. In another case, another sheriff's office was willing to serve process on a state office. <

Is there anyone except this idiot who can see a relation between my question and his? This shows his cowardace. His lunacy has long since been demonstrated.

> what makes Brayton a cowardly hypocrite is that he pretends to be tolerant of opposing views <

He doesn't suffer fools gladly but he does allow opposing views on his blog. When someone posts something with which he disagrees, he gives his reasons, rather than the personal attacks which seem to be your only weapons.

> I never demanded that Ed respond to my comments posted on his blog.

> many bloggers respond little or not at all to comments posted on their blogs. <

There are many reasons that they may not. Your reason is that you are afraid to show your ignorance. Don't worry, you have nothing to lose. Everyone already has seen your ignorance displayed on this blog.

> Some articles require more research than others <

Your articles seem to be the result of a word search followed by the inevitable misinterpretation.

> What would you call, say, a finding that a plaintiff has been libeled? Monetary relief? Injunctive relief? <

I would call it a finding that a plaintiff has been libeled. Relief may be provided along with the finding but the finding is never relief in itself.

> As for nominal damages, you and Kevin Vicklund consider them to be a fetish with some kind of magical power to prevent cases from being mooted. That is not law -- it's voodoo. <

No. It is your misunderstanding of the situation, despite Kevin's attempts to educate you, that are voodoo. You should not make the assumption that if you don't understand something that means that the explanation is not simple and obvious to sane people.

> I am still wondering, VIW -- certainly the amusement you get here is not worth all the time that you spend here. <

It is worth every minute of it. In contrast, the time you waste trying to convince people that black is white doesn't seem very productive for you.

> My "Philadelphia Lawyer" song lampooning those shysters who represented the Dover plaintiffs was one of the few funny things that I have posted on this blog. <

The fact that you would post it is funny. You are funny. The funniest thing is probably your impersonations. I expected to see you post as "anonymous" again and congratulate yourself for your latest efforts. The funniest were your pathetic attempts to impersonate your brother, the real Dave. Does anyone else have any favorites?

Meanwhile we get yet another example of your cowardice, you pathetic jackass.

Thursday, July 06, 2006 11:12:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home