Posted on 02/20/2006 5:33:50 AM PST by ToryHeartland
Unless something changed recently, I believe you're just clearly, obviously wrong on this.
I can openly state I only write personal letters of reccomendation for white women.
It is *personal* cuz he isn't doing it as an agent of the University.
He almost certainly win in court, after spending his time and money, and dealing with the frustration.
Altho you *never* know about courts . . . it is possible you'd find some sympathetic jury that would ignore the law, as happens on occasion!
What is PAT saying?
Again you fail to take in the context. Saying 'truthfully and forthrightly affirm' is more than an assertion. Oath is a more appropriate substitution in that usage. Ignoring the context, you can make the case that an affirmation can be a simple assertion. In the context, you can not.
Just like going on trial!
Oh... unless you're OJ
No sane man would test it. I can't imagine a court finding in his favor. But he would most definitely go broke trying.
You are right, but He also speaks in many other ways....
Again, legally, clearly, YES.
I've said YES like 10 times clearly now.
He would not face any prosecution if he did so.
Now his *employer* might act, and fire him. But he would not have violated the constitution.
I'm sorry if I have been in any way obtuse on this. I am trying to state what I believe to be the obvious, as clearly as I am able.
Everyone's a constitutional lawyer on FR.
As far as I know, there is no case law at all on this matter. But, for example, Michael Levin at City College of New York has written books about the genetic inferiority of blacks. No doubt his status as a professor gives those books legitimacy. CCNY tried to prevent Levin from teaching required courses; Levin took them to court, won, and got costs.
You are right: and crazy folks who off their kids ALSO 'hear voices'!
(One must be selective on who to listen to, as the little cartoon of a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other is quite correct!)
But the nice thing about having a faith that is so easily adapted to change, is that you can have modern prophets giving speeches and making money teaching and publishing. Plus, if you can make it a State religion, you get a nice thing going, for a long time, and nobody can ever contradict you, because you tell them what to think, and it's illegal for them to think otherwise if they want to buy and sell, in the marketplace. You can also label all dissenters as whacko crazies and put peer pressure on them to conform.
Logical, or (closer to my own view) pragmatic?
Time has got away from me this evening, it's late here, but you have both hit a topic of particular interest, and I think the topic that is the source of a great deal of (perhaps unnecessary?) friction in the debate. Will endeavour to address the same soon, if not on this thread than another. I strongly suspect we all share very similar core values and standards of morality; if we differ about our perception of the source of morality, that difference (I earnestly hope) need not be an acrimonious one.
Maybe...
You choose a church which, in effect, interprets scripture so that it's in conflict with the SPIRITUAL world.
DEFINITELY!
This implies that the world was created
It was created by Our Creator, The Almighty.
He was fairly clear that he thought 'yes'.
And what about the im-morality?
"Not really. The Catholic sect of Christianity is the largest in America by a fair amount."
I believe that about 22% of Americans are Catholic, but over 65% of Americans are Protestant. The numbers vary, depending on where you look, but they move around those axes. There are between two and three times as many Protestants as Catholics in the US.
Now, it is true that the largest single denomination is Catholicism, but that is because the various forms of Protestantism are divides into smaller sects. If you add together the various Evangelical sects and you've got a huge number of people.
You're just incorrect, I'm afraid.
In fact -- look at the next defintion in Dictionary dot com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=affirm
af·firm
v. intr. Law
To declare solemnly and formally but not under oath.
"But Not Under Oath".
"Solemnly and formally".
So it just means an affirmative answer that you "mean". Not said lightly, not just for fun, but you mean it solemnly and formally. But *not* an oath!!!
Now, if you wish to keep saying it's an oath, please show me some definition somewhere that agrees with you.
So no matter what creationists claim, if we have more conclusive data on abiogenesis all that will be presented in science class will be how life could have originated and not that it must have occurred that way.
The problem with creationism/ID on the other hand is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable. The creator of CRE/ID isn't constrained in any way whereas naturalistic processes are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.