tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post576138060350657444..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: What part of "freedom" don't you get?mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-53727229216382350532011-10-26T07:23:30.650-04:002011-10-26T07:23:30.650-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Iko Ouro Pretohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04599830041028902667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-86498169276588941852011-10-26T07:14:15.665-04:002011-10-26T07:14:15.665-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Iko Ouro Pretohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04599830041028902667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-29252475984760237382011-10-26T07:13:56.950-04:002011-10-26T07:13:56.950-04:00@mregnor:
It's not funny anymore.@mregnor:<br />It's not funny anymore.godless atiest!!!!1!1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-68481606121719618122011-10-26T06:34:50.753-04:002011-10-26T06:34:50.753-04:00@iko:
Most of the "fairest" (Sweden, De...@iko:<br /><br />Most of the "fairest" (Sweden, Denmark, yada, yada) countries have long Christian histories and many still have established churches, although a fair portion of the population is functionally atheist in the past few generations. Christianity influences social mores even when it is no longer universally practiced as a religion. Christianity has long been the philosophical basis for human rights (We hold these truths to be self-evident.. Created equal... endowed by their Creator...)<br /><br />My obvious point is that all countries that have been governed by EXPLICITLY atheist governments (Soviets, China, N. Korea, etc) have been hellholes. Every single one. You need to show that atheism as a ruling ideology establishes freedom and human rights. It hasn't so far. Just the opposite.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-86182085276367732992011-10-26T06:06:30.524-04:002011-10-26T06:06:30.524-04:00Dr. Egnor, you seem to have some kind of mental bl...Dr. Egnor, you seem to have some kind of mental blockage in admitting that the fairest countries nowadays have non-religious majorities. You have an obsession with N. Korea and just ignore the rest. That is, to say the least, not very honest on your part. It must indeed be very hard for you to swallow that atheism brings social justice.Iko Ouro Pretohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04599830041028902667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-37504924854671154202011-10-26T05:12:18.155-04:002011-10-26T05:12:18.155-04:00Perhaps this helps to explain the atheist penchant...<i>Perhaps this helps to explain the atheist penchant for totalitarianism.</i><br /><br />I live in a country where most people are non-religious and I'm still waiting for the evil dictatorship.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-16662240745575592752011-10-25T21:35:34.835-04:002011-10-25T21:35:34.835-04:00Anonymous "No doubt, anon in, oh, 1859 would ...<b>Anonymous</b> <i>"No doubt, anon in, oh, 1859 would have proclaimed that Dred Scott was the final word."</i><br />Obviously. That's why no liberal speaks ill of decisions like Gonzales v. Raich, or Kelo v New London (where the nominal liberals on the court made the wrong decision).<br />Also, if you haven't already, you should probably read the decisions anon listed, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education" rel="nofollow">Everson</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman" rel="nofollow">Lemon</a> (both were of the "giving public funds to non-public schools is a no-no" type) & <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynch_v._Donnelly" rel="nofollow">Lynch</a> (city nativity scenes are fine. Other decisions formed and defined open/closed forum).<br /><br /><b>mregnor</b> <i>"Perhaps this helps to explain the atheist penchant for totalitarianism."</i><br />Yeah! Take that, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Japan and France!Modusoperandihttp://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/User:Modusoperandinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-48568057411763209902011-10-25T18:15:49.843-04:002011-10-25T18:15:49.843-04:00@anon (atheists do not believe in freedom):
[Athe...@anon (atheists do not believe in freedom):<br /><br />[Atheists do not believe in freedom, because as a matter of strict materialist metaphysics, they do not believe in freedom.]<br /><br />That's really an excellent point. If freedom cannot be grounded in unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, then rights cannot be grounded at all. Perhaps this helps to explain the atheist penchant for totalitarianism.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-39561560794064408402011-10-25T18:10:13.483-04:002011-10-25T18:10:13.483-04:00@anon (Great post Dr. Egnor!)
Thank you for your ...@anon (Great post Dr. Egnor!)<br /><br />Thank you for your kind words. It's great to hear from friends. <br /><br />Mikemregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-56760624670973673032011-10-25T17:39:19.142-04:002011-10-25T17:39:19.142-04:00I'm getting a sore neck from shaking my head a...I'm getting a sore neck from shaking my head at the daily nonsense published on this blog. I might need some neurosurgery to get it fixed. Call me a cynic, but could it be that Dr Egnor is deliberately writing head-shake-inducing nonsense just to get some extra patients?troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-90861029101951520142011-10-25T16:57:42.075-04:002011-10-25T16:57:42.075-04:00Anon, why won't you acknowledge that your non-...Anon, why won't you acknowledge that your non-belief in invisible pink unicorns is a religion and it's based on blind faith?Maikl Egnurrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-64216186185129623442011-10-25T16:50:57.297-04:002011-10-25T16:50:57.297-04:00Then of course, if he had the least grain of hones...<i>Then of course, if he had the least grain of honesty he'd have to say as well, "since atheism cannot be proved and it is impossible to know there is no god, my position is one of religious blind faith, and I'm happy to admit it."</i><br /><br />Prove there are no invisible pink unicorns. Then you might have a leg to stand on with that argument. Good luck with that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-60220462731672317472011-10-25T16:34:56.107-04:002011-10-25T16:34:56.107-04:00Great post Dr. Egnor!
I first came to appreciate...Great post Dr. Egnor! <br /><br />I first came to appreciate your articulate defense of various moral positions (in particular, the rights of the unborn) from your (in times past) frequent postings at Evolution News and Views. The resulting personally vicious verbal assaults from the various atheist blogs rarely tried to counter your arguments, as vulgar character assassination seems to come much easier to them. However, I was both surprised and delighted to find that you now have your own blog, and that you've not only managed to negate the emotional sting of their frequent invectives, but have also transformed their main epithet into the name of your blog. (Maybe a stroke of genius?)<br /><br />I greatly appreciate your comments on whatever issue comes to hand. Thank you again Dr. Egnor!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-1552588553644993142011-10-25T16:02:43.299-04:002011-10-25T16:02:43.299-04:00Michael said, "What part of "freedom&quo...Michael said, "What part of "freedom" don't you get?"<br /><br />The anonymous coward, if truthful, would have to answer, <i>"I don't get any of it."</i><br /><br />Then of course, if he had the least grain of honesty he'd have to say as well, <i>"since atheism cannot be proved and it is impossible to know there is no god, my position is one of religious blind faith, and I'm happy to admit it."</i><br /><br />Should expect such an admission? No, not from such a blind follower of blind fools.Gary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-68737080116187010542011-10-25T14:50:30.439-04:002011-10-25T14:50:30.439-04:00No doubt, anon in, oh, 1859 would have proclaimed ...<i>No doubt, anon in, oh, 1859 would have proclaimed that Dred Scott was the final word.</i><br /><br /><i>Dred Scott</i> was an outlier of a decision that was poorly based in the jurisprudence of the day. What most people who trot it out in situtions like this don't realize about the <i>Dred Scott</i> decision is just how out in left field Taney was and how poorly grounded his decision was <i>even by the standards of the time</i>.<br /><br />in contrast, the Supreme Court has been consistent through the history of the United States on the subject to the establishment Clause, with the cases building on each other in a very easy to follow manner. Whine all you want, but this is not a set of precedents that are likely to be overturned any time soon, if ever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-87744892697656927602011-10-25T11:57:05.913-04:002011-10-25T11:57:05.913-04:00It isn't a mystery. Educate yourself:
Everson...<em>It isn't a mystery. Educate yourself:<br /><br />Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)<br />Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)<br />Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984)</em><br /><br />No doubt, anon in, oh, 1859 would have proclaimed that <em>Dred Scott</em> was the final word.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-43549506975203814712011-10-25T11:55:15.689-04:002011-10-25T11:55:15.689-04:00Atheists do not believe in freedom, because as a m...Atheists do not believe in freedom, because as a matter of strict materialist metaphysics, <em>they do not believe in freedom.</em><br /><br />But give them credit for being consistent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-38707093915520435112011-10-25T11:13:51.545-04:002011-10-25T11:13:51.545-04:00Sorry Mike, The Supreme Court has already ruled th...Sorry Mike, The Supreme Court has already ruled that in order to be constitutional under the Establishment Clause the activities of the public schools must pass the “Lemon test” (Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971). They must have a secular purpose, must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and must not result in excessive entanglement between government and religion. That is the law of the land.<br /><br />Fortunately for you, and unfortunately for those of us who aren’t Christian conservatives, you have a sympathetic Supreme Court that displays little regard for precedent.<br /><br />-KWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-34476136818228123002011-10-25T10:46:17.702-04:002011-10-25T10:46:17.702-04:00So what does "Establishment of Religion"...<i>So what does "Establishment of Religion" mean?</i><br /><br />It isn't a mystery. Educate yourself:<br /><br />Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)<br />Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)<br />Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-53157679385954413302011-10-25T09:22:49.153-04:002011-10-25T09:22:49.153-04:00@anon:
[Once again you demonstrate that you are a...@anon:<br /><br />[Once again you demonstrate that you are an uneducated boob with no understanding of the law.]<br /><br />So what does "Establishment of Religion" mean?Mike Egnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-50998997438491416242011-10-25T09:11:44.529-04:002011-10-25T09:11:44.529-04:00The sign is not an Establishment of Religion, whic...<i>The sign is not an Establishment of Religion, which means an official Government Church.</i><br /><br />Once again you demonstrate that you are an uneducated boob with no understanding of the law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-19299011553242139842011-10-25T07:36:18.369-04:002011-10-25T07:36:18.369-04:00There’s a fundamental difference between your reac...There’s a fundamental difference between your reaction to a religious sign posted in a school and the reaction of an impressionable 8 year old that attends the school. The issue isn’t whether the 8 year old is offended or not, it’s whether the school is influencing the religious beliefs of people’s children without the consent of that child’s parents.<br /><br />What part of “freedom of religion” don’t you get?<br /><br />-KWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com