While there may be bugs in this new system, it's functionality far exceeds the standard Facebook Comments widget. You can view YouTube videos and images "in-comment" rather than having to navigate to a external page. You can respond to a specific post, and easily navigate through responses. If the Poster has taken a "position" on the argument in question, you will see it next to his/her name. This is useful for reference purposes.
There's a lot more to come, as after all Argumentum aims to be the perfect place to argue online!
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
- it is unconstitutional to ban certain religious clothing in US courts of law
1st amendment regarding Religion..
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
There is an inherent contradiction in one common interpretation of the 1st amendment, since to determine whether or not the Free Exercise of Religion has been prohibited, it can be construed that the State must at some point Establish the validity of an act as Religious. Jefferson recognized this possibility early, and made himself very clear; the clause was meant to act as a "Wall of Separation" between Religion and government. Jefferson intended that the State not concern itself with religious matters at all; in essence it should act in total Ignorance of Religion. He did not enunciate what he meant by 'Religion', but an extension of his logic leaves little doubt. Religion for Jefferson always referred to Faith; belief in phenomena without scientific evidence and reason. Nudism, the belief that man's natural state is to be without clothing, is therefore a religious belief in the sense that its dogma is not based on science or reasoning; it is a 'Faith.' Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, for true believers, is also a religion, as valid as Sikhism, Islam or Christianity or any other.
Logically if a Sikh should be permitted to wear his turban in court on account of his religion, a Nudist should be permitted to address the judge as his religion demands, in the nude. But then, what if a Yankees fan demands the right to wear his baseball cap in court on the account that his superstition or 'Faith' requires it? Must a judge 'establish' in each separate instance the validity of a particular practice as based on 'Faith.' More disturbingly, must a judge ascertain the extent of a person's religious fervor to grant his request? For example, take the case of a Muslim girl who has never worn a Burqa in her life, yet who demands this right in court. Would we have a theoretically secular judge pore through Shariah law to determine whether or not she is a 'true' Muslim and therefore entitled to this right? Clearly a view that "free exercise" of religion trumps the state's obligation to never Establish Religion is not tenable.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
There is an inherent contradiction in one common interpretation of the 1st amendment, since to determine whether or not the Free Exercise of Religion has been prohibited, it can be construed that the State must at some point Establish the validity of an act as Religious. Jefferson recognized this possibility early, and made himself very clear; the clause was meant to act as a "Wall of Separation" between Religion and government. Jefferson intended that the State not concern itself with religious matters at all; in essence it should act in total Ignorance of Religion. He did not enunciate what he meant by 'Religion', but an extension of his logic leaves little doubt. Religion for Jefferson always referred to Faith; belief in phenomena without scientific evidence and reason. Nudism, the belief that man's natural state is to be without clothing, is therefore a religious belief in the sense that its dogma is not based on science or reasoning; it is a 'Faith.' Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, for true believers, is also a religion, as valid as Sikhism, Islam or Christianity or any other.
Logically if a Sikh should be permitted to wear his turban in court on account of his religion, a Nudist should be permitted to address the judge as his religion demands, in the nude. But then, what if a Yankees fan demands the right to wear his baseball cap in court on the account that his superstition or 'Faith' requires it? Must a judge 'establish' in each separate instance the validity of a particular practice as based on 'Faith.' More disturbingly, must a judge ascertain the extent of a person's religious fervor to grant his request? For example, take the case of a Muslim girl who has never worn a Burqa in her life, yet who demands this right in court. Would we have a theoretically secular judge pore through Shariah law to determine whether or not she is a 'true' Muslim and therefore entitled to this right? Clearly a view that "free exercise" of religion trumps the state's obligation to never Establish Religion is not tenable.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
+ the US should have an open border immigration policy
The Declaration of Independence states that "All men are created equal", not that "All Americans are created equal". Many people support immigration in theory, but complain about illegal immigrants getting access to privileges like healthcare and education. Since they aren't subject to taxes, this seems to make sense. Why should taxpayers subsidize public services for non-taxpayers?
If you take this view, as I do, then you should ask yourself if your fighting the right battle. The US is based on the revolutionary idea that any person can come to this country, and by dint of his/her effort and talents make themselves a better life without interference OR assistance by government. The idea that we should close our borders and keep our prosperity to ourselves is extremely reactionary, and goes directly against the principles that have made us the greatest country on earth. If you are against subsidization of healthcare/education for non-taxpayers, then argue directly against the provision of these public services, not against the immigrants who have had no choice in the matter.
Any true American understands that we are entitled to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness by virtue of being Human, not on the basis of our ethnicity, religion OR which arbitrary border we happen to be born within. For this reason I support completely open borders.
If you take this view, as I do, then you should ask yourself if your fighting the right battle. The US is based on the revolutionary idea that any person can come to this country, and by dint of his/her effort and talents make themselves a better life without interference OR assistance by government. The idea that we should close our borders and keep our prosperity to ourselves is extremely reactionary, and goes directly against the principles that have made us the greatest country on earth. If you are against subsidization of healthcare/education for non-taxpayers, then argue directly against the provision of these public services, not against the immigrants who have had no choice in the matter.
Any true American understands that we are entitled to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness by virtue of being Human, not on the basis of our ethnicity, religion OR which arbitrary border we happen to be born within. For this reason I support completely open borders.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)