Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

LadyEllen -> Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (11/27/2009 6:24:00 AM)

Belief in climate change was given the same legal status as a religion in the UK a few weeks ago; indeed many of the arguments for climate change and the agenda it seeks in response to the threats it perceives are denounced as being akin to a religion by those who disagree with or question the whole premise.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html

So my question is, given that the US Constitution forbids the government from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, should it not therefore be impossible for the current administration to undertake through legislative means any action that would support the climate change agenda in the US, without breaching this important aspect of the Constitution?

And if such legislative means are impossible due to the constitutional prohibition, then should laws founded on the beliefs of older religions, as they regard homosexual marriage, abortion and so on, not find themselves at least equally unconstitutional?

I say “at least” because it appears that whilst climate change and its agenda may seem religious in nature to some they may also be possible within the religious prohibition to frame as valid secular legislation, whereas laws prohibiting homosexual marriage, abortion and so are far more clearly religiously inspired than they are socially useful regulation.

E



Hillwilliam -> RE: Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (11/27/2009 6:34:50 AM)

Does this mean that if I believe in global warming I can go on TV and ask little old ladies to send me their social security checks, bang skanky hookers and then tearfully ask for forgiveness and pay no taxes?



Silence8 -> RE: Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (11/27/2009 6:43:00 AM)

Is this (climate climate = religion) some kind of new free-market rhetorical strategy? Mercnbeth has lately been running it straight into the ground, and now this report.

The short answer is that climate change is a scientifically-grounded phenomenon, not religion, and that no arguments should proceed on the premise that it is religion.

The free market, in fact, is a better candidate for what one could dub a religion. Think about it: the free market does not exist, has never, ever existed in the history of mankind. No empirical evidence for it whatsoever, yet thousands of people talk about it, think about it, and literally pray for it everyday.



Silence8 -> RE: Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (11/27/2009 6:44:47 AM)

...the father, the son, and the holy market...

...transubstantiation: M- C -M' ...



Mercnbeth -> RE: Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (11/27/2009 7:37:23 AM)

quote:

Mercnbeth has lately been running it straight into the ground, and now this report.


Running it into the ground? The lies, and out and out fraud regarding this religion should be shouted from every rooftop. The truth shouldn't be kept like a candle under a basket, especially after so many years where there was, based upon published reports, a major effort to do so.

Your faith in the messiah would have been better places in Santa Clause. At least belief in that myth is relatively harmless and neutral. This was a pure, capitalists money making scheme with a big portion of attempted philosophical indoctrination.

The disclosures point to all "facts" concerning global warming were made up. Any conflicting fact was discounted to serve the agenda. To believe you had to have faith; in the "facts", in the messiah, and in the homily given at the churches of special interest pulpits. It made millions for the leaders at a cost of jobs and tax money that could have been spent on other matters that didn't require a faith or a faithful.

It turns out there is nothing accurate or correct in the science of global warming. The leaders were self aggrandizing making themselves exponentially richer in the process; leaving the faithful poorer, and now seemingly very confused.

The last religion I was foolish enough to consider used to end it like this - VERY appropriate to say to the global warming faithful now:

Ite, missa est. Deo gràtias!



servantforuse -> RE: Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (11/27/2009 8:10:46 AM)

Any climate change pact that Obama might agree to in Copenhagen will also have to pass both houses of Congress. The current administration seems to be ignoring the recently uncovered fraud. Just like his trip to secure the olympics, this jaunt will be a big waste of time and money.



Sanity -> RE: Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (11/27/2009 8:17:14 AM)


This pilgrimage... [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Any climate change pact that Obama might agree to in Copenhagen will also have to pass both houses of Congress. The current administration seems to be ignoring the recently uncovered fraud. Just like his trip to secure the olympics, this jaunt will be a big waste of time and money.



LadyEllen -> RE: Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (11/27/2009 8:24:25 AM)

These are all interesting comments, but what of the substance of the premise and question?

E



Moonhead -> RE: Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (11/27/2009 8:31:57 AM)

Well the Americans don't give a toss about favouring the Christian religion, so it isn't really an issue in the first place, is it?



Silence8 -> RE: Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (11/27/2009 8:51:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

These are all interesting comments, but what of the substance of the premise and question?

E


What you've proposed won't likely happen. That's simply not the way our legal system works. No one really cares about strict logical consistency. If you follow strict logical consistency, you come up with politically-infeasible positions like the U.S. is the leading terrorist nation, and so forth.



vincentML -> RE: Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (11/27/2009 8:58:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Belief in climate change was given the same legal status as a religion in the UK a few weeks ago; indeed many of the arguments for climate change and the agenda it seeks in response to the threats it perceives are denounced as being akin to a religion by those who disagree with or question the whole premise.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html

So my question is, given that the US Constitution forbids the government from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, should it not therefore be impossible for the current administration to undertake through legislative means any action that would support the climate change agenda in the US, without breaching this important aspect of the Constitution?


The event in some labor court in the UK does not by any stretch of the imagination have standing to interpretation of the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution imho. If anywhere, it would have to be scrutinized under the Interstate Commerce provision where, much to my sadness, it would probably pass mustard as they say.

quote:

And if such legislative means are impossible due to the constitutional prohibition, then should laws founded on the beliefs of older religions, as they regard homosexual marriage, abortion and so on, not find themselves at least equally unconstitutional?


Murder and stealing are also prohibitions in old tymee religion, but they are not protected by the Establishment Clause from the scrutiny of the Government. Do you see the fallacy of your argument? I hope you saw it before you made it and were only being factitious.

quote:

I say “at least” because it appears that whilst climate change and its agenda may seem religious in nature to some they may also be possible within the religious prohibition to frame as valid secular legislation, whereas laws prohibiting homosexual marriage, abortion and so are far more clearly religiously inspired than they are socially useful regulation.
E

Unfortunately, the second part of this statement appears to be too true. It is my hope that the first part will fail through faulty economics and faulty science, although sadly neither has in the past been a dependable bulwark against governmental folly.

Vincent



LadyEllen -> RE: Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (11/27/2009 9:08:03 AM)

No Vincent, Murder and Theft are two socially undesirable things regardless of what religion might have to say - that religion also says theyre undesirable is a nice coincidence perhaps, but laws against them are not religiously based in any sense, but useful social regulation.

And for the purpose of the premise, to everyone not Vincent particularly, it would be nice to get an answer to the question in the OP; I fear however it might be one of those situations where much derailment will take place on a "question too difficult" basis.

E



Musicmystery -> RE: Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (11/27/2009 9:24:42 AM)

quote:

it would be nice to get an answer to the question in the OP


You construct a chain of debatable logic constructed on a UK move and something "akin to religion" impacting legal status in the U.S., and wonder why you aren't getting answers to this question?

You don't seem to be asking a question. If you're trying to point out that religion gets mixed into U.S. politics, we know. If you're noting that it shouldn't, that's a whole other debate ranging from "exactly" to "this country was founded Christian," with plenty of rabid supporters on each side.

What's your point?

The president will attend, as presidents do, and talk a lot and negotiate treaties, as presidents do. He will then come home and try to convince Congress to support his positions, as presidents do, needing ratification.

It's what we do here. Yes, it's theater. But we don't have question time with the Prime Minister to occupy our time.




TheHeretic -> RE: Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (11/27/2009 9:46:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
it would be nice to get an answer to the question in the OP; I fear however it might be one of those situations where much derailment will take place on a "question too difficult" basis.

E



To be honest, LadyE, the question reminds me of stoned people, sitting around, discussing foolproof Constitutional arguments to avoid the draft.

Sorry, but you did ask twice.



Silence8 -> RE: Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (11/27/2009 9:53:47 AM)

The article is pretty fascinating, though. I've bookmarked it under 'news and ideology'.



popeye1250 -> RE: Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (11/27/2009 10:24:29 AM)

LE, very good points!
What do the "warmers" call people who don't believe their bull shit? "Non-believers!"
Now where have we heard THAT before?
The U.S. government needs to start arresting and prosecuting these these fraudsters. Like any good detective knows, "follow the money!"
As in any fraud religion the ones at the top are always the ones making the money from the ones at the bottom and from stealing our Taxdollars!
It'll be funny to see them at trial; "Well, it *could* happen." Yeah, and I might hit the powerball lottery too!


HUMMERS AND CADILLACS FOR EVERYONE!!!



TheHeretic -> RE: Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (11/27/2009 12:16:38 PM)

It's actually "deniers," Popeye.  Isn't that a cute little word? 



AnimusRex -> RE: Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (11/27/2009 12:47:25 PM)

FR-
Well, the debate about what sort of effects mankind is having on our environment, and what we should or could do about it, has been reduced to silliness about whether or not Al Gore is fat, or whether some scientists faked data.

The notion that we are having some sort of an effect on our environment is not debatable. We know for a fact that aquifers are drying up, that forests are being clear cut, that fish stocks are dwindling, that the air and water and ground are being steadily filled with polution. No one debates this.

Whether the world is heating up or not is not proven in a scientific sense, but its really a side issue. The big issue behind global warming is whether or not we will be willing to accept limits on our economies in order to conserve and protect the environment.

People want to fixate on a singular issue, in hopes of proving the bigger point with a knockout punc of a snarky quip- for instance, if a postal worker is murdered by right wing extremists, then Glen Beck's viewpoints should be disproven. Or if a scientist in East Anglia faked his data, then it proves that nothing we do could possibly harm the environment.

Of course that's nonsense, but its how people like to argue.

Even if you don't believe that the globe is warming, it can't really be denied that our economies are based on systems that are unsustainable- we extract resources that aren't replenished, we manufacture them with methods that pollute and dispose of them in methods that are wasteful and dangerous.

Meaning that we have to change our ways or else face multiple catastrophes down the road.
Examples would be farmlands turning into deserts, fisheries turning into dead zones, and freshwater aquifers being fouled with toxic chemicals.

So yeah, Al Gore is fat. And some people treat global warming like a cult. And movie stars in Malibu drive their monstrous SUVs to protests about global warming.

None of which means fuck-all about what we should be doing.



Musicmystery -> RE: Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (11/27/2009 12:56:45 PM)

NPR's "All Things Considered" did an interesting piece on this Wednesday, including that "suppressed" studies simply repeated already published ones.



InvisibleBlack -> RE: Copenhagen - climate change as religion, and the US Constitution... (11/27/2009 3:03:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Belief in climate change was given the same legal status as a religion in the UK a few weeks ago; indeed many of the arguments for climate change and the agenda it seeks in response to the threats it perceives are denounced as being akin to a religion by those who disagree with or question the whole premise.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html

So my question is, given that the US Constitution forbids the government from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, should it not therefore be impossible for the current administration to undertake through legislative means any action that would support the climate change agenda in the US, without breaching this important aspect of the Constitution?

And if such legislative means are impossible due to the constitutional prohibition, then should laws founded on the beliefs of older religions, as they regard homosexual marriage, abortion and so on, not find themselves at least equally unconstitutional?

I say “at least” because it appears that whilst climate change and its agenda may seem religious in nature to some they may also be possible within the religious prohibition to frame as valid secular legislation, whereas laws prohibiting homosexual marriage, abortion and so are far more clearly religiously inspired than they are socially useful regulation.

E


For "global warming" to be considered as a religion and fall under the purview of the "Establishment Clause" it would have to be accepted by the United States government as a religion. It is not. Whatever other nations define it as is irrelevant.

Were it to be accepted as a religion in the United States, then Al Gore could apply for tax exemption and people could take the "cap and trade" legislation to the Supreme Court under Establishment grounds - but that won't be happening anytime soon.

As far as I am aware, homosexual marriage is not banned by the Federal government nor is it addressed by them in any way. The push for a "Defense of Marriage" law on the Federal level is for a Marriage Amendment - and amending the constitution to define marriage would, by definition, be constitutional.

Abortion is a touchy issue but I would have to say, by a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the United States government does not have the power to ban, support, approve of, or deny abortions and so, technically, the Roe v. Wade finding was incorrect and any Federal law involving abortion in any way is unconstitutional.

Then again - the Supreme Court found Social Security unconstitutional when FDR proposed it and there are probably thousands of active and popular programs that are technically unconstitutional. I'm not sure that something being "unconstitutional" is quite the flashpoint it once was.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0703125