A rather fluid first amendment controversy is brewing over police conduct at the Yankee stadium. Fan Brad Campeau-Laurion says that when he tried to go to the bathroom during the singing of “God Bless America,” he was roughed up a bit and then thrown out of the stadium. It appears that this has been a long complaint by fans over a sing-or-get-out policy by George Steinbrenner.
Campeau-Laurion recounts an encounter during the seventh inning stretch in the Yankees-Red Sox game. “God Bless America” was playing when nature called. An officer allegedly told him, however, that he could not leave even on such an urgent matter because he had to sing or at least listen to the song. When Campeau-Laurion said that he didn’t care about “God Bless America” right now, the officer allegedly twisted his arm behind him and eventually with the help of another officer tossed him out.
Here is his account:
As I attempted to walk down the aisle and exit my section into the tunnel, I was stopped by a police officer. He informed me that I had to wait until the song was over. I responded that I had to use the restroom and that I did not care about God Bless America.
“As soon as the latter came out of my mouth, my right arm was twisted violently behind my back and I was informed that I was being escorted out of the stadium. A second officer then joined in and twisted my left arm, also in an excessively forceful manner, behind my back. I informed them they were violating my First Amendment rights and that I had done nothing wrong, with no response from them.“I was sitting in the Tier Level, and of course this is the highest level of the stadium and I was escorted in this painful manner down the entire length of the stadium. About halfway down, I informed them that they were hurting me, repeated that I had done nothing wrong, and that I was not resisting nor talking back to them. One of them said something to the effect that if I continued to speak, he would find a way to hurt me more.
“When we reached the exit of the stadium, they confiscated my ticket and the first officer shoved me through the turnstiles, saying ‘Get the hell out of my country if you don’t like it.’”
This would appear facially ridiculous except for the fact that others have apparently objected to the same policy and treatment. The subject is an atheist who, for obvious reasons, is not a fan of the song. To make matters worse, he was reportedly an atheist Red Sox fan.
The New York Times wrote about the policy which Steinbrenner said was the result of citizens complaining that people were moving about during the singing of “God Bless America, here. The security guards are off-duty police officers.
Of course for an atheist at the limit of his bladder, singing about “To the oceans, white with foam” can be excruciating. It does present in interesting legal issue. While these are police officer, they are off-duty. This is, therefore, a private action and not governmental action under the first amendment. Without state action, the constitutional question is difficult to raise. There remains tort and statutory options, however.
For more on the story, click here.
and the rest of the story is ……….?
Let’s get the other sides version.
With a performance like the one during this series, the Yankees had best be strong-arming people back into the stadium.
If Disney has to let employees bring in guns because of the 2nd ammendment why doesn’t Yankee stadium have to honor the first? Further, since god is the god of nature, who is George Steinbrenner to hinder the laws of god?
If corporations are persons, one person may not hinder the free speech of another person. Or are some persons more equal than another?
Piss on that crappy stadium!
The cops were off-duty, but isn’t that a public accomodation that’s been heavily subsidized by taxpayer money? Doesn’t that put patrons under the penumbra of Constitutional protection? The alternative is to have the government get around Constitutional restraints by simply subcontracting the work.
As for the “rest of the story”, the article makes it clear. He’s not the first person ejected. One incident begs the question of whether the guy did something to provoke (or “provoke”) security. Multiple incidents puts the onus on the facility.
I’m sure our host can clarify this, but the First Amendment isn’t a blanket right. It only applies to government entities, in fact or in practice, and it can still be restricted by reasonable limits on time, manner and place. There can also statutory limits provided the restrictions are content-agnostic, and the purpose must be to balance the right of the speaker with the rights of the listeners/victims to peaceful enjoyment.
The classic example is the guy with a bull-horn outside your bedroom at 2 AM. He might have the right to protest your profession (e.g., ob-gyn that will perform abortions), but you and your neighbors have the right to get some sleep. So a reasonable time/manner/place restriction could be that protests can only be from 8 AM to 8 PM, and only with unamplified voices.
So a guy holding up a sign at the stadium could be ejected if he’s blocking the view of other patrons, etc. But walking to the bathroom? No way.
One other point. Your freedom of speech can be constrained by the rights of others to freedom of speech. It’s a grey zone, but you don’t want unpopular speakers to be silenced by others shouting them down.
Again, it’s time/manner/place. Shouting down the guy on the street corner who’s rallying people to sign a recall petition is one thing. Shutting down the guys with bullhorns standing outside of a funeral is another.
So riddle me this..What’s the difference between being thrown out of Yankee Stadium because you need to go vs. being arrested for “social dangerousness”….
nothing.
RB, I agree. Chris, the contracting out of security, for which this govt. is famous, is a scary thing. Blackwater is claiming immunity from US and Iraqi law in court for just this reason. I believe this is one important reason why much of law enforcement, military duties and prison sites are privatized by the administration–to create zones of without accountability.
Assault, kidnapping and theft warrants might be fun. Add conspiracy or procurement and invite Steinbrenner to the party as well.
I think we’re missing the bigger issue here, why were they having everyone sing such a terribly written piece of music?
Make that “Anyone”
Oh man, oh man, oh man. I wish this happened in Chicago so I could sue some more cops!!!!!!!
And what the fuck, that’s not even the national anthem. Next thing you know they’ll be man-handling people for farting during some stupid redneck song at a NASCAR race.
To me this is as much an issue of assault and battery, as it is a violation of free speech. The man had to go to the bathroom. Was he supposed to urinate in his pants, so as not to disturb the solemnity of the song? The uplifting of a patriotic song to this status, is yet another example of the hypocrisy and totalitarian bent of the Right Wing in out country. It’s a song, damn it, and not even a good one as
Gyges stated.
I personally do not stand for the national anthem and refuse to recite the pledge of allegiance, at public events. This is precisely because I am a patriot and a person who loves this country. America should not be about phony symbolism and jingoism. It should be about a country, that despite falling far short of its’ ideals, is in the process of a unique experiment in human history. This gives me a further reason to stay out of Yankee Stadium.
Truth be told, as a lifelong baseball fan and New Yorker, I hate the Yankees. Beyond the team, I loathe George Steinbrenner, who is the quintessential example of being born on third base and thinking he hit a triple. This is the man who was guilty of giving illegal campaign contributions to Richard Nixon. A man who delights in humiliating his employees, firing and then rehiring them, only to fire them again. A man who inherited the largest shipbuilding company in the world and bankrupted it with his incompetence.
He bought the most valuable baseball team in the world for $10 million, a bargain price, from CBS. The real buyer, deal maker and president of the ballclub was to be his friend Michael Burke, who he then dumped. Burke was the one who convinced him to buy the club.
Steinbrenner is a thoroughly loathsome man, whose son Hank now carries on his father’s excess. That this team is Rudy Giulani’s favorite, says all that needs to be said about it.
Does it make a difference that if the officer was wearing his uniform while on an off-duty paid detail? The uniform presumes (or is meant to present) an aura/image of authority of the City of New York. If the officer was indeed “off duty” does the uniform and what the uniform represents ever go “off duty”?
FYI: I don’t sing along with God Bless America at Fenway, and I may or may not stand up for it – depending on the amount of crap sent my way by other God Fearing Americans(tm), but I will never crack wise at someone else singing or standing for it. It boils down to personal choice and personal freedom. It is NOT the National Anthem. It is NOT the Pledge of Allegiance. It is just a song, and unless Ethel Merman is coming back to sing it – I’m not joining in.
Magno,
I don’t even join in on the pledge. I refuse to take part in those 20 seconds of self brain washing. I stand quietly with my hands behind my back, and if I’m wearing one I take off my hat, But that’s out of respect for the etiquette of the situation. I understand that for some people it’s an important and I respect their right to make that sort of gesture, so I don’t disturb them. To me however, the idea that I should pledge my support anything, no matter what happens, is just wrong.
If the officer was in uniform and or acting on or behalf of the city, or the Stadium managment, then his actions easily constitute unlawful detainment.
If he was acting in no offical capacity, his actions as far as I can tell, constitute kidnapping.
As Mike Spindell pointed out;
To me this is as much an issue of assault and battery, as it is a violation of free speech. The man had to go to the bathroom. Was he supposed to urinate in his pants, so as not to disturb the solemnity of the song?
Indeed the person was assaulted if the officer was acting in no official capacity. But further, he physically restricted this persons movement and effectively “kidnapped” him for the duration of the song.
It would seem to me that incredible civil liability is evident if the officer was acting for and on behalf of the city or stadium, and if not, then criminal charges should be forthcoming.
It is a sad day indeed in America, when songs about America take precedence over the freedoms they are designed to herald.
This is the United States of America. Therefore everyone in this country should know that the Constitution and the Amendments were based on One Nation Under God! It is on our U.S. currency. If you choose not to believe or respect what this country was founded on….
GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM!!!! It is evident to me that you must not like it here. Go to your own homeland and see what kind of freedoms you have there. I an a Christian, I do believe what this country was founded on, and I also know that if you are an atheist, you had better WAKE-UP! God will only tolerate so much. If you read the BIBLE you would know that He is warning you. Take a look at the economy, the natural destruction of this planet, the crimes….Brother against Brother. Everything that Revelations says is happening just as God said. Remember, You can not escape this world alive. I will be praying that God will have mercy upon you and that you will see the light. When you do, everything will make sense to you. I have no idea how a non- believer can make it in this world as it is today, not only in America, but anywhere on earth. God also made Christians’ with a loving heart, and although I don’t know you, I have a great love for you because I know the despair that you must be in.
This land is your land, this land is my land….
Etc.
Guthrie’s response to “God Bless America.”
“This is the United States of America. Therefore everyone in this country should know that the Constitution and the Amendments were based on One Nation Under God! It is on our U.S. currency. If you choose not to believe or respect what this country was founded on….”
Yeah!
Good thing the Founding Fathers had a time machine and were able to look ahead to the 1950’s when they put “In God We Trust” on the currency; eh?
Diana,
Where do the Native Americans go back to?
Diana
1, August 28, 2008 at 6:03 pm
This is the United States of America. Therefore everyone in this country should know that the Constitution and the Amendments were based on One Nation Under God! It is on our U.S. currency. If you choose not to believe or respect what this country was founded on….
GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM
Well Diana, it is true everyone should know the Constitution and the Amendments.
And we can start with you.
The Constitution was not based on “One Nation Under God”.
That statement, is an add on in the 1950’s by Zealot Christians much like yourself, to our Pledge of Allegiance.
The Constitution however makes it clear that religious belief has no place in governing the people, in the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
What’s further noteworthy, is not only your apparent ignorance of the Constitution which you claim to support, but your apparent ignorance of your own religion, which you claim to support.
If you are indeed a “Christian” as you so proudly profess, then you are no doubt aware that Jesus made it clear that civil government was seperate and distinct from his religion, or “gospel”.
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s
Thus we see, that not only the Constitution, but the religion you profess to embrace, both admonish you to keep religion out of matters of state.
Can I get an “amen” from the congregation?
Diana,
At what point does somewhere stop being your homeland? Is it after X number of generations? Maybe it’s after you now longer have X percent of genes in common with the populace. Or is it whenever you stop being tied culturally to that area? I like to cook some foods from my ancestral roots (there are a few), but culturally that’s about my only link. I don’t speak the languages, I don’t celebrate the holidays, I know some of history, but not much more then I know of most other European countries.
Actually the Constitution wasn’t “based” on a single idea. It’s a list of rules for the how the federal government works. A large chunk of it is what branch gets to do what, and how they get to go about doing it. If anything it was designed to try and keep the sort of things the founders didn’t like about other forms of government from happening. Part of what they didn’t like was the tying of religion and government that was so prevalent in the “old world.” Thus the First Amendment ban on the establishment of an official religion.
Diana,
I forgot to mention. In all sincerity, thank you for your concern for my well being. Even though I disagree with you, I will take it on faith that your declaration of concern is sincere. I hope that you are as happy and free from despair as you would like me to be.
Diana said this;
I don’t know you, I have a great love for you
AFTER saying this;
If you choose not to believe or respect what this country was founded on….
GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM!!!!
Yes Diana.
Your “love” is apparent.
Diana, you are the problem with this country. i wish we could deport idiots like you. i’m from America and was rasised to be a catholic, this country was built on lies and bs what makes you think that the churches are any better. i only wish this country had as much pride and passion as half of the major countries in the world. i guess your a geroge bush fan,ahahahahah.your the problem
“Therefore everyone in this country should know that the Constitution and the Amendments were based on One Nation Under God!”
Diana,
Whoever taught you that was ignorant of American History. The Founding Fathers particularly put in an amendment to separate religion from the government. They believed and stated that the involvement of government and religion was bad for each.
“If you choose not to believe or respect what this country was founded on….GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM!!!!”
I’m not going anywhere because I do respect what this country was founded on and that is separation of church and state. It is a little harsh and certainly un-Christian of you to want to throw people out of the country, who don’t believe as you do, especially since you don’t understand the rules that govern us.
“Everything that Revelations says is happening just as God said.”
Literally dozens of times in the last 2,000 years people have made that statement and yet each time the Armageddon did not come. Most biblical scholars (Christians)feel that Revelations sould never have been in the Christian Canon since it is so unlike the teachings and writings of the Gospels and Paul. It was added to the Christian Canon in the 4th Century BCE at the Council of Nicea, by the Emperor Constantine, who wasn’t even a Christian. As a good Christian don’t you recognize that Revelations doesn’t show Jesus as he was in the gospels? The Romans were a warlike people. Political reasons dictated that Constantine embrace Christianity.
Revelations, probably written about 150 to 200 years after Jesus, presented him in a warlike manner to appeal to Roman sentiments. Those are just my beliefs, however, and if it comforts you to feel otherwise you are entitled to as an American and I would never interfere with your right to feel that way.
“I have a great love for you because I know the despair that you must be in.”
I am not in despair, nor am I a Christian. I am comfortable in my spiritual beliefs. One of which is that if God exists, the Deity has many ways to present a message of hope to the world. I truly hope that you find comfort in your religion and I wish you peace.
However, please let others be comfortable in their personal beliefs about life and the meaning of the Universe. The saintly people I have encountered in life, were never judgmental about the beliefs of others, nor would they try to make others adhere to their beliefs.
Mike Spindell said.
As a good Christian don’t you recognize that Revelations doesn’t show Jesus as he was in the gospels?
In fact, Revelations isn’t even about Jesus, or his ministry, but deals mostly with persecutions of the Christian’s by the Romans.
Most evangelical Christians misinterpret most of Revelations to be solely about the last days of the earth, whereas it does discuss the overall plan, most of it was allagorical to events happening at the time.
A prime example is the Evangelical Christians common mistake of concluding that the numbers “666″ are some sort of sign of some predicted “Anti-Christ”, when in actuality, they are merely the numerical equivalent of the name of Nero in the Aramaic, using the Hebrew “Gematria”. The early Christian’s did this, to avoid further persecution by openly naming leaders who were antagonistic to the Christian religion.
The fact is, Revelations does not predict the events as they are occuring necessarily, but Christians use a common technique known as “matrixing”, which allows them to find correlation between unrelated events.
Of course, none of this would be a problem if Christian’s who believe this stuff weren’t “trying” to make it come true.
There is a school of thought in Evangelical Christianity that believes in the last days, the United States and Israel will stand alone, against the rest of the world.
And no doubt that the current Christian government we have in Bush, Cheney, Rice and the rest, have been and are actively seeking to make this a reality, by siding with Israel on practically everything to the chagrin of the rest of the world.
Self fulfilled prophecies are unfortunately, the norm.
On the Book of Revelations;
“Christ is neither taught nor known in it.”
Martin Luther
Hey Spindell -
Did you ever see the movie, “The Scout” with Albert Brooks? He plays a former scout for the Yankees who finds a ringer and attempts to manage the kid. I was reminded of a line from the movie when you laid out some of Steinbrenner’s ‘finer’ points.
Brooks: “Did you ever hear of Billy Martin? Oh, he was just a guy who George Steinbrenner kept firing until he died …”
mespo727272 1, August 28, 2008 at 8:15 am
With a performance like the one during this series, the Yankees had best be strong-arming people back into the stadium.
*****
Clearly, this is a case of Red ‘Soxism’.
They may be bums, but they are my bums!
Diana-
I believe that all of your points are valid, based on your beliefs and viewpoints HOWEVER…the premise upon which this country was created is that all people are entitled to have their own beliefs and to act upon them without fear of reprisal. I happen to be an atheist who, contrary to popular perception, is not a devil worshipping, anti-American with no moral character. America happens to be “where I come from” and I choose to believe that no divine entity had anything to do with that.
I take offense to the all too popular belief that in order to be a good American, or a good person, for that matter, one must believe in God as others perceive him to exist.
As far as the government or any law enforcement officers forcing someone to sing or listen to a song because they feel strongly about it..not in this country!!!! Freedom is not only afforded to those who think and act like the masses. No one should ever be treated that way because of a personal choice such as that. Not here, not ever.
Cro Magnum and Mespo,
I agree with several of your statements and I want to add that someone like Diana doesn’t really believe what she is writing. She is purposely writing what she is told by the right wing media to write or as I am beginning to think she is writing what she is being paid to write.
If Diana actually believed that Christians are given a loving heart by God, how can Bush call himself a Christian and still decide to torture prisoners? Or kill hundred of thousands in Iraq? And, Diana, if you are really a believer in Christ, how can you tell another of God’s children to “go back where you came from?”
‘Blackwater is claiming immunity from US and Iraqi law in court for just this reason.’
*****
They were given immunity (illegally) by the State Department before going in. They cannot assert it simply by virtue of being a (sub)contractor.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080702_private_contractors_in_iraq_to_lose_immunity/
diana,
you are a tool. sorry.
you say go back to where you came from. i know plenty of “americans” as you see them who have generations of family here that feel the same way as the rest of us. where do they go? back to brooklyn?
i am both a fairly faithful christian, have slightly moderate to conservative views, and a taxpaying citizen. i have to say that what the yankees are doing is despicable. the whole auroa of “freedom fries” and “war on terror” was just a joke and a figurative crook to just control the sheep. i don;t like how people are either liberal or conservative i just think people should think for themselves. there are things i believe that are liberal and things that are conservative. i don’t subscribe myself to any preset group of beliefs of labels because i pick and choose what i personally believe and follow not because its the “conservative” or “christian” or “patriotic thing to do”
think about it hard diana, how can you force someone and chain them in to have to stand god bless america.
this is the scariest article i’ve ever read: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/sports/baseball/10stadium.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=sports&adxnnlx=1219860152-DlFgZe0c8R6kU6s8jv3o2A&oref=slogin
Rafflaw said
If Diana actually believed that Christians are given a loving heart by God, how can Bush call himself a Christian and still decide to torture prisoners? Or kill hundred of thousands in Iraq? And, Diana, if you are really a believer in Christ, how can you tell another of God’s children to “go back where you came from?”
Thats right. Its a psuedo Christianity at best.
One doesn’t have to be a Christian or profess belief in Christianity to understand the basics tenets of Christianity, as provided in the 4 gospels by the head of Christianity, Jesus Christ. His commandments are published throughout the 4 gospels, and are written in easy to understand terms, even going as far to use parables such as parents use fairy tales to explain concepts to children.
Anyone claiming to be Christian, then advocating war, or torture, has obviously never read the words of the man whose name they claim to bear. And if they did read them, then they are just not very bright.
Poor baby! Did Brad ever get to a bathroom following his ejection, or is he still wandering the streets suffering from a full bladder? Next time, wear Depends.
CroMM,
I don’t see how sometimes you can be so eloquent, well spoken, and thoughtful, yet you tell me that atheists didn’t exist before the word atheism. That’s like saying rocks didn’t exist before the word rock. I don’t understand you at all.
Josh
1, August 29, 2008 at 3:43 am
CroMM,
I don’t see how sometimes you can be so eloquent, well spoken, and thoughtful, yet you tell me that atheists didn’t exist before the word atheism. That’s like saying rocks didn’t exist before the word rock. I don’t understand you at all.
No. The two statements are nothing alike.
Rocks are not a belief system. Rocks are rocks.
Atheism is a system of belief, that first emerged as an accepted doctrine around the 5th Century BCE. Theism existed prior to that.
Atheism is not a rock. Although its followers can sometimes be as dense as one.
No one here of course…
Considering that Atheism could come before Theism is like considering that a vaccine could come before the discovery of the disease.
Until someone actually discovers the disease, the creation, or even contemplation of that specific vaccine, would be pointless, as would any remote concept of the ingredients for the vaccine, as no concept of the disease had yet been realized.
It’s like the old George Carlin routine from his newscaster character; “doctors today reported discovering a new disease. This disease has no cause or symptoms and so far no one has contracted the disease”
If you have no concept or even acceptance of the existence of a disease, then you have no reason,nor methods, to produce a cure for it.
Since it, never existed.
Consider it like the paradox associate with time travel, like in the “Back to the Future” movies we are all so familiar with. The paradox facing Michael J Foxes character was that his presence deterred his father from ever marrying his mother, thus, he could not have been born. And if he could not have been born, then how could have have traveled back in time to disturb the events that led to his birth?
So to with Atheism. There is no reason, nor methods for disbelief in something that never was purported to ever exist.
Hence without Theism, there would be no catalyst for the creation of a doctrine that denied the tenets of Theism.
No Theism, no need or even concept, of Atheism.
Atheism therefore was the natural result and development, of Theism. Without the former, the latter would have had no need, nor catalyst, to come exist.
This is what we’ve become. Nazi’s at Nueremburg rallies.
If the belief that god didn’t exist wasn’t there, then what were they naming when they coined the term atheism? Atheism is a noun, a thing, of course the thing existed before they named it, otherwise there would have been no use for the word. Just like rocks existed before the word rock, atheism MUST by necessity have existed before they named it. The definition of atheism is not concerned with time. In the same way the definition of rock isn’t concerned about whether the rock came before the term was coined or after. The thing the definition of atheism describes clearly existed before the word.
Josh,
Please stop poking the bear. It’s pretty obvious that CroMM isn’t ever going to agree with you on this. All that your bringing it up accomplishes is making the rest of us (who probably agreed with you the first time you made the point) scroll past 4 or 5 posts (one of yours to three of his is about the average) that don’t have anything to do with the subject at hand.
People just have intellectual blind spots, you probably have one or two yourself, I’m sure that I have some. Once you figure out that there’s no way to get someone to listen to an opposing view point, it’s ussually best just to let them sit there with their fingers in their ears. That way they look ridiculous, not you.
Yeah, understood. Guess I’ll just be content with agreeing with him when he thinks, and leaving him be when he doesn’t.
Josh and CroMM,
There is a philospher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who may shed some light on this discussion. I don’t want to be involved in this issue past this post and I am not urging the adoption of Wittgenstein’s point of view. I bring him up because I think his views may be of interest.
Wittgenstein says language isn’t a metaphysical map. He means you can’t read metaphysical truths out of language. Any attempt to do so is a reading INTO language of metaphysics.
“In fact, Revelations isn’t even about Jesus, or his ministry, but deals mostly with persecutions of the Christian’s by the Romans.
Most evangelical Christians misinterpret most of Revelations to be solely about the last days of the earth, whereas it does discuss the overall plan, most of it was allagorical to events happening at the time.”
CroMM,
Right on point. Rapt believers in many religions assume that the texts they use come to them whole, translated properly into their own language and are unedited revelations. Scholarship has shown this not to be true, without necessarily denigrating the faith.
“Brooks: “Did you ever hear of Billy Martin? Oh, he was just a guy who George Steinbrenner kept firing until he died …”
Mojo,
Didn’t see the movie, but love the quote. Billy Martin was at the head of the list of Steinbrenner’s sadism, although Bob Lemon, Bob Watson and various unknown office help complete the picture.
Gyges
1, August 29, 2008 at 10:35 am
Josh,
Please stop poking the bear
Simply because you are unable to produce a coherent defense is no reason to insult me, nor speak of me openly in the third person with some perceived haughty superiority.
Being unable to present your position in a coherent manner does not merit such smuggery.
CroMM,
Right on point. Rapt believers in many religions assume that the texts they use come to them whole, translated properly into their own language and are unedited revelations. Scholarship has shown this not to be true, without necessarily denigrating the faith
An excellent point.
In fact, it is suprising how many Christians, particularly those of the “Evangelical” kind, are painfully not aware of the onset of the canon, the role of Constantine, James, and nature of the books assembled and translated, the Hampton court, etc.
Understanding that the Bible is a compilation of books selected by religious leaders from among a wide compilation of books, is a concept that is often unknown to the evangelicals.
Jill
1, August 29, 2008 at 11:02 am
Josh and CroMM,
Wittgenstein says language isn’t a metaphysical map. He means you can’t read metaphysical truths out of language. Any attempt to do so is a reading INTO language of metaphysics
Jill, the very suggestion of the statement, “metaphysicial truths”, if that were a position taken by an atheist in this debate, would conclude the matter in my favor.
“Metaphysics” is a “Philosophy”, not a science.
Hence, defining A-THEISM as a Philosophy concludes the question as to whether or not it merely represents the beliefs of its followers, in the affirmative.
To even make a statement that the dictates of language take second place to the dictates of what “metaphysical truths” is to project the same level of doctrinal zealousness as the Theist does in presenting their arguments.
Thus, if you have concluded that the Dictates of our scholastic sources of literacy, then you have confirmed your position as on merely founded in belief.
Metaphysical Truths are the bastion of the “believer” and not the scientist.
Thus is “Metaphysical truths” are your defense for the Dictionaries of our language not concurring with your personal defintions of the word A-THEIST as something more than a belief system, then you’ve already lost the debate.
Because you just defined A-THEISM as a philisophical argument, like THEISM, and NOT I”m afraid, a science.
And it’s important I do not omit the fact as I have pointed out repeatedly now, that the “Dictionary” does not “define” Atheism.
The doctrines of A-THEISM define it, as does reason, logic and fact.
The dictionaries of our written language merely supports those defintions.
Sorry by the way Jill for the repeated typos.
I’ve written some pretty poorly crafted comments before, but those two are a testament to typos.
Anyway, here’s a correction for clarity.
“Thus, if you have concluded that the Dictates of our scholastic sources of literacy, then you have confirmed your position as on merely founded in belief.
“
should read;
—
“Thus, if you have concluded that the dictates of our scholastic sources of literacy take a back seat to metaphysics then you have confirmed your position as being based on merely a belief.”
—
Also Jill, it’s important to point out once more, that I am not “condemning” Atheism as many atheists wrongly presume.
I am merely correctly identifying it for what it is. A belief system that like Theism, cannot prove its founding tenet.
Let me 2nd that guy “I don’t care about god bless America”. It’s a song and that is all. And the thing that makes this country great is his and my ability to say those words. If you think the cops were correct and their actions than you don’t truly understand what our for fathers were trying to do when they wrote those documents. I think they should get out of MY country!
dundar…I hope you’re not holding your breath.