1. Comment #51619 by maton100 on June 23, 2007 at 8:07 pm

Damn straight!

http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com

Other Comments by maton100

2. Comment #51622 by Angieruns on June 23, 2007 at 8:41 pm

I wish that every fundie that claims "this is a Christian nation" would listen to Eddie's speech on the history and importance of the separation of church and state. The framers clearly articulated the need for government neutrality in matters of religion. Why, then, are we on the brink of a theocracy? Madison and Jefferson would be appalled, as am I.

Other Comments by Angieruns

3. Comment #51623 by toomanytribbles on June 23, 2007 at 8:47 pm

any chance of posting it somewhere other than google video?

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

4. Comment #51628 by discipline on June 23, 2007 at 9:36 pm

It is so gratifying that American secularists/non-believers have such an incredibly articulate and knowledgeable spokesperson as we have in Eddie Tabash. An impressive talk filled with frightening details about the rise of the US religious right.

If this doesn't motivate you to get involved in the fight, nothing will...

--TD

Other Comments by discipline

5. Comment #51636 by GodlessHeathen on June 23, 2007 at 10:41 pm

2. Comment #51622 by Angieruns on June 23, 2007 at 8:41 pm

---

I wish that every fundie that claims "this is a Christian nation" would listen to Eddie's speech on the history and importance of the separation of church and state. The framers clearly articulated the need for government neutrality in matters of religion. Why, then, are we on the brink of a theocracy? Madison and Jefferson would be appalled, as am I.

You could expose every fundie salivating at the idea of a theocratic USA to every piece of evidence there is supporting secular government and the intent of the founding fathers and it would make no difference.

Their certainty does not come from evidence - it comes from faith.

---

I have to wonder. When I mention my concerns on this subject I'm told by the secularists, atheists , and liberals around me that I'm overreacting. Tabash's observations here match my own. Among those here, who agrees? With what level of reservation?

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

6. Comment #51637 by jamesstephenbrown on June 23, 2007 at 10:45 pm

What a brilliant and lucid speaker. How can people not see where the intellect is in this debate? I suppose intellect is losing traction as a valued asset, I hope truth is as strong a meme as it should be.

Other Comments by jamesstephenbrown

7. Comment #51640 by alovrin on June 23, 2007 at 11:15 pm

Its hard not to let speculation skip ahead of reality when listening to Mr Tabash talk. If the worst happens and the US gets another Republican president. Is it just a matter of time before the US is drawn into conflict with Islam enmasse, as believers battle believers. Would such a conflict inevitably see the use of mass nuclear weapons. I hope time proves such speculation wrong.

Other Comments by alovrin

8. Comment #51642 by Big T on June 23, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Born and raised in America. Perhaps I'm being unduly optimistic here, but I think the Zeitgeist in America is changing. I think the religious right will never succeed in tearing down the wall of separation between church and state in this country. I know we're not considered as secular a country as, say, Great Britain, but nevertheless, the monarch in that country is considered the 'Defender of the Faith' while in America, we have no official faith. And no monarch. Rest assured, if the Supreme Court tries to set up a theocracy in this country, I will be fighting them tooth and nail.

Other Comments by Big T

9. Comment #51658 by Convertedchristian on June 24, 2007 at 1:39 am

I think it might be the best thing to happen to this country for to have a state religon. All it would do is rain havoc on the country. the question arises, what chruch gets to be the offical chruch? Catholics? Like hell! The babtist would never go for that! The babtist? Like hell! the catholics would never go for that. Lets go through some likly senerios(that i think are likly, in live in arkansas, I know these people)

1: the court declares that the US is founded on the christian religon. Court bans abortion and gay marriage. ID proponts gain new momentum. Possible only if concervative is elected in 08.

2: the court does everything in the first senerio but starts to inforce more religous law but putting prayer in school(not mandatory in wirting but mandatory in practice, like the pledge) creationism is taught along side evolution in science classrooms. the internet is regulated. Born is blocked and obscene matieral is taken off the airwaves(goodbye discovery channel, hello 700 club channel!) Extreme crackdown on drugs. and then the mistake that will due them in, banning beer. If they ban beer i think that would be the death of the new religon controlled america. I think it would also destory the relgious right. People might be fine with banning abortion and gay marrige and teaching creationism, but the second that americans feel like they are being controlled that will be the end of it.

I think that if any of these things happened and if the relgious right really got real control over things and started telling the majority what they could and could not do their rule would be over and they would be destroyed. They really only make up 7% of the us population. Oh and bofore i forget, they would ban all immigration into the country and then try and kick all the illegals out. that alone would be enough for the rest of america to rise up and destroy them. the us population on a whole just dosn't understand the danger of the religous right. this would show them. that is why i think it might be the best thing for America. I just hope I never, ever, ever, ever, ever have to find out.

p.s where i live in arkansas gay marrige is banned, beer is banned(only works because you can drive 15 min out of town and get it) abortions are banned, and everyone goes to chruch, even me. I have to. I am only 17. Its not as bad as it sounds. NO one bugs me. You can live your life as you please as long as you don't go "preachin agiant da lord" If you are a quite atheist, you should be fine. Can't wait to get the *$#* out of here!

Other Comments by Convertedchristian

10. Comment #51662 by 82abhilash on June 24, 2007 at 2:16 am

Brilliant and insightful, the whole package. I never realized things where so serious. Ladies and gentlemen, this is our finest hour. May each and every one of us, rise to the challenge of theocracy to the best of our ability. We must all fight our best fight for the sake of reason.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

11. Comment #51671 by GodlessHeathen on June 24, 2007 at 3:34 am

9. Comment #51658 by Convertedchristian on June 24, 2007 at 1:39 am

---

If you are a quite atheist, you should be fine. Can't wait to get the *$#* out of here!

Was that intentional irony?

Quiet, hmm? I should keep to myself, not share my opinions, even with just those that are like minded. Don't question the damage done to my country by teaching children mythology in place of science. Avoid questioning the result of laws and policies that repress women, gays, atheists... anyone not a first-tier citizen.

No. No, I don't think being quiet is in the least bit wise.

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

12. Comment #51673 by chbg21808 on June 24, 2007 at 3:41 am

That is one of the most awesome speeches I have ever heard and absolutely frightening.

Damn.. I wish the UK had a constitution... But then again if it did, it might now be in the same difficulty. It seems to be a double-edge sword.

For anyone interested in these ideas, I highly recommend you check out Lysander Spooner (I think this man was as brilliant as Thomas Paine) - http://www.lysanderspooner.org/ - In particular, check out the letters section and Spooner's works. ... His writings on the constitution are amazing.

Other Comments by chbg21808

13. Comment #51685 by skyhook on June 24, 2007 at 5:21 am

An excellent speech and Q&A session.
It is indeed worrying that the balance of judges is only 5-4 and we have to wait until the election to see if the situation will improve. Does anybody know what Clinton and Obama believe?

And just a brief correction to chbg21808:
The UK does have a constitution! It is made from a collection of documents that were written over many 100 years. The Magna Carta is one, the acts of union between England and Scotland and Ireland are a couple of other ones.

Just because the UK didn't have a constitution written at one time (like the USA and Japan) it does not mean we do not have one! I wish the untruth about the UK constitution would go away.

Other Comments by skyhook

14. Comment #51688 by rokort on June 24, 2007 at 5:31 am

Chilling to the bone.

I have sent this link to as many friends i could think of. If this pro-secular (or anti-theocratic) 30 minute gem by Edward Tabash doesn't get you thinking then what does?

Other Comments by rokort

15. Comment #51693 by stevieb on June 24, 2007 at 5:56 am

can someone create or link to an audio-only version? i want to listen at work...

thanks,

-steve

Other Comments by stevieb

16. Comment #51700 by toomanytribbles on June 24, 2007 at 7:17 am

thanks for the quicktime!!

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

17. Comment #51709 by Zaphod on June 24, 2007 at 8:40 am

A fantastic talk. Americans should take note. That guy is a real patriot. He mentioned some scary stuff. Everyone in America should watch this talk.

Other Comments by Zaphod

18. Comment #51723 by CJ22 on June 24, 2007 at 10:49 am

I do think our American friends (and Christopher Hitchens, who never fails to mention it) need to stop taking comfort from the fact that they have a written constitution which may or may not advocate the seperation of church and state.

For one thing, even a written constitution is subject to interpretation (just look at the second amendment!). Secondly, does anybody really believe that if a fundementalist power-bloc gets enough control, that seperation wouldn't be subject to 'amendment' (or ingored de facto)? Fundementalists are NOT democrats, by definition.

The fact is that in the UK, the fact that we have a state-sponsored religion actually protects us, because that religion is a soppy middle-of-the-road type of religion, as luck would have it. The US is democratic process is potentially subject to any powerful lobby group with enough aggression and cash to subvert it. It doesn't matter how many people support it (though a popular mandate does help I'm sure).

I would be really worried about this if I were a citizen. What worries ME is that where the US leads, the UK usually follows, and we're already seeing signs that certain organisations in the US are quite willing to export their mummery to like-minded countries. The LDS is already sinking lots of money into temples in the UK, as are other sub-cults, including a frighteningly aggressive dominianist movement.

Other Comments by CJ22

19. Comment #51725 by Mok on June 24, 2007 at 11:01 am

Well that scared the living shit out of me! We all as freethinkers, humanists, atheists, agnostics, brights, or whatever handle you wish to adapt, obviously need to be more outspoken about getting the facts out there. Keep fighting the good fight people! Never quit!

Other Comments by Mok

20. Comment #51726 by arildno on June 24, 2007 at 11:04 am

Who has the best chances of getting elected as president so as to be able to stop this madness?

Hillary Clinton?

Barack Obama?

Any of the Republicans??

Other Comments by arildno

21. Comment #51730 by Convertedchristian on June 24, 2007 at 11:22 am

comment by godless heathen
"Was that intentional irony?"
in fact it was supposed to be seen as ironic. Its ok to live in Arkansas as an atheist as long as no one knows your an atheist. They won't do anything to you. They just might try to converted you and kids might say your going to hell. As an atheist i would rather live somewhere else. And in no way am I saying that atheist should be quite. On the contrary ,we should be protesting and calling are congressmen(mine a dem! YEAH!) and explaining to our Christian firneds why we don't believe and why we think that the right is taking our nation in the wrong direction. I plan to show this video to my family to help explain to them the dangers(their all Christians, hard core fundies)
So don't be a quite atheist. Our nation can't afford us to be silent any longer.

Other Comments by Convertedchristian

22. Comment #51732 by Sancus on June 24, 2007 at 11:44 am

Great video!

Although, right after dude says how horrible it would be if we got rid of public education, he complains about how federally funded education programs have so many restrictions. Well, duh. People, this is what you get when your education system is controlled by democracy.

Other Comments by Sancus

23. Comment #51736 by chbg21808 on June 24, 2007 at 12:19 pm

QUOTE... 13. Comment #51685 by skyhook on June 24, 2007 at 5:21 am
Just because the UK didn't have a constitution written at one time (like the USA and Japan) it does not mean we do not have one! I wish the untruth about the UK constitution would go away. ...QUOTE

Sorry .... you are incorrect. When I said the UK does not have a constitution, I mean a written constitution. For example, the Republic of Ireland and the United States do.

Neither does the UK have constitutional laws which can only be changed through legislative procedure.

The UK at best has an unwritten constitution, that is hard to track down as in documents such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Parliament Acts.

But in terms of a specific constitutional document that controls and regulates government... no the UK does not... and it is that specific definition of constitution that I meant.

Quote:

"The British people have never entered into a written pact with their rulers defining the thresholds of power. Magna Carta was a squalid compromise between the King and his barons which set the seal on aristocratic privileges rather than citizens' rights."

Freedom, The Individual and the Law - by Geoffrey Robertson

End Quote

Strangely, having a specific document separating Church and State as the USA does; seems to diabolically lead to the very problem it is attempting to avoid... It seems to be an odd paradox. The very act of having a written document seems to be the catalyst for religious fundamentalism to take hold and try to tear up that document.

This fight to keep the constitution in tact is nothing new... Americans have always had to fight "tooth and claw" to keep it in tact against religious bullies, virtually from day one of it being drawn up.

Perhaps then, that is the explanation of the problem. Because UK government "constitutional decisions" are simply drawn from many different "constitutional documents" ...There is no one definable target for religious fundamentalists to aim at. There is not really an open document. Rather, there is a jumble of "constitutional" laws. It is hard to fight against something, if you cannot even see it. Indeed, because you cannot see it in the first place, then the thought would not even come up. But the very fact that the US document is so open and specific on seperation of Church and State it is like a "red rag to a bull".

Just one comment on something someone mentioned earlier: 'The Brights' ...I actually hate this expression (it makes me think of IQ tests or a brand name for light bulbs). It just sounds like a compromise and an excuse to be politically correct and avoid using the word atheist or indeed agnostic, as if it is something to hide or be ashamed of... I think Hitchens made a similar point in 'God is not Great'.


Other Comments by chbg21808

24. Comment #51774 by Nazgul on June 24, 2007 at 9:52 pm

Holy S#!%... I am so fortunate to not live in the US. Although our government in Canada seem to be getting into bed with the US.

Other Comments by Nazgul

25. Comment #51777 by JesusH on June 24, 2007 at 10:22 pm

Abortions are not banned in Arkansas, this can be easily verified through everyone's favourite search engine.

Interesting how everyone seemed to accept this falsehood without scepticism because it affirmed what they want to believe.

Other Comments by JesusH

26. Comment #51794 by rokort on June 25, 2007 at 1:27 am

To JesusH

So one mistake in -for instance- a book is proof for you the rest must be rubbish too? What a sad world you live in.

Get real.

Other Comments by rokort

27. Comment #51797 by Corylus on June 25, 2007 at 2:14 am

Wow.

And you hear such dreadful things about American lawyers... Kind of restores my "faith" :)

Go Eddie!

Other Comments by Corylus

28. Comment #51798 by skyhook on June 25, 2007 at 2:46 am

In response to comment 23 by chbg21808.

QUOTE
Sorry .... you are incorrect. When I said the UK does not have a constitution, I mean a WRITTEN constitution.…
~
The UK at best has an unwritten constitution, that is hard to track down as in documents such as MAGNA CARTA, the BILL of RIGHTS, the ACT of SETTLEMENT and the PARLIAMENT ACTS.
END QUOTE

I think you are going to find that you are incorrect.
These are some of the written documents that form the UK constitution - the constitution is written! The difficult point to grasp is that it's not one document (uncodified), but it IS written. There are some conventions that are not written down, but by no means does that mean the UK does not have a written constitution. (Even) wikipedia can explain it to you.

QUOTE
"The British people have never entered into a written pact with their rulers defining the thresholds of power. Magna Carta was a squalid compromise between the King and his barons which set the seal on aristocratic privileges rather than citizens' rights."

Freedom, The Individual and the Law - by Geoffrey Robertson
END QUOTE

The Magna Carta is a written document - perhaps Geoffrey Robertson can't read. Visit the British Library or look at their websit. You will see the Magna Carta there:

http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/magna.html

Now, to refer back to the other Acts that you mentioned above (they are also written documents that make up the constitution). The Bill of Rights (1689) is part of the UK constitution and is a clear written document. It was subsequently a model for other documents including the US Bill of Rights (which were written amendments to the original US Constitution).

QUOTE
Strangely, having a specific document separating Church and State as the USA does; seems to diabolically lead to the very problem it is attempting to avoid... It seems to be an odd paradox. The very act of having a written document seems to be the catalyst for religious fundamentalism to take hold and try to tear up that document.

This fight to keep the constitution in tact is nothing new... Americans have always had to fight "tooth and claw" to keep it in tact against religious bullies, virtually from day one of it being drawn up.

Perhaps then, that is the explanation of the problem. Because UK government "constitutional decisions" are simply drawn from many different "CONSTITUTIONAL DOCUMENTS" ...There is no one definable target for religious fundamentalists to aim at. There is not really an open document. Rather, there is a jumble of "constitutional" laws. It is hard to fight against something, if you cannot even see it. Indeed, because you cannot see it in the first place, then the thought would not even come up. But the very fact that the US document is so open and specific on seperation of Church and State it is like a "red rag to a bull".
END QUOTE

Well, you say yourself that there are many constitutional documents. All of which go to making up a written constitution. I think that clears that up ;o)


The Monarch is the head of state for the UK and (s)he is also defender of the faith (thanks to Henry VIII). Religious attitudes are different in the UK. The fact that the UK does not have a codified constitutional document is irrelevant to fundamentalists. There seems to be less to be won by changing any constitutional law as religion is part of the state system anyway. No "flood-gates" need to be opened in Britain.

Having said that, under the wonderful direction of Tony Blair the UK now has government funded "faith schools" across the country. That is something British people need to worry about.

Other Comments by skyhook

29. Comment #51800 by chbg21808 on June 25, 2007 at 3:15 am

2007 at 2:46 amWell, you say yourself that there are many constitutional documents. All of which go to making up a written constitution. I think that
clears that up ;o) ...QUOTE

Notice I used the words unwritten constitution and when I used the word constitution I did so in inverted commas... Meaning that there is not a codified document.

It is simply not true... The UK does not have a (written) constitution.

Quote: "The argument of practicality - of the obvious need to evolve a secular constitution that separates church from state, replaces the hereditary principle and in other ways reflects the modern Euro-American world of human rights and civil society - ought not to be allowed to obscure the argument of principle. At bottom, the republican idea contains a different concept of citizenship itself. Not only does monarchy have a bad effect on our elite, it has a dire effect on our popular and public opinion." - Christopher Hitchens

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,407341,00.html

End Quote

Quote: "Since there is neither entrenched constitutional law nor a formal separation of powers, Parliament has the ability to change almost any aspect of the constitution at will. The constitution is therefore often spoken of by political scientists as being "organic;" that is, it has "evolved" over time since its medieval origins." (if it was codified, by definition it could not evolve).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

End Quote

And you are correct... Indeed, wikipedia does say: "the UK constitution is commonly mislabelled as an "unwritten constitution". For the most part it is written, but is not redacted or reduced into a single document."

And the above is exactly the definition of constitution I am making... a single codified WRITTEN document... My definition of unwritten still stands in the context that I meant it.

But unless you read further in the same Wikipedia article, you drop context... It also says:

"There is no technical difference between ordinary statutes and law considered "constitutional law." Therefore the Parliament of the United Kingdom can perform "constitutional reform" simply by passing Acts of Parliament and thus has the power to change or abolish almost any written or unwritten element of the constitution"

And that is exactly my point... There is no codified constitution as in the States and the Republic of Ireland.

Now one could argue that the UK has a written constitution (as you have) but it would have to be a very loose definition (particularly if you mean written and codified) - as I have said: "The UK at best has an unwritten constitution, that is hard to track down as in documents such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Parliament Acts."

Now of course we can get into semantics about what we mean by constitution... and that is exactly what your argument against my definition of constitution seems to be... a semantic disagreement of the meaning of constitution. Nothing in your argument has contradicted my claim that the UK does not have a codified constitution.

Now if you wish to call that a constitution fine... But again it does not fit the definition or context of my definition of a specific single codified document. Rather, as it stands, it always has been and always will be an organic changing set of laws, rules, regulations etc.

Note: When I say a single codified document. Of course it could be a set of integrated none contradictory codified documents and not necessarily a single document.

There is a big difference between a republic that has a constitution written round the basic principle of protecting the minority of one - the individual, from government force as against; a set of regulations melded in a hotch-potch of unintegrated and often contradictory, historical reforms. Many of which are built on historical monarchic rulings and not individual rights.

You said: "The Magna Carta is a written document - perhaps Geoffrey Robertson can't read. Visit the British Library or look at their website. You will see the Magna Carta there"

This is just an example of a total misunderstanding of my meaning of written constitution. Did I say anywhere in my arguments that "The Magna Carta" is not a written document... of course I didn't. I think you need to read my article again, you have 100% misunderstood me. If the UK was to become a republic tomorrow... only a fool or perhaps a despot up to no good, would accept the Magna Carta as a modern codified document capable of protecting individual rights from government oppression.

Other Comments by chbg21808

30. Comment #51810 by skyhook on June 25, 2007 at 5:16 am

[Quote]Notice I used the words unwritten constitution and when I used the word constitution I did so in inverted commas... Meaning that there is not a codified document.[/quote]

Your first comment said simply that the UK does not have a constitution.
You then go on to say you meant written constitution.
Finally you say that it not a single written document akin to the US constitution.

Well, thanks for being clear.

In your final post you actually spell out what you mean. To have a constitution meansto you that it is identical to the US in format (but not in content). By that definition, very few countries have a constitution, whether you use " " or not.

The use of the word "written" seems utterly pointless, when you mean single document. Why not just say single document. Or use the word codified and explain what that means in brackets.

The UK does not have a constitution.
The UK does not have a written constitution.
The UK does not have a codified constitution.

Which of those is relevant to the real situation in the UK?
Yes, it's the final one.

Let's just be clear about this. Someone who says that the UK does not have a constitution is wrong because of the following:

What is the government of the UK?
A constitutional monarchy.

Look up on wikipedia (for simplicity) what that is:

[quote="wikipedia"]
A constitutional monarchy is a form of government established under a constitutional system which acknowledges an elected or hereditary monarch as head of state, as opposed to an absolute monarchy, where the monarch is not bound by a constitution and is the sole source of political power.
[/quote]

Therefore, the UK has a constitution and it is meaningless to suggest otherwise.

Since when did the definition of constitution become based on the US model?

Other Comments by skyhook

31. Comment #51814 by chbg21808 on June 25, 2007 at 5:33 am

[quote="wikipedia"]
A constitutional monarchy is a form of government established under a constitutional system which acknowledges an elected or hereditary monarch as head of state, as opposed to an absolute monarchy, where the monarch is not bound by a constitution and is the sole source of political power.
[/quote]

"Therefore, the UK has a constitution and it is meaningless to suggest otherwise."

Why would I even disagree with constitution in that context, you are now arguing against things I haven't even said... I get the impression that you have not understood anything I have wrote. I would have absolutely no problem with calling it a constitution in the context of the above, that is fine. Again this is just semantics.

My whole point is the difference between a codified document as a constitution within a Republic as apposed to a monarchy that does not have a codified constitution. I feel like I am repeating myself.

I already said previously: There is a big difference between a republic that has a constitution written round the basic principle of protecting the minority of one - the individual, from government force as against; a set of regulations melded in a hotch-potch of unintegrated and often contradictory, historical reforms. Many of which are built on historical monarchic rulings and not individual rights. And again, if you wish to call that a constitution fine... But you would be pushing it to call it a written constitution.

And I also said: Now if you wish to call that a constitution fine... But again it does not fit the definition or context of my definition of a specific single codified document. Rather, as it stands, it always has been and always will be an organic changing set of laws, rules, regulations etc.

"Since when did the definition of constitution become based on the US model?"

Again you are arguing against things I never said... where did I say that?

I simply used the US constitution as an example of a codified document... where did I say the US have the correct definition of constitution... I never said that. I simply said it had a written constitution... Which is not the same as saying a constitution must be based on the US model... otherwise its not a constitution. I'm sorry and I don't think you are doing it deliberately, I think you are just misunderstanding me... But you seem to be putting up straw men arguments against points I haven't even made.

My argument has nothing to do with the semantic definition of constitution... If it will make you happy, I will say the codified constitution of the United States as opposed to the none codified ambiguous constitution of the UK (and in that definition I would still use the word unwritten). In any case, it makes absolutely no difference to the context of my argument.

"Of all the democratic countries in the world, only Israel is comparable to Britain in having no single document codifying the way its political institutions function and setting out the basic rights and duties of its citizens. Britain does, however, have certain important constitutional documents, including the Magna Carta (1215) which protects the rights of the community against the Crown; the Bill of Rights (1689) which extended the powers of Parliament, making it impracticable for the Sovereign to ignore the wishes of the Government; and the Reform Act (1832), which reformed the system of parliamentary representation."

http://www.i-uk.com/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1079976721617

Note in the above... saying: "Britain does, however, have certain important constitutional documents" - This is not the same as saying Britain has a codified constitution. In other words, the constitution is unwritten.

Does living in a republic and having a codified constitution, guarantee individual rights and prevention of the initiation of force from government against those individuals? ...of course not. Even a codified constitution within a republic can be badly written or be written by a despot... And even when it is brilliantly written as in the United States that is still no guarantee . While their are fundamentalists in the World, whether inside or outside of government, there will always be individuals attempting to undermine and overthrow it.

But Would I like the UK to become a republic and dump the tax scrounging Royal Family... Absolutely.

Whenever the government acts as a go between to steal my money and hand it to the Royal Family, I consider it as theft, to pay for the upkeep of a family I am never likely to meet and with whom I have nothing in common:

"The Royal Family in Great Britain received £37.4m (1£ = 1.85$) from the public purse last year - an increase of 4.2 per cent from the previous year."

http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/29-06-2006/82688-royal_family-0

Let the flag waving morons pay for their upkeep if they love them so much.

Other Comments by chbg21808

32. Comment #51838 by Icculus on June 25, 2007 at 9:11 am

Not to keep the digressions from spinning out of control, but you need not look to a search engine to see that abortions are legal in Arkansas, or in any state for that matter. Roe v. Wade holds that no state, or the federal government, may pass a law that bans abortion. States, South Dakota most recently, pass laws which do so as test balloons to see if the court will overturn Roe. This is stuff out of high school government class.

As for the video itself, the most infuriating part to me is how four Supreme Court justices can so flatly go against the plain language of the First Amendment. Mr. Tabash is absolutely correct in stating that the next election is most important because of what the next President can do to the Court.

Other Comments by Icculus

33. Comment #51839 by Lagomort on June 25, 2007 at 9:12 am

""p.s where i live in arkansas gay marrige is banned, beer is banned(only works because you can drive 15 min out of town and get it) abortions are banned, and everyone goes to chruch, even me. I have to. I am only 17. Its not as bad as it sounds. NO one bugs me. You can live your life as you please as long as you don't go "preachin agiant da lord" If you are a quite atheist, you should be fine. Can't wait to get the *$#* out of here! ""

Thank you so very much. For some reason this last passage made me laugh out-loud, and made my day feel that much more grand...

Other Comments by Lagomort

34. Comment #51841 by LookToWindward on June 25, 2007 at 9:47 am

I must admit, I'm not entirely sure things are as bad as this. Could an established church be precisely what the US needs? After all, religion could hardly be more irrelevant in the UK and we have established religion. Perhaps it's the free market model of religion in the US that keeps it so boisterous.

Let's not forget that the main reason the 1st amendment was supported when it was written was because of religious minorities afraid of persecution. Establishment is surely bad for religion.

On the other hand, I could be wrong and the US could spiral downwards in the direction of Iran or the Taliban...I dunno.

Other Comments by LookToWindward

35. Comment #51844 by thebigredmachine on June 25, 2007 at 10:21 am

I may not be the first to post the link (I confess to not having read all the comments), but having just seen the video myself, I found this S. Ct. decision, which I believe was just announced today, quite disheartening...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500540.html

Other Comments by thebigredmachine

36. Comment #51847 by konquererz on June 25, 2007 at 10:26 am

Unfortunately, things never "seem" as bad as they really are. Often times, when nothing is done about small things, it paves the way for really bad things to happen. Its the cumulation of small victories by the Christian right that should show the true threat as it stands. There are groups who are pushing for a theocracy, I have met them and know them and they aren't playing around. Its about time that we as atheists, freethinkers, and skeptics stand up and stop giving them anything. Don't give them an inch because the Christian right will take more than a mile in return. These people are dead set on turning us to a theocracy, shouldn't be be dead set against them? We atheists really need to stop messing around and get out and campaign for our rights and the future of our country.

Other Comments by konquererz

37. Comment #51872 by CruciFiction on June 25, 2007 at 12:49 pm

With the shocking SCOTUS decision today (Hein v. FFRF) it appears we don't have to wait for another religious conservative justice as Tabash warned. It's partly here already with this decision.

FFRF news release:

http://ffrf.org/news/2007/heinvFFRF.php

Other Comments by CruciFiction

38. Comment #51924 by carnitine on June 25, 2007 at 2:54 pm

The talk was good, but I must take issue with the guy's question in part 2 concerning BYU.

He expresses dismay that it is still accredited, but provides no reason why he thinks it shouldn't be other than that he thinks Mormons are confused.

While I agree that Mormons are confused, BYU is an extremely rigorous school and provides a great education. Their law and business schools are both top 30ish in the nation, and their biology program emphasizes evolution. Anybody know who that guy is or what his point was?

Other Comments by carnitine

39. Comment #51972 by skyhook on June 25, 2007 at 6:30 pm

CHBG21808,
Your very first post:

"Damn.. I wish the UK had a constitution... But then again if it did, it might now be in the same difficulty. It seems to be a double-edge sword."

Much later on:

"But again it does not fit the definition or context of my definition of a specific single codified document."

You only give your definition towards the end of our exchange and then YOU are defining constitution to mean the US type.

Your first comment said simply that the UK does not have a constitution.
You then go on to say you meant written constitution.
Finally you say that it not a single written document akin to the US constitution.

Not very clear at all, is it?
I mentioned "codified" first. You did not. See comment 28. Can you understand that I wanted you to be clear by what you meant?

When people make statements like your first post many of them actually think that the UK does not have any form of constitution. Less than two weeks ago I heard someone say: "Britain does not have a constitution" and they did not understand what they were actually saying. It should be clear from my posts that I am trying to get you to be clear on what you mean.

I do understand your specific definition. I understand the type of constitution you would prefer for the UK.

Surely a statement like the following is much clearer:

"I do not like the style of the UK constitution. I think it is lacking in so many areas, etc"

Other Comments by skyhook

40. Comment #52041 by chbg21808 on June 26, 2007 at 2:26 am

QUOTE...

skyhook - first you quote me as follows:

"Your very first post: Damn.. I wish the UK had a constitution... But then again if it did, it might now be in the same difficulty. It seems to be a double-edge sword."

And you went on to say - "Surely a statement like the following is much clearer: I do not like the style of the UK constitution. I think it is lacking in so many areas, etc"

...END QUOTE

Is the only reason you are making a fuss, because I didn't fully define my definition in my first post?

Look at the first sentence of my second post on the subject... I do define my definition exactly as I mean it - re:

"Sorry .... you are incorrect. When I said the UK does not have a constitution, I mean a written constitution. For example, the Republic of Ireland and the United States do."

Notice I use the word written... and I have defined that as my definition over and over.

OK, I should of said written in my first post (but then I did not know someone was going to misunderstand my meaning). When I said the UK does not have a constitution, I just took it for granted that readers would understand my meaning implicitly, as written constitution - as most people do understand it to mean that... And most people certainly do implicitly understand it to mean that, when talking in terms of comparability to the US constitution.

And you said: "Surely a statement like the following is much clearer: I do not like the style of the UK constitution. I think it is lacking in so many areas, etc"

How would that work? ...I was making a comparison between the UK and the US ("no constitution" as apposed to written constitution). If I just wanted to say "I don't like the style of the UK constitution" ... I would of written a different article.

You almost seem to be saying... I should of written the article to please you, rather than to write it how I wanted to write it. You may not be happy with it, but I am... and I think I have made my meaning perfectly clear. I would not change one word.



Other Comments by chbg21808

41. Comment #52052 by skyhook on June 26, 2007 at 3:40 am

Far be it for me to suggest you should write your articles to please me...

You seem to be skipping the point I make. You were very unclear, and people who say the type of thing you did often don't have clue what they are talking about. Why do you think I wanted to clarify the issue? So that readers of this thread wouldn't make the mistake that I hear so often.
Perhaps I should just assume that everybody follows your conventions when talking about a constitution?

Oh, but let's look at the wiki definition for ease:

"The Constitution of the United Kingdom is the uncodified body of law which constitutes the rules for how the country functions. It consists mostly of written sources, including statutes, judge made case law and international treaties. Because of the lack of a single codified constitutional document, the UK CONSTITUTION IS COMMONLY MISLABELLED AS AN "UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION". For the most part it is written, but is not redacted or reduced into a single document."

And then you say:
"Sorry .... you are incorrect. When I said the UK does not have a constitution, I mean a written constitution. For example, the Republic of Ireland and the United States do."

Your first answer is in direct contradiction to the wiki one. And following your answers and rebuttals to my (perfectly accurate) description it remained unclear and confused as to what you meant. Why can't you accept that?

You kept on saying the UK constitution is unwritten when you should say uncodified. Even the wiki article makes that clear.
And I repeat, I mentioned codified first, you did not. Follow your threads and see how much sense they actually make.

Other Comments by skyhook

42. Comment #52054 by chbg21808 on June 26, 2007 at 3:47 am

QUOTE... "You kept on saying the UK constitution is unwritten when you should say uncodified." ...QUOTE

Well, if you care to read my posts again I have used both... why? - because they mean exactly the same thing. In fact you could substitute uncodified for unwritten in my posts and it would have the same meaning. Uncodified document or unwritten document... same meaning.

I have no problem using the word uncodified... again it does not alter the context of anything I have said. Codified means a specifically written code of rules. So, it makes no difference whether you say codified document or written... Codified is just a more specific definition of the same thing.

And that is also the definition in which I mean written/codified constitution. There is no contradiction.

Other Comments by chbg21808

43. Comment #52058 by skyhook on June 26, 2007 at 4:11 am

Do you just read the last sentence of my posts, thereby failing to acknowledge anything else I have written about your unclear definition of a constitution?

How can unwritten and uncodified mean the same thing? They don't.

Let's try again:

UK CONSTITUTION IS COMMONLY MISLABELLED AS AN "UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION"

You did say that the UK constitution was unwritten didn't you? Therefore you are mislabelling it!

Other Comments by skyhook

44. Comment #52059 by skyhook on June 26, 2007 at 4:21 am

Before I forget to mention it, earlier you said this:

"Parliament has the ability to change almost any aspect of the constitution at will."
AND
"Therefore the Parliament of the United Kingdom can perform constitutional reform simply by passing Acts of Parliament and thus has the power to change or abolish almost any WRITTEN or UNWRITTEN element of the constitution"

Well, so what?

What do you think Amendments to the US Constitution are? They are the changes made by the government to the constitution. E.g. Japan - currently the politicians are debating as to whether to change Article 9 of the Japanese constitution.

So the voting and majority rules are different between the UK and USA. But you can still change the constitution. It doesn't make a jot of difference if it's in one document or in many.

Other Comments by skyhook

45. Comment #52062 by chbg21808 on June 26, 2007 at 4:27 am

"How can unwritten and uncodified mean the same thing? They don't."

OK... This is going to be my last post on this... as I am just repeating my self and we are going round in circles.

Written and codified are not synonyms, but they are synonymous when used in the specific context of... for example US and Republic of Ireland constitution. That is why in my posts, I quite happily used codified and written as synonyms, in fact I use them interchangeably. But of course if you drop context then they are not synonymous.

If I said "the American codified constitution" and then said, "the American written constitution" nobody would misunderstand the synonymous relationship between the two definitions... Same meaning... Except that written constitution is a more general definition.

But if I simply said in general conversation "codified means written" ...then of course it doesn't... The point is context... If I drop context codified and written simply revert to dictionary definitions with no synonymous relationship.

And, indeed I most certainly did say the UK constitution is unwritten... But you are dropping context. I have already said unwritten as a codified document.

Here is the quote from earlier:

"Of all the democratic countries in the world, only Israel is comparable to Britain in having no single document codifying the way its political institutions function and setting out the basic rights and duties of its citizens. Britain does, however, have certain important constitutional documents, including the Magna Carta (1215) which protects the rights of the community against the Crown; the Bill of Rights (1689) which extended the powers of Parliament, making it impracticable for the Sovereign to ignore the wishes of the Government; and the Reform Act (1832), which reformed the system of parliamentary representation."

http://www.i-uk.com/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1079976721617

Note in the above... saying: "Britain does, however, have certain important constitutional documents" - This is not the same as saying Britain has a codified constitution. In other words, the constitution is unwritten.

And so that there is no misunderstanding... By unwritten, I mean no codified document.

Other Comments by chbg21808

46. Comment #52067 by skyhook on June 26, 2007 at 4:49 am

Only by YOUR definition do written and codified equate in this context.

"If I said "the American codified constitution" and then said, "the American written constitution" nobody would misunderstand the synonymous relationship between the two definitions"

The written constitution does not have to be codified!!!
The relationship is not synonymous!!!
By saying one or the other perhaps you are only highlighting a specific aspect on that constitution. But yes, the US constitution happens to be written and codified.

Other Comments by skyhook

47. Comment #52068 by CJ22 on June 26, 2007 at 4:53 am

You two appear to be arguing the colour of shite :)

It's largely irrelevant anyway. The US's 'codified' constitution is no more immune to temporal change than is the UKs grab-bag. As Tabash points out in the video, the constitution only means what any given SCOTUS takes it to mean.

BTW, the UK is signatory to the European Convention On Human Rights, which covers much of the ground a written constitution would.

Other Comments by CJ22

48. Comment #52073 by chbg21808 on June 26, 2007 at 5:15 am

Hello cj22

Weren't you the chap in chat last night with the "lighning hair cut".

I don't disagree with that... I think in many ways the US constitution seems to be more liable to fundies... and it can be and certainly is interpreted in different ways.

Other Comments by chbg21808

49. Comment #52084 by socinius on June 26, 2007 at 5:51 am

Comment #51636 by GodlessHeathen:I have to wonder. When I mention my concerns on this subject I'm told by the secularists, atheists , and liberals around me that I'm overreacting. Tabash's observations here match my own. Among those here, who agrees? With what level of reservation?

I would agree with you. I get the same reaction from friends, family I discuss the matter of the religious right with. The general thinking seems to be they are (a) harmless and/or (b) losing power. One of my major concerns is that over the last 8 years (especially) scores of these people have been seeded throughout the various agencies of our government. An example that should not have surprised anyone, much less the mainstream media, is the 150 graduates of Regent in the Justice Department.

Also, a $27 million creation musuem is nothing to sneeze at or ignore. Examples could be multiplied.

I do not think the religious right is losing power or going away--it may be reorganizing, retrenching, or whatever, but I think it is definitely a threat and requires serious thought and analysis. How to get other well meaning progressives to see or at least consider this issue as a ongoing and serious threat is another question.

Other Comments by socinius

50. Comment #52119 by drbreakfast on June 26, 2007 at 8:09 am

Very good presentation by Tabash. It may me think that we should have a "dark horse" atheist candidate run in 2008. Naturally, his/her chance of winning is up there with the "second coming" happening; however, the right candidate could go a long way in exposing the bigotry that so many Americans sadly feel towards atheists.

Other Comments by drbreakfast