ah ha, there it is in a nutshell. because everybody's concience is their own and unique, we hold people accountable by law. we'd need no laws if everybody's concience was the same, if everybody's moral and ethical compass was the same. hitlers acts were unconcionable to me and you but they were not unconcionable to him and his nazi followers.



it's only public in that groups of people, each with their own like minded concience, collectively decide that something is culturally correct for that society. i've not said that various groups of individuals do not share similar lines of reasoning. we have democrats and republicans, for instance; two very different groups. one made up of like minded individuals who are the polar oposits politically of the other group of like minded individuals. one of these very public groups justifies tax increases to get us out of our economic situation. the other group thinks such tax increases are not justified yet each group has a small number of individuals who disagree on the taxing ideas of the rest of the group. so it's easy to say publically that democrates are a tax and spend bunch and that republicans are a smaller government bunch and yet some members of either party advocate the oposit of their party's platform on taxes.

hitler was justified according to his moral and ethical compass. not justified according to mine.

when i say that i experienced something that is my truth but not necessarily your truth. what your truth is i cannot say because you use words suchs as belief and faith in describing your truth. words that do not apply to me. nonetheless, we all hold truth individually.

if i go and see the bomb then i'd agree the statement was true. but i can excercise caution and not approach the car if i think the person making the statement is credible. i would not have to believe that there is a bomb in the car to be cautious of the possibility or even probability that there is a bomb in the car. i can simply think that there is likely a bomb in the car as i think it likely the big bang occured.

looked up 'assumed'. yep. means what i thought it means.

nowhere. it's common law. you won't find anything in the constitution that gives states the authority to issue drivers licenses either.

well, i've told you what it takes for a statement to be true to me. you dissagree but that is my view nonetheless.

I agree, and many example used, getting old really. I done.


k, see ya.

ah, but i never hold assumtions to be accurate. if i did they would not be assumtions. but i do agree that many people do hold assumptions to be accurate and their belief that such is the case does indeed require faith such as those who assume the genesis is correct in describing how the universe was created. but that of course is not me. and suspecting you'll now bring up the big bang theory, i've made no assumtion as to it's accuracy either. sounds much more plausible than genesis though.

the magnetic poles shift constantly. every twenty four hours they are in a slightly different position than the day before. barely measurable of course but the shift is there. but when you ask, 'what would happen', are you referring to navigation, the effect on electrical devises, solar radiation, the northern lights?

sure. but i've experienced myself conjuring thoughts without having had the experience of the thought beforehand. i might postulate that a flying spaghetti monster created the universe without actually experiencing a spaghetti monster even existing much less watching as it created the universe. but i did experience myself postulating that a flying speghetti monster may have created the universe. i can experience a thought without the thought itself being based on experience. and of course many thoughts happen for the first time without my having ever experienced such a thought before.

no, all justification does not rest on equal ground. it rest's within the minds of each of us as individuals.

sometimes majority rule has value and othertimes not. were the majority to rule in the southern states some of those states would still be praciticing racial segregation. many would see no value in that but even then there would be much dissagreement. in this case where the value of majority rule was shown, in many american's minds, was the majority in congress that inacted the civil rights act. and yet some think the act unjustified.

no we don't. justificaton IS satisfied in the person's own moral compass. it my not be satisfied by another's moral compass. justification is or is not justified based on each of our own moral and ethical compass. is the roe v wade decision justified? i think so yet many disagree with me. even the court was not uninimous in reaching the decision. seven saw a woman's equal right to due process and privacy as justified, two opined that such a right is not justified. if we all agreed on what is and is not justified we would need neither laws or the courts.

justification is a person thing, soul. that's what i'll agree to. you mentioned the moral compass. that too is the product of each individual and often varies between any two people. most americans would think it morally unjustified for a husband to beat his wife for shaming him and yet the act is not only morally justified but legally justified in saudi arabia. justices is not the same everywhere on the planet. governments create laws because everybody cannot agree on what is and is not morally or ethically correct. you brought up hitler. many people justified his actions to purify the races as morally and ethically justified. many others disagreed to the point that a global war was fought over the issue. saddam justified his invasion of kuwait based on the league of nations stipping that land from iraq after the first world war. he justified the act as simply reclaiming land that was stolen from his country. the un disagreed with this justification and a coalition ran him out. i could go on and on with examples of one person or groups of persons who have thought their dispicable actions and atrocities to be justified morally and ethically according to THEIR OWN moral compass.

you simply don't seem to understand that the establishment clause exists, mh. you seem to agree that government should stay completely out of relegion and the clause requires exactly that. public schools are government entities but somehow you reason that a school respecting an establishment of your religion should be allowed. you cannot have it both ways. allowing open expression of religious beliefs in public schools indeed does violate the establshment clause.

there is no discrimination involved. NOBODY is allowed an open expression of religion in school.

hmmmm. i'll go with all things known by humans stem from personal life experience. i can conjur thoughts without experience. and belief of course is not necessary with experience. i simply see no place for belief.

indeed, hitler did think his actions were justified as did many of his nazi followers. nope. nothing more need be said.

just as she cannot pray openly in class where everybody can hear it. we've as much right to freedom from religion as we've a right to freely practice it.

indeed. the constitution will not tolerat religious expression within government. so says the establishment clause. anywhere else such expression is a right which cannot be infringed. so says the free practice clause. two entirely different clauses one having nothing whatsoever to do with the other.