1051. Two More Fleas

Comment #142920 by hungarianelephant on March 13, 2008 at 7:50 am

It's like having a mad aunt in the attic, isn't it?

Mabel, no one is stealing your pension, ok? I said NO ONE IS STEALING YOUR PENSION.

1052. Fleabytes

Comment #142771 by hungarianelephant on March 13, 2008 at 5:04 am

4923. Comment #142767 by Steve Zara on March 13, 2008 at 4:59 am

One should be sceptical of whatever anyone says.

Evidence, please.

1053. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #142300 by hungarianelephant on March 12, 2008 at 9:24 am

That's English? Has anyone informed Oxford?

1054. Fleabytes

Comment #142254 by hungarianelephant on March 12, 2008 at 7:41 am

4735. Comment #142228 by al-rawandi on March 12, 2008 at 7:01 am

You didn't mention 11 year olds receiving contraception without parental consent.

No. I was pointing out the issue generally as one in which theists, in this case the Catholic church, attempt to coerce others based on their beliefs. It probably doesn't sit quite as well in the list of "things that merit discussion" - though the very fact that we're discussing it suggests that it has at least some place. The fact that "we" have good arguments shouldn't foreclose that discussion any more than the bible.

This has more to do with what rights do parents have in regards to their children and what rights the state has to educate them and provide them with safe means (any kind of health issue).

This is about rights, not specifically contraception.

I'm inclined to think that "rights" rarely add anything worthwhile to a debate. A child has a "right" to express him/herself sexually and a "right" to health. A parent has a "right" to direct the moral guidance of the child. The state possibly has a "right" to educate children (though that's a novel concept - the framers of the US Constitution would certainly not have recognised the concept of a state "right".) Now what? You're left with competing interests and have to decide which "right" wins. Then you have to get into the underlying moral philosophy. Better to do that straight away and cut out the middleman.

"My right", in the vernacular, appears to mean no more than "I want this, so please shut up". Witness the manner in which debates over smoking bans were conducted.

1055. Fleabytes

Comment #142224 by hungarianelephant on March 12, 2008 at 6:55 am

4714. Comment #142195 by al-rawandi on March 12, 2008 at 6:22 am

Why does contraception merit discussion.

Statistics show "Abstinence Only" has been a miserable failure. Contraception is obviously a good thing.

It's fair to say that "liberal" sex education has not been a resounding success either.

If we're talking about contraception for adults, then that should be a very short discussion - though given that a billion people nominally subscribe to the idea that it is "wrong", it would probably be a good idea at least to raise the subject.

When we're talking about schools giving contraceptives to 11 year olds without their parents' knowledge, then I think that's a subject worthy of discussion.

Whether religious bodies have anything worthwhile to contribute to the discussion remains to be seen. That was my point.

1056. Fleabytes

Comment #142192 by hungarianelephant on March 12, 2008 at 6:16 am

4673. Comment #142135 by Richard Morgan on March 12, 2008 at 3:51 am

I am perfectly convinced that DR honestly believes he is not a liar. I could even imagine that if we all had a cosy get together over a cup of tea, leaving our weapons at the door, we would be able to arrive at some kind of understanding of where the other is coming from, and why.

That may be true. But I am not convinced that it would get us anywhere.

In every relationship I have ever known, there are some things that cannot be discussed. We know what they are - or if we don't, we find out pretty quickly - and we know what the consequence of picking at the scab will be. So we make our peace with it, or leave the relationship.

If we could leave it as a cosmological disagreement, then we could probably all get along quite nicely. I'm sure most of us here couldn't care less whether theists believe in God, Santa, the Tooth Fairy or, in Rev Dark's immortal words, Bert the Magic Sodding Penguin. Is there anything worthwhile in religion? Probably. Is it worth discussing? Probably.

But some theists just won't leave it at that. They have to introduce their holy Because-I-Say-So books into the discussion - the very thing that they know cannot be accepted by atheists, or by people of a different religion.

In the last few days, we have had the pleasure of various religious "authorities" opining on the following subjects (see "News" at the top of the home page):

- the teaching of biology in Oklahoma
- genetic manipulation
- abortion
- contraception
- wealth distribution
- special protection for religious groups in the form of blasphemy laws
- narcotics
- the introduction of different and localised laws (specifically Sharia)

All of these subjects merit discussion, and I don't think any of us would seek to prevent religious people from involving themselves in the debate. But when their contribution boils down to a reference to an immutable body of dogma, unsupported by evidence, then you have to ask who is not engaging with whom.

1057. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141926 by hungarianelephant on March 11, 2008 at 11:56 am

MPhil - I agree with you and didn't intend to suggest that you held those views. Just to try to point out the consequences of a sensible principle becoming an article of faith (as this one has, IMO). As you say, it's more complicated than that.

1058. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141914 by hungarianelephant on March 11, 2008 at 11:33 am

166. Comment #141894 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 10:35 am

I doubt you would want a society where the people do not value human life.

No. But on the other hand, you can take it too far.

There are people who consider a zygote "human life" and claim that its alleged right to survive trumps all other considerations, including the similar right of its mother.

There are people who in the name of "human life" are prepared to drive thousands of other species to extinction.

"Human life" and the indefinite extension thereof appears to have become the guiding principle of our health service, to the point that 90% of health spending goes on the last 10% of people's lives.

At some point, it must be appropriate to question whether "human life" should rule these matters out of discussion.

[edited for grammar]

1059. Fleabytes

Comment #141895 by hungarianelephant on March 11, 2008 at 10:39 am

4546. Comment #141870 by epeeist on March 11, 2008 at 10:01 am
4552. Comment #141880 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 10:13 am

There's always someone who can develop a point better than me. I learn so much here.

Religious people seem to do so as well - until they are cornered, when they try to weasel to a coherence-theory of truth... which won't do them any good, since they most likely entertain some scientific beliefs and logical beliefs as well which are not coherent with their beliefs in the truth of their dogma.

To be fair, this isn't confined to religious people. Most of us hold views that are not entirely consistent with other views we hold. We have to do this as a matter of practical convenience. The difference is that some of us are prepared to have our world-model changed and discard previous views. It's a lot more difficult to do that when your core belief is that there's this book of ultimate truth that you have to follow.

It's a rare theist who will say "Look, I know I can't prove the existence of God or provide a shred of empirical evidence. And yet I do believe."

1060. Fleabytes

Comment #141852 by hungarianelephant on March 11, 2008 at 9:42 am

4506. Comment #141815 by fides_et_ratio on March 11, 2008 at 8:53 am

As I'm not a scientist I leave science to those that study it and assume that, as many scientists believe in God, there's no conflict there anyway. At their core thay are both a search for the truth, I'm happy with that.

See, apart from the compartmentalisation problem which kaiserkriss refers to, I think the problem here is with the word "truth".

When scientists use the word, they mean "factually correct".

When religious people use it, they generally mean something much more nebulous, in the nature of the feeling of spiritual enlightenment. Personally I suspect that it's all a load of bollocks, but there are plenty of atheists who think that pursuit is worthwhile. Sam Harris is among them.

Having been dragged kicking and screaming into the nineteenth century, the Catholic church no longer disputes many science-truth-claims: young earth is gone, evolution is accepted. And instead it talks about the "essential truth" of the bible. While it isn't terribly clear what that is supposed to mean, it definitely doesn't mean the same as what scientists mean.

The discussion goes pear-shaped unless we can agree on the basic meaning of the word "truth". The church won't play that game, of course, because then it would have to admit that it attempting to slip its own worldview into the discussion while pretending that it was objectively justified.

1061. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141399 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 10:58 am

Fortunately, unsporting behaviour didn't make it onto the list. Otherwise this priest might have been in a spot of bother.

[Edit: fixed link. Sorry about that.]

1062. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141389 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 10:35 am

Cartomancer - Bah! I only made level 6. I think this test discriminates against heterosexuals. No fair.

1063. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141373 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 10:10 am

He said that two mortal sins which continued to preoccupy the Vatican were abortion, which offended "the dignity and rights of women", and paedophilia, which had even infected the clergy itself and so had exposed the "human and institutional fragility of the Church".

The mass media had "blown up" the issue "to discredit the Church", but the Church itself was taking steps to deal with it.

Surely some misreporting here?

He said that two mortal sins which continued to preoccupy the Vatican were abortion, which offended "the dignity and rights of the Church to oppress women", and paedophilia, which had even infected the clergy itself and so had exposed the "human and institutional fragility of the Church".

The mass media had "blown up" reported the issue "to discredit the Church" because a few journalists thought that it was wrong that the Church should cover up the rape of young children, but the Church itself was taking steps to deal with it attempting to cover its arse by vigorously defending all the lawsuits, moaning about bankruptcy, issuing mealy-mouthed apologies, appointing the coverer-up in chief as Pope and leaning on the Irish government to write it a large cheque from the taxpayers.

There. Fixed.

1064. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141298 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 8:46 am

Well done, Mitchell.

Once we ruled out Quetz, I thought you were Spinoza for a while, but something didn't quite fit. That was a load of utter tripe. Congratulations.

1065. Fleabytes

Comment #141229 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 7:28 am

Dr Benway - I'm not rigid about the number three. How does it work in cricket?

One chance is all you get.

It's a vicious game. Don't let the whites and the cucumber sandwiches fool you.

1066. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141226 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 7:24 am

Quetz - A remark about omnipotence which reminded me of your formulation of your own powers. And also the gutter mind which thinks that black holes are where God puts his penis. ;)

Never mind.

1067. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141193 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 6:53 am

Quetz - No. I can spell and my grammar and vocabulary is superior. :)

That much is clear, of course.

But Wheeler's poor command of English appears to be selective. S/he constructs meaningful (and I used the word in its loosest sense) sentences better when posting quickly than in the first place.

This is clearly a wind-up. I hoped it was you. Evidently not. Who else is missing?

1068. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #141187 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 6:47 am

DoubleBassAtheist (140569) - Question for our British counterparts:
How come the UK has an official 'Church of England', but as a nation, is very secular; And yet here in the US we have a constitutional separation of church and state, but we're so much more pious? How did you guys manage that?

As well as some of the other possibilities, another is that the people of these islands tend to favour pragmatism over principle. They aren't well disposed to extremism of any kind and are generally quite suspicious of any kind of centralised control. Neither communism nor fascism made much headway, even in their golden years.

I'm inclined to think that religious extremism would have as hard a time taking hold as the various political forms of extremism. From its inception, the CofE faced the most problems when it was at its most militant, and every time it burnt a Catholic, another two popped up. Whereas it had a better chance of retaining a privileged position if it didn't get too uppity.

Just another thought to add to the mix.

1069. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141167 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 6:27 am

So:

1. I don't know.
2. I don't know.
3. I don't know.
4. I don't know.
5. I don't know.
6. The milky way is God's ejaculate.
7. Black holes are God's masturbatory aid.
8. God killed all the other gods at an unspecified time.

Quetz, is that you toying with us?

1070. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141127 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 5:07 am

Ho hum. Another day, another version of the random comment generator.

Tip: it can be switched off in IE by pressing Alt-F4.

1071. 10 cc of atheism

Comment #141112 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 3:46 am

Oolon - Welcome.

When is the follow-up to your blockbusting trilogy coming out?

1072. Oklahoma: One Step from Doom

Comment #141107 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 3:29 am

Simple solution. Since, based on the evidence of this site, creationists can't spell or write grammatical sentences, simply deduct marks for that.

A lawyer's answer. You're welcome.

1073. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140151 by hungarianelephant on March 7, 2008 at 2:32 am

wooter - Now I am trying to make you think while you are having fun.

Well you succeeded in that.

I am thinking that you are too stupid to understand even the simplest biological concepts.

1074. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #140139 by hungarianelephant on March 7, 2008 at 2:04 am

Brandy Spears - Now just to get rid of all the other god-ordained nonsense: queens, defenders of the faith, kings, princes, lords, baronesses etc....

Pedantry alert! Pedantry alert! Baronesses are always life peers, since women can't inherit titles. That means they're appointed by the temporally-ordained nonsense, not god-ordained nonsense. Baronets are hereditary, but not peers - effectively a courtesy title.

More seriously, while I cannot think of any logical reason why people should get to be legislators by appointment, rather than election, the fact is that the House of Lords does a pretty good job. The quality of its debates far surpasses anything in the Commons or the US Senate. The Lords have done sterling work in trying to tame the curtailment of civil liberties, including managing to kill off the abolition of the right to jury trial in "either way" cases, and limiting detention without charge.

And I'm now timing how long it takes people to come up with one particular counter-example.

1075. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139606 by hungarianelephant on March 6, 2008 at 7:49 am

Heretic! It was Vic Reeves, and 88.2. Unless someone made it up or misattributed it. Which I'm sure never happens to important stories. Never.

1076. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139596 by hungarianelephant on March 6, 2008 at 7:16 am

she thought that 20% of fairies exist

88.2% of statistics are made up on the spot.

1077. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139568 by hungarianelephant on March 6, 2008 at 5:19 am

To follow up on Comment #139277 by D'Arcy, the CofE's position on Iraq is well worth underlining.

Apparently it would be a "just war" if it were endorsed by the UN Security Council. Exactly when God delegated questions of morality to the UN Security Council is an open question.

1078. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139567 by hungarianelephant on March 6, 2008 at 5:16 am

fides_et_ratio - And when he speaks on matters affecting inter-faith dialogue such as the ones mentioned in the programme, his views carry more weight than the president of the NUF?

That depends what the hell you mean by matters affecting inter-faith dialogue, if indeed you mean anything at all. We're not going to let you smuggle Iraq in under that heading.

Even if we did, you'd have to question the quality of advice you're getting. Given that the CofE can't hold a simple synod without someone threatening a schism, it's hardly likely that its leaders should be considered experts on talking to other faiths. The NFU probably have some better ideas. The Chief Executive of Tesco certainly would.

1079. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139203 by hungarianelephant on March 5, 2008 at 9:56 am

Mitchell Gilks - It was an Irish archbishop by the name of Ussher. And I think that if you take into account the 11 days in the Gregorian calendar switch, it was a Thursday afternoon.

I have no idea why I know that.

[Edit: See also Tyler Durden's comment below. Creation began on Sunday. Life began the following Thursday.]

1080. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139201 by hungarianelephant on March 5, 2008 at 9:51 am

steveroot - I finally realized that wooter is a computer program that takes text as input and returns gibberish. There's an algorithm in there somewhere, but I'll be dipped if I can see it. I do recognize some Shakespeare quotations there, cleverly inserted to give the impression that we're interacting with a person, not a machine. Do I get any points for spotting wooter as a Turing test project?

No you don't, sorry. Already spotted.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/jumptocomment.php?articleID=2089&commentID=109561&URLtitle=Could-there-be-a-Darwinian-Account-of-Human-Creativity&URLauthor=Daniel-Dennett

After extensive analysis, I can confirm that wooter is version 1.0.4, while wipeout is a version 2.0 beta, which has a slightly improved grammar engine.

Edit: I admit that this is not entirely consistent with my other hypothesis, that wooter is an incarnation of the Duracell bunny. Consistency, hobgoblins, etc.

1081. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139146 by hungarianelephant on March 5, 2008 at 8:04 am

Hang on, fides.

The CofE is not some kind of trade union for its members, and the Archbishop doesn't claim to represent them. He claims to represent God.

Even if he did claim to represent Anglicans, that would be spurious as the members of the CofE have no more say in the choice of the Archbish than they do in the choice of the Chief Executive of Tesco. If they don't like it, all they can do is take their business elsewhere.

Sorry, he's not a public representative, and his views carry no more weight than Joe Average.

Same goes for the scumbag imams who style themselves as "community leaders".

1082. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139130 by hungarianelephant on March 5, 2008 at 7:13 am

I won't have this. Don't you know that Mayo is the ONLY county in Ireland where Our Lady has chosen to show herself to the faithful? A blow against Mayo is a blow against Our Lady.

Oh, wait ...

1083. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #139074 by hungarianelephant on March 5, 2008 at 5:21 am

SPS - Sorry, that's a cop out. Calling something a "necessity" does not make it so. Lots of people don't have cars, and manage to live productive lives. What you mean is that the alternatives to car ownership are unpalatable for many people in the context of the society we choose not to change, viz. the one with lots of cars in it.

Even if we do deem car ownership not a fit subject for discussion, you're still left with the problem of use. The majority of road deaths and serious injuries could be eliminated by the simple expedient of having a rigidly enforced, blanket 20mph speed limit, zero alcohol / drug limit and annual competence testing. This would doubtless have economic and personal consequences, but those consequences are secondary to the (irrational, or at least a-rational) immediate reaction that would bring down any government that tried to implement it.

To be clear, I am not advocating the abolition of the car. I am pointing out that people do not regard them rationally. As a less emotive example, an RAC survey found that UK drivers on average underestimate their expenditure on their car by nearly half. That is hard to explain in purely rational terms.

1084. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #139008 by hungarianelephant on March 5, 2008 at 2:55 am

Shaden - Finally, someone takes it on. Thank you.

By you stating you have to kill 20,000 people in order to do so, you sound like you're picking who you want and murdering them.

I didn't say that. They could just as easily be picked at random. That doesn't help the argument.

There is an inherent risk that every driver takes by getting behind the wheel, but it's a very low risk. Do a lot of people die every year from driving? Yes, but that doesn't stop people from choosing to do so. It's their choice.

That also makes at least one assumption - that the people who got killed voluntarily assumed the risk.

But road deaths actually break down into lots of different categories:
- people driving recklessly
- people attempting to drive carefully but doing so incompetently
- passengers who know their driver is reckless but get in anyway
- passengers who know their driver is incompetent
- passengers who have no idea that their driver is reckless or incompetent
- people driving carefully and passengers who are killed because another driver is reckless or incompetent
- pedestrians (a big category)
- people killed in accidents with no clear cause

It's a real stretch to suggest that everyone voluntarily assumes risk.

So suppose my scheme involves 20,000 deaths, most of which will happen to people who choose to be the prime beneficiaries of the scheme, but a significant minority of which will occur at random to other people. Where is the moral difference now?

The main point I was making is that most people won't even get that far. The concept of acceptable death levels has become largely taboo (contrast the building of the Hoover Dam, at a time when the number of expected deaths was calculated), and there is no way my proposal would be accepted. But try to apply the same logic to cars, and see what reaction you get.

1085. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #138989 by hungarianelephant on March 5, 2008 at 2:29 am

fides - Have you ever actually been to Manchester?

1086. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #138458 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 11:22 am

Sorry, al-rawandi, that's not right. Google United States v. Cruikshank (19th century but never overruled). The extension of the Constitution to the States in the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the Second Amendment. That's settled law, whatever the NRA think.

As a practical matter, states can control what kind of guns, and can control sale. But since interstate commerce can't be regulated by the states, you can always pop over the border.

1087. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #138453 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 11:12 am

For the benefit of the 2.5 non-Americans still reading this, it should also be pointed out that the US Supreme Court has consistently refused to apply the Second Amendment to the States. Viz. the right to bear arms is a right against federal government only, and states can therefore pass gun controls. That is subject to other constitutional provisions, especially that states cannot regulate interstate commerce.

1088. Fleabytes

Comment #138384 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 8:55 am

Peacebeuponme - Yes, fair point. But I wouldn't even categorise the average churchgoer's belief as equivalent to my belief in what Steve says about black holes. These are (at least) three different categories. English is deficient in that respect, and unfortunately it gives some theists a fingernailhold - "you also have beliefs in things you don't know".

1089. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #138369 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 8:40 am

Guns are no more dangerous then a car

Therein lies part of the problem. You can't get people to be rational about cars either.

If I suggested that I could bring certain intangible benefits to the economy and people's lives, but I would have to kill 20,000 people a year in order to do so, you would probably think I was deranged.

What no one has yet managed to explain to me is how this is morally distinguishable from allowing people to have cars. Now, someone here might be able to enlighten me. In the rest of the world, the responses range from blank incomprehension to genuine physical rage.

People are emotionally attached to their cars and cannot generally see themselves as being in any way connected to road deaths. We all want to reduce road deaths, but won't actually do anything practical about them. Here in Ireland, it took until last year to introduce random breath testing, which statistically has saved several hundred lives. More ink has been expended on the same subject in the UK than on the (actual) partial abolition of habeas corpus in the form of the European arrest warrant. You would think that it was the gravest threat to civil liberties in all history.

1090. Fleabytes

Comment #138357 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 8:27 am

Peacebeuponme - They believe because they have been told something by someone they have no reason to doubt (in the same way Steve you may tell me something about black-holes and I would accept it). This belief we cannot truly call 'faith' because it is not strongly counter to any other belief/experience they have had.

The difference, of course, being that we could ask Steve for support of an assertion about a black hole. And he could provide it, or not, and we could take the trouble to read the primary sources and try to understand it for ourselves. Or not.

Whereas on religious questions, what you get is biblical quotation, argument from hellfire, anecdote, mystery, evasion, counter-question, Alice in Wonderland wordplay, Pascal's wager, or the taking of offence, real or feigned.

I'm sure I don't need to point this out to anyone here. But just in case nice Mr Robertson or his acolytes are passing ...

1091. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138348 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 8:15 am

Yeah, it's unwise to say that some bizarre Catholic practice no longer happens. You just know that it will still be going on somewhere. When will I learn?

Anyone care to bet that there won't be any more reports of moving statues before the end of the year?

Didn't think so.

1092. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #138344 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 8:10 am

And then you are faced with the question: what kind of proportional representation.

The Irish kind (multi-member constituencies, single transferable vote)? The party profile broadly represents the party first-line voting, but it still descends into clientelism, and all too often, corruption.

Party tickets with selection from a centralised list? Then you only get to choose the party, not the representative. If you don't like the representative, tough.

French system of first round and two-candidate run-off? May as well stick with the two party system, except that you occasionally get the choice of a fascist.

Or my favourite, the Northern Irish kind, where you have to categorise yourself as "Unionist" or "Nationalist" in advance, with equal numbers elected to the assembly regardless of actual votes cast?

I'm not convinced that any voting system is demonstrably better than the others, and the law of unintended consequences tends to apply.

That's not to say that the House of Representatives isn't a good place to try it. It may make sense to have a different voting system from the Senate, if only to create the possibility of something different; though it might also create a very conservative system (in the true meaning of the word - reluctant to change) as it becomes more difficult to get bills through. Besides, in my experience, turkeys seldom vote for Christmas.

I fully agree with you on the Second Amendment. It appears to be a matter of dogma. Guns are bad, nkay?

1093. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138332 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 7:50 am

al-rawandi - Nah, they gave up the self-flagellation in the 14th century. Maybe in the Philippines.

[Edit - and of course replaced it with mental self-flagellation, which remains a key plank of faith to this day.]

1094. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #138323 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 7:44 am

If I may weigh in on the US Constitution, one of the striking things about it is how much Americans argue over it. Not very often about what it should contain, but over what is meant. You don't get any serious public debate about the meaning of the Bill of Rights 1689 in England, or even much about the actual written constitution of Ireland. But the US Supreme Court has become the battleground of ideas, perhaps because it is so much more difficult to change the document.

Broadly, I think this is healthy. It shows that the Constitution, and in particular the Bill of Rights, remains a living and relevant document, a focal point of the nation's sense of purpose. The downside, of course, is that it leaves an awful lot of power in nine people, and as a result the selection of those nine people has become an intensely political process.

That seems more of a theoretical concern than a practical one. The judges do seem to develop a habit of going native soon after they accept life tenure. Ask Al Gore what he thinks of Justice Kennedy if you're in any doubt. While there are a few cases in which they have simply made up an interpretation to suit their political preferences, they're worth remarking on because of their rarity.

As to the two-party system, be careful what you wish for. Ireland has its very own two-party system, the party you support depending on which side your great-grandad fought on during the general stupidity of 1921-23. The minor parties help make up various shades of coalition, and as one of their leaders remarked, it's the meat, not the bread, which gives flavour to the sandwich. Or to put it slightly less charitably, if you mix two ounces of dog shite with a pint of ice cream, the result will probably taste more like dog shite than ice cream.

1095. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138312 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 7:29 am

I meant to post a serious comment on this topic. But it just doesn't merit one, does it? At least we can have a good giggle at this. Some of what the Catholic church has been up to is no laughing matter.

1096. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138305 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 7:24 am

... and to have been able to tell people their sins before they confessed them to him

Let me guess. "Have you have been touching yourself? You know it is forbidden."

Dominatrices use that trick all the time. Apparently.

1097. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138302 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 7:20 am

Quetz - At least, that was his explanation for why they found him wearing a pink spandex leotard.

With a satsuma in his mouth, and the door locked from the inside. Det. Supt. Ratzinger told the assembled press, "He fell down the stairs, guv."

1098. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138248 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 5:22 am

Tycho the Dog - What I would say to you is that that is not my A, C, F, H (repeat ad nauseam)

1099. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #138201 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 3:58 am

Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh
Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh
Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh
Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh

Duracell bunny, I tell you.

1100. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138167 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 2:51 am

Corylus - You are quite right as usual, and I am quite wrong. Chris Heard it was. Now that was the sort of theist I could relate to. Thanks.