Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote:
>>JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>>The fact that YOU say "that there is none" (scientific basis) means
>>that YOU can't argue race scientifically just as you can't argue
>>religion scientifically if you say "there is no proof".
>>There's a difference. We cannot argue religion on the basis of
>science because by definition religion deals with things that are
>supernatural and not natural.
But you can argue religion before the law just as you can argue race
before the law.
>Now if you want us to believe that the difference between races is
>supernatural in nature, then indeed science has nothing to say. But
>if there is a supposedly natural basis for race, then science should
>be able to detect it. But of course it cannot.
I want you to believe that science is insufficient when it comes to
addressing both race and religious issues compared to the way law
can and does address those issues.
>>Thereforescience is basically irrelevant to the point of being useless with
>>reguards to 2 of the most important issues of today if you hold to
>>your view.
>Science is irrelevant to religion. Whether religion is an important
>issue depends on your point of view.
According to the law, religion is just as important as race. The
fact that either race or religion can be or are irrelevent to
science only shows the shortcomings of science.
According to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, being born in
America entitles one to citizenship and to equal protection under
the law. That is were race, religion and or minority status comes
into play in that all are entitled to the same protection under the
law reguardless of the aforementioned.
>Science is quite relevant to race - it says that there are no races
>other than the human race. And race would not be an issue at all, if
>racists like you did not make it an issue. It certainly is not one of
>the most important issues of today.
Race is an issue because there are various races which at times,
claim that they are being discriminated against because of their
race.
>>"Race" is associated with "color" in the U.S. Constitution, Bob.
>Actually it isn't. If race was based on color, then they would not
>have needed to use both words, only one of them.
Race and color are for all practical purposes, the same. "Color" has
been and is used as a legal term for identifying humans. Here's a
case from the Supreme Court (related to the 14th Amendment) which
proves it, beyond a "reasonable doubt"....
EVANS V. NEWTON 382 U.S. 296 NO. 61. ARGUED NOVEMBER 9-10, 1965. -
DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1966. - 220 GA. 280, 138 S.E.2D 573, REVERSED.
" QUESTIONS OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF ALL PEOPLE WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION
ON ACCOUNT OF COLOR ARE OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE IN THIS GOVERNMENT
DEDICATED TO EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL" (Justice Black)
Also, the following proves (according to law) that if as you claim,
science says that there is only one race - you or science is wrong.
Fact of the matter is that law recognizes that whites and blacks are
2 distictly different races. Again - from the Supreme Court which
is the law of the land....
SWAIN V. ALABAMA 380 U.S. 202 NO. 64. ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 1964. -
DECIDED MARCH 8, 1965. - 275 ALA. 508, 156 SO. 2D 368, AFFIRMED.
"VENIRES DRAWN FROM THE JURY BOX MADE UP IN THIS MANNER
UNQUESTIONABLY CONTAINED A SMALLER PROPORTION OF THE NEGRO COMMUNITY
THAN OF THE WHITE COMMUNITY. BUT A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS
NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO DEMAND A PROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF
HIS RACE ON THE JURY WHICH TRIES HIM NOR ON THE VENIRE OR JURY ROLL
FROM WHICH PETIT JURORS ARE DRAWN." VIRGINIA V. RIVES, 100 U.S. 313,
322-323; GIBSON V. MISSISSIPPI, 162 U.S. 565; THOMAS V. TEXAS, 212
U.S. 278, 282; CASSELL V. TEXAS, 339 U.S. 282.
>>In fact, bills from the 107th Congress show that "race" is used in
>>conjuction with terms like "nationality" and "minorities" and they
>>show that lawmakers use findings of science in their efforts to pass
>>laws dealing with "race".
>Where is science used to pass laws dealing with race in the following?
I laid it out clearly. If you didn't get it perhaps you should
start from scratch and check those 3 encyclodedias of yours.
Didn't you say they had tons of information which my encyclopedia
didn't?
>That a law mentions "race" does not mean anything about how race is
>determined. And as I've said, in practice, race is generally based on
>self-identification - you are whatever race you say you are.
That the Supreme Court addresses race and religion similarily shows
that folks look to law instead of science for answers to real life
issues. The highest court in the land acknowledges that it's
citizens cherish the right to vote along both racial and religious
lines, and that government has no right to interfere with those
rights...
WRIGHT V. ROCKEFELLER 376 U.S. 52 NO. 96. ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1963.
- DECIDED FEBRUARY 17, 1964. - 211 F. SUPP. 460, AFFIRMED.
"OF COURSE RACE, LIKE RELIGION, PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE
CHOICES WHICH INDIVIDUAL VOTERS MAKE FROM AMONG VARIOUS CANDIDATES.
(FN12) BUT GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS DESIGNING ELECTORAL DISTRICTS
ALONG RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS LINES."
This is reality, Bob. Our government is FOR all of us voting for
the man of our color if we want too. They are FOR us voting
Christians into office simply because they are "Christian" if we
want to.
If you are against those things, well, I'll let the readers decide
for themselves whatever they want too about you.
Jd
