In article <3da610ab.35954736 at news1.lig.bellsouth.net> JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) writes:
<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
Law deals with issues people reagard as real. If people believe
in hexes and space aliens and homeopathy and the Evil Eye, then
there will be laws which touch on hexes and space aliens and homeopathy
and the Evil Eye.
The fact that different countries, cultures and laws define
races differently is sufficent for regarding legal definitions
of race as questionable, at best.