tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8589474274098194752.post7928290042599634203..comments2018-02-12T11:59:13.152-05:00Comments on Generally Dissatisfied: Fear and Loathing, just generally…Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07229257915465630709noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8589474274098194752.post-70176551349507789162010-04-20T13:21:35.590-04:002010-04-20T13:21:35.590-04:00Yes it does, and passing such a test with a simple...Yes it does, and passing such a test with a simple lie would not be difficult these days as we all know (or SHOULD know) what the hot button issues are. And indeed, what would be the consequences in this case for falsely asserting to belief. For a non-believer, none. Requiring an assertion as such presupposes the veracity of said assertion; thus rendering it irrelevant. Seems silly to me…<br /><br />That all notwithstanding, I feel you’re correct about what the meat of the issue is here. Consistency. My sense from the article and from a very brief scan on the Wiki page is that the university is NOT consistent with a strict constructionist reading of the Constitution. It may be aiming for the spirit though, and that is a worthy effort. There also seems to be some question as to whether there were some background policy changes happening as this issue arose. We shall see.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07229257915465630709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8589474274098194752.post-71965974839212230402010-04-20T12:41:39.447-04:002010-04-20T12:41:39.447-04:00Of course the whole thing begs the question of a &...Of course the whole thing begs the question of a 'litmus test' for belief. If I can Poe my way into the NRA along with a couple million of my friends, how would they know?<br /><br />Seems to me the issue should be whether or not the policy of the school is consistent with the Constitution, and then whether it is consistent with itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com